Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 9 — Thursday, September 26, 2013 (HTML)

Present: Dan Ashton, MLA (Chair); Mike Farnworth, MLA (Deputy Chair); Mable Elmore, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Scott Hamilton, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Marvin Hunt, MLA; Lana Popham, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA

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

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

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

9. 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	240
S. Marshall
J. Cassels
A. Cahoon
B. Qualey
K. Gibson
L. Geggie
K. Nemrava
C. Matusicky
W. King
H. Pastrick
J. Reed
R. Bealing
R. Barr
N. Hamdon
S. Mann
D. Corey
P. Sandmark
I. Habel
M. DeGirolamo
A. Martin
B. Gutray
J. Morris
P. Lockie
K. Hayes
J. FitzGerald
W. Pattenden
P. Lawless
T. Rezansoff

D. Ashton (Chair): Good morning, everyone. We're the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. This is an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly whose mandate includes conducting annual public consultations on the upcoming provincial budget.

We would like to welcome everybody in attendance today. Thank you very much for taking the time to attend, and we really do appreciate you participating in this important process.

Every year the Ministry of Finance releases a budget consultation paper. This paper is a fiscal and economic forecast and key issues that need to be addressed in the next budget. Once the consultation paper has been released, this committee is required to hold provincial-wide public consultations. All British Columbians are invited to provide input on the budget.

Following the consultations, the committee releases a report of the consultations along with 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 public hearing is one of 17 scheduled to take place in communities throughout the province. All British Columbians are invited to present or attend the hearings. We have also scheduled video conference sessions for five additional communities. British Columbians can also participate in the consultation by sending a written submission, video file, letter or fax.

Information on the consultations, including instructions on how to make a submission, is available at our website at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, October 16. All public input we receive is carefully considered.

At today's meeting each presenter may speak for up to ten minutes. An additional five minutes is allotted for questions from committee members. Time permitting, we may also have an open-mike session at the end of the hearing. Five minutes is allotted for each presentation at the open-mike session. If you would like to register for an open mike, please check with the staff at the information table.

Today's meeting is a public hearing and will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services. A copy of this transcript, along with the minutes, will be printed and made available on the committee's website. A live audio webcast is also broadcast through the website.

The committee is also on Facebook and Twitter. On Facebook you'll find us underneath the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and on Twitter we are at twitter.com/BCFinanceComm.

I would now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, and I'll start with Gary. We're doing a first-name basis here, if you don't mind, folks.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good morning once again. My name is Dan Ashton. I'm the MLA representing Penticton, and I'll be chairing these proceedings and working very closely with the vice-Chair, Mike Farnworth, and all the committee representatives and staff to ensure that what is said today is forwarded to the government for proper consideration.

Also joining us today from the parliamentary committees office are some very hard-working and dedicated individuals — our Clerk, Susan Sourial, and Gordon Robinson, who is staffing the registration desk at the back. Michael Baer, Ian Battle and Jean Medland are also here on behalf of Hansard Services. These are the fine folks behind the glass here. Let me tell you, they really bend their backs. There's an awful lot of equipment that has to be dragged around, and it's an incredible performance that they actually orchestrate numerous times during the day as we move.

Our first presenter today is Camosun College Student Society. I have Madeline and Simka here. Please come forward. Ladies, thank you very much for coming. I appreciate it. Again, ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and then it will be questions from the committee. So please, at your convenience, start.
[ Page 240 ]

S. Marshall: Good morning. Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge that we are on traditional Lekwungen territory and remind us to be mindful and respectful of that.

My name is Simka Marshall. I am an elected representative of the Camosun College Student Society, Local 75 of the Canadian Federation of Students. I am an arts and science student. With me is Madeline Keller-MacLeod, an elected representative, as well, and a political science student.

The Camosun College Student Society is a not-for-profit representing approximately 8,500 students at Camosun College here in Victoria. The Camosun College Student Society organizes on a democratic basis for the advancement of students' interests, ensures that Camosun College programs are accessible and works towards a high-quality post-secondary education.

I would like to thank the committee for having us today. B.C.'s post-secondary education system is currently facing a severe funding crisis. Students are paying higher and higher fees as a result of the lack of core funding to our institutions. In addition to this, access to financial assistance has decreased. Students in British Columbia are facing increasing levels of debt, the highest in the nation, and our college is having difficulties maintaining programs needed by our community.

Therefore, Camosun students are recommending the following: (1) a significant reduction in tuition fees; (2) the establishment of an upfront, needs-based provincial student grant program; (3) the elimination of interest rates on B.C. student loans; (4) the restoration of operation funding to universities and colleges to 2001 levels, accounting for inflation; and (5) the maintenance of the government's commitment to keep adult basic education free.

I will begin with our first recommendation: reducing tuition fees. Over the past decade tuition fees in B.C. have steadily increased from $1,727 in 1990 to an average of $5,029 this year. In just one generation tuition fees have increased by 300 percent. This shows that students are paying a higher share of the costs of post-secondary education than ever before. These high tuition fees create financial barriers for students, especially those coming from low- to middle-income backgrounds.

Recent reports from Statistics Canada have shown that students from low-income families are less than 50 percent likely to attend post-secondary education than those from high-income families. This leaves us with a significant disparity between students who can access post-secondary education. High tuition fees are a barrier for students from lower-income backgrounds to access education, being especially problematic when some level of post-secondary education is required for many jobs now, and additionally, cause incredibly high rates of debt for those students who can still access education.

Because of this, Camosun students are recommending a reduction in tuition fees to ensure post-secondary education is accessible to students no matter what their family income is and to provide relief to the students struggling to pay for the high costs of post-secondary education. The reduction of tuition fees must be a part of a larger strategy that ensures post-secondary education in B.C. is accessible, and that includes adequate institutional funding and student financial aid.

The second recommendation we would like to bring forward is the re-establishment of an upfront, needs-based provincial grants program. Financial assistance should be allocated for those who cannot afford a post-secondary education to enter the system and attain a higher education needed to support themselves and their family.

With proper financial aid distribution, students will be able to attain their degree or diploma without substantial debt and be able to become a contributing tax-paying member of society, which in turn will fund the future's education system.

Currently in British Columbia average student debt is at $37,000 upon completion of a four-year degree. This is over $10,000 above the national average of student debt, meaning student debt in B.C. is the highest in the country. The massive amounts of debt a student will carry when they enter the workforce will negatively affect the economy, as there could be delays in starting families or purchasing homes.

B.C. has the lowest level of non-repayable financial aid in the country, providing less than 12 percent of its aid through non-repayable grants. The student debt crisis that students in British Columbia are experiencing is caused by both high tuition fees and a lack of financial assistance. This trend of debt can be reversed by the implementation of a needs-based grants program through the B.C. government.

Our third recommendation is the elimination of interest on student loans. Student loans help to get those who can't afford high education costs through the system. However, it does not address the issue of student debt. Students in British Columbia are being charged interest at prime plus 2.5 percent on their student loans, the highest rate in the country. Students who cannot pay their tuition up front are forced to borrow and ultimately pay thousands of dollars in interest.

In contrast, a student who can afford to pay their tuition up front will pay nothing in interest to the government. Student loan interest creates an inequality among students. Eliminating student loan interest would cost an estimated $30 million a year, and would play a role in reducing student debt in B.C.

I will now speak to the society's fourth recommendation: institutional funding. Since 2001 we have seen a steady decrease in institutional funding, which has led to
[ Page 241 ]
program cuts, deferred maintenance liabilities, reduced services and increased ancillary fees. Although the government has temporarily funded seats in specific program areas at Camosun, this is only a short-term solution where the system is in need of long-term support. This one-time funding creates extra seats in programs, meaning that we lose these seats after students graduate.

The dramatic cuts in the provincial funds provided for repairs and infrastructure, formerly known as the annual capital allowance, have resulted in tens of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance at Camosun College, and that is likely the case at many other institutions.

To face some of these funding challenges, our college has raised parking rates to levels that are unaffordable to students, increased tuition fees, increased food costs and is now relying on corporate advertising to fill gaps in government funding.

At Camosun we now see courses being updated, rebranded and given a different course number so that the new course can be considered new programming and tuition can be significantly increased, strategically circumventing the province's legislated cap on tuition fee increases. Camosun College is taking these drastic steps due to financial necessity. A substantial increase to institutional funding back to 2001 funding levels is needed to combat these issues.

I will conclude my presentation with our final recommendation: the maintenance of the government's commitment to keep adult basic education free. Many adult basic education courses have been rebranded as first-year courses so that high tuition fees can be charged to make up for the lack of government funding our college receives. Key grade 12 science courses required for college entry to specific programs have gone from being free to being amongst the most expensive courses at the college on a per-credit-hour basis. It is now impossible to get a full high school equivalency at Camosun College without paying significant tuition fees.

These programs provide basic education to historically marginalized groups. Being able to upgrade and even achieve a high school equivalency at a college for free provides individuals with the confidence and a cultural introduction that is needed to advance in post-secondary studies. Adult basic education courses have long been a recruitment mechanism for colleges, but now it seems that the methodology has been replaced by a need to maximize tuition fees.

Free adult basic education was reintroduced in 2007 to help reduce financial barriers for students. However, since then, funding gaps threaten these programs. Adequate funding is needed to sustain a comprehensive adult basic education system.

Camosun students believe investing into the public post-secondary system is in the best interests of all British Columbians. Adequate funding is needed for our post-secondary system to ensure that if you have the grades, you can go, no matter what financial background the students come from. Lower tuition fees, grants, interest-free loans and more institutional funding will have positive effects on the economy, workforce and household incomes.

We thank the committee for your time today and hope you consider Camosun students' recommendations.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, Simka, thank you very much for the presentation — right on time. We have a question.

M. Elmore: Thanks, Simka and Madeline, for presenting to us today. I have a question with regards to your recommendation on adult basic education. I think, as you've outlined, it's an important priority to ensure transition from…. You mentioned historically marginalized groups. Can you talk generally about who you see accessing these courses and the importance of that transition?

S. Marshall: Okay. Historically, we see a lot of women entering these programs, as well as a large portion of our B.C. aboriginal population. Historically, these folks have barriers when it comes to accessing post-secondary school, so the ABE programs have been really helpful in helping eliminate those and help the transition.

M. Elmore: Yeah. The high school graduation rate is lower for indigenous peoples, and so certainly you'll see more need to access those transition courses.

I know in my area in Vancouver there is a high uptake, particularly with new immigrants, immigrant population. Do you see that here, with Camosun?

Thank you very much, ladies, for coming — appreciate that. Do you have a submission to put in?

Next up, we have the Research Universities Council of British Columbia, University of Victoria and Royal Roads University.

J. Cassels: Good morning, Chair. Good morning, members. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning and are looking forward to some dialogue. My name is Jamie Cassels. I am the president of the University of Victoria. My colleague, Dr. Allan Cahoon, is the president of Royal Roads University.
[ Page 242 ]

While we are here representing our individual universities respectively, we are not here to speak to our individual interests but to talk with you about the role and value of B.C.'s research universities more generally. We understand you've had an opportunity to interact with some of our colleagues in your earlier meetings as well.

We thank you very much for reaching out to consult with British Columbians and appreciate the opportunity. We also want to acknowledge that previous governments over the past decades have been very supportive of the post-secondary sector, have made critical investments in our universities and have allowed us to meet the needs of our students and the needs of British Columbia more generally. So thank you for that. B.C. has reason to be proud of its university system.

We also know that in recent years the fiscal situation has required restraint and a reduction in support, and we understand and acknowledge that reality. We do want to convey very clearly today that we've done our best to tighten our belts to demonstrate financial prudence and good financial management, but we are nearing the end of our capacity to absorb further reductions without significant decreases in the quality of what we're able to offer the next generation of students.

We have provided a few slides for you to review now or later. Some of those slides are simply to give you some of the reasons why British Columbia can be proud of B.C.'s universities. The University of Victoria, for example, offers comprehensive programming with superb results and outcomes. Follow-up surveys of our 20,000 students confirm that they have experienced very high-quality education and excellent after-graduation opportunities.

Our universities create an educational environment that's enriched by the research activity, the research intensity of the institution and also by our experiential learning programs. We have one of the largest cooperative education programs in the country so that most students are able, in one way or another, to have a hands-on experience related to their academic studies.

We also place special emphasis on indigenous students and in the past decade have increased the population of aboriginal students by about 500 percent — from less than 200 students to close to 1,000 today. We're very proud of that.

A. Cahoon: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee, and I appreciate your time. I know that travelling around the province in 17 different meetings…. I'm sure there are other things you could do. It's pretty intensive. I appreciate your efforts through that.

Again, we're part of the Research Universities Council. I thought coming with Jamie, the new president that we're delighted to work with at UVic, would give you a sense that we have issues collectively and also have solutions collectively.

A little bit about Royal Roads, for those of you who may not be aware. We are a special purpose university created by the government of B.C. in 1995, taking over 55 years of Royal Roads Military College. But we're not a military college; we're a very specific applied and professional program. We've been successful after 18 years of programming.

We are very clear about what our market is, in terms of graduate students who are working professionals. Seventy percent of our students are graduate students, and all of our programs are in applied and professional areas. We've developed a reputation for what we define in our information as life-changing people, not only feeling that they personally benefit from the information and knowledge but also professionally, culturally and socially. There are now over 19,000 graduates and over 5,500 students currently at Royal Roads.

The cost-effective on-line blended learning has been effective, to recognize people who are experienced. The average age of our students in the convocation in June was 41. The portion of women in our programs is over 60 percent. We have over 180 aboriginal students, and we have a doctoral program that has nearly a quarter of its students who are aboriginal.

We operate in a very different and unique business model based on our decision-making, which requires us to plan budgets based on 95 percent expenses to revenues. We are successful. Our growth has increased by 22 percent over the past three years, and we're managing to establish ourselves and the institution in education.

The point about the research university collaboration, if you like, is we share a common understanding and commitment to knowledge and to working with British Columbia. You can be proud of the post-secondary system in British Columbia. It's the most differentiated in Canada. The idea of colleges, teaching universities and research universities collaborating and defining their unique mandates is unique and essential. It's what Ontario is struggling now to come to grips with.

We also believe that university education is essential. Ninety-three percent of university graduates in the workforce are employed in the jobs that they've lined up, and 95 percent of those graduates work in their field. By 2020, 18,800 jobs in B.C. will require a university education. Although there are myths about the taxi driver or the barista with a PhD, in fact that is not the case.

University education allows people to prepare for the future. We are supportive of the jobs plan. We're graduating students who support that kind of emphasis in the province, but we believe that knowledge is the infrastructure of the future.

We believe that building the education for students now provides them the background to deal with things like changing technology, decision-making under condi-
[ Page 243 ]
tions of change and uncertainty, critical thinking, working in teams or communicating. Those are the skills that people need to succeed in the long term, although it's useful to have skills in the beginning so that you can start that process.

We are a combination of both, from business and engineering to nursing programs. It allows for the technical base but also the application. We're committed to doing that, and we're committing to be a partner of it.

We recognize the current financial realities in the province. Indeed, over the last several years, with no increase in support, we've had to deal with a significant increase in cost pressures through inflation, salaries, utilities, carbon offsets and so on.

We're very careful stewards of our resources, constantly moving resources from one place to the other as student demand and social needs change. We've tried very hard to match our resources to the needs of the province and have succeeded well. But the grant has been flat for the last three years, and indeed, government has signalled that there are further significant reductions to come. We have reached the point where we are no longer able to absorb those reductions without having a significant impact on the quality of our programs and services.

We are not here today to ask for more, but we are here to ask that the province's investment in its fine universities be protected from any further deterioration. We look forward to your questions.

D. Ashton (Chair): Perfect. Thank you. I have three at this point in time: Marvin, then Mable and Gary.

M. Hunt: Gentlemen, I appreciate you being here. If I understood correctly…. I'm going to repeat to make sure that I got it correctly, because I'm getting more confused the longer we're going on in this process.

My understanding is…. I believe, Allan, that you said Royal Roads is a special purpose university. I'm going to conclude from our previous presenters that UVic is, in fact, a research university. My understanding is that there are two different funding formulas — one for the research universities, one for the special purpose universities.

My question is this. You come and you're under the banner of B.C.'s research universities, which then has me questioning Royal Roads. To make this worse, yesterday we were at Thompson Rivers University. They said they were a special purpose university, but now they have become a research university.

During the process someone had described the difference between the two being having doctoral programs. And then, Allan, you said that you're delivering doctoral programs at Royal Roads.

A. Cahoon: I can. I think the ministry defines research and teaching universities and colleges in a separate way. So a special purpose university — Thompson Rivers and Royal Roads — is classified by the ministry, sometimes, in their information as a teaching university. But in fact, both of us do research. We are part of the Research Universities Council. There are six members: the four universities that you would recognize — UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC — and Royal Roads and Thompson Rivers.

With 70 percent of our students being graduate students…. They do research, and doctoral students do research. But we have a special, defined, specific role, as does Thompson Rivers.

It's not that we're all equally, in terms of the same comprehensive university…. UVic and SFU and UBC are comprehensive universities, research-focused. Royal Roads and Thompson Rivers are special purpose universities, research-focused as well.

I don't know whether that clarifies it. We're part of the Research Universities Council. Both of us do research, but only in specific areas and not in the broad sense of it.

M. Elmore: Thanks for your presentation. I have a question with regards to UVic and President Cassels.

It's just referenced here that you're a leader in experiential learning, with 3,000 co-op placements. I think that's a very good model. It provides hands-on experience and is often a very good transition into the workforce. Is that program…? You're looking to expand that? Or what's the status of it?

J. Cassels: We're absolutely looking to expand that, but a little bit more broadly than that.

Co-op is only one way of developing experiential learning. We have clinics. We have field schools. We have practicum opportunities for students. We have internships and so on, so that ideally, almost every student has some type of community-engaged or workplace-engaged experience related to their academic program. And yes, we would very much like to ensure that all students have that kind of opportunity.

M. Elmore: So that's integrated in terms of your outlook and priority with regards to student experience.

J. Cassels: It is. We pride ourselves in terms of the way we differentiate ourselves at the University of Victoria. The research-enriched academic environment and the
[ Page 244 ]
integration of research and education and experiential learning are two very important values to us.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation this morning. We certainly have been getting this message throughout British Columbia.

The proposed cuts in operating grants over the next several years. Can you give us some idea of either the percentage or the dollar amounts involved there?

J. Cassels: It's difficult to know in advance because the cuts are said to be at a system level. I believe our understanding is a $20 million cut in one year and a subsequent $50 million cut in the next, which then would be distributed throughout the system.

The impact at the University of Victoria would be in the several millions of dollars, in real dollars, on top of the 2 to 3 percent cost inflation pressures that we already face. So those are significant.

G. Holman: All right. So in other words, the $50 million in cuts over the next couple of years, in nominal terms, don't take into account inflationary…. Okay.

I'm very interested in the statistic about the percentage of graduates working in their commensurate field, which does counter the mythology around PhDs driving cabs. I'm just wondering: that stat — is it a B.C.-wide statistic?

A. Cahoon: It's Canada-wide. It just came out in the Conference Board a week ago in terms of information analysis. There's a fair amount of Globe and Mail discussion about the colleges versus universities in education and where you should invest. So that statistic is Canada-wide. We haven't collected…. I don't know that we have specifically on B.C., but it suggests the trend.

The point is that people who graduate from university…. There are some trends about who continued to stay in the workplace during the downsizing in 2008 and 2009. Again, people with university education, graduates, tended to keep their jobs at a higher percentage.

There's a series of statistics in support of that trend. Again, it goes against conventional wisdom in some ways, but it's more factual than the apocryphal kinds of comments about: "They just don't get jobs." They do.

The issue of education. Are there too many teachers being prepared, and what portion of students with an education background are actually in education fields? It often depends on how you define an education field, whether that's a school board or a private college or internationally, etc. So when you take it into context, it comes out differently.

D. Ashton (Chair): Just quickly, Gary, please, because we have to move on. We're well over time.

We have heard mentioned the concerns about, or the request for, flexibility in terms of capital funding. Also, there does seem to be an increase in administrative costs happening in post-secondary education, in part due to block funding. Those have been comments we've heard from other presenters in your sector. Does that ring a bell for you?

J. Cassels: On the first question you raised, yes, we could very much use some flexibility in terms of debt financing, non-taxpayer debt financing. There are millions of dollars of construction that could be done if we had flexibility to, as I say, take out non-taxpayer-funded debt.

The data that both Dr. Cahoon and I have on our administrative costs is that they have not increased disproportionately to any of our other costs, despite the fact that we're living in a much more complex world, requiring the kinds of things like student services and research support that just didn't exist even 20 years ago. So the need is much higher, but there's not significant evidence that the costs are much higher.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Very quickly. It's a talk radio fact that many university graduates, in their fields, don't get jobs. One of the things…. Therefore, why are we encouraging people to go there — or even letting people go there, if you listen to the radio?

When you made your comment that 95 percent of graduates find work in their field, I found that really interesting. Do you push back on that? What do you do to try and dispel the talk radio facts that are out there?

A. Cahoon: Can you give us some advice? I mean, don't confuse me with the facts.

There's anecdotal evidence, because someone will know a person who did or didn't, who made a choice not necessarily to do that. The one example becomes the conventional wisdom.

We look at fact-based analysis, and the facts say the difference. It's third-party. It's the Conference Board, not the universities themselves, doing this analysis.

It's just partly challenging the misperception and challenging that. But again, I take your advice on how you deal with talk radio. I'm sure that saying they're all getting jobs and that there is no issue wouldn't be as exciting as to say that they have this challenge.

Good morning, sir. Thank you very much for coming. We've allotted ten minutes for the presentation — I'll give
[ Page 245 ]
you a two-minute warning — and then five minutes for questioning. So please, at your convenience.

B. Qualey: Great. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for allowing me to appear today to discuss some issues currently facing British Columbia's automotive industry.

Just before I begin, I'll quickly give you an overview of who we represent. The New Car Dealers Association represents some 350 new-car dealers throughout the province. They generate about $10 billion in economic activity, putting about $1.8 billion in direct GDP into the economy in the province. They employ directly and indirectly in about 34,000 high-paying, full-time positions in the over 50 communities in which they serve. We speak on behalf of these folks with media, government, etc.

The association also runs and owns the Vancouver International Auto Show at the Vancouver Convention Centre, which is the largest consumer show in western Canada. It features over 400 vehicles from 21 global manufacturers and is attended every year by over 80,000 consumers and industry representatives from across British Columbia and Canada and around the world. The 94th edition of the show runs next March 25 to 30 at the convention centre.

Total provincial sales tax collected by B.C.'s auto industry is in the order of some $679 million. One in seven jobs in this country and in the province is tied to the auto sector, directly or indirectly. Annual sales are $9.7 billion. The number of car dealerships in the province is upwards of 400, and the industry sells over 200,000 vehicles per year.

Moving on to industry challenges. Economic growth is always the big issue. The strong economy drives the sale of new vehicles, and people having jobs helps drive the sale of vehicles. Jobs are key to this whole equation. It's much easier to buy a car if you have a job.

I hear from my dealers all the time that the sale of white work trucks — it's a particular type of work truck — is sort of the prognosticator of economic activity and where things are going. Fortunately, at the moment those sales are strong. Sales across the sector are strong, and we are looking at, potentially, a record-breaking sale of vehicles this year.

Our industry continues to take the position of reduction of regulation and taxes in the province. We applaud the government's core review process — having a look at where government can find efficiencies, etc. We interact, and our members interact, with a number of government institutions on a regular basis, including some Crown corporations, including ICBC.

One of the things with relation to ICBC that we have a concern about is the need on their part to pay sufficient labour and material rates to reflect the realities of the marketplace, to maintain a viable industry around the province. As you heard earlier, there are a lot of people employed in the automotive sector. The collision repair business is a growing industry and needs the support of ICBC.

Property assessments continue to be a challenge for many new-car dealers in the province. Some of them, particularly in urban areas, have struggled with massive increases in their property assessments over time. The next-best-use approach is choking many auto dealers, as many of them have experienced property tax increases of more than 20 percent in the last ten years.

Our industry, as well, like many, is turning grey, going grey. The industry estimates at this point are for at least 20,000 jobs coming up in the next decade. This is a huge number of people leaving our industry.

I don't know if you've had to look under the hood of a new car these days, but they're pretty complex. Our industry has gone through a tremendous transformation. It has become a high-tech industry. It's very technology-based. For the folks that work in the industry, it's now a profession. It's not the image that many of us and our parents had of what the industry was like.

We really applaud the review of the Industry Training Authority. We look forward to participating in that. We have some 14 institutions around the province providing automotive training. Some of those institutions don't necessarily have the resources needed to deal with an industry that is as sophisticated as ours is these days, so we look forward to having some good discussions around that.

I'll bring up an issue that continues to appear on our radar: the luxury tax. This has been a thorn in the side of many of our members for a number of years. The luxury tax is applied to vehicles over $55,000. So make sure you run out and buy one that's $54,999.

This particular luxury tax doesn't apply to other things. We're not sure why our industry is being singled out as the recipient of a luxury tax on cars and trucks, when other industries…. You know, I don't see it on other vehicles — RVs, boats, planes, things like that.

In particular, this is a challenge for economic development, particularly in the north. If you are from the northern areas of British Columbia, you know that a pickup truck is often the mobile office for many people. If you're spending hours and hours — and some people spend 12 hours and more in those vehicles every day — you want one that's going to meet your needs. Often that is over the threshold for the luxury tax. I don't think the intent of government is to penalize small business individuals, who are trying to make a living, by charging them an extra tax on a work vehicle.

The other side of that is that because the tax doesn't apply to one-ton pickup trucks, people are being forced into more truck than they need, perhaps. That has implications for our roads, our environment, etc. So we would like to see that tax eliminated or, if that's not possible,
[ Page 246 ]
changing the threshold above $55,000 and perhaps having the tax percentage that's applied reduced.

Two other quick things. We'd encourage the government to continue funding the B.C. SCRAP-IT program, the early retirement vehicle program providing incentives for British Columbians to replace their higher-polluting vehicles with cleaner forms of transportation. Replacing a 1990 sedan with a 2009 hybrid can result in a reduction of up to 67 percent in greenhouse gases. Since 2008, 29,000 polluting vehicles have been scrapped through the program. We'd encourage that to continue.

Finally, the clean energy vehicle program, which we have the privilege of administrating on behalf of the provincial government. This program has been in place since the end of 2010.

New technology takes time to be adopted by consumers. The many people that I've talked to — customers of our members who are looking at these vehicles — find that the incentive is that last little piece that helps push them over into making that kind of decision. As technology improves, people buy more of them, and the prices will come down. But at the time of this early adoption the incentive is very important.

Those are just some of my quick comments. I want to make sure there's time for questions of our colleagues.

I guess the message is: keep taxes low, help people find jobs, and please support training for British Columbians that want to enter our quickly changing industry.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Two quick questions. One is the issue around municipal taxes and "the next best use." Could you tell me what you mean by "next best use" and how it impacts?

The other question, very quickly, is the SCRAP-IT program. Has the SCRAP-IT program expired? And would you like it at the same level that it was before?

The program hasn't expired. There is still money in the program, but by the time we get to next year, when we're looking at budgets, the cupboard will begin to be leaner.

We'd like to see this program, which has been embraced very well by consumers and our industry, continue on doing the good work of helping to get older, polluting vehicles off the roads of British Columbia. It not only has an economic impact of helping the economy with the sale of new vehicles, but it also reduces the environmental impact. It also puts more safe vehicles…. Newer vehicles on the road are a lot safer, perhaps, than some of those older ones.

In answer to your question about the next, highest and best use, that's the approach that's taken by the assessment authority looking at a particular piece of property. For example, if you're on Marine Drive with a dealership in Vancouver, when the assessment is done, they look at the highest and best use of that property.

If you've been on Marine Drive in Vancouver, condo towers tend to be, perhaps, what might be seen by some as the highest and best use. Thus, when you have lots of space for a car dealership, when you have a lot of land, that can be very challenging to try and keep that business. Some dealers have said to me: "Jeez, I'm not sure why I stay in the business. My tax bill's higher than my mortgage payment on this property."

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. In general, it would be useful for some of your proposals if you could provide us with information on the dollar implications.

I did have a question about several other things you've mentioned here. One is the so-called luxury tax and the dollar implication of either eliminating or raising the threshold. And SCRAP-IT. There wasn't a dollar…. What are the dollars we're talking about there for SCRAP-IT — ballpark?

B. Qualey: The last influx of moneys from government has been…. At one point there was $15 million contributed a number of years ago and then recently another injection a couple of years ago of a few million dollars. That has lasted over many, many years.

Next year we'll be ready for a strong injection to allow the program to continue for a number of years — the sustainability of the program to allow planning and make sure that consumers and our members know that that incentive is available and they can plan and prepare and market it. Having a little longer runway is very helpful.

With respect to your question on luxury tax dollar values, I'll be happy to provide the committee with those breakdowns. I know that the Ministry of Finance knows better than anyone what moneys are brought in from that tax, but I'd be happy to work with the committee on that and get details for you.

G. Holman: Thank you. For SCRAP-IT and the CEV, it seems you're talking in the order of several million dollars a year — something in that order?

B. Qualey: Yeah. The SCRAP-IT program depends on, quite frankly, the incentive levels that are set. As the cupboard gets bare, the SCRAP-IT program tightens up the incentive because they want to make sure that they stretch out the money.

If you want the program to move more polluting vehicles off the roads, you need more money to do that and have higher incentives. At the moment SCRAP-IT has had to dial down the incentive amounts available as a result of the dwindling money in the bank.

G. Holman: What about the argument that people are going to do that anyway? They're eventually going to replace an older car with a newer one. What's your response to that?

B. Qualey: Well, I guess it depends what one's priorities are. Yes, over time people will, in that time. Some of these older vehicles that are on the road that people would hang on to pollute at many tens of multiples compared to a newer vehicle.

If we want to have lower-polluting vehicles on the road…. Governments are always asking our industry to spend billions of dollars to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. We come to government and say: "We're doing our part." This is a way to help get people into some of the newer technology that provides more fuel-efficient vehicles and safer vehicles on B.C.'s roads.

D. Ashton (Chair): Blair, I have to end it at that. Thank you for the presentation.

B. Qualey: Thank you very much for your time, and I'll get that information for you.

D. Ashton (Chair): Yeah, you'll forward that information. Thank you. Have a good day, sir.

Welcome. So ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and we have five minutes allotted for questioning from the committee. Please start.

K. Gibson: Thank you. You certainly have to be nimble with the different subjects, but there is a segue from the previous speaker in the comment about highest and best use. We're here to talk about agricultural land.

My name is Kathleen Gibson, and I'm here with my colleague, Linda Geggie, to present for the B.C. Food Systems Network. Our mission is to eliminate hunger and create food security for all residents of British Columbia. Our membership includes farmers, health practitioners, educators and community organizations around the province. You can read more about us at www.fooddemocracy.org.

We are here today primarily because of our concerns about the core review and its stated intent to focus on the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. We wrote to the Hon. Bill Bennett and Hon. Pat Pimm on September 12 to ask how the government would handle input to the core review.

Two days ago the terms of reference for the core review were published. The document stated that the avenue for public input is through you. We are grateful for this opportunity but must stress that (a) we consider the notice unacceptably late and that (b) this should only be the first of a series of opportunities for public input as the core review process unfolds.

The B.C. Food Systems Network frames its discussion of food systems in terms of long-term sustainability. From our beginnings in 1999, with input to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries regarding an agrifood policy for B.C., we've kept public policy at the centre of our work. Our top five policy priorities currently focus on climate resiliency, land, water, an integrated government approach and regional economies.

We have heard and read some comments recently that disturb us regarding the possible direction the core review might take on the ALC and the ALR. Comments made by the minister responsible, in a recent decision handed down by the ALC itself, portray a tug-of-war between non-agricultural development at the ALR and agricultural interests, for which the ALR was established.

I think we would all agree that the economic and environmental challenges the province faces are greater now than 40 years ago, and the margins of safety are smaller. What's needed in the face of an uncertain and problematic future is adaptive management, an approach that preserves options, hedges bets and sees diversity as essential to sustainability.

The core review can best support this approach by preserving the ALR and ALC as an efficient means of protecting B.C.'s scarce agricultural land, while also streamlining the broader regulatory framework that applies to B.C.'s farm and fish operations.

The B.C. Food Systems Network's annual conference theme this year was "Food from the water, food from the land." The diversity of our land- and water-based food enterprises is a tremendous strength for B.C. in three ways.

Second, it provides a wide range of business and job opportunities. B.C. food providers operate over 200 different kinds of farm and fish operations. On average, such an operation multiplies by up to ten jobs between production and the plate.

The economics for farmers and fishers are challenging. There's no doubt about that. However, new opportunities are emerging with community and social enterprise types of investment. There are a number of very interesting examples now in practice in Canada and the United States. The government of Ontario just announced a local food fund to pursue such opportunities. This is an approach B.C. could consider.

Third, farming and fishing have acquired a very complex regulatory environment that offers significant potential for simplification and new synergy. Food is multifaceted. It needs many departments involved, each with its own lens: food and public health, food and poverty, food and environment, food and agriculture, food and transportation, indigenous food and so on.

This calls us to look at the cumulative effects on the ground in the actual fish or farm operation. If you put
[ Page 248 ]
the operation in the middle of the page and show all the regulations that it's subject to, you could call this the regulatory net. This could be a useful exercise for the core review. It effectively shows overlaps and gaps.

One of the most striking is the overlap between land- and water-based food in processing, for example. In many cases, there's no particular practical reason why fish or other food-processing facilities should not be shared. They're only separate because they're handled by different agencies at different levels of government.

The regulatory net shows what the basic public goods are. These are the guiding principles: for instance, for environment, don't pollute; or health, don't make people sick. Regulations can be rethought from there to such measures as greater involvement of practitioners through education rather than enforcement, scaled requirements or expanding the reach of instruments like the environmental farm plan. We have more examples we can share.

Most people want to abide by the law. What drives them crazy and causes them to rebel is that laws are hard to follow or contradictory. Government owes it to the regulated to involve them in clarifying sensible requirements that they can actually follow.

Government also does its job when it protects the underlying conditions needed for a sector to succeed — in the case of food, land and water. B.C. must retain its precious ability to provide food for its citizens. Because only a very small portion, less than 5 percent of B.C.'s land base, is arable, it must be protected while discussions continue about how the activity of food, farm and fish production is to thrive.

The ALR is here for a reason. The pressures on that scarce resource are even greater now than 40 years ago, when B.C. was losing up to 6,000 hectares of prime farmland per year. Jurisdictions besides ours see the same thing. People all over the world continue to express interest in B.C.'s approach to farmland protection. A 2008 Ipsos-Reid poll found that 95 percent of British Columbians support the ALR. At the UBCM convention last week, there was considerable discussion about the importance of ALR.

We believe there is significant unrealized potential for B.C.'s fish and farm businesses and for reform of the regulations that affect them. We would be happy to provide more structured advice along these lines.

Government has been exploring options with social media and open democracy. It's time to use those tools. Please develop and let us know about future opportunities for comment on the matters under discussion in the core review, in particular regarding our land and water.

L. Geggie: Hello, my name is Linda Geggie. I am the policy chair for the B.C. Food Systems Network as well as a board member, and I'm coordinator of the Capital Region Food and Agriculture Roundtable.

I'd like to highlight and summarize our takeaway messages for the committee. No. 1, we must have proper public consultation in the core review. The land reserve is very important to British Columbians. Over 95 percent support it as a mechanism to protect farmland. If we're going to make significant changes to it, we need to be aware and part of the discussion.

Second, we must enable, not disable, the sector. There are growing opportunities for the agrifood sector. There is a broad suite of actions that could be taken to develop and strengthen the sector as an economic driver. We have diversity of operations, an increasing domestic market for local food and a range of new business structures and investment opportunities to explore. Regulatory mechanisms need to be appropriately scaled and streamlined to ensure a safe and sustainable food supply. Land is a basic ingredient in this strategy.

Third, the ALC's mandate to preserve agriculture land and to encourage farming is as important today as it was when it was created 40 years ago, if not more so as the global population increases and we begin to understand climate change and its implications for our future food supply.

In his 2010 audit of the commission, the Auditor General notes that less than 5 percent of the land base is suitable for agriculture. I'm quoting his report here.

"Agriculture land is an indispensable, natural resource. Once taken over for urban development" — I'd also add other forms of development — "farmland is no longer available for food production. Protected farmland fosters local economic stability and provides environmental services and public benefits. One of the main reasons for any jurisdiction to preserve farmland, however, is to secure food production into the future, especially in light of the impending effects of climate change."

In closing, Minister Bennett has asked his ministers for bold solutions in the core review process. Let us not confuse bold with reckless. Pinning our hopes on the development of fossil fuel energy while ignoring the evidence of its true long-term costs is short-sighted. We need bold, but we also need prudent directions. Our future, our children's future and the future of seven generations depend on this.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you, ladies. In your presentation to us, you've missed a page.

K. Gibson: I don't believe so. What you should have there is some background information — a two-page letter to Ministers Pimm and Bennett and an action alert that was circulated at UBCM. The actual presentation I'm going to e-mail to Mary.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay, so there are only three printed pages. Is that correct?

K. Gibson: There should only be three pages in front of
[ Page 249 ]
you right now — a single and a double. All right?

M. Elmore: Thanks for your presentation and also advising the committee that the Finance Committee is the public body accepting recommendations in terms of public consultation of the core review. It's the first I've heard of it.

M. Elmore: My question has to do with respect to…. You made reference to a recommendation of a local food fund that is in place in Ontario, and I'm interested to hear some of the details of what that entails.

K. Gibson: It's brand-new. I think it was announced last week. The best thing to do is google it. I believe that Sustain Ontario, which is kind of the provincial equivalent of the B.C. Food Systems Network, had a hand in advising the Premier. And as you know, the Premier is also the Minister of Agriculture, so she's taken quite a strong interest in agriculture. It's kind of distributed capacity in Ontario.

D. Ashton (Chair): Before I go to Eric, you had mentioned that you had received a letter stating that this body was taking the input.

K. Gibson: No — not received a letter. Found on the web the terms of reference for the core review. In my reading of it…. It had two pieces in it, a letter from Minister Bennett and then a letter from the Deputy Minister. The Hon. Bill Bennett's synopsis indicated that the opportunity for public input to the core review process was in this series of hearings with the Finance and Government Services Committee — the 2013 series.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay. I sit on that legislative committee, so I will check and see. I'm quite sure there are going to be lots of opportunity for input, but we'll get back to you on that one, okay?

E. Foster: In your presentation, you referenced a survey that said that 90 percent of people surveyed in the province support the land reserve. I would argue that that's correct.

E. Foster: I would certainly agree with that. Unfortunately, that same 90 percent of people buy their apples that come from Washington and their produce that comes from Mexico. One of the issues that we have — and I'm a supporter of the land reserve, so don't…. Okay? I don't want to have to buy my apples from Washington or lettuce from Mexico.

I think one of the things that we need to do — and I guess I'm throwing a challenge to your organization — is to convince people to buy products that are grown on that agricultural land which we're protecting here. Eventually, if we don't support the growers in this part of the world, then the land can still be in the land reserve, but there just won't be anything grown on it.

L. Geggie: Sure. I think this affects the budget allocations as well, and that's what your main purpose, I believe, is. The Buy Local program that was established by the Ministry of Agriculture…. It is in the letter of expectations to Minister Pimm that it be funded again. That is a very important program, and I would say that it would be something that we should continue to pursue. I agree with your comments.

K. Gibson: I also have a quick comment on the budget implications of all this and the regulatory overlaps on that. Eric, you remember because you spent some time on the meat file with the slaughterhouse regulation.

K. Gibson: I spent eight years working on it, so from that, that's kind of where I got the piece about looking at what's on the ground and working it up from there, and you remember a lot of that from your engagement with it.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. In my view, this is not the vehicle for a detailed discussion about food and agriculture policy. I hope we do clarify what that venue for input is into the core review. But if there are financial implications arising from the sorts of things that
[ Page 250 ]
you're thinking about, I would encourage you to document those and get those into the committee. We still have time for written input, up to October 16.

G. Holman: That would be helpful. I guess I'm particularly, being the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands…. Your comment around non-agricultural uses on farmland. I guess one could debate whether composting is non-agricultural or not, but I would be interested in your view on what's happening there, in terms of the Stanhope issue, just quickly.

Also, what seems to be happening on agricultural land is it's being used as a receiving area for soils from construction activities in greater Victoria. My understanding is that this is happening elsewhere in the province. Do you have any concerns or comments on that kind of thing, where farmers are receiving soils from urban areas?

D. Ashton (Chair): We have a whole bunch of people lined up behind you. That would be a submission. If you don't mind, could we get that written?

L. Popham: Thank you. I appreciate you coming today very much. I think that over the weeks that we're touring, we've already heard comments where industrial land is running out, and I believe the easiest prey for industrial land to move into is agricultural land. I think the topic of the core that you've brought up is critically important — that groups like yourselves keep an eye on it.

I think we've already done a review of the commission and how it would be more sustainable and more effective, so I hope that you will take those recommendations from a year and a half ago as you move forward and participate in the core review.

D. Ashton (Chair): Ladies, thank you very much for your presentation. We await those additional written submissions — will be greatly appreciated.

Good morning. Thank you very much for coming. So a ten-minute presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and we have five for questions. Please, go ahead.

K. Nemrava: Good morning, members. I'm Kimberley Nemrava, director for the Red Cross in British Columbia and Yukon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for the important role that each of you play in serving the people of your constituency and people in British Columbia.

Alberta 2013 floods: 100,000 people immediately affected, $5 billion estimated damage in infrastructure, $1.7 billion estimated insurance losses. Governments absolutely have the responsibility to protect and support their citizens. But you are not alone, and I believe we can do more together with government and, in my case, Red Cross to address the many complex issues that we face.

Red Cross is a service provider and a solution provider. As a service provider, we distributed over 945,000 relief supplies, like cleanup kits, first-aid kits, hygiene items, water, towels, safety gear, cots and blankets to the people of Alberta. Working with local governments, Red Cross managed or supported 16 shelters. Over 1,000 Red Cross trained volunteers supported the response.

As a solution provider, Red Cross registered over 90,000 Albertans, using our call centres in Halifax and Vancouver so that the government of Alberta could provide cash support to their citizens in a timely manner. Locally Red Cross supported the government cheque distribution sites by providing volunteers at those locations. What this indicates is the flexibility of the Red Cross to adapt its resources to meet the needs of people after a disaster, during the response.

Red Cross has also raised $35 million to support immediate transition and long-term support to Albertans. This support supplements and complements government and insurance assistance. It is being used for a wide range of activities, from financial support to home repairs to community-building events. All of our work is closely coordinated with local, provincial and First Nation governments.

How can Red Cross work as a solution provider in British Columbia? We signed an agreement with the Ministries of Justice and Health last year to develop plans to deploy Canadian and international Red Cross emergency response units into British Columbia in case of a catastrophic disaster.

Emergency response units are things like field hospitals, health units and water sanitation units. These units have been developed by Red Cross, drawing on our international experience in disasters worldwide. They can be
[ Page 251 ]
deployed within 72 hours and are now being adapted to Canadian use.

All the development, training and maintenance is managed by Red Cross. There is no cost to British Columbia unless the units are deployed for a response or for training purposes.

This partnership in Red Cross emergency response units is an example of leveraging the resources and expertise of the larger Red Cross movement to support the province. We can do more initiatives like this together and are working closely with Emergency Management B.C. and Health to identify other opportunities.

The Red Cross does encourage the province to invest in disaster preparedness, particularly catastrophic. I was in Calgary. I saw how quickly a city can be devastated. I also believe that, working together, we can develop many solutions that leverage the capacity both of government and organizations like Red Cross.

Health. For decades Red Cross has operated a health equipment loan service in British Columbia, last year providing 145,000 pieces of equipment from 76 locations in the province to over 80,000 people. Eight of these locations have staff. The other 68 are run by volunteers — over 1,000 volunteers.

While this provides a direct service, it's another example of a solution that combines community and volunteer support, Red Cross fundraising and government funding to make health equipment available to people when they need it most. We're very pleased to be expanding this service in B.C. with the financial support of health authorities, and it's the biggest service of its kind in Canada.

Having the right health equipment at home allows people to safely be discharged from hospital, reduces readmissions and reduces the stress on family and friends. Rather than finding equipment for clients, health care professionals can spend their precious time providing health care. Timely, flexible and cost-effective, Red Cross health equipment loans leverage the resources and capacity of the community, the government and Red Cross.

Across Canada, Red Cross has health programs that range from home care to transportation to system navigation. I believe we need to explore what other solutions we can develop together, using models like this to help address some of the health pressures in British Columbia.

Bullying and harassment. Tonight, I'm really thrilled to be at Government House with some wonderful youth to attend the Representative for Children and Youth Awards. The Red Cross program is one of the recipients, and the program that is being awarded is our anti-bullying peer facilitation program.

This program is so inspiring. High school youth are trained to provide anti-bullying workshops to middle school students. Supported by research, this peer-to-peer training is found to be highly effective in setting standards for behaviour and giving youth the skills and confidence to respond to bullying.

Red Cross has been involved in violence prevention education for over 25 years. Creating safe environments for our children is a responsibility of every community, agency and government, because it's a societal issue. Our vision is to make Red Cross training available to every child in B.C. as one contribution to this very important topic.

We commend the government of B.C. for their work and commitment to violence prevention among youth and adults and are working with you to provide solutions to these issues.

Another shift, as you're undoubtedly aware, is that WorkSafe changes come into effect on November 1 to prevent bullying and harassment in the workplace. Red Cross already has on-line training available called Respect in the Workplace that we are now ensuring aligns with these changes and will be made available to British Columbians cost-effectively. These are some examples of some of the program work that Red Cross does.

To wrap up, I would like to commend the government for the work you're doing here every day to address the complex social and economic issues.

I do encourage and Red Cross encourages the government of B.C. to invest in disaster preparedness, particularly catastrophic. We see the impact, globally and locally, of disasters. I encourage and invite you to work more closely with us at Red Cross in building solutions to disaster, health, violence prevention and injury prevention issues.

G. Holman: Thanks very much for your presentation. I didn't realize Red Cross had such a breadth of programs that it was providing.

Just quickly, the program you have with the two First Nations on the Saanich Peninsula, Tsawout and Tsartlip. Do you have plans for expanding that, either elsewhere on the peninsula or elsewhere throughout the province?

K. Nemrava: Yes, we're working very closely with First Nation leadership and First Nations Health Authority to make our programs available to them in all our areas, but particularly first-aid, water safety and disaster preparedness, disaster response, as they have identified these as priorities.

G. Holman: I notice that you've mentioned Central Saanich council, there, as a partner. Is local government involvement important when you're working with First Nations?

K. Nemrava: Certainly, the more our programs can
[ Page 252 ]
coordinate with local government and First Nations, the broader reach that we have. The biggest challenge, to be really candid, is funding. If we can access funding to deliver the programs, we can deliver the programs. That's really one of the biggest challenges.

Red Cross does its own fundraising, sometimes approaching local government, as well as our own fundraising activities and First Nations Health Authority, for example, to support our work.

G. Holman: The only funding request I picked up in your presentation was emergency preparedness, in general, for British Columbia. Is there a dollar ask there, or are there other financial asks that you're bringing to the table today?

K. Nemrava: I'll answer the first one immediately. From the Red Cross perspective, for our support to the province in catastrophic preparedness, there are three specific ways we can be supportive. But there's also a broader ask to invest in this as a province.

One is building our capacity to be able to respond to disasters every day provincewide. A model that we've used in other areas is for Red Cross to have a strong capacity to be able to support disasters. It's ten cents per person, per year. So it's about $450,000 a year for us to have the volunteer and support capacity to be able to really respond effectively.

We would also encourage the province to engage Red Cross in supporting our shelter management capacity, in order for us to have the capacity to run five concurrent shelters of 2,000 people, at any time — it's about $100,000 a year, and that capacity would be provincewide — as well as encouraging the province to consider training funds to be able to bring one of the emergency response units out to B.C. to practise the deployment work.

We need funding for all our programs, but I really wanted to focus, especially in the light of Alberta, on the disaster preparedness as one focus today. I would invite any conversations to be able to put together a proposal for any of our initiatives.

Board Voice Society of British Columbia — Doug Hayman and Dr. Carol Matusicky.

D. Ashton (Chair): I don't feel so bad then. As long as she didn't call you late for dinner, you're okay, right? How about "Dr. Carol"? How's that?

C. Matusicky: When I got my PhD, my son was three. Someone said: "I hear your mom is a doctor." And he said: "Yeah, but she's not the kind of doctor that can help anybody." I'm not a medical doctor.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor and Doug, thank you very much. We've allotted ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning. I apologize. I'm keeping it very tight today. The floor is yours.

C. Matusicky: Good morning, everybody. I just want to start by thanking the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the opportunity for us as citizens to come and present to you.

My name is Carol Matusicky, and I'm chair of the Board Voice Society of British Columbia, an organization that was established in 2009. It represents the boards of directors of social service agencies from across the province, and we are a citizen voice working to develop strong, vibrant communities supported by high-quality social services. We have spoken to this committee in past years.

Recently through a grant from the Vancouver Foundation, Board Voice sponsored a number of interboard community projects aimed at bringing these community volunteers together to consider the needs of their communities and promote collaboration between agencies. These conversations have helped Board Voice better understand the issues facing our community agencies today and have stimulated ideas for improving the system.

Community social services offer a complex array of supports and services in our communities, and they often fly under the radar of public consciousness. I like to say that the community social service sector provides supports and services for people throughout their life cycle — from the womb to the tomb, if you will, or from the cradle to the grave. I don't think we often get that understanding.

They include programs like daycare and early child development, mental health and addiction services, family support and child protection, assisted housing and employment, community corrections and specialized programs for women, children, youth and senior citizens. These programs operate throughout our communities — a web of caring without which our communities would be bleak indeed, not good for people and not good for business.

For the past decade community social service agencies have been under serious pressure, and this situation continues today. The latest crunch has come through the cooperative gains process, which will see agencies having to find a 3 percent salary increase. Salaries make up about 80 percent of the budget within their current operating budgets. This is on top of numerous other cost downloads over the past several years. School boards, with arguably much more room to manoeuvre, may not have to cover the costs related to increases for teachers, but the social service sector does.

We've witnessed a situation where health costs have
[ Page 253 ]
risen by 34 percent over the decade while social services have declined by 23 percent over the same time. Now we know from research that only 40 percent of health outcomes are due to the health system and that the rest comes from such factors as inclusion, community supports and income security.

Moreover, research tells us that investing in community supports will offset many of the downstream costs currently involved in the courts, prisons and high-end medical services. It makes good financial sense to invest in community services.

I'd like to quote from an article from the Vancouver Sun written by Ian Mulgrew, which articulates this issue. Here's a quote from him.

"Everyone agreed it was time we tackled the underlying causes of crime. Unfortunately, the solutions entail Victoria reversing most of its spending decisions and pumping millions into the social and health services instead of policing and corrections."

"There is a solution. Stop treating people with health problems as criminals. Stop prosecuting addicts for petty offences and replace expensive cops and judges with a battalion of nurses and social workers.

"Coupled with the massive decline in the crime rate, the removal of thousands of petty possession, breach and process charges from the court and corrections system should free lots of money for more treatment beds.

"In the past two decades we have not needed more cops and new processing systems such as the community court. We have needed sweeping legal reform, a better safety net and much more money for mental health services."

Another example comes from a 2012 report by the TD Bank about the value of early childhood education. It stated that for every dollar that governments spend on early childhood education, the economic return to society down the line ranges between $1.50 and $3, and the benefit ratio for disadvantaged children is in the double digits. That is a huge return on investment.

In April of this year the round table of provincial social service organizations sponsored a public opinion poll to determine how community services are understood in B.C. The poll suggests that, as in previous polls, there is a high degree of support for community social services. More than 53 percent of the respondents even suggested that higher taxes would be appropriate to enhance services.

Board Voice recognizes that the government is in a constraint mode due to projected revenue shortfalls and will not likely be investing heavily over the next year. However, we would like to offer a small investment proposal to government which could have substantial impact for the future, and that is to begin a provincial dialogue leading to a social policy framework for the province.

This is an approach successfully undertaken in a number of other jurisdictions including Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and London, Ontario. Vancouver has just put together a social policy framework for the city of Vancouver.

Here's what it would do. It would describe the kind of province in which we want to live, learn, work and play. It would guide decision-making, set future direction, identify important connections and support the alignment of policies and practices. All social ministries would be a part of this — for example, Health, Education, AG and Sol. Gen, MCFD and MSD — and the broader public, as well, would have a say.

Many existing initiatives, like the government/non-profit initiative, the ten-year mental health plan and the B.C. early-years strategy, would fit within this framework.

Currently in B.C. there is no overarching framework to guide the work of social ministries and related community organizations in the province, no all-embracing vision, goals and accountabilities which could assist in bringing innovative approaches to difficult-to-solve social issues. A framework would provide a clear vision and goals for social policy in B.C., with expectations for stakeholders clearly laid out and a commitment to work collaboratively to achieve big social goals over time.

Driven from the top and informed through a consultation with B.C. citizens, a social policy framework would begin to bring about more horizontal planning and execution across all ministries and other key sectors.

We would like to urge the government to invest in a broad consultation process over the next year so that we will be better prepared to make strategic investments in future years, guided by a framework of ideas and goals transparent to all.

In summary then, Board Voice is asking that the government, in collaboration with Board Voice and other provincial organizations, commence a process for the development of a social policy framework for British Columbia.

Thank you for your attention today, and we look forward to working closely with you over the coming years to strengthen our communities and the services that nourish us all. Thank you very much for your time.

Seeing none, thank you for your presentation. Thank you very much for your points today — very forthcoming on them. There is a budget consultation paper. I would like to start actually encouraging people to have a look at it and see some of the issues that we are faced with, and where the expenditures of these dollars that we have at our disposal in the recommendation should go. So just a point of interest, maybe, that you should look at.

Come on forward. Good morning. Thank you very much for coming. We have ten minutes for the presen-
[ Page 254 ]
tation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have allotted five minutes for questioning. The floor is yours.

W. King: Thank you. My name is Wendy King. I'm senior vice-president of government relations and general counsel for Central 1 Credit Union. I am joined today by Helmut Pastrick, our chief economist. I'm sure many of you are familiar with his regular updates on the economy. We're also joined by Kelly Harris, our director of government affairs.

On behalf of Central 1 and British Columbia's 44 credit unions, we thank you for making time to see us today. As part of our submission we are leaving behind an updated copy of a letter that we submitted to the tax policy branch of the Ministry of Finance earlier this month. It's been updated with some new numbers, and that's why it is dated yesterday.

We've also left a report on the economic and social impact of the B.C. credit union system, which was prepared by Helmut in March.

The issue we want to bring to your attention today is an inadvertent increase in the B.C. provincial tax rate for British Columbia credit unions as a result of a recent change to the federal Income Tax Act. In the federal government's 2013 budget they announced the elimination of the federal credit union deduction for credit unions over a five-year period. There's a five-year phase-out. This exemption was established as a way to level the playing field between credit unions and banks, taking into account the fact that credit unions cannot raise money on the capital markets and in recognition of the social benefits provided by credit unions.

British Columbia also provides a small business tax exemption to credit unions on a portion of their income. Currently B.C. credit unions have access to a lower provincial tax rate of 2.5 percent on some of their income until the cumulative total of income taxed at the lower rate exceeds 5 percent of the value of the credit union's deposits and shares.

The way the B.C. legislation is drafted, in order to be eligible for the reduction provincially, you must be eligible for the deduction federally. This has led to an automatic elimination of the provincial deduction in British Columbia. Other provinces, such as Ontario, continue to benefit from a lower provincial tax rate because their provincial tax legislation is not tied to the federal Income Tax Act.

This will lead to an inadvertent increase in B.C. taxes for B.C. credit unions. The effect will be that the provincial tax rate will increase over the five-year phase-in period from 2½ percent to 11 percent. This loss of net income would otherwise be available for credit unions to build regulatory capital levels to share with members, shareholders, and to invest in British Columbia.

This increase would run counter to the public policy objective that financial institutions hold additional capital to ensure that they are better able to withstand any future economic downturns, losses on portfolios and losses on investments.

British Columbia has seen steady credit union growth since the B.C. provincial government phased out the corporate capital tax on financial institutions. This tax reduction not only helped B.C. credit unions weather the storm created by the worldwide financial crisis; it also helped credit unions grow. When many financial institutions were eliminating jobs, credit unions were hiring.

In 2007 there were 7,765 British Columbians working in credit unions in our province. In 2012 that number had increased to 8,334. That's an increase of 569 jobs. When the recession was at its peak, credit unions responded by making money available through increased personal loans, mortgages and commercial lending.

Less tax has helped credit unions grow in this province; hire more British Columbians; lend to more families, small and medium-sized enterprises; and remain strong B.C. businesses. This unintended increase in credit union taxes, as a result of this federal government policy change, could very well have the opposite effect.

British Columbia's credit unions are good corporate citizens. They invest in small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs. They give back through investment, including health care, education and community-building. In 2012 and 2013 credit unions made charitable contributions of $43.9 million and 21,240 volunteer hours in the communities they operate in, and they serve 140 in British Columbia — 40 of which have no other financial institution.

Therefore, we respectfully submit that the B.C. tax legislation should be amended to achieve a tax-neutral result for credit unions. The letter we have provided explains two options for how to make that change. I won't go into all the technical details for you right now. Both would involve an amendment to the provincial tax to remove the reference to section 137(a) and (b) of the federal income tax, which will no longer exist.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize the important role that credit unions play in our communities. Locally owned and operated credit unions are strong supporters of British Columbia communities, from the largest to the smallest.

Currently one in three British Columbians is a member of a credit union. That's approximately 1.8 million members. Through charitable donations and volunteer hours, credit unions give back to the towns and municipalities in which they operate.

By continuing to work together, you can help credit unions succeed so that we can continue to provide trusted financial services for our members, the people that live and work in the communities you represent.
[ Page 255 ]

(1) What was the rationale for the federal government's elimination of the deduction?

(2) Are you aware if any consultation took place between the federal government and the provinces prior to doing the elimination?

(3) What does this mean in terms of credit unions versus banks? For example, our banks here in British Columbia — will they have an advantage in any way if no change is made here in B.C. to the situation you've outlined?

W. King: As far as federal consultation, I do not believe there was any consultation before. We certainly were not involved. There is now a movement to ask for consultation and a reconsideration of the policy decision. We'll see how that proceeds. But it's the credit union system across Canada that's working together to approach the federal government.

As far as an advantage for banks in British Columbia, if there is not an amendment to the provincial tax legislation, they would have the advantage in that provincial credit unions would no longer receive the lower tax rate. Again, B.C. credit unions still do not have the option to raise capital on the capital markets, which banks do, so it would put the credit unions at a disadvantage to the banks.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. I just wanted to be clear. Are other provinces responding in a similar fashion to what you're proposing for British Columbia? Sorry, if you've already stated that.

W. King: No, not at all. The way the legislation is drafted in Ontario, nothing needs to be done because it was a stand-alone calculation for this provincial deduction in Ontario. It wasn't tied to the federal legislation. So the credit unions in Ontario, which operate under Central 1 — we are also the central for the Ontario credit union system — will continue to receive the lower tax rate provincially.

W. King: I'm not sure, but I can find out what is happening in the other provinces.

D. Ashton (Chair): Wendy, thank you very much. Helmut, thank you. Just before you scoot away, how about a quick one-minute synopsis of the outlook for the province going forward, from the credit union?

H. Pastrick: Very good. Yeah, we just released our B.C. forecast earlier this week. Essentially, we see the outlook still being rather sluggish for the near term but improving in the medium and longer term. By that I mean in 2014, growth will pick up somewhat into the 2 percent, 2½ percent range. Then in 2015 we do expect to see growth closer to 3 percent, and then beyond in '16 and '17.

Much of it is dependent on the global economic circumstances and in particular the U.S., which we do expect to upshift into a higher growth rate certainly by '15-16. In the meantime, we still will be in a rather moderate growth phase until that occurs.

D. Ashton (Chair): Sir, thank you very much. Both of you, thanks for coming today.

B.C. Colleges — Jim Reed. Good morning, sir. We have ten minutes for a presentation — I'll give you a two-minute warning — and five minutes for questions.

First of all, I'm Jim Reed, president of B.C. Colleges. I want to thank you for including us in today's prebudget consultation process and allowing us to help shape the 2014 provincial budget. Our submission contains a realistic yet scalable growth strategy for the B.C. college system, reflective of government's current financial position and mandate to achieve a balanced budget and to grow the provincial economy.

Our colleges have been running lean operations for many years. However, in order to meet the growing labour market demand, we require a multi-year sustainable approach to education and skills funding. Long-term, stable funding will ensure that our colleges can plan and develop programs, manage capacity, plan staffing and meet the emerging needs of our students, communities and employers.

I realize you've already heard from some colleges and will be hearing from others in your sessions throughout the province. Therefore, I'll keep the general information brief and move quickly to the specifics of our requests on the provincial budget.

Many of you likely will know this, but I'll emphasize a few things. B.C. Colleges is a consortium of B.C.'s 11 public colleges serving close to 200,000 students annually. Our mandate is to provide students throughout British Columbia with advanced skills and education for employment. With campuses and learning centres in over 60 communities, B.C.'s colleges are the most accessible and affordable pathway to post-secondary education in B.C.

Our colleges are recognized for their relevant and innovative programs that deliver the right graduates need-
[ Page 256 ]
ed for the jobs and careers most in demand. As you know, the labour market numbers predict a million job openings by 2020, and demand for college-educated workers in B.C. will outpace supply starting in 2016.

The B.C. jobs plan highlights the urgency to plan and invest now for a skilled and educated workforce. Our colleges have a pivotal role to play. A highly skilled and educated workforce is a competitive advantage, allowing B.C. to be competitive not only nationally and internationally but also to seize opportunities to trade globally.

Now, there are three areas where colleges can play a significant role. The first is to ensure a skilled and educated workforce for British Columbia. College graduates will be essential to B.C.'s economic growth and prosperity. B.C.'s labour market forecasts estimate the need for workers with advanced education will exceed the supply of the B.C. system by more than 11,000 college and university graduates annually by 2020. College graduates represent approximately 5,500 of this shortfall.

Currently our colleges produce 14,000 nursing, business, trades, health care and paraprofessional graduates annually, and 90 percent of these graduates are employed within six months of graduation, which is important.

This, combined with the fact that they can often study close to home, given the regional nature of our colleges, results in considerably less student debt than our university peers and elevates them to taxpaying status sooner.

A recent RBC report on higher education states that 92 percent of college students say their education gives them an advantage and puts them on a level playing field in the job market compared to their university counterparts.

To start to close the skills gap and meet labour force demands, our colleges need to produce 2,000 additional college grads per year in areas immediately required by the B.C. economy. This additional capacity must match the skills most in demand, such as business, business management, health, applied sciences and, of course, the trades. Our colleges will continue to collaborate with each other and with industry to ensure our programing is delivering the right skills at the right time.

To produce these additional grads, our colleges will need to increase education and training capacity and will require a sustained annual investment starting at $6.5 million of additional funding in 2014, growing to $47.5 million up to 2020. We note that this investment is based on very much a realistic and scalable growth strategy based on government's current financial position. A more aggressive investment would allow for more capacity and more graduates over a faster time frame.

The second area where we can play a vital role is to build strong and vibrant communities. Colleges create tremendous positive economic benefits for their communities. In many communities the college is the central hub of the town.

With campuses and learning centres in over 60 locations throughout B.C., colleges have the broadest reach of any other post-secondary segment. More locations means students can keep costs down and study closer to home, and research shows that graduates are more likely to stay and work where they've studied, which in turn positively impacts the fiscal and social well-being of local communities. Just think about the northeast and the northwest and a lot of the discussion that is taking place around our resource extraction strategies of the province.

However, the remote nature of some of our campuses, especially in northern B.C. and in the Interior, can make course delivery an ongoing challenge. We have multiple campuses that require education and operating support. We need to better serve these communities so that we can unlock regional economic opportunities.

To do so, we must improve infrastructure in Internet connectivity for rural learning centres to provide education and training relevant to the regional economy. This will improve access for displaced workers, disaffected youth, immigrants, aboriginal learners and other under-represented groups. We must encourage innovation that drives rural economic and social development by an annual matching program for innovation and commercial development.

To address these critical infrastructure needs, support regional access and stimulate innovation for small and medium-size enterprise and support regional prosperity, colleges require an increase in annual investment starting in 2014 of $7 million and building up to a $12 million allocation per annum.

The third area where we can play a vital role is to enhance B.C.'s competitive advantage in knowledge and skills. Skilled and educated workers are the 21st century's most critical resource. Our colleges offer students individualized attention, flexible programming and innovative delivery models to ensure world-class education. Investing in education training and applied research and innovation at B.C.'s colleges will improve our competitive advantage nationally and globally.

Colleges also teach literacy and essential skills to help British Columbians evolve with their jobs, be more productive and adapt to a changing workplace. An investment of $10 million annually in equipment renewal will allow our colleges to upgrade teaching and training equipment to ensure it's relevant to the marketplace requirements and gives our students a competitive edge.

Additionally, we need to invest in an essential skills plan for the province. A targeted investment in essential skills will ensure students successfully complete studies and transition to the workplace quicker.

These three areas call for a scaled investment over six years starting at $26.5 million in 2014-15 and gradually growing over that period, to 2020, to correspond to the increased productivity of graduates.

To meet the projected demand for more skilled work-
[ Page 257 ]
ers, we must start to invest now and commit long term to a plan that will ensure we have the workforce in place to drive B.C.'s economic growth.

I'd like to just remind you of the excellent return on investment B.C. colleges provide. We are the most accessible and affordable post-secondary education pathway for all British Columbians. Education at one of B.C.'s colleges costs 35 to 45 percent less than one of B.C.'s research universities. The return on every $1 of taxpayer support is $3.80. The combined contribution of B.C.'s colleges and their graduates exceeds $7.7 billion annually.

With this multi-year investment plan, I'm confident that our colleges can help the province develop a skilled and educated workforce, build strong and vibrant communities, enhance B.C.'s competitive advantage in knowledge and skills, and ultimately help B.C. be more competitive nationally and globally.

In closing, I'd like to ask you to think of advanced education and skills training as an investment and not an expense. It's an investment in the future prosperity of our province.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): I have one quick question. The million job openings — where does that number come from?

J. Reed: It's part of a labour forecast that has been from the province. I understand it was developed over a number of years with a new labour market forecasting model that the province has developed. We've been using that as a basis to develop our plans for what we think we're going to need in order to supply graduates to meet that forecast.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): A follow-up question. The obvious question…. Primarily, then, the bulk of that, one would assume, would be from people retiring from the workforce.

J. Reed: No, I don't think it is. I think it's also reflective, certainly, of the demographics right across Canada. We've all seen that. There've been different studies — jobs without people, people without jobs. I'm sure some people have heard about that.

The demographics really indicate the baby boomers moving out and a big gap in terms of people with education and skills to fill that void. I think it also is reflective of increased demand in certain areas of industries that will call for much more educated and skilled workers to meet those particular requirements. So I think it's a combination of both increased demand and activity from the economy in certain areas, as well as the demographics.

Your presentation seems to focus on the need for core funding to create additional spaces. Post-secondary education institutions, universities and also student groups have more emphasis on the cost of tuition. Is it because your tuition costs are lower that that's not as big an issue for you and it's more an issue of the core funding?

J. Reed: Clearly, because the cost of a college education is considerably less than a university, it's perhaps not as profound. It is an issue in terms of the increasing student debt.

Our main thesis here is that we are looking for a major expansion of need in terms of skilled and educated workers to drive the economy over the next six to seven or ten years, and we need to invest now in the core to build the capacity to have the seats in place to be able to start to produce the people.

It takes three to four years to produce those types of people that industry is going to need. We need to start that investment now in the core.

G. Holman: Just quickly, though. You're forecasting, by 2020, over 400,000 job openings that require college education, but the funding that you're proposing would generate 2,000 additional spaces. I guess that's per year, isn't it?

J. Reed: Yeah. Well, how the numbers work…. The calculation we've done on it…. A million job openings. We did it over a ten-year period, because that was when the first forecast came out — in 2010. If you take that at 100,000 per year over ten years…. The job openings indicate that of those million, 77 percent will require some form of post-secondary education. That translates into that 100,000 per year to 77,000 per year.

We generally produce out of the post-secondary system 66,000 grads per year, so there's a gap of about 11,000 per
[ Page 258 ]
year. We're saying that of that 11,000, about 5,500 would represent college-type educated people. We say that on a modest scaled approach that we've put here, we would produce 2,000. With more investment, we could produce more to meet that gap.

G. Holman: In other words, part of the gap is already being filled by current output of graduates from colleges and universities.

J. Reed: Well, overall, there's a gap of about 11,000 per annum that needs to be addressed. We need to get on that track now if we're going to be able to actually satisfy industry's and other needs, certainly, three or four years down the road.

D. Ashton (Chair): Mr. Bealing, welcome. Ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and we have five minutes for questions. Thank you for being early and allowing us to carry on.

R. Bealing: It's not really a habit of mine, so I'm a little bit out of my comfort zone.

There are some materials being distributed here. We have a bit of an overview presentation and a little bit of background material. If I could just kind of walk you through the deck here, it shouldn't take up too much time.

Thank you for the opportunity. We really appreciate any opportunity to talk to government about what's important to us as forest owners. I'd like you to think of us as farmers of trees. We are landowners, stewards of the land. Our crop is timber. We look for other opportunities. You may have heard an announcement today. One of our members is looking at developing wind power opportunities. Essentially, we are growers of trees and sellers of logs. That is our business.

What can the provincial government do? You can encourage the responsible stewardship of private forest lands by maintaining a policy distinction for private forest lands — I'll talk a little bit about that — and a competitive regulatory framework. We are in a global business, and we'd better be able to compete with our competitors from elsewhere on the planet.

It's also really important that we have continued provincial jurisdiction over forest management, just like there is over agriculture. Local government is great at what it does. However, when it comes to the bigger picture, the economics, it's important that the province stays very much involved.

We also need a competitive tax model with respect to both property taxes and other taxes that affect our business. We also need free and unfettered market access.

Moving on to the next slide — that'd be No. 3 in your pack — just a bit of an overview. B.C.'s private forest operations produce 10 percent of the total B.C. timber harvest. We punch way above our weight. We represent about 2 percent of the land base. Off our 2 percent of the land base that we own and operate, we produce about 10 percent of the province's timber harvest. It's because we manage the land more intensively. We make investments that don't happen on Crown land. We have better soils. We punch way above our weight.

We have to balance our business with the needs of our community and our environmental values, society's environmental values. Seeking that balance is what drives everything we do. It's owned by approximately 20,000 people. There's a significant chunk of economic activity — taxation, revenue, jobs, that kind of thing — and, very importantly, about 4,000 direct jobs in rural areas. They're good, family-supporting jobs, year-round jobs.

We need constant support from government, not in the way of handouts or breaks or any special treats. Really, what our ask is today is what our ask always is. It's to allow us to operate our business and obey the laws of the land, as unfettered as possible, to meet the needs of our communities, meet the needs of our society. But we're not asking for any handouts, any special breaks or anything like that.

The next slide, No. 4, shows how small B.C.'s private forest land is in the big picture.

Moving on to the fifth one, just a bit of a summary here. We're certified as sustainably managed. We're regulated to protect water supply, water quality, fish habitat, reforestation, critical wildlife habitat and soil conservation. We're legally required to reforest. There is no other requirement on private land in B.C. We are subject to penalties, audits and public reporting.

Our association represents individuals, families, pensioners and investors. It's a very interesting group of people to work with. I report to a board that has large corporations and individuals — everything from big corporations to, literally, mom-and-pop operations. We're all united in our goal to do the best with our land, and we work together on our common issues.

There's a tremendous amount of dedicated and committed people involved with our business — all kinds of scientists and professionals: biologists, soil scientists, engineers, RPFs, roadbuilders, loggers, tree nurseries, mechanics, suppliers, tree planters. It goes on and on.

Key challenges. Responsible forest stewardship means economic activity and investment, but it is increasingly complex and costly — just like everything else, as I'm sure you're hearing. So we need a competitive, stable operating climate and world-class log prices in order to support the world-class forest stewardship that we do on our land.

Our number one risk regarding operating certainty and investor confidence is public policy development. I talked about how we're farmers. We're growers of trees. Our crop can take up to 100 years to mature. If we get some good land on the coast with the right species, we can get that down to around 40 years or maybe a little bit less. But there's such an immense planning and risk
[ Page 259 ]
period that we need some certainty.

Our number one source of revenue to sustain our operations is log sales. Anything that affects the value of logs in British Columbia has a direct impact on us and our ability to continue to operate.

I can't emphasize enough that we are farmers growing crops of trees. Our business is risky. Timelines are lengthy. Our crops can catch fire. They can be hit by bugs. They can blow over. They can just keel over and die for the sake of it sometimes. Anything that you hear from farmers — we have the same problems.

We also need respect and distinction for private land. In British Columbia the policy climate is dominated by Crown land, so the administrative engine in Victoria tends to be geared up for Crown land and what makes sense for common ownership.

We have some distinction for private managed forest land. And just as farmers need distinction for their land as opposed to range management, we need that distinction as well.

We are all about communication. We've put a big part of our energy and resources into communicating with our communities, with various levels of government, with our neighbours — just letting you know what we're up to and what we're doing to protect things that are important to you.

We're also really big on education. We have a best management practices program that we developed — in the mid-'90s, in fact — in order to bring all levels of forest owners, loggers, forest professionals up to the same level of practice to recognize that there are environmental values on our land and find ways to protect them.

Jumping ahead. Why is open market access important to us? I've provided a fact sheet that provides some insight on this particular issue. Domestic log markets are unviable or have disappeared. We have a very difficult time sustaining our business, just with the domestic log market. We need to be able to diversify our markets and obtain best value.

Thousands of forestry jobs depend on our ability to export. Even if it's just a certain proportion of what we harvest, it brings the average value of our crop up to a point where we're viable. Without the option to export a portion of our crop, we would not be operating. That is true of Crown operations on the coast as well.

Given that I've got about a minute and a bit left, I'm just going to point out the last three slides here. There are some key myth-buster points that I've made. We hear a lot of rhetoric, a lot of emotion, around this particular issue. I will throw out the offer to the committee, generally — or any of you, individually — that I can take you and walk you through any operation you like, and we can get the numbers and show you how important it is to have open market access — and really get into the numbers.

Just very quickly, export markets are a lifeline to private owners and Crown operators on the coast. If we weren't able to operate, there would be no wood for domestic mills either. We're at a point in history where even the mills rely on that market access. It's an important thing to remember.

Looking at the last two or three slides now. B.C., Canada, is a very small part of the global timber supply picture, so if we don't export, our customers will just buy their logs from somewhere else.

Another point I want to make is: out of every log we sell, over 90 percent of that sale value goes back to the land, back to the community, back to the workers that work on the land, to property taxes — that kind of thing. When we don't sell a log, for whatever reason, everybody suffers, and we actually take the smallest part of the pie.

L. Popham: Thanks for presenting today. I'm just going back to your comment that you're legally required to reforest. Is there a different time requirement between what you're doing and in Crown land requirements?

R. Bealing: The Crown land model is very complex. In fact, I'd welcome the opportunity to walk you through it. We have a requirement to reforest within five years and to have it satisfactorily restocked within ten.

However, because it's private land, our regen delay is more like six months. Because it's our land, we don't want it sitting around growing brush; we want trees on there.

That's something that we're immensely proud about. We do not have an unstocked problem on private land, because it's our crop.

L. Popham: Can I ask one follow-up question? Your silviculture source for trees, for seedlings. Is that something that you struggle with, or is that something that's easy to find?

R. Bealing: We tend to keep our own seed orchards. Again, because we want to have the best possible crop trees, we tend to select seed from better trees in the natural stands, and then we keep…. It's such an important part of our business, right? It's the difference between having a gnarly tree that grows this much a year and one that does that.

So we tend to do our own seed production. We also work with government, actually, to obtain seed sources from their programs as well. It's hugely important. It's just like agriculture.
[ Page 260 ]

G. Holman: A couple of quick questions. Thanks for your presentation — really informative.

You made the comment about the need for policy distinction, and you made the comparison to the agricultural land reserve. My understanding, though, is that local government rules can apply with land commission approval in the land reserve. For example, to protect riparian areas, development permit areas are allowed.

Things around riparian areas, drinking water supplies — you don't think local government has a role to protect those just like they do in the land reserve?

R. Bealing: I think local government has a strong interest. There's no doubt about that. I think the broader question is: is the province doing a good job at that? I would argue that the provincial standards, the provincial approach over water quality, water supply, is geared up to address that across the land base.

We spend a lot of time talking to local government folks. We just came back from UBCM. It's hugely important to those folks. We recognize that, and we do a lot of work with local government. But the actual kind of control over it — the regulation, the administration — is at the provincial level. I don't see a gap there, if that helps answer the question.

G. Holman: This may be unfair on my part, but my understanding is that the rules on Crown land can be somewhat more onerous than the rules that apply to private.

R. Bealing: That's an excellent point. It does get brought up. There is a perception, mainly because of the administrative model…. We have a results-oriented regulatory model that involves regular auditing and reporting. On the Crown land there's a permissive approach where you have to obtain permits to operate on the land base, but the auditing is a lot less frequent.

If I was operating the same piece of land on Crown land, I may get audited every five years or less. On private land, if I'm operating, I'm going to get audited every year.

So there's more of a…. It's different, but at the roots of it, the foundation, there are the same standards. I can't harm fish or make water unclean on private land. It's the same level of performance as on Crown land. And the best thing to do is…. I'd be happy to take you in a truck and take you out in the woods and show you what we do. That's the best way.

M. Hunt: You made the statement in your debunking that there is no shortage of timber in B.C., yet we've got the timber that all has been pulled out by the mountain pine beetle. So they're telling us that there is going to be a massive shortage about to come.

Are you dealing with the difference between Interior forests and coast forests, or what are you saying?

R. Bealing: To some extent, yeah. Just to throw that out there, there really isn't much in the way of private land in those areas either. It's not a significant proportion of private land timber available. I'm trying to tackle the myth that: "Oh my goodness, we're all running out of wood. How can we possibly send any logs to our neighbours?"

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you, Rod. Appreciate it. Have a good day. Thanks for the presentation.

Next up we have University of Victoria Students Society. I have Rachel Barr and Nadia Hamdon. Thanks for coming.

R. Barr: Thank you very much for having us. My name is Rachel Barr. I'm the executive director of external relations with the University of Victoria Students Society. I'm here today with Nadia Hamdon, who's the executive director of student affairs with the students society.

The University of Victoria Students Society represents over 17,000 students. We're here today on behalf on those members.

The UVSS is also working with 12 other students associations across B.C. The name of that organization is the Alliance of B.C. Students, and we represent more than 180,000 post-secondary students. That includes students associations from all of major research universities.

Currently the alliance is focused on three main goals. Today we're going to be focusing on two of those goals, but I'll read all three of them. We're focusing on the elimination of interest on student loans; the restoration of a provincial needs-based grant program, which was cut in 2004; and an increase of core funding to colleges and universities.

Over the last decade B.C. has gone from one of the most accessible post-secondary systems in the country to one of the least. B.C. is the only province in Canada without a provincial upfront grants program and charges the highest interest rates on student loans in Canada.

This year UVic is facing a 4 percent cut in funding, which means another year where students will pay more for less. All other universities across British Columbia are seeing cuts as well.

There is a major gap in data collection, which makes it hard to advocate on post-secondary education issues, and this gap needs to be addressed. The B.C. government
[ Page 261 ]
collects voluntary exit surveys that do not accurately reflect the current state of student debt. The government estimates that students are graduating with about $21,000 in debt. This does not take into account the private debt that students have to take on for unmet needs. As well, it is a voluntary survey, and a lot of people do not like to talk about the amount of debt they have.

A 2009 study by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation placed the average student debt in B.C. at about $27,000, but again, that was five years ago, so we can only predict that those numbers have increased. The most recent survey we have was put on by the Bank of Montreal. What they found was that students in Canada now expect to graduate with an average of $26,000 in debt, while students in B.C., they predict, actually are graduating with about $35,000 in debt. By those numbers, you can see that we are actually falling behind the rest of the provinces.

No matter what numbers you're looking at, the bottom line is that student debt levels are burdensome and unsustainable. This negatively impacts B.C.'s economy now and in the future.

Statistics Canada and the Ministry of Advanced Education need to improve their analysis of the crucial issue of student debt so we can have more accurate talks about where student debt is.

N. Hamdon: Now I'm going to be talking about needs-based grants programs. B.C. is the only province in Canada that doesn't actually have a grants program of this nature. This is a major barrier for many students trying to access post-secondary education. A provincial grants program is the key policy provision that will improve access to education. It will also prioritize families and develop the skilled workforce necessary for a prosperous economy.

As the director of student affairs, I run the student emergency food bank on campus. Year after year we've been noticing that the usage of this service has been increasing. Last year we actually had to hold a referendum to increase the funding that we have to the service in order to buy more food. Still, every Thursday I go down there just to sort of check on the shelves, and we do find that it is quite bare.

Needs-based grants programs are beneficial both socially and economically. They reduce the amount of debt that students incur, allowing them to invest in the B.C. economy. When we graduate with $35,000 in student debt, often students will defer purchasing things like cars and homes and also postpone entrepreneurial endeavours, such as starting our own businesses.

An upfront needs-based grants program increases the ability, also, for low-income students to access post-secondary education. Needs-based grants are economically preferable to student loans and back-end grants and have a direct positive impact on our student finances, because upfront grant programs reduce unmet needs that aren't covered in student aid programs, such as books, food and rent. When students receive sufficient financial aid, we are able to concentrate more on our studies rather than focusing on part-time or even full-time work.

Some of the major benefits of providing students with grants instead of loans, or in addition to loans and loan forgiveness programs, are that they reduce the accumulation of debt. Massive debt loads prevent us from moving on to a post-degree professional program or making economic investments in the province.

They also help people overcome financial barriers that prevent them from accessing post-secondary education and, in turn, strengthen B.C.'s labour force.

It also encourages British Columbians to stay in the province to pursue their education and also to stay after graduation. As gaps in the labour market continue to grow, keeping educated British Columbians in the province will be key to addressing these skills shortages.

Finally, they can be used as a tool to improve academic persistence by allowing students to focus more on academics and less on finances. Studies by organizations such as the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation describe examples of the impact of non-repayable assistance. Grants reduce student debts, improve students' likelihood of completing their studies and act as an economic stimulus.

In terms of persistence levels, students with large debt loads are more likely to abandon their studies before graduation. Students who receive a grant in addition to their loan are substantially more likely to complete their studies. Among those who qualify for more than $10,000 per year in financial aid, recipients of loans and grants are five times as likely as those only receiving loans to complete their program.

Finally, aside from the economic benefits of instituting a needs-based grants program, we also realize that this is fundamentally an issue of fairness and equal opportunity.

Now we're going to move on to interest rates. As I said before, B.C. has the highest interest rates on student loans in Canada. Right now the B.C. government borrows at 1 percent below prime and charges students prime plus 2.5 percent. That essentially is making 3.5 percent off each student loan.

High interest rates lead to debt aversion when students do not want to enter post-secondary systems or delay their graduation. Due to debt aversion, the government loses out on potential tax revenue. High interest rates create barriers to accessibility. Lower-income students pay a premium for their education, but students whose parents pay for their education don't have to. We're not really putting people at the same starting line, which I don't think we want to do in B.C.
[ Page 262 ]

I'm going to personally talk about my student debt, give you a little bit of a background. I'm sure there are very similar stories in all of the communities that you represent. I have $36,000 in student debts. I come from a low-income family. I'm actually a mature student compared to a lot of people in my program. I'm 26 years old. The reason for that is that my degree has taken — this is my last year — 6½ years. I can't take a full course load because I have to be working 25 to 30 hours a week. I definitely am not starting at the same starting line as other people.

The current system of high interest rates on student loans is detrimental to B.C.'s economy, both for students and non-students. The current loan system is unequal because it creates a barrier to access post-secondary for low-income people.

The number one concern we have heard from government about lowering interest rates on student loans is about the need to account for the high default rates at institutions. A lot of times when we're having conversations with the government, they say that the reason there are such high interest rates is because a lot of people default on their loans. But what we found is that default rates have actually dropped by 14 percent in public institutions in the last ten years. In fact, the highest default rates are at private post-secondary institutions.

Over the next ten years B.C. faces a demographic shift in which larger numbers of older workers will leave the workforce, leaving a skills shortage of younger workers without the training to fill the position.

I was recently at UBCM, where I saw Shirley Bond speak about jobs and the economy. She was saying that by 2020 there would be one million new jobs and that jobs would be looking for people. But according to the B.C. jobs plan and the Ministry of Advanced Education, 75 percent of those jobs will soon require a post-secondary education, so it's really important to think at this time about starting to invest more into post-secondary education.

One way to measure debt aversion is by the number of students who work part-time or full-time to pay for their studies. Working while studying has the effect of unnecessarily extending the length of study. This in turn limits the economic potential of student workers and negatively impacts both the economy and the tax base.

In meetings with the staff of the Ministry of Advanced Education, we were informed that it would only cost $30 million to eliminate interest on student loans. For this small cost we could boost B.C.'s economy while, at the same time, reducing barriers to access to post-secondary education.

British Columbians have spoken loud and clear on the issue of student debt. Statistics from a recent Ipsos-Reid survey conducted for the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators indicates that 92 percent of those surveyed see higher tuition fees as a barrier to accessing post-secondary education, and 84 percent think student debt makes it harder to complete programs and degrees.

Low-income students are least likely to attend college and university and the most likely to rely on social services and, in fact, have the most to gain and the most to contribute from attaining a post-secondary education.

B.C. has fallen behind other provinces who understand the economic advantages of giving people at the lowest socioeconomic level access to post-secondary education. Education has proven to raise low-income citizens out of poverty and reduces the likelihood that they will access social services and the health care system.

These programs are proven to have long-term economic and social benefits. The current government has the opportunity to make B.C. a leader in post-secondary education by making ours the most accessible and affordable system in the country.

M. Elmore: Thank you for your presentation. I was surprised to hear that you have a food bank at UVic. That's the first I've heard of that. How long has it been operating? Is that a common service at other colleges and universities?

R. Barr: It is. I communicate a lot with other student associations. If they don't already have one, they're implementing one, because they just see such a need for it. It's also important to note that when we held a referendum to increase the fees to put more money into our food bank, that's actually students' money again. They agreed to pay that extra money. But again, more students are paying money into the food bank.

Seriously, on Thursdays and Fridays, Nadia and I both kind of facilitate the food bank. The shelves are empty. We have so many people accessing it, like hundreds of people a week coming into our food bank.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. You can be assured that we're hearing a very similar message as we travel throughout…. You must be communicating with one another…

G. Holman: You mentioned somewhere in your presentation something about students staying in British
[ Page 263 ]
Columbia. Is there a relationship between, say, grants or the cost of education and students staying in B.C.? Is there some causal link there?

R. Barr: For sure. In the Alliance of B.C. Students we have a lot of grad students associations as well. For needs-based grant programs for grad students, they are leaving our province all the time, because we just are not providing them the incentive to stay here.

G. Holman: Around grad students, is there a similar phenomenon with undergrad, do you think?

R. Barr: For sure. We see students that just are low income. They are either not going to school — and we can see that we need to fill a lot of jobs and that we need people going to school — or they're leaving our province.

D. Ashton (Chair): Ladies, thank you very much for your presentation. Do we receive a hard copy?

R. Barr: Yeah, we're going to e-mail it to you. It's actually from the Alliance of B.C. Students.

Good morning. So a ten-minute presentation, then we'll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have five minutes for questions.

S. Mann: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you again this year. The Victoria Real Estate Board currently represents 1,225 realtors in greater Victoria who work with buyers and sellers of homes and other properties located from Sooke to Sidney and as far north as Mill Bay and the southern Gulf Islands.

We would like to begin with some good news about our local economy in regards to the real estate sector. On September 13 we announced that the total sales of our board's Multiple Listing Service indicate that we had the strongest summer sales in four years. The total values of those sales in the region between June 1, 2013, and August 31, 2013, amounted to $868 million.

Our median prices for single-family homes are down somewhat, but we would like to leave the impression with you again this year that we are experiencing a stable real estate marketplace. The last 90 days of data shows the trend is slowly improving for this fiscal year. Our own assessment continues to be that our southern Vancouver Island marketplace for single-family detached homes remains stable with good momentum, despite the global economic situation.

More so we argue that due to the overall stability of British Columbia's property market, our market continues to be an important economic contributor to the provincial economy. Despite this stability, we believe further economic benefits could be realized by encouraging growth in our market and by giving greater emphasis to assisting young families and young people in general to undertake home ownership.

I would like to remind the new members of this committee that over the past few years your colleagues have listened carefully and even responded positively to what our board members recommended in terms of helping first-time buyers.

In 2006, because of the rising market in our region, the Victoria Real Estate Board recommended that the threshold exemption under the property transfer act for first-time homebuyers be increased from $325,000 to $375,000. The committee listened and made the recommendations to the Minister of Finance.

In 2007 again we recommended an increase in that exemption from $375,000 to $425,000, and again the committee made that recommendation to the minister.

We would like to point out that Minister Jim Flaherty in Ottawa sensed that some encouragement for buyers was appropriate, and we now have a federal home grant for homeownership. It allows homebuyers to claim $5,000 for the purchase of a qualifying home made in a tax year if both of the following apply: the buyer or spouse or common-law partner acquired a qualifying home, and the buyer did not live in another home owned by themselves or their spouse or common-law partner in the year of acquisition or in any of the four preceding years.

There is also the federal homebuyers plan, first introduced in 1992 upon the recommendation of the Canadian Real Estate Association. The federal homebuyers plan, HPB, allows consumers to withdraw from their registered home savings, RRSPs, to buy or build a qualifying home for themselves or related persons with disability.

Based on continued work on this file by realtors and others, buyers can withdraw up to $25,000 to help with the home purchase. This RRSP contribution must remain in the RSP for 90 days before they can withdraw them under the HPB. Generally, they have to repay all withdrawals from the RSP within a maximum period of 15 years. They have to repay a percentage of RSPs each until the HPB balance is zero. If they do not repay the amount due for the year, it must be included in their income tax for that year.

The province of Manitoba has a HOMEWorks homebuyer down payment assistance program to help first-time homebuyers access new or recently renovated affordable housing with financial assistance for down payment. This program is designated for low- to moderate-income Manitobans in designated areas with income at low or below the HOMEWorks maximum household income limit.

The province of Saskatchewan has Saskatchewan ad-
[ Page 264 ]
vantage housing plan, introduced in March 2011, that includes a $5,000 matching grant per unit as an incentive for construction of purpose-built rental housing for those municipalities that belong to the program and make a contribution of equal value to the developer.

Saskatchewan also includes the HeadStart on a Home program, providing loans to developers for projects approved by the municipalities. Loans are available for 90 percent of the construction cost, including the land, with the remaining 10 percent provided by the developer. The construction is for new or redeveloped housing that falls within a certain affordable value range, and the developers must provide evidence that presales are not required.

The city of Calgary is in its third year of its five-year Attainable Homes Calgary Corp. that provides for below-market-priced units. The attainable housing program is made possible through close partnership with local builders that are able to deliver the units at reduced prices. The AHCC purchases the units in bulk directly from the builder. By buying the block of houses, the AHCC accepts the risk of marketing and selling these units, relieving the builder of some of the same costs and risks. The difference between attainable price and the market price covers the AHCC's overhead expenses, and it enables the corporation to provide a gifted 5 percent down payment to the buyers of the units, with eligible buyers not required to pay back. Applicants must be Canadian citizens and be employed in Calgary.

While we first much appreciated the former B.C. Minister of Finance's $10,000 first-time homebuyers bonus in the 2012 budget, the program was limited to only newly built homes. We propose a similar program be made available for purchase of any housing stock.

The federal government and some provinces outside British Columbia have already stepped up to assist first-time homebuyers. We think it's time for our Legislature to support our Minister for Housing in trying to improve things for young families and first-time entrants into our housing market.

We also want to emphasize the importance of the housing sector to our provincial economy. We know from research conducted by the Toronto group Atlas that for each MLS transaction in B.C. an average of $60,200 in additional consumer spending was generated between 2006 and 2008. And since we experienced a little more than 5,000 total transactions in residential sales in 2013 for greater Victoria alone, this activity will represent a $300 million contribution to our regional economy using this multiplier, and that's just post-transaction expenditures.

One can easily begin to see from this small regional example the positive impact the housing market has on the British Columbia economy as a whole. Think about when you last read a story about the national economy falling slightly. The main reason for the analysis was likely that the housing sector was in trouble.

While the market appears stable, we ask our provincial legislatures to consider how many more jobs could be created with just a bit more activity and a few more housing starts. Last year we quoted you an article appearing in the Globe and Mail with the headline: "Slowdown in Housing Activity Threatens Recovery."

The article noted that the housing sector that helped pull Canada out of recession now threatens to derail the recovery as a slowdown in sales and construction adds a drag on our economic growth. The article went on to quote CMHC to show that housing-related activity, including the rental market and the sale of existing homes, accounts for almost 20 percent of gross domestic product in Canada.

When it comes to overall housing in our market, our advice is similar to our 2012 presentation. It doesn't matter who you consult in 2013. Almost everyone is pleading with senior government to create ways for incentives of multi-unit rental housing. Right now we would even settle for a small program to help renovations of older properties.

As many British Columbia ministers responsible for housing would likely confirm for you, this resulted in very little rehabilitation for older rental units and no investments being undertaken by new owners because the properties are locked in from the marketplace. The Ottawa Ministry of Finance does not want to support changes in the federal Income Tax Act because of potential loss of revenue. We believe it's an invalid argument. They are not getting the revenue right now because the properties are not selling. And the renovations aren't losing…. It's a lose-lose situation at the moment.

We ask members of the committee to reflect on suggestions made to you this year by the British Columbia Real Estate Association on the property transfer tax. They provided some suggestions on how to begin to deal with a reduction in the burden it places on young purchasers and others. The Victoria Real Estate Board believes that introducing a credible example of a new source of revenue for our province through capital gains tax at the federal level allows us to continue the argument to reduce the overall burden of PTT.

In closing, we appreciate the opportunity you've given us on behalf of people trying to get their own homes as part of their consideration for this budget cycle, and we thank you for your consideration of what we have to say.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. There are a lot of good suggestions in it. I'd like to bounce one concept off you. I think it's come up in the past, and that is that first-time homebuyers can take, I think, $25,000 out of RSPs to buy a new house.
[ Page 265 ]
That's great if you live in, I don't know, Spud's Acre, Saskatchewan. You could probably get…. That's 25 percent, maybe, of the cost of the house. But here in British Columbia, particularly in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island, it's just a fraction.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Is there any effort or move to get the provinces, in concert with your associations, to push the federal government to recognize that significant regional disparities that exist in this country and this province in terms of the price of housing and that a more flexible approach to being able to use RSPs to get your first house would have a significant boost on the ability of many people to be able to get into the housing market?

D. Corey: I'm not sure that there's been that discussion to address the disparity nationally, but I think that's a good suggestion. I think the concern that we've been playing with along the way has related to first-time homebuyers getting in and having that money available to be able to withdraw from their RSPs. So for us, it's an issue of first-time buyers being able to accumulate those reserves, either in RSPs or for savings for a down payment. While we appreciate increasing the limit, it would help address that disparity. It's whether or not they'd be able to save that money and have it available in their RSP for withdrawal.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. Three quick questions. What's the current exemption for PTT? What's the current level?

G. Holman: I'm sorry, for first-time buyers. You were saying there was a recommendation….

G. Holman: It is $425,000. So in fact the government did accept the recommendations coming from you.

G. Holman: And you talked about renovation — a modest program for renovation for rental. Do you think LiveSmart could play a role there? In other words, renovations actually reduce energy costs and, therefore, increase affordability.

G. Holman: Finally, all of your proposals involve tax incentives particularly directed at first-time buyers. That's totally understandable. Do you still think there's a role there for non-profits, with government assistance, actually building affordable housing? You could have various names for it — social housing or…. Is there still a role for that kind of funding?

D. Corey: Well, I think that any creative solution, any private and public partnerships would be a benefit. If you leave the creation of housing solely to developers, of course they're going to want to maximize their return on their investment. Therefore, if there were some incentives that were created, it might help to produce stock that was more affordable in nature.

Just before we break, we have the Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria and the Alliance for Arts and Culture. I've got Peter Sandmark and Ivan Habel.

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming. Greatly appreciated. Please, we've allotted ten minutes for the presentation. I'll try and give you a two-minute warning. I don't want to interrupt you; I'll see if I can catch your eye. And five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

P. Sandmark: That's great, thank you. I'm Peter Sandmark. Ivan is actually the president of the Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria, so it's a little bit of a typo on there.

We're here representing 20 professional arts organizations: the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria; Ballet Victoria; the Belfry Theatre, which Ivan is also the general manager of; Blue Bridge Repertory Theatre; CineVic; Dance Victoria; Intrepid Theatre; Kaleidoscope; meeting at Open Space; the Other Guys Theatre; Pacific Opera Victoria; PUENTE Theatre; Story Theatre; Theatre Inconnu; Theatre SKAM; Victoria Film Festival; the Victoria Conservatory of Music; the Victoria Jazz Society, which puts on the festival; and last but not least, the Victoria Symphony. So a wide range.

This grouping is very interesting because it's cross-disciplinary. So it's all areas of arts. We believe strongly in the positive contribution that the arts make to our society and that funding for the arts is one of the best investments that the province of British Columbia can make.

I. Habel: I'm just going to take a moment, first of all,
[ Page 266 ]
to thank this committee, which has in the past always supported our recommendations and, also, to stress that funding from government is not a handout, as has been expressed in some quarters in other governments in the past. It's a critical investment in an industry, much like government invests in industries across the multitude of sectors in the province. This is an investment. It's not some kind of special consideration. It's an investment in a crucial industry in the province.

P. Sandmark: We know that Canadians support the arts and the government support for them. A 2012 study by Heritage Canada showed 87 percent think arts and culture warrant the support of governments in Canada, and we know there's widespread support in B.C. As to the essential value of art, it's too big a subject. It's deserving of a book. We do make some references in our brief you can look at.

I want to move to the economic value of the arts for the province. We quote, in our brief, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and agree with their statement in their report in 2013, A Strategy for Arts and Business: "The chamber firmly believes the arts and cultural sector of B.C. benefits business and contributes to building strong and economically sound communities."

We agree with them also about their comment about its role in the knowledge economy. I want to throw in, too, that there's a spectrum of cultural activity that bleeds over into the cultural industries and the arts.

Musicians, writers, actors — these people cross the line between commercial productions and the art or non-profit sector. So we don't see a clear line. The arts bleed into the cultural industry.

There are many studies that show the arts creating jobs. There's a study coming out next week, funded by the Victoria Foundation, CRD and supported by us, ProArt. We don't have it today. It's embargoed. I can't give it to you.

We anticipate it will show, like the last study done three years ago did, about $170 million in economic activity in the greater Victoria region for arts and culture. This largely derives from a seed funding of about $5.6 million in government grants from three levels of government. So we can see a large overall impact or stimulus factor from this funding, largely because people who attend arts presentations spend in restaurants and cafés before and after the events and generate a lot of spinoff economic activity.

On top of this, creating a job in the arts sector is less costly than in other sectors. This has come out of a presentation from the Canadian Conference of the Arts to the federal prebudget consultation in 2012. The average cost in the arts sector is between about $20,000 and $30,000 to create a job, compared to $100,000 to $300,000 for jobs in heavy and medium industry sectors.

Moreover, when the government invests in creating jobs in the arts, it's a safe investment. Conservative studies show a return to the government through taxes — one example, a multiplier of 1.5, from the Kamloops Cultural Strategic Plan.

Part of this is because of the diffused nature…. We describe this in our brief. Because of the diffused nature of the economic activity in arts and culture, ultimately it's government itself, on all three levels, that's best placed to benefit from the taxes generated — income taxes, sales taxes, HST as well as property taxes from the people working.

In that sense — this is our point — the government is best positioned to be the key investor in arts and culture organizations, as it will recoup that investment in the form of taxes through the diffused economic activity. It's much harder for a single investor in a single commercial venture to recoup in that way.

To echo Ivan, we really appreciate the committee's endorsement of recommendations we've made in the past for increasing support for the arts, and we thank the government for the current increase of approximately $5.5 million to the B.C. Arts Council. And their support for youth arts programming is great, because it will build the future of the arts in B.C.

Still, we need to give the youth something to aim for if they're going to choose a career in the arts. Even the recent $5 million in funding has not lifted B.C. out of the bottom of the list when it comes to per-capita spending by provincial governments. The national average is $309 per capita, and B.C. still comes in at $206 from the most recent statistics we have, which are 2009-2010.

Looking at it in a different way, the average earning for an artist in B.C. is around $21,000, compared to the average for the overall labour force of $35,000. So it's still underinvested, we'll say. We believe the sector deserves the government's support and investment as much as any other industry.

I. Habel: One of our key recommendations, which we'll get to, is about strengthening the sense of stability in the sector. Stability largely comes from predictability in terms of where some of the base funding will come from, at what levels and over what extent of time.

Building stability as well as fostering growth requires knowledge of some certainties — there are no real certainties — of what will be coming down the road in terms of planning for the future. We're certainly looking forward to some recommendations that would provide some strong advance knowledge about the levels of support and building into the government's thinking and into the Legislature's thinking a sense of cultural spending as a core policy and a core priority of government.

D. Ashton (Chair): With that, gentlemen, you have about two minutes left.
[ Page 267 ]

P. Sandmark: Thank you. That's just enough time for our recommendations, which I think flow…. You can probably guess what they are. They're in our brief.

With the B.C. Arts Council around $24 million right now, we recommend increasing that up to $32 million, with a plan to increase its legislated appropriated investment to $40 million over the following two-year period.

We also propose, in our second recommendation, increasing all community gaming grants from the current $134 million up to $156 million for 2014-15, with a goal of increasing gaming grants after that in a manner indexed to inflation, and ultimately looking at reasonable increases in the long term to foster growth.

I want to add that people in the sector feel it's good to have B.C. Arts Council and gaming. Some groups are not eligible to go to B.C. Arts Council. They can go to gaming. Some groups go to both. So it's useful to have both sources of key funding.

Finally, to touch on Ivan's point to provide stable, predictable funding, community gaming grants briefly offered three-year grants. Then when they had serious cutbacks, they pulled that back. Canada Council offers three-year grants, operating grants for arts organizations. We believe that B.C. Arts Council and gaming should do the same. You can't just build an orchestra overnight.

I. Habel: The first three recommendations are recommendations that this committee has heard before. The final recommendation is one that was introduced just, I believe, last year. That's for the province to create a capital infrastructure grant program of some kind, whether that's through the ministry or through the council or through gaming, to create a means by which organizations can find support to create venues for the creation of art and to find ways of supporting those venues.

This would be a program that is similar to many other provincial programs across the country as well as municipal programs in this province and the federal program. It could go a long way to both supporting those other levels of support and encouraging the federal government to expand and continue its cultural infrastructures program.

G. Holman: Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. The gaming grant recommendation: that would be for all community groups, not just arts groups?

I. Habel: The community arts councils receive funding. Some of them receive funding from gaming, yeah.

G. Holman: And the capital infrastructure — is there funding available now through heritage cultural spaces Canada?

I. Habel: That program still exists, until at least 2015, at which point it'll be up for renewal.

I. Habel: The only thing that is available in the province…. I'm not sure about all municipalities, but the city of Vancouver has a cultural infrastructure grant program. There is one there. If you're in the city of Vancouver — and it has to be the city, not the region — you can get some supportive funding from the city directly as well as cultural spaces.

I. Habel: As far as I'm aware, there is not only no explicit; there's not any support on a provincial level.

G. Holman: The new Building Canada fund. I understand the province is negotiating the guidelines around eligibility. Are you keeping tabs on that? Would investments in arts-related infrastructure qualify under that funding envelope?

I. Habel: There has been discussion about including some non-profit inclusion there, which would include the arts and cultural sector, but I don't know where that's at, at this point.

I. Habel: It would be something that I would recommend — that there be an inclusion there. Certainly, on that level, it would be helpful, yeah.

D. Ashton (Chair): Gentlemen, just before we recess, on line there is a budget consultation paper and an opportunity of a questionnaire. You can find it at the www.leg.bc.ca under "budget consultations." It's anonymous. I'd really appreciate some input on it. And I do try….

D. Ashton (Chair): Pardon? I thought it was. You don't have to sign it. Oh. So maybe your computer identifica-
[ Page 268 ]
tion is on it. Am I correct? So you can fill in your name. I do apologize. I thought it was anonymous.

I would really appreciate some input from your community on this. One of the reasons is that it gives the opportunity to…. We have a dollar to spend, and where do we spend that dollar? And I would like to hear from the community.

I. Habel: I've also inserted comments that say…. There are parts of the survey that are presumptive, in that we believe that the government should only be spending the dollar, rather than being at a stage where it should be spending $1.10.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, you find me the other ten cents, and we'll take a look at what we can do with it.

P. Sandmark: We've e-mailed the link to our membership and stuff like that, and we encourage them to participate.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good afternoon, everybody. Sorry for being a couple of minutes late there. That was my fault.

Mavis and Jill, we're on a first-name basis here. We're just trying to keep it a bit…. Jill and Mavis, thank you for coming.

So ten minutes for the presentation. I'll try and stop you two minutes before the end of the ten minutes so that you can wrap up. Then we've allotted five minutes for questions from the committee. The floor is yours.

M. DeGirolamo: Thank you so much, first of all, for seeing us. I'm honoured to present to you today on behalf of a concerned coalition of citizens working with immigrant settlement legal- and health-related issues.

In June 2012 the federal government made drastic cuts to health care and medications for refugee claimants in Canada under the interim federal health program.

You may well ask, at this time, why we would choose to present to a body of provincial MLAs when our concern relates directly to the cutbacks of federal government health funding to refugee claimants living in Canada. The answer is that refugee claimants will be showing up at hospital emergency departments with illnesses at a much more serious stage than otherwise. Refugees will continue to require services and will be entering our health and emergency rooms, already overburdened, to receive the services previously funded by federal interim health programs. This places the onus on the provinces to pay for these required services.

In Victoria one such family was sponsored by a community group on the original understanding that the refugees would be fully covered for medical expenses. All of a sudden they faced the possibility of having to cover substantial health bills.

Here is a small example of one of the client's issues: chronic illness, symptoms of depression, pre-arrival violence and trauma, protracted refugee camp experience, diagnosed or disclosed mental health issues, diagnosed or disclosed physical or learning disability, cultural dissonance and diagnosed or disclosed sleep or eating disorder.

Several members of this particular family had health issues. The community group struggled to get together the required additional funding to cover unexpected expenses associated with their sponsorship. Apart from this particular case, ICA has experienced many cases where physicians and/or medical walk-in clinics refused to take clients covered by the IFH program, as they do not want the paperwork, nor do they possibly even understand it.

Refugee claimants are some of the most vulnerable individuals in Canada. In most cases they have arrived in our country seeking asylum after suffering stressful, life-changing situations that often involve significant threats to personal safety, physical and mental trauma and, in some cases, torture. They are in the precarious situation of not knowing the outcome of their claims for themselves and their families for many months.

As a result of the cuts to the federal interim health program, some refugee claimants will be denied access to doctors unless their condition is deemed a threat to public health or safety. For example, many refugees living in B.C. no longer qualify for coverage for necessary medications such as insulin, a life-saving medication for so many.

Among the other health care services that have been cut for some refugees are prenatal care for pregnant women, well-child care and access to mental health care. We believe this to be inimical to the general well-being of our province as a whole. We support the Doctors for Refugee Care who believe that Canada's approach to medically treating refugees should be guided by fairness and sound public health policy. The federal government's changes meet neither of these criteria.

Cutting preventative and primary health care is poor health policy that threatens public safety and increases costs to taxpayers. The federal government's cuts to health services to refugees residing in Canada — some of whom will have just escaped war, violence or famine —
[ Page 269 ]
are unjust and counter to Canada's long history of compassion and openness.

We are urging the provincial government to support our call to the federal government to restore the cuts to the federal interim health program immediately. We do not wish to see health care eroded further, nor do we wish to see health care costs rising and refugees becoming scapegoats in this struggle for taxation dollars.

We call upon this esteemed committee to include this crisis in its reporting out to the public and to the Legislature and urge our government to communicate this concern with the other nine provinces and three territories in our country.

We further urge the committee members to join with us in this struggle to ensure that the federal government will do the right thing to protect health care services to refugee claimants living in Canada. We have appended several documents to this presentation for your edification and elucidation of this crucial matter.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Since the policy change was brought in, and I think it was….

…2012, is there any sense of the numbers of people who are being affected and any sort of data now on the incidence of individuals showing up, for example, at emergency rooms and emergency hospitals?

M. DeGirolamo: Thank you for the question. We're actually trying to get some of that information. At this point I know that the Doctors for Refugee Care have been working on attempting to get data.

In ICA, just as an example, in Victoria we had 182 refugees for the period July 11 to June 13. The government-assisted refugees were 54; non-government-assisted refugees, 41; and refugee claimants, 87. Out of these, there were also 433 clients in a category known as "other."

Some of the clients, unfortunately, are very reluctant to come forward and offer their concerns because they're afraid that it will impact on their refugee status. So it's really difficult to answer the question directly. If I'm able to get any further information, I will certainly be happy to forward it to you.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): One very quick follow-up. Obviously, the impact of any, in essence, downloading of costs would impact British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec to the largest degree and perhaps Alberta as well. Those four provinces would bear the brunt of it, I would expect.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): If we don't have data here in B.C., perhaps data from other provinces showing their experience might be useful.

M. DeGirolamo: That would help. Thank you very much. I will certainly try to get that information for you.

L. Popham: Thanks for your presentation. I commend you for working on this issue.

I have two questions. I recently heard an interview, I believe on CBC, around a maternity doctor talking about how this issue would affect our ability to deal with intake of maternity patients who are B.C. residents. Have you heard anything? Are you in contact with that doctor?

Also, have you been in contact with other groups working across Canada? And what the appetite in other provinces is.

M. DeGirolamo: Thank you, again, for the question. It's my understanding that Quebec is going to actually pick up the costs. The province of Ontario is still weighing in on this. They are struggling to come to grips with how to deal with the issues. Obviously, as you say, those are certainly the major provinces that are going to be impacted. Alberta, to my knowledge, has not yet said anything. Manitoba is another province that is directly impacted and has said it will pick up the costs at this point.

With regard to the CBC interview, we have not yet been in touch with that doctor.

M. Elmore: Thanks for your presentation and for your work on this issue. I'm very familiar. I've met with a number of individuals and organizations in Vancouver working on this.

My question is: do you have any upcoming events or activities? I understand that there's the Charter challenge going forward. Just wondering if there are any activities planned for the future.

M. DeGirolamo: Nothing directly, immediately, but certainly, there will be. Obviously, the Doctors for Refugee Care will be putting forward more than just a challenge.

M. Elmore: What is your recommendation for our committee, the Finance Committee?

M. DeGirolamo: Well, what we are hoping is that when your presentation is going out to the public and to
[ Page 270 ]
government, you will join us in demanding that the federal government restore cuts immediately.

G. Holman: Just quickly, thanks for your presentation. You were mentioning a couple of the other provinces and how they've responded, whether to pick up costs formally or not. Has there been a response from the British Columbia government at this point?

M. DeGirolamo: Well, thank you so much for allowing us to be here. We look forward to ongoing discussions.

Is it Alan Martin? Sir, welcome and good afternoon, Thank you very much for coming. Ten minutes. I'll give you a two-minute warning. Then we have five minutes for questions.

A. Martin: Super. I have provided a written brief, so what I will do is I'll just speak to it at a high level and leave the information for the members of the select standing committee to read.

On behalf of the over 40,000 members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, we welcome the opportunity to address the select standing committee. The B.C. Wildlife Federation has over 100 clubs distributed throughout the province and has a wide range of memberships from communities. It's a non-partisan organization, and it's a volunteer organization. Its priorities are basically the sustainable management of fish and wildlife populations and maintaining outdoor recreation opportunities.

We're certainly fundamentally concerned about maintaining the natural capital of this province, presently and for future generations, and maintaining access to those resources for the public. The recommendations we bring to the select standing committee basically support those larger outcomes.

The first recommendation is to provide funding for fish and wildlife management equal to the licence revenue it collects from licences and permits. As an organization, we've seen a decline in the investment in management activities for fish and wildlife and their habitats, and we think there should be a direct link between what we pay as users and the expenditures on that management.

There was a recreation stewardship report in 2002. Now, more recently, in the 2013 Liberal election platform, there was a commitment to return licence fees to the Freshwater Fisheries Society. We think those recommendations are good ones. We are pleased with the direction that they're going, and we would like to see those hard-wired into the management of fish, wildlife and the outdoor recreation it supports. I think the investment of those funds will provide tremendous returns.

In a recent study by Responsive Management, it showed that hunting by residents in the province generates over $230 million annually and the value of both freshwater and marine sport fishing generates close to $1 billion in expenditures. I think from an investment in management, it will provide returns and benefits. Certainly, as an organization, we would be willing to support that.

The second recommendation comes around sustainability issues, particularly the Water Act. I think British Columbia is at a tipping point in turns of public expectations that watersheds, landscapes and natural capital will be managed sustainably. Certainly, there is limited government capacity to manage for these outcomes by government alone. The social licence for resource developments certainly is required to prevent adverse impacts across the province.

We think that a new Water Act is vital to sustain both watersheds and landscapes. And regulating groundwater, protecting environmental flows with enforceable standards, changing the current water allocation system and addressing water supply, drought and watershed planning in priority areas are essential.

Certainly, we are apprised that there will be a paper released in mid-October addressing a number of things at a high level, but we think that it is important that any legislation be enabling, and address priority areas. We recognize that you can't do everything everywhere at once.

We also understand that there is a lot of capacity within community groups, watershed councils and others that with some funding, through bodies such as Living Rivers, could leverage community technical and financial support that would provide that local capacity to maintain these resources.

The third recommendation that the B.C. Wildlife Federation has for the committee is with respect to oversight of sustainability. We think the formation of a natural resources board that reports to the Legislature and has independent scientific support is essential to report on how the natural capital on a landscape or watershed level is being managed — and then report back directly through the Legislature.

There have been a number of articles recently in the paper about the effects across landscapes on fish and wildlife populations. We think the pressure for resource development, LNG and others, needs to be counterbalanced by having an effective natural resource board independently report to the Legislature on how these im-
[ Page 271 ]
portant sustainable outcomes are being achieved across the province.

Certainly, the province, through a number of authorizations, needs to address compensation and mitigation in a coherent fashion. Our fourth recommendation is that the draft provincial compensation policy be finalized. I think that in the longer term it will enable the management of the sustainability of those resources by either avoiding, mitigating or offsetting those impacts on a landscape or watershed scale. We believe, as an organization, that there needs to be a coherent framework for that provincially rather than having them negotiated on a project-by-project basis.

Our final recommendation is related to marine and freshwater fisheries. With the recent changes in the federal legislation around the Fisheries Act, the protection and sustainability of fish and fish habitat, I think, is being put in jeopardy because of the provisions in the act that say harm must be permanent harm under the new Fisheries Act.

We believe there are many actions in the waters that are temporary but can have profound impacts on the sustainability of fish and the fisheries they support. So we would encourage B.C. to appoint a parliamentary secretary to deal with these issues with the federal government and to maintain the interests of the province in both marine and freshwater habitats and the fisheries they support.

I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking to you. The details of this are in the paper. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

L. Popham: Nice to see you here today. I am interested in recommendation 1, specifically around the wildlife inventories. From my conversations about the province with hunters, trappers, guide-outfitters, ranchers, there is a consensus that we don't have a proper wildlife inventory occurring right now. I'd like to get some feedback on that. How much, specifically, do you think should be spent on doing those inventories?

A. Martin: I think the inventories have not been done regularly. That's clearly the place…. I think the inventories need to be planned. There needs to be a program for inventories that on an annual basis would be in the $2 million to $3 million range.

The important thing is the framework that's put in place, where the moneys from licence fees go to management activities for both fish and wildlife. The other advantage of that is, if that occurred, is, the users would respond by looking at licence fees and surcharge increases that would be proportional to the investments that are required to maintain those resources.

L. Popham: Just one follow-up question. Because inventories haven't been done consistently from your perspective, or from the B.C. Wildlife Federation perspective, do you believe we have an adequate idea of the numbers on the ground?

A. Martin: There have been reports that show the inventories have not been adequate for the management agencies to detect changes in populations. As a result, those regulations become more conservative, and it affects opportunities for all hunters — resident and non-resident hunters and First Nations.

The reduction of those opportunities certainly results in, I believe, both financial losses and losses of social opportunity for all groups. There are wide-ranging impacts of not investing in inventory. I think in the longer term it results in losses of economic, social and cultural opportunities.

M. Elmore: Thanks for your presentation and thoughtful and practical recommendations with respect to resource management. My question is with respect to the status of the revenues from fishing licences being provided to the Freshwater Fisheries Society for conservation activities. What's the status of that, and have you been in discussions for that implementation?

A. Martin: We have been in discussions. Certainly, we applaud that commitment. The whole issue of licence fees going back into management will be a subject of a core review, we understand. The commitment in terms of returning the funding to the Freshwater Fisheries Society for conservation purposes is a live issue. It's certainly being developed within the agencies.

Our view of conservation is expenditures of money to maintain the sustainability of recreational opportunities on wild fish. We don't believe that conservation means that licence holders should be supporting rare and endangered species or habitat rehabilitation through activities of other sectors.

Next, we have the Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia division. I have Jonathan and Beverley.

Welcome, folks. So a ten-minute presentation — I'll give you a two-minute notice — and we have five minutes for questions. As you can see, there are quite a few questions that do get asked, so I have to just watch the time. Beverley, Jonathan, the floor is yours.

B. Gutray: I'd just like to thank members of the select
[ Page 272 ]
standing committee for hearing our submission here today. We have presented at the standing committee since about 2004. Some of our themes remain the same, and on some there has been progress.

I want to give you a little bit of background about the Canadian Mental Health Association. We are part of a national organization. In B.C. this year we're beginning our 60th year of providing services to communities across B.C. We have 19 branches that reach out into 83 communities across the province. In any given year we provide service to approximately 80,000 British Columbians, both as far as providing information on how people can improve their mental health as well as direct service in the area of employment, rehab, housing and homeless outreach, just to name a few.

Today the two of us are going to be presenting — myself as CEO. I'd like to introduce Jonny Morris, who is our director of public policy, research and provincial programs.

We have three themes we want to talk to you about today, the first one being transparency, which we've talked about before and would like to talk about one more time. The second theme is: can we spend smarter in health and in mental health care? We believe there are some innovations that need to be highlighted, and we'll talk about them in that section. The third area is in community reinvestment. How do we help people to rehabilitate in community, recover and stay well, and support the families that support people that have a mental illness or an addiction so well? Those are the three themes.

I'm now going to turn it over to Jonny. He's going to talk about transparency, and I'm going to talk about spending smarter.

J. Morris: Good afternoon, committee members. It's a pleasure to be here, and thank you for entertaining this presentation. I'm going to read to keep to time, because I tend to expand as I go if I don't read. I'm going to just read some comments with regard to this first recommendation related to transparency, and I'd just like to note that we are planning to submit a written piece which will include these findings.

The following information will likely be familiar to all of you. In 2011-2012 the Auditor General completed an information piece that provided a fulsome explanation of health care funding in British Columbia. According to that report, almost 40 percent of the province's $41 billion of total allocations with spending were accounted for by the Ministry of Health. According to the recently released Budget 2014 consultation paper, health care spending is set to increase to 41.9 percent of the total provincial expenses of $44 billion.

As you know, almost 50 percent of health care dollars spent in 2011-2012 went to acute care — so hospital services — and a further 25 percent of the health care budget was spent on physicians and supplementary health care professionals. Of particular note — and the AG at the time also noted this — population health and wellness, an area of spending that conceivably includes efforts to prevent disease and poor health, including poor mental health, incurred less than 5 percent of total health care expenditures.

We would argue, and this is one of our first recommendations, that there's considerable evidence to support good returns on investment when you invest more heavily in the area of population health and wellness. This is an issue we explore more fully in our written submission, with examples of where you can invest in this area.

You will also likely all be familiar with a call to make substantial increases in mental health expenditures. This call has been made by many eminent reports over the years, including the Kirby and the Mental Health Commission of Canada. Our organization has nationally and provincially also repeatedly made this call, but not just to increase spending in the area of treatment. We've called for enhanced investments in the area of housing and reducing poverty amongst persons receiving disability benefits to elevate them out of poverty. All of these are key determinants of good mental health.

The magnitude of public spending on mental health and addictions is a key policy area that we are very interested in. Researchers and economists are still trying to make sense of sensible and evidence-based ways to enhance investment in an area where untreated mental illness and addictions has considerable cost implications elsewhere in your provincial budget — for example, the criminal justice system and other resources.

While the answer to how much we should spend is complex and sometimes elusive, we think the government can play a key role in being transparent in how health care dollars are applied to mental health and addictions. In referring back to the AG's information piece explaining provincial health care spending, each of the health authorities are shown to be spending different percentage allocations of their annual budgets. For example, VIHA spent 7 percent, Fraser Health spent 5 percent, and PHSA spent 8 percent. So there are some variants across health authorities which we have questions about.

Across all of the health authorities the amount of money spent on mental health and addictions, out of a total budget of $12.6 billion, totalled $915 million — just over 7 percent. In comparison, $7.4 billion was spent on acute care in hospitals.

Whilst there's clarity at the health authority level and an opportunity to measure the percent and allocations of what goes towards mental health and addictions, we would ask government to be transparent in its own commitment in reporting on what it plans to allocate to this spending area. That level of explicitness might mitigate the variance across health authorities in their level of spending.

Further, with the anticipated 2 percent increase in health care spending for the next fiscal year, we would ask that there be an explicit statement at the provincial level of what proportion of that increase will be protected and directly applied to the cost areas of population health, well-being and mental health and addictions, accordingly.

B. Gutray: Yes, and just to build on the 2 percent, I think the other piece, as we go forward into next year's budget, is to understand that we need to beef up the community sector. We'll talk a little more about that in the latter part of this presentation.

We know that health spending over time is about 6 percent, so the 2 percent is going to be a challenge for health authorities to manage. Where that 2 percent gets spent will be critical to what kind of system we build going forward. I want to speak of an example where I think we could have some really good smart spending.

We spend quite a few dollars on physicians and specialist services and medication. How can we get more out of those dollars? I'd like to pay tribute to the really groundbreaking work of Dr. Ron Remick, Dr. Chris Gorman and the Mood Disorders Association, who really developed a very innovative service around increasing access to specialists — psychiatrist services.

In this province if you're waiting to see a psychiatrist today for an individual visit, you'll wait about five months. We wonder what happens to our mental health while we're waiting that five months. For the most part, it's actually GPs that do most of the mental health care. Approximately 83 percent of British Columbians go to their GP first.

There are two places of intervention that we want to beef up. We want to make sure that when individuals go to see their family physician, they get better care — there's better knowledge by that family physician; that physician is supported by psychiatrists when they need to have higher-level skills — and that we can do something around the access to specialist service, that being psychiatrists.

In the case of the Mood Disorders Association and the two psychiatrists I'm talking about, they had one-time funding through a group called the General Practice Services Committee, which is a partnership between the B.C. Medical Association and the Ministry of Health. What they actually did is, after doing an individual visit, they piloted bringing patients into a group medical visit and actually did the psychiatric care in the visit.

Unbelievable responses. They've tracked it in terms care-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The data is solid, and it's available. We will present that further to you. That kind of innovation is about spending smarter.

J. Morris: I'll just quickly wrap up. Hopefully, we'll be able to respond to your questions too.

The other very quick piece that I'd like to comment on is spending smartly and investing in community care, not just institutionalized care. One of the key pieces that has come out recently…. Many of you are familiar with VPD's call for particular kinds of mental health supports in community, including assertive community treatment. There are certainly many out there who would argue that there is a need to have facilities to house people who are hard to treat and who are experiencing considerable distress.

The key point that I think I will end our presentation on is that institutionalized care — and it's very expensive care — is only part of the equation. The reality is that people return to communities. Currently, our communities are under-resourced, ill-equipped and ill-prepared to respond to the needs of individuals who are experiencing complex psychiatric problems.

We need to provide our communities with the supports to ensure that patients can leave facilities, and that when they do, there are places for them to live and experience recovery. I'll stop there.

M. Elmore: Thanks for your presentation. I have a question with respect to your third theme, community reinvestment, particularly around community-based mental health programs, which I understand you mentioned are more cost-effective than institutionalization and provide an avenue of support and allow individuals to transition out of institutionalized care but support them into their community. Can you talk a little bit about that?

What we have never fully implemented in a community system is a 24-hour community system. That's what we mean by community reinvestment. We mean that mental health workers, support workers are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week in community. That's part of it.

The one that works the most — and the evidence is very solid behind it — is assertive community treatment. People who have multiple challenges are supported by a very small team, and they get all of the resources necessary. The evidence has been there for 20 years. B.C. has been sort of late to invest in assertive community treatment, but it's well on its way, and the proof is solid.

M. Elmore: That's interesting. I guess there's kind of a multilayered approach in terms of community-based
[ Page 274 ]
initiatives. I know there's one program, very effective, in my area — the Art Studios. That's up here, based and run and able to support people in that transition.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Just a follow-up question on your initial part around spending smarter and the changes in terms of how services were delivered. You said it was very successful in the results. Can you get us some of the data on that? That would really useful.

D. Ashton (Chair): That input will be greatly appreciated, so if you could include all that.

Well, thank you, folks. Thank you very much for your presentation today. See you. Have a good day.

Welcome, sir. Thank you for coming today. We'll have ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a warning if I think you're going to pushing up to it, and then we've got five minutes for questions.

P. Lockie: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's prebudget consultation process. My name is Peter Lockie. I'm the VP of administration and chief financial officer at Camosun College.

We recognize and are sensitive to the fiscal challenges currently facing the province and are committed to play our part in building B.C. for the future. As more people turn to our college for advanced skills and education for employment in the new knowledge-based economy, we face both physical and financial capacity issues that, if not addressed, will limit our ability to serve our community's needs.

The current level of demand is placing unprecedented pressure on capacity at the college. In 2012-13, the last reported year, we achieved high enrolment numbers and achieved 101 percent of our ministry and ITA targets. We expect to do something very similar in this current year.

But last year, after several years of making budget cuts, we did balance our budget, and we do aspire to strong financial management of our available resources. We did end the year with a small surplus.

Camosun College's vision, which is part of our strategic plan, is inspiring lives and to be Canada's college of life-changing learning. We serve over 18,500 learners in the southern Vancouver Island and southern Gulf Island region annually, 93 to 96 percent of whom report they are satisfied or very satisfied with their education here, according to the student outcomes survey data.

Camosun offers over 160 different programs in the areas of arts and science, business, engineering technologies, trades, health and human services, sport and exercise, access and indigenous education — very comprehensive. We've got two campuses and are one of our region's top ten employers, with over 1,000 employees and an annual budget in excess of $100 million.

In addition to having an annual economic impact of $1 billion in the regional economy and $1.2 billion in the provincial economy, a recent study found that 86 percent of our graduates remain in this region to live and work after completing their studies, and 97 percent remain in the province.

The economy is beginning to recover, but in some areas that recovery is slower than in others. This year our student enrolment is continuing at high levels. We are operating near full capacity. We have wait-lists or have had to turn students away in some areas — trades foundation programs such as automotive, heavy duty, piping, mechanical and civil engineering; and some health sciences areas, including nursing and medical radiology technology.

We've also seen an increasing unfulfilled demand for retraining for disabled students and English-language training for immigrants. We continue to have strong demand and deliver results in excess of the regional population rate for aboriginal training programs. We have just over 1,000 of our student population declared as aboriginal descent.

As a result of scarce capital funding, some of our students are learning with outdated equipment and technology that makes providing the skills and education they need for employment a challenge.

The province has supplied some much-needed one-time funding for health education equipment and for trades training in the last few years, which has been welcomed. Any additional funding for this would be very beneficial.

But in order to deliver more cost-efficiencies, we need to modernize our facilities and upgrade our systems. The construction of our new centre of excellence in health and wellness has long been a priority for Camosun, and our vision is for a new state-of-the-art teaching and learning facility in health sciences on our Interurban campus adjacent to the highly successful Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence.

Camosun is very appreciative of the province's 2012 announcement to invest $29.2 million in our planned centre for trades education and innovation, which will go some way to help us meet the emerging employment needs of the region and aligns our plans with the B.C. jobs plan and the skills and training plan.

Our building infrastructure on both campuses was recently surveyed as part of a provincial initiative and showed a deferred maintenance requirement exceeding $100 million over the next five years. In other words, we would need $100 million investment over the next five years to get our campus infrastructure to a desired state.
[ Page 275 ]
So our ability to continue to maintain and operate our facilities at an acceptable level for our students and faculty is becoming increasingly challenged.

Flat operating grants, the tuition cap policy and the reduction of infrastructure maintenance funding over the last few years has meant that we've had to undertake extraordinary measures to try to maintain the range and quality of programs and services that our students demand. For the last six years, as the result of these funding challenges and rising costs, we've gone through annual budget cost reduction exercises and implemented educational cuts and administrative cost savings, which have resulted in annual savings in the $10 million range.

We continue to operate within a balanced budget and are committed to financial accountability, but in 2011 we reached the point where there was really nothing left to cut without making significant program or service reductions to balance the budget. We did so, and ultimately, we cancelled the applied communication program, which was fully enrolled and did lead to jobs.

Without appropriate funding, we expect that this regrettable trend will continue in next year's budget. Funding cuts and the absence of provincial funding for collective agreement increases will inevitably exacerbate the situation.

Camosun College plays a vital role in building B.C. by providing our students in this region with the advanced skills and education that they need to participate in our knowledge-based economy. In order to continue to do so effectively, we're requesting the following.

We require appropriate, sustainable operating grant funding. Faced with the threat of again having to make cuts that will inevitably eliminate or compromise programs and service quality at a time of extremely high demand, we request that our ministry review the funding allocation model to ensure that it more closely aligns with institutional performance.

Multi-year funding will also help our planning capability, since educational changes take time to implement. The tuition limit policy, which took effect in 2005, has now been in place for eight years. We think it is time to review this policy and evaluate its impact. There have been some unintended effects from its operation.

At the earliest opportunity government needs to increase its investment in infrastructure to address our growing deferred maintenance challenge. Government also needs to look to the future and plan for major capital needs. In our case our top priority is the construction of this centre of excellence in health and wellness.

In summary, Camosun College is a top-performing college in B.C. It is the primary provider of advanced skills and education for employment in our region. The provincial funding framework is not providing us with appropriate operating funding to enable us to continue to maintain this performance.

Investing in our college is vital to this region's future economic health, and we're a great investment. We return $5 to the provincial economy for every dollar of taxpayer financial support. We are committed to working with our community to further the economic health of B.C. by providing programs and services that result in advanced skills and education. We are leaders across the province in applied research. We are and will continue to be a key driver in regional economic development.

M. Hunt: I noticed in the brochure, in the literature that you gave to us, you have: "19.2 percent of the faculty have introduced on-line learning options to add more flexibility to course delivery." At the same time, you're also talking about building a building which is "the state of the art of a teaching and learning facility."

My question is this. Some would argue that the state of the art in teaching and learning is in fact on line rather than in physical buildings — recognizing you're most likely talking about the health and wellness, which again is a very practical, hands-on type of situation. But for those courses and those situations that are not…. I'll use the word "hands-on" as a descriptor. What is your comment on on-line versus classroom?

P. Lockie: We're certainly driven by student demand as much as anything else, but we're using innovation to introduce more and more on-line capability. Blended courses are probably the ideal — a mixture of on-line and classroom, or face-to-face, teaching. But I do think you're right. Teaching is changing over time.

We're envisaging, with our new health building, that we would be looking at best practices now and looking for innovation in the future. It wouldn't just be, necessarily, the same traditional health building that one might have built 20 years ago. It would be different. It would be looking….

For example, our trades building, which we are designing at the moment. We're looking at innovative ways of learning. Even there, there are things around the most hands-on thing you can imagine, welding. There are ways of learning welding and cooking, even, where on-line is a part of the curriculum. So it is changing.

I don't know that I've fully answered your question, but I think the mix is changing.

M. Hunt: Well, no, you're going right down the line that I think is the answer: the reality that both of them are necessary.

P. Lockie: They're both necessary, and I think the mix is evolving.
[ Page 276 ]

D. Ashton (Chair): Since there are no more questions, just a question from myself.

Is it kind of…? We've heard from numerous presenters about ongoing costs at schools and maintenance issues and that and planning for the future. But as the economy turned, and has turned previously, it's shown that more education is sought by those that don't have opportunity of employment. So is this a bit of the pig and the python that we're working through right now, with people returning to colleges, to universities to maybe change the direction that they want to take for work in the future?

P. Lockie: I think there's definitely a bit of that. I think it's sort of that currents are cyclical to the economy. The average age of our student is up in the mid-20s, and we've got a lot of older ones, as well, in that mix. The college is not full of 18-year-olds anymore. There are mid-career and people taking new career options as well.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay. Sir, thank you very much for your presentation. Greatly appreciated. Thanks for coming in. Have a good day.

D. Ashton (Chair): Kelly, we have ten minutes for the presentation — I'll give you a two-minute warning if I think you're going to be close to that — and then five minutes for questions.

Before we go on, I just want to thank you for that nice package that you sent me as a newly elected MLA.

D. Ashton (Chair): Yeah. And the little outfit that you gave was put to good use — not in my family but to some close friends.

K. Hayes: I'm very pleased to join you today. My name is Kelly Hayes, as you're aware. I'm the vice-president of the Midwives Association of British Columbia, and I've also been a registered and practising midwife in our province. I work rurally. Saltspring Island is my home. I have worked there, and I also work at B.C. Women's and St. Paul's. So I have a perspective between the rural environment and the urban, as well, for maternity care in our province.

I'm here to tell you a little bit about midwifery, the services we provide and how those services are leading to better health care outcomes and better use of health care dollars in British Columbia. These better health care outcomes are benefiting moms and their babies as well as providing efficient, more cost-effective maternity care in our province, something that we're in desperate need of.

By way of background, you may know that midwives are highly trained. We're university-educated, publicly funded, and we're regulated by the province of British Columbia.

In B.C. the training is through the University of British Columbia, and it's a four-year program under the faculty of medicine.

We're playing an increased role, and a significant role, in providing primary maternity care. In fact, midwives delivered more than 14 percent of the babies born in the province last year, which was really quite amazing.

However, we do more than deliver babies. We provide primary maternity care from early pregnancy, sometimes even before. We can do some pre-pregnancy counselling. We provide care throughout the labour and birth, and then we provide care for both the mom and the newborn baby up to about six weeks postpartum. So we are their primary caregiver during the course of that time.

We offer the same panel of prenatal testing that women are asking for and can receive in our province. The genetic screening, the ultrasounds — all of that is provided for them while they are in our care, just the same as other primary maternity caregivers.

Midwives are generally working in small group practices. There are a few solo midwives in the province. Those are generally the ones that are out in those rural environments and working on their own, so it's definitely an area that we would like to see some increased support for.

We have hospital privileges. We provide care in both the hospital and home settings, and we are available to our clients 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year. There is always a midwife available for them by pager.
[ Page 277 ]

As the demand and need for midwifery services is growing, most midwifery clinics in B.C. have growing wait-lists. While the demand for our services is growing, there is also a widening gap in maternity care services in our province.

This is due to the fact that in the past decade or so 20 maternity care services have closed in rural B.C., while at the same time the number of family physicians with obstetrical privileges has seen a sharp decline. This is despite the efforts of the General Practice Services Committee, and I think it speaks to sustainability. It's almost impossible to run a full-time family practice and be on call for maternity care.

The end result is that there is a growing shortage of maternity care. Some in the medical community — for example, Dr. Michael Klein, who works out of UBC and is an avid researcher — call this an impending maternity care crisis. This is the case in B.C. as well as across Canada. We're not unique in that.

However, it might be described that the maternity care shortage is forcing many pregnant women and families in rural B.C. to travel hundreds of kilometres in order to receive essential maternity care, and that's not okay. It's not okay because, unfortunately, we know from the research that the further women have to travel to access care, there is increased risk for both the mom and the baby. Statistics show that greater than four hours' time to access services is associated with higher perinatal morbidity and mortality rates.

Further complicating this is the compounding challenge before us of the rising rate of C-section deliveries in B.C. The rate has increased shockingly — 50 percent in 15 years — and is now the second highest in Canada at 31 percent. The World Health Organization maintains that a C-section rate over 15 percent indicates a problem with the model of care.

According to Perinatal Services B.C., the C-section rate for family physicians and obstetricians was approximately 32 percent in 2009. This was compared to 18.8 percent for midwives. I might add in that statistic that this was like women. It wasn't comparing high-risk women to low-risk women. This was the same demographic of women being compared to what resulted in a C-section versus not.

C-sections are costly. They cost the province about $4,600 each, and in 2010-2011, 13,513 C-sections were performed in British Columbia. By the same token, in that same time period midwives eliminated what would have been an additional 833 C-sections, saving the province over $1½ million just with that factor alone.

I can honestly say that the $1.5 million is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the savings that midwifery care brings to the province. I'll speak more to that shortly.

More and more, women and families are opting for midwifery care, but for many other women and families, that option doesn't exist. Again, that's about access, not having availability in communities. The problem is particularly acute for women and families in First Nations and those in many rural communities, where access to maternity care is often limited or not available at all. Again, it's partly due to the dramatic decline in the number of family physicians choosing to practise maternity care and obstetrics.

According to the Centre for Rural Health Research, the addition of midwives to the care options available to rural and First Nations communities in B.C. would significantly improve the health status of pregnant women and their babies. And it's far further-reaching that just the immediate labour, delivery, birth. It is many advantages that follow them throughout their lives.

Midwives are able to fill a void, and I can tell you that they are ready and willing to take on this work. In fact, we do have a solution that would support and enable midwives to deliver 35 percent of the births in B.C. by 2020-2021. It's a modest target when you consider that the majority of births the world over are attended by midwives. In fact, in New Zealand midwives attend 70 percent of the births.

We know that 70 percent of the women in general fall into the low-risk category. That's what we're experts in. So we know that there's room for plenty of growth.

Under this plan, midwives would fill the widening gap between the rising birth rate and the falling number of physicians who are practising obstetrics. Really, it's a win-win solution, improving maternity care, all the outcomes, while simultaneously saving the province and taxpayers millions of health care dollars.

These savings stem from the fact that women who are in the care of a registered midwife are less likely to require medical intervention. Plus, they get cute onesies. They are less likely to be hospitalized prenatally or postpartum, if at all. I'll talk a little bit more about that.

They have a lower rate of C-sections, a lower rate of preterm births and a lower rate of other obstetric interventions. They also have shorter lengths of stay in hospital or may never end up in hospital.

Home births. They save $4,000 each. We had over 1,000 last year. And I want to emphasize that there is clear research that shows us the safety of home birth with registered midwives. So we know that if we're properly supported to deliver 35 percent of births in British Columbia, we would deliver the health benefits and cost savings.

First, major inroads in addressing maternity care crisis. Second, the province would save an estimated $17.7 million per year by 2020. Third, the overall provincial C-section rate would drop. Fourth, the province would accrue a total gross savings of $103 million by 2020, with a net savings of $83 million. This would be generated by increasing the home births, increasing the number of midwives — that's actually key — and, in turn, thus de-
[ Page 278 ]
creasing the number of hospital stays.

We're pleased that the province continues to recognize the importance and benefits of midwifery. We've had some inroads. We had an announcement of an increase of ten seats at UBC last year, which was great. We've welcomed the decision to reallocate $500,000 in funding to support home births, as well as some other contributions to enhance our ability to better service expectant mothers. But the reality is that more is needed.

Specifically, we would like to see increased participation and representation within government and at policy-making tables in order to fully examine the role and improve our role in B.C.'s maternity health care system.

Incentives need to be provided for midwives to practise in underserved communities. There needs to be continued support for home births by providing long-term funding.

Positive collaboration incentives are needed to facilitate shared practices between midwives and other primary maternity care providers. There needs to be support for preceptors and a preceptor-based training program, which is what UBC is, and the infrastructure to facilitate the integration of international midwives — again, the recruitment issue.

We need to look at the scope of midwifery and have it expanded to include things like well-woman care, which is within our scope, and we need to improve the access to maternity care in aboriginal communities and rural communities, without a doubt.

We understand, in the current fiscal-environment government, we must control expenditures and spend money wisely, and we agree. That is why we're coming forth with this solution. In doing so, government can create a foundation that will lead to long-term savings and better use of scarce care resources.

L. Popham: Thanks for your presentation. I'm sure you said it, but I didn't hear it. What is the correlation between a home birth or assistance with a midwife and reducing C-sections?

K. Hayes: Well, just in general, when women are in the midwifery care, we see a significant reduction in the amount of C-sections. It's not necessarily that it's because they're at home. It's just that it's very intensive care. We're with them for very long visits, and women tend to not end up needing intervention that can snowball into needing a Caesarian. But obviously, in times when it's needed, we're there 100 percent.

M. Hunt: When my wife and I were having children, it was in the hospital, but all the ladies in the maternity ward were trained midwives — from England, usually. They were already trained in it all, but we didn't have the training here.

It seems to me, again, in the urban setting — and I'm going to take a contrast between the two — it's basically the expectant mother's choice. She goes and makes appropriate arrangements, and she has a midwife taking care of her and counselling her through the whole process.

I recognize the difference in the rural, granted. So you're suggesting that the real problem is the lack of trained midwives to be able to meet demand. Is that what you're telling us?

K. Hayes: Yes, and in fact, the urban practices all have wait-lists. So it's not just an issue in terms of: we need more midwives rurally; we need more midwives provincially. There are many, many women that are accessing midwifery care within urban centres, and we're having to turn them away.

We did have what was called the bridging program. That was federally funded. This past year, at the same time that we got the announcement we were doubling the seats at UBC, when the federal program as a pilot was being handed over to the provinces, unfortunately, we didn't get the funding from B.C.

So on the one hand, we had increased seats at UBC; on the other hand, we've actually lost those internationally trained midwives coming in — actually increases those numbers and helps build us up to that 35 percent.

We are hoping…. And this isn't within the Midwives Association mandate; it's through the Ministry of Advanced Education. The hope is that they're going to find a solution and be able to offer this through UBC.

S. Hamilton: Thank you for the presentation. Actually, both Lana and Marvin broached on a bit of the questions I had.

S. Hamilton: No, no. I'm sorry, the number of C-sections that had been eliminated — 833. What do you attribute that to? I'm curious. Is it prenatal care? Is it counselling? Obviously, in some cases C-sections are a necessary evil.
[ Page 279 ]

It's to do with the model of care. It's the type of care we provide, and because of that, we see this reduction. It's not just here in B.C. You see that reduction in other countries, many where midwives are the primary maternity care providers.

S. Hamilton: Okay. There's a lot of counselling associated with that, I would imagine.

S. Hamilton: The four-year program that you spoke of at UBC — is that an applied program, or is it a nursing degree?

K. Hayes: No, it's what we call direct entry. I was actually in the first graduating class in 2005.

K. Hayes: It's four years of maternity care. That's all you're doing in those four years.

S. Hamilton: I remember the days when midwifery was a deep, dark thing that nobody wanted to talk about, and it was always being debated and reanalyzed. I'm really glad for the work you're doing.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. It's on file. Have a good afternoon.

As you can see, we have a ten-minute presentation. I'll try and give you a two-minute warning. Then, as always, there are usually lots of questions that take it right up to the 15 minutes. The floor is yours.

J. FitzGerald: Well, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today. It's a pleasure to be here in beautiful Victoria. Somebody told me last night that the sun always shines here, and I'm inclined to believe them, looking out on the harbour here today.

My name is John FitzGerald. I'm the director of government and regulatory affairs at Imperial Tobacco Canada. We are Canada's leading tobacco company, and we employ about 600 people across the country.

Let me open by stating that we can probably agree on several points. First, there are significant health risks associated with smoking, and the simplest way to avoid these risks is to not smoke.

Second, children should not have access to tobacco products. We don't market our products to children, and our commercial activities are geared towards those adult smokers who have already made the conscious decision to smoke, armed with the full knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking.

Third, because of the health risks associated with smoking, we agree that there is a need for tobacco regulation. We support sound regulation which is consultative, evidence-based, delivers its policy aims and recognizes unintended consequences.

I would also like to point out that our company strictly follows the over 200 laws and regulations governing the manufacture and sale of tobacco in Canada and pays all required taxes, including about $280 million per year in the good province of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for those involved in the illegal tobacco trade, who play by a completely different set of rules and continue to capture a sizeable share of the Canadian market. This issue is the focus of my submission today, as it is very relevant for the province of British Columbia.

To date, you are indeed fortunate in this province to have escaped the worst of Canada's illegal tobacco contraband crisis. The recommendations we offer in this prebudget process are designed to keep contraband from ever expanding here.

Before I get to our recommendations, let me share some of the facts about illegal tobacco in Canada, further detail of which is contained in our formal written submission. Over the past ten years the realities in other parts of the country are startling: contraband tobacco levels reaching as high as 40 to 48 percent in Quebec and Ontario and 15 percent in Atlantic Canada; $1.5 billion in lost tax revenue annually for governments across Canada; the continued enrichment of 175 organized crime groups involved in the illegal tobacco trade; and the undermining of every single tobacco control measure put in place by governments.

The province should also be concerned about the massive tobacco tax increases implemented in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in 2013, which greatly improved the economics of contraband in those provinces for the illegal operators. If, as we anticipate, the illegal operators begin to focus more on those provinces, it brings them closer again to the British Columbia market. Already there is a court battle over a smoke shack that opened in Manitoba.

Another genuine threat for B.C. is the still unresolved case of Rainbow Tobacco, in which 16 million illegal cigarettes were seized in 2010 on the Montana First
[ Page 280 ]
Nation reserve in Hobbema, Alberta. The company that provided these cigarettes was Quebec-based Rainbow Tobacco, which was engaged in an aggressive expansion plan in western Canada to sell its tobacco products. This is the same company supplying the Manitoba smoke shack mentioned a second ago.

Both cases are still before the courts and could have profound implications for tobacco sales across Canada, including here in B.C. The fact that Rainbow Tobacco products have been seized in B.C. and Manitoba should be further cause for concern. It is proof of Rainbow Tobacco's stated intent to expand their market.

How did this happen? The contraband tobacco market is driven by simple supply-and-demand economics. On the demand side, successive tobacco tax increases across Canada have created consumer demand for cheaper alternatives, with illegal tobacco prices ranging from $8 to $20 per carton of 200 cigarettes compared to $70 to $120 per carton for legal cigarettes, depending on the province. In B.C. a legal carton costs roughly $97.

As taxes rose, criminals recognized this demand and moved quickly to supply it. According to the RCMP, there are now 50 illegal cigarette factories on Canadian soil and over 300 First Nations smoke shacks, mostly in central Canada, selling tobacco outside any existing legal regulatory and tax frameworks. Criminal networks are trafficking that tobacco across Canada as far east as Newfoundland and as far west as British Columbia.

Make no mistake: contraband is already in British Columbia, and the market conditions favour its expansion. In this province you have also the added threat of counterfeit shipments from China and Asia, which are driven by the same supply-and-demand economics I've just mentioned.

To date, however, the good news is the supply in British Columbia is not meeting the demand to such a degree that you have seen a contraband explosion like that in the eastern part of the country. However, that could easily change if market conditions tilt further in favour of the illegal traders.

We have two recommendations to avoid that. First, the link between high taxes and contraband is well documented, and our written submission cites a number of studies in this area. We urge this committee to recommend no tobacco tax increases in the next budget. Any additional increases, including the one taking effect on October 1 this year, will only serve to further improve and enhance the market conditions for the illegal operators since the price gap between legal and contraband cigarettes will get bigger.

I would also point out that B.C. has a highly enviable position compared to most other provinces. You have the lowest smoking rate in Canada. You have a budget surplus. Therefore, there is no immediate need to increase taxes for fiscal or public health reasons and risk upsetting the progress made on both fronts.

That risk is very real. Several of the studies cited in our submission found that tobacco taxes reach the level at which they are counterproductive since they stimulate illegal trade, which then floods the market with cheap, unregulated tobacco.

For our second recommendation, we encourage British Columbia to become more vocal in demanding national action to address contraband. Many promises have been made federally and in Ontario and Quebec, which are the provinces supplying the national contraband market, but there has been little concrete action. That inaction puts all provinces at risk.

Our recommendations are designed to address both the supply-and-demand sides of the contraband equation. We believe they will protect your budget surplus, maintain your public health objectives and keep illegal tobacco levels in this province lower than in the rest of Canada.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): I just want to ask a question, because we haven't had the problem in this province that they've had back east — in Ontario and Quebec, in particular, and the Maritimes. You raise this issue of Rainbow Tobacco shipping out of Quebec to Alberta. I'm interested in how that works. How does it work? How does this take place?

J. FitzGerald: If you look at the history of seizures by the RCMP since 2009, you can see that the supply chain and the supply route started in Ontario and Quebec and moved east towards Nova Scotia and New Brunswick up the Trans-Canada Highway.

Since 2009 and into 2010, '11 and '12, as that area has become saturated with supply, they have simply expanded west. We know that Rainbow Tobacco has been caught in Alberta moving product from Quebec through Alberta via Winnipeg.

J. FitzGerald: They're an illegal tobacco manufacturer based in Akwesahsne in Ontario.

J. FitzGerald: Yes it is — the First Nations reserve. We have 50 illegal tobacco manufacturers across Canada, mainly on First Nations reserves.
[ Page 281 ]

M. Elmore: Thanks for the presentation. So they import tobacco and actually manufacture the cigarettes that are traded.

J. FitzGerald: We have a problem with the supply chain of raw-leaf tobacco in Canada. We contract with our tobacco growers to pay a certain amount of money per pound for tobacco.

So let's say farmer A is growing 100 pounds of tobacco for us. We'll pay about $2 to $2.10 a pound. If that farmer grows 200 pounds of tobacco, the illegal traders will knock on the door and say to the farmer: "I will give you $8 to $10 per pound for your extra 100 pounds of tobacco, tax free. Cash in hand. No questions asked." It is a very attractive proposition if you're a tobacco grower. That's where the tobacco comes from. And in addition, we see tobacco coming from the United States into Canada, into the illegal factories.

M. Elmore: And is there product that is imported from Asia? You made reference to that.

J. FitzGerald: I think in British Columbia, in particular, there is a threat from counterfeit product coming into Vancouver. You see, over the last several years, a number of major shipments of counterfeit cigarettes being seized in the Port of Vancouver — yes.

M. Elmore: Basically, a smoke shack…. Is that just like a storefront that sells the product?

J. FitzGerald: A smoke shack is a retail outlet, again, on First Nations reserve territories. They openly advertise and sell tobacco products of all descriptions, not asking for any identification. They will sell to anyone, and they will charge a fraction of the cost of the legal cost of cigarettes.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. You quote the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Do you happen to know their view on your proposal to constrain or reduce tobacco taxes? You mention in here that they're recommending innovative solutions. Can you give me an example of what that might mean?

J. FitzGerald: The solution to the issue is very simple. We abide by 200 laws and regulations to bring our product to market, and we would welcome the competition from some of the illegal manufacturers if they also chose to abide by the 200 laws and regulations. They choose not to.

The solution is very simple. Shut down the illegal factories and the smoke shacks, or bring them under the law. I understand that this is a very politically charged and sensitive issue, so other solutions could include mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders in relation to trafficking contraband tobacco, which has been a promise of the federal government, and introducing 50 new RCMP officers to focus solely on contraband tobacco. Again, that's another promise that the federal government has made.

The federal government has also promised to implement a public awareness campaign around the nature of contraband tobacco and the fact that 175 organized criminal groups are involved in the trafficking of tobacco.

The reality is that the funds and the profits from tobacco trading and illegal tobacco trading is funding drug-running, gun-running and people-smuggling.

J. FitzGerald: The CMA specifically in the paper were referring to the challenges with those people who chose to smoke illicit tobacco. In their report they indicated that they tend to smoke more, because it's illicit. They tend to find it much more difficult to quit. I think, in terms of innovative solutions, the exact position of the CMA…. I'm not 100 percent sure, to be honest.

However, I do know that maintaining tobacco tax levels or even reducing tobacco tax is one innovative way of addressing the contraband problem.

Canadian Sport Institute…. Sir, you're with Imperial, are you — at the back?

D. Ashton (Chair): We have five minutes reserved for questions. The floor is yours.

W. Pattenden: Thank you, everyone. My name is
[ Page 282 ]
Wendy Pattenden. I'm the CEO of the Canadian Sport Institute Pacific, here in the Pacific region. We're a not-for-profit organization with the mandate to deliver on the sport excellence priorities for both the federal and provincial governments.

We work hard to ensure that athletes and coaches have every advantage to compete on the world stage and win medals for Canada. That's what we do, day in and day out. If you think of us as the pit crew…. We have a team of sport scientists, sport medicine. We're the team around the team that sends Canada abroad to world championships, Olympics and Paralympics.

I would like to start off by saying thank you for your continued investment in sport in this province. Whether it was the recent Olympic and Paralympic Games in London or the upcoming games in Sochi, this government's commitment to sport has helped our athletes and coaches inspire a culture of excellence.

The medals earned at major games showcase sport as a vehicle for health and success, which results in a trickle-down effect to the grassroots initiatives in this province. As a result, we have strong and vibrant sport programming from the playground right through to the podium, and that's critical to the health and happiness in British Columbia.

It's also important that we create a long-lasting sport system that supports our citizens to be active for life. We encourage this government to consider multi-year funding to the sport system. The reason I say that is that often it's annual, year to year. I have the benefit of having linkages federally, provincially and municipally. If we had multi-year funding commitments, I could leverage those dollars into partnerships with other groups — education institutes and that. So I would ask this committee to consider a multi-year commitment.

We've worked very hard to become effective in the delivery of programs and services. Through the creation of ViaSport, we have restructured to eliminate duplication and to share more services to reduce the administrative costs. At our institute, we know that high-performance sport is a key part of the sector, and our Olympic and Paralympic athletes are vivid examples of excellence.

I'm not sure if you recall London, but I'll give you a couple of stats. In London, B.C. athletes brought home 50 percent of the medals for Canada on the Olympic side, which is a huge accomplishment. That really is speaking to the point that our system here is working. On the Paralympic side, it was 29 percent of the medals for Canada. Certainly, I believe that in this province we're overachieving in high performance.

With these impressive results, it is paramount that our institute be armed to capitalize on the momentum built by our athletes' successes from London as we prepare for Sochi. To ensure that B.C. athletes and coaches have access to world-class daily training environments and the staff and facilities needed to ensure success, our organization supports an evolution to multi-year funding commitments. We do feel that that will help tremendously.

We have been able to secure federal funding over the past couple of years as a result of our provincial dollars. We did have the sport legacy fund for three years, that 2010-2013 period.

What ended up happening with that was I was able — to give you a concrete example — to leverage $650,000 from the federal government to match those dollars, because we had a three-year commitment at that time. Certainly, that's the avenue we would like to continue with.

Another area that's key for our institution is sport innovation. It has proven to be an excellent cross-sector avenue offering opportunities for technology and health industries to benefit from sport findings. Our institute partnered with Camosun College a few years ago to develop the Sport Innovation Centre here in Victoria. The acronym is SPIN. I think you know, in sport, we have a lot of acronyms.

SPIN has gone on to research and develop a number of products that were originally intended to benefit high-performance sport but then ended up actually having everyday applications. It's certainly making a difference in that regard.

You should know that we have just hired one of the world's leading nutritional physiologists, Dr. Trent Stellingwerff, to lead and expand our innovation strategy to include opportunities for interested post-secondary education institutes to partner with us moving forward. Certainly, this is an area of emphasis moving forward.

We are funded to deliver sport services, yet we continue to promote a culture of innovation amongst the scientists on staff to ensure our athletes are supported with leading-edge knowledge and technology to remain at a competitive advantage. To compete on the world stage, I call it a sporting arms race. Like, it is extremely competitive, and we need innovation behind us in order for us to have these continued types of success.

The idea of watching athletes, whether it's B.C.-based Olympians or Paralympians, compete and step onto that podium is something we know inspires young people to pursue their own pathway in excellence. As a result, we are helping up-and-coming athletes become complete champions through the IGNITE athlete development program. That's another program we run, provincewide, through our PacificSport Centres. It's built around a strength and conditioning program and giving them those athletic foundational skills they need so that when they do make it to the national team, they're well prepared.

Through funding from the province of B.C., we also have implemented the Canadian sport school program in Kelowna, Victoria and Prince George. We've had two years of great success with that program. That would be
[ Page 283 ]
the next generation of athletes that we're supporting in those communities.

A key component of this sport school is the provision of personalized learning plans for athletes. I'm sure many of you have been involved in sport in your life. Once you get to that level where you're competing for Canada, education becomes paramount and you need to be in an environment like the Canadian sport school so that you can balance both your education and sport needs.

To help ensure that high-performance athletes in every region in B.C. will be prepared for the demands of sport at the highest level, we would like to see this sport school concept be expanded around the province. Like I said, right now it's in three locations and operating very successfully.

British Columbia is a leader in Canada when it comes to recognizing the power of sport and investing in a culture of excellence. Thank you for your continued support for sport. Together we will help athletes win medals for Canada, inspire our citizens to use sport as a vehicle for health and excellence in their own lives and build vibrant communities from the ground up, through sport for life.

Thank you very much for coming forward — greatly appreciated. Have a good day.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Hi. Welcome. As you no doubt heard, we've got ten minutes for a presentation. I'll give you a warning at the two-minute time limit. And then five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

P. Lawless: Great. Thanks very much for letting me come and have a chat with you. I know you guys talk to a lot of people and hear a lot of statistics and a lot of stories and things like that. But I'm pleased to be one of those people.

Firstly, though, I want to say thanks for all the funding you've provided to the sport area in the past. As you just heard from Wendy, it has made a difference. It really has. I've been involved in sport for a whole bunch of years. I've had the pleasure of meeting some of you before. I'm in a couple of capacities. I'm on the board of the Canadian Olympic Committee, so directly involved in doing my best to deliver some of those medals for Canada and for British Columbia.

I'm also the president of Coaches of Canada, which is the Canadian professional coaching association. Every high-performance coach in this country is a member of my organization and is solely focused on delivering those things for Canada and for British Columbia, including all the coaching staff that would be at Wendy's organization, for example.

Beyond that, I guess I have a more direct connection with some of you in that I happen to be Michelle Stilwell's coach. I think — I suspect, actually — you guys would all know who Michelle Stilwell is — one of your MLA colleagues.

I've had the pleasure of working with Michelle for nine years. When I met Michelle, she was a former athlete. She had retired from athletics. She had been a basketball player, as you would know. She won gold in Sydney in 2000. She reinjured her neck post-Sydney and was a mom. She was coaching basketball and kind of living a different life.

I had the fortune as a coach to meet with her at a coaching conference that was sponsored in part by funds received via the province of British Columbia. At that conference I noticed her. That really was the kicking-off point to her current career as an athlete.

It was a simple connect. It was one of those moments in time where things change dramatically. She went from being, in a sense, a soccer mom…. I don't mean that in a negative way at all; I think soccer moms are tremendous. But she went from that to a high-performance athlete to, now, an MLA with you.

That can be directly triggered by the influence of a coach, and I don't mean that to be self-aggrandizing. The systems we put in place, the way we fund our coaches, the way we fund our programs, organizations like the Canadian Sport Institute that you just heard about, have been critical to that development.

Coaches are the greatest leaders in our system. Without the coach, you'll never have a great athlete. You'll never have a great athlete without a coach; you'll never have a coach without an athlete. Those two have got to be there.

And the third piece to that pyramid, in my view, is facilities. You've got to have a place. You need a location, and often locations are the underfunded pieces.

You've got the person. Like, Michelle will train in her office downstairs. We would meet outside in the rain at the Duncan track and do our bit. But we needed somebody else to help. We ended up leveraging funds through the national organizations as well.

We went to a wind tunnel. We did aerodynamic testing. We did all of those sorts of things that led to a gold and a silver medal in London.

As her colleagues in caucus and otherwise would know, we also went to the world championships in Lyon, France, this past year and, I'm proud to say, demolished the 800-metre world record. So now we own the 100-, the 200-, the 400-, and the 800-metre world records.

And I think that's more than just a medal. Sport isn't just about medals. It's not just results. It's not just performances. Sport is more than that. Sport is about healthy living. Sport is aspirational. Sport is something that gets communities engaged. Participation in sports builds communities.
[ Page 284 ]

Go out to any soccer field any Saturday morning anywhere in this province, and you will see communities getting together. And the person leading that, you'll see, will be a coach. Ideally, they'll be a certified coach. They have to be certified. We have to have quality people doing this work.

They're building community. They're building citizenship. These people will be our future leaders. They're learning skills, these athletes. These kids are learning skills far beyond kicking a ball or throwing something. They're learning things that will go far beyond all of that.

I would say to you that sport is also for life. Sport isn't simply seeing Michelle on the podium. It's not just that 800 metres. Don't get me wrong. I'm going to trot out that 800-metre story probably for the rest of my life, so maybe that particular one is my life. But sport is much more. It's the sense of engaging with other people.

It comes at a cost. I think one of the fears I have for sport in the province is that we all kind of agree on that. Everyone is going to probably nod and say: "Yeah, sport is good. Yeah, it's healthy living. Yeah, it's okay." There's no fight. So it's easy to kind of just draw a line through a number and take a nine to an eight or take a two to a zero. I think that comes with great cost.

I know for sure — I can use the example of Michelle — that getting re-engaged in sport, re-engaging in physical activity, not only high-performance, led to a healthier lifestyle. That healthier lifestyle had a direct correlation to a reduction in health care costs incurred by the province of British Columbia, guaranteed — less surgery, less attending care. It doesn't happen with healthy, active people.

And you can be healthy and active for life. It doesn't matter whether it's going for a walk at lunch or whether it's going for a run in the morning or going to the Olympics or Paralympic Games. It's that aspirational piece that is of benefit to all of us.

Specifically, with respect to some of the coaching, I would say to you that the coaches in our province accumulate years of experience. They exist to nurture that development in others, and they themselves turn other athletes into coaches. I'd say to you that the coaches' impact on our communities and our participants is unparalleled. It affects the B.C. sports system in its entirety. A great coach inspires lifelong participation in sport and physical activity, but a single negative experience can completely change that.

If you or any citizen in the province take the time to walk into a gym, to join a club, to make that leap of faith, you deserve somebody on the ground there to help you, to guide you, to nurture you, to get you to the next step, whatever that might be.

Our next presenter is British Columbia School Trustees Association — Teresa Rezansoff. Welcome. You know the drill. We've got ten minutes for presentation and then five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

T. Rezansoff: Thank you very much for having me. I hope your day has been going well. I know this is a long task ahead for you guys, to be listening to all these presentations.

One thing that I want to say that struck me as I just listened to the two previous ones — and I can imagine the things that you've heard as you've been listening to this — is that there's a common place where all of these dreams and aspirations start for the organizations that have been coming and talking to you, and the different groups. That's in our schools. That's that common place. That's where we grow our citizens. It's where our athletes come from. It's where every fabric and piece of our communities come from. It starts in our schools.

On behalf of B.C.'s 60 publicly educated boards of education, I really do appreciate this opportunity to present to the committee. This is my first time. What you have in our formal submission and I know you will have gotten from other school districts around the province are the things that have been heard and said before. I want to focus on a few things that are a little bit different for you today.

I also want to recognize and celebrate the importance of the work done by teachers, our support staff, administrators and trustees for students in local communities throughout the province.

I will try to keep myself brief, and hopefully you will ask questions of me. Please feel free to interrupt me and ask questions as I go through. We do want to address some of the funding issues that are currently impacting students.

We absolutely acknowledge that government expenditures on education have remained constant while other ministries have seen reductions. But as Minister of Education Peter Fassbender acknowledged in a recent letter to us, costs are also increasing for boards. While the per-pupil amount has gone up on paper, as a result of declining enrolment the envelope has not changed. There has been no positive impact on the ongoing cost pressures faced by boards. The simple fact is: unfunded cost pressures outpace any increases in funding to school districts.

There is context around every single line on our balance sheets. That context is based on decisions that are made based on the local needs of students and their learning needs and requirements.

I want to talk to you about a very critical message, and that's regarding surplus or contingency funds that are be-
[ Page 285 ]
ing held by boards. We often hear, out and about, from MLAs and questions that are directed to us, about what those funds are all about and why we hold on to them.

You know that boards of education are not allowed to incur a deficit, and while it's true that for many different reasons some will end their fiscal year in the positive, there are a myriad of different reasons there. You could have your teacher-on-call costs that were less for that year. You've had a cool summer and a warm winter, and your heating costs and cooling costs are less. Timing of things that come into your school district — all of those things contribute to what that looks like at the end of the year.

It is a misrepresentation to say that boards are sitting on large reserves. Most of the funds that we have are allocated to support special programs, non-capital improvements, and to ensure stability and program delivery from year to year.

When we sit down and look at our budget, we're not looking at it as a one-year snapshot. We are looking at it on three years. We're looking to ensure that as we look at where our enrolments are, where our funding is going to be, we will be able to provide that stability that our students need to ensure that they will be able to get to where they need to for graduation.

We're always looking to the future to ensure stability. Many boards save dollars for things they can't afford in one budget cycle. Maybe they need to do computer replacements in a school and they need to save dollars to be able to do that. That's that line that you'll see for contingency or surplus funds. Boards of education work very hard to plan for stability, and they do this with careful consideration and in consultation with their local school communities.

I also know that treasury often looks at the cash balance that we have on our books. Again, there's context around that. Because of accounting requirements, we need to be able to have those unfunded liabilities. Our sick leave, our vacation time and banked time need to sit there as a cash number, so there's the context around that. Really, to suggest that boards are sitting on surplus money, just sitting for no reason, is a mischaracterization, and it's not the case. This misconception just cannot be allowed to drive future funding decisions at the provincial government level.

In government's January 2013 document Working Together for Students Premier Clark emphasized the critical importance of providing long-term stability in our education system to serve the interests of British Columbia students well into the future. We completely and wholeheartedly agree. I would like to add that stability is achieved not just through labour peace but through increased stable and predictable investment in public education, funding to support labour peace and funding to maintain the programs needed by today's students and for tomorrow's workforce.

Finally, I'd like to speak to the value of your locally elected boards of education. Each of you here today has been elected by your communities to represent their interests on important provincial matters. Just as is the case for mayors and councillors, school trustees are locally elected by the citizens of our communities to represent their interests, our children's futures.

There is no one-size-fits-all in education, and it can be tempting to look for easy answers. The community of Cache Creek is not the same as Port Coquitlam, which is different than Vancouver or Skidegate. The B.C. education plan recognizes the unique nature and needs of individual students, and locally elected boards of education recognize and know well the unique nature and needs of our communities. If British Columbia is to fulfil the government's vision of prosperity into the future, if we are to have the jobs and the skilled workforce to fill them, we must increase our investments in public education, and we must continue to honour and engage the uniqueness of local communities through their locally elected boards of education.

Right now there are over 500,000 students in our classrooms — actually, 564,530, to be exact — and they will one day leave school to become the doctors who care for us; the teachers who will teach our grandchildren; the workers who will build our highways, run our LNG plants and perhaps even one day sit in this room. They deserve, and our province deserves, everything that we can give them.

Seeing none, if I may be bold for a moment…. My name is Dan Ashton. I'm a former mayor of Penticton. We entered into an agreement with the school board to put municipal funds towards improvement to the playgrounds so that the community as a whole could utilize those fields at times other than when required by the schools. It was a very good project.

However, the upkeep of the fields was not…. It's indicative of what it was with our parks. We started getting some complaints, especially from some of the sports teams. We went to the school board with a suggestion, and a suggestion that would have….

I'm just using myself as an example because I can. Penticton was challenged financially, and we had to make some tough decisions. We went to the school board to absorb the ongoing maintenance and the members of the union within ours, with no loss of jobs whatsoever. There may be some realignment upon retirement, but there was a guarantee that there would be no loss of jobs, and we couldn't get support for it.

One of my questions is…. Actually, I won't phrase it as a question; I'll phrase it as a suggestion. In times like what we're facing and maybe will face for a while, I really think
[ Page 286 ]
that we need to take a look at all aspects, especially in….

I read your presentation very quickly, and you mentioned four or five different areas. Yes, they are all different, but yes, a lot of them face similar issues. There may be opportunities to work with municipalities and regional districts because, really, there's only one taxpayer. Something to think about.

T. Rezansoff: Well, actually, I'm very glad you said that. I think that every school district can provide examples. It might not be that exact example, but many school districts across the province can provide examples of where they have worked together. Yeah, sometimes there are things that get in the way with that, but I absolutely agree with you that the more that we can do to get together, the better. We are all making strides in that direction.

D. Ashton (Chair): We did take the first step between the city and the school board, but there were opportunities of additional steps. I need to be frank: the silo effect got into it. I really think that sometimes we, collectively — boards, regional districts, municipalities — need to take those blinders off and start thinking about all the citizens that we represent. Each of us is a portion and a part of that community or communities that we live in.

I'll just leave it at that, but thank you for your presentation — greatly appreciated.

J. Tegart: I would just like to say thank you for the presentation. Certainly, public education and representation around public education is so critically important. As Chairperson Dan said, we all have one taxpayer. Certainly, the willingness of all local governments to work together is being seen across the province. No doubt there are barriers, but I think we are all looking for innovative to see those barriers go away. So thank you for the work you do.

Have a great day, everyone, and to the committee, I'll call for an adjournment at this point in time.

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.

Chair:	* Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Mike Farnworth (Port Coquitlam NDP)
Members:	* Mable Elmore (Vancouver-Kensington NDP)
	* Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	* Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
	* Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	* Marvin Hunt (Surrey-Panorama BC Liberal)
	* Lana Popham (Saanich South NDP)
	* Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Gordon Robinson (Committee Researcher)

Witnesses:	Rachel Barr (University of Victoria Students Society)
	Rod Bealing (Executive Director, Private Forest Landowners Association)
	Dr. Allan Cahoon (Research Universities Council of British Columbia; President and Vice-Chancellor, Royal Roads University)
	Jamie Cassels (Research Universities Council of British Columbia; President, University of Victoria)
	David Corey (Victoria Real Estate Board)
	Mavis DeGirolamo
	John FitzGerald (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.)
	Linda Geggie (B.C. Food Systems Network)
	Kathleen Gibson (B.C. Food Systems Network)
	Beverley Gutray (CEO, Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. Division)
	Ivan Habel (President, Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria)
	Nadia Hamdon (University of Victoria Students Society)
	Kelly Hayes (Vice-President, Midwives Association of British Columbia)
	Doug Hayman (Board Voice Society of B.C.)
	Madeline Keller-MacLeod (Camosun College Student Society)
	Wendy King (Central 1 Credit Union)
	Peter Lawless (President, Coaches of Canada)
	Jill Leslie
	Peter Lockie (Camosun College)
	Shelley Mann (President, Victoria Real Estate Board)
	Simka Marshall (Camosun College Student Society)
	Alan Martin (B.C. Wildlife Federation)
	Dr. Carol Matusicky (Chair, Board Voice Society of B.C.)
	Jonathan Morris (Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. Division)
	Kimberley Nemrava (Canadian Red Cross Society, B.C. and Yukon)
	Helmut Pastrick (Central 1 Credit Union)
	Wendy Pattenden (CEO, Canadian Sport Institute Pacific)
	Blair Qualey (President and CEO, New Car Dealers Association of B.C.)
	Jim Reed (President, B.C. Colleges)
	Teresa Rezansoff (President, British Columbia School Trustees Association)
	Peter Sandmark (Executive Director, Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria)

1) Camosun College Student Society	Simka Marshall
	Madeline Keller-MacLeod

2) The Research Universities’ Council of British Columbia	Jamie Cassels
	Dr. Allan Cahoon

10) University of Victoria Students’ Society	Rachel Barr
	Nadia Hamdon

12) Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria	Ivan Habel
	Peter Sandmark

15) Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia Division	Beverley Gutray
	Jonathan Morris

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES