Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 18 — Tuesday, October 8, 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; John Yap, MLA

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

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	517
M. Sadd
G. Wallin
T. Hoffman
B. Carruthers
G. Young
A. Richmond
C. Mumford
G. Wallis
W. Cobb
B. McQuarrie
J. Ryll
C. Huffman

D. Ashton (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. We are 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 you in attendance today. Thank you very much for taking the time to attend. We really do appreciate you participating in this important process.

Every year the Minister of Finance releases a budget consultation paper. The paper contains a fiscal and economic forecast and key issues that need to be addressed in the next budget. Once a consultation paper has been released, this committee is required to hold provincewide 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 hearing is one of 17 scheduled to take place in communities throughout the province. All British Columbians are invited to be 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.

I should also mention that the committee has agreed to accept submissions regarding the core review as part of our budget consultations. We have been advised by the government that the committee will not be the only avenue for public input on the government's core review.

The deadline for submissions is Wednesday, October 16. All public input that we receive will be carefully considered.

At today's meeting each presenter may speak for up to ten minutes. Up to five additional minutes is allotted for questions from committee members. Time permitting, we may also have an open mike near the end of the hearing. Five minutes are allotted for each presentation. If you would like to register for the 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 will be made available at 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. On Twitter we are at twitter.com/BCFinanceComm.

D. Ashton (Chair): My name is Dan Ashton. I'm the MLA for Penticton. I'll be chairing these proceedings and working very closely with 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 Stephanie Raymond, who is at the information desk over there. Jean Medland and Ian Battle are here on behalf of Hansard Services.

Sir, welcome. Thank you very much for coming. As I said, there's ten minutes. I'll give you a two-minute heads-up on it, and then we have five minutes reserved for questions. The floor is yours.

M. Sadd: My name is Martin Sadd, and I'm a shareholder and part owner of three small trucking companies
[ Page 518 ]
in southern B.C. All three of those companies are multi-jurisdictional companies. Our entire focus of business is travel between Canada and the U.S.A. and primarily through the two provinces.

The first thing I'd like to say is that despite the tone of what I've written here, I am here to try and solve problems, not create them. But I hope I've got everybody's attention. I guess I feel a little bit outnumbered right now.

We found out about this new exit tax because we got a bill in the mail. Is there no way that, with all these people here, we can't come up with some better means of communication than to have changed the rules and then send somebody a bill? Can't you get a hold of people?

We're in the trucking industry. I don't know if you're all aware of what the multi-jurisdictional tax is all about and what the exit tax is all about, either. All trucking companies in B.C. have a national safety code number, which is registered in Victoria and housed in Victoria. When you change rules to the trucking industry, I don't know why somebody couldn't have gone down there, got the addresses of all those companies and sent out a copy of what you sent out.

I think in March you sent out the first document or published it. It was a three-page document, which was notification of changes to the rules. And then in November they put out a 13-page document revising the first document, which means that now we've gone…. It's almost like you're creating a little empire here. The next one is probably going to be 26 and on and on, I'm assuming.

However, that being said, if communication could be established between the government and the parties that are actually involved in the end result of the taxes that you propose or institute, that would be the first step. I think it would go a long way. At least we could be involved in the process long before it gets to here, where we get a bill in the mail and somebody says: "What the heck's an exit tax?"

An exit tax to me is like getting on B.C. Ferries and paying your 75 bucks. When you get off at the other end, they want another 25 bucks. That may seem fair to some people. It sure doesn't seem fair to me.

If you're going to change the rules in mid-stride, kindly have the courtesy to involve us in the process. We have people that work for us, who have been involved since day one and have contracts and agreements that reflect the original agreements. I've said communication, so hopefully that can be addressed in the future.

The multi-jurisdictional tax is a new tax, at least to me. I've been in the business for a dozen years. Before the HST companies bought and owned equipment and trucks, licensed and insured them. In our case, all those vehicles were prorated, which means that a lot of them go to all the states and some of the western provinces, and some just to some of the states and the western provinces.

The purpose of the prorate makes sure that every jurisdiction we travel in is paid their fair share of tax on the vehicle that is travelling in that jurisdiction. That amount of money is paid, if you're registered and licensed in B.C., to the B.C. government. B.C. distributes the portions of that to all the jurisdictions that we travel in.

The other tax that takes care of B.C. and makes sure it doesn't get shortchanged is the IFTA, the international fuel tax agreement. Quarterly, we file the international fuel tax agreement with all the provinces and states that participate in it, and they receive the mileage that each vehicle travelled in their state or province.

That tax is then back-calculated against the fuel they purchased. If we didn't purchase enough fuel in the state or province, then we have to pay an additional fee.

That, for me, is a fair way of dealing with it. The B.C. government gets its tax for the vehicle. It doesn't get the 7 percent sales tax, because it's a prorated vehicle, but it gets the tax all along. And then it gets the fuel tax, so there's no shortchange ever, in my opinion, to the government.

What this does is it now puts the B.C. prorated vehicles in a situation where we can no longer kill a vehicle or park a vehicle or have a spare vehicle or a spare trailer or spare equipment of any kind without maintaining the prorate on it.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Can I just interject for a second, sir? I just want to make…. We are the committee, but we're not the ones that put the forms out to you or who made the changes for you. So it would be really useful if you could tell us exactly what this tax is that we're talking about. I got the part that you've just done — that's great. But this part now, it's like…. Okay, so what exactly is it that's been done? That's what we need to understand.

M. Sadd: Okay. Well, let me finish briefly what I was saying. If you read what I wrote, it kind of explains where we were before. Before the HST we could own trucks and have them parked. We could license them, insure them and prorate them, and they could go wherever they wanted. And trailers — if we weren't using them, they just sat in our yard, right? Then when we relicensed them again, if they were prorated, they went back into the prorate system, and we continued to pay tax on the vehicle. If you didn't prorate it, then you had to pay the 7 percent B.C. sales tax. All fair, right?

So that was the meat and potatoes of it, and out-of-jurisdiction trucks that were licensed under our authority, for licensing and insurance purposes only — if we don't own the truck, we can't even lien those trucks — could come and go at their will. We could hire a truck for two or three months for a project. He could go home, and he could park his truck if he wanted to. A B.C. truck could stop and cancel his insurance and his prorate, take a few months off, and then come back and go to work. The
[ Page 519 ]
vehicle was just parked, and the trailer was parked. There was no problem with it.

The change is…. The exit tax changes that to where if I park a vehicle, I have 24 hours. If I park it on Friday and don't reinsure it till Monday, I'm too late; 24 hours has already gone by, right? If I don't re-prorate the truck in that period of time, then I have to pay the B.C. sales tax on it, on a depreciated value. If it was there for three months, there wouldn't be much depreciation. If it's there for four years, then there's more depreciation, right? And the sales tax becomes less, but it never disappears.

At that moment in time the world changed from where we are now competitive with all the other jurisdictions that we live in — and particularly, in our case, Alberta, because that's our competition…. So now we have to make sure that the vehicles stay prorated, at cost to us, and maybe stay insured — I'm not sure about that — at cost to us.

An out-of-province vehicle — if you're from Alberta and you're working for me…. I brought our business, in particular, from Alberta to B.C. Over 50 percent of my fleet are Albertans, but they license and insure through us in B.C. because that's where our national safety code number is and that's where all of our authorities are.

So when they go back to Alberta, if they cease to work for me, then they're going to get hit with a sales tax from B.C. on an Alberta vehicle. How you do that is a mystery to me, but somehow or other you managed to do it. And if they don't pay that tax, then if they try to prorate again, their number is going to be flagged by ICBC, and it's not going to happen till they pay the money.

In my opinion, that's totally unfair. There was nothing wrong with the system the way it was before. It guaranteed every province and every jurisdiction that we ran in their fair share of tax. And if the vehicle sat there, why you would want the PST on it is a bit of a mystery to me, unless you're somehow short of funds. And I realize that governments are short of funds these days.

So I guess my bitch is that there's no way that these rules should be in place. There was nothing wrong with the system the way it worked before HST, which we were kind of told it was going to go back to. To have an exit tax for somebody to go out of business or cease business…. If I have a vehicle that for some reason we have to park or we parked because there isn't a driver for it or we have an extra trailer because we have some flexibility or maybe a driver buys his own trailer and we get one back again….

Why do we have to license and insure these vehicles when prorate is set up so that everybody has the same playing field and doesn't have to pay any more tax than the tax they….

Anyhow, that's basically the nuts and bolts of what I came to say. I just think it's a very unfair way of doing business.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): Two very quick questions. Thank you for your presentation, because that's really interesting.

When you're saying "park," if it was to repair a vehicle, for example, would that be classed as a park?

M. Sadd: If I take away the prorate and the licence and insurance off of it, or if a guy takes a vacation…. If our licence and insuring ends at, say, the end of February, which ours does, and the prorate ends at the same time, and he says, "Well, I'm going to take a vacation for a month, or I'm going to fix my truck and I'm just going to park it," the B.C. government says, "You've got 24 hours to relicense, insure that or prorate it somewhere else," or you pay the exit tax, which is the B.C. sales tax.

M. Farnworth (Deputy Chair): My second question, very quickly, then: this doesn't exist in Alberta or Washington or Oregon or Saskatchewan?

M. Sadd: In the U.S. I don't know, but Alberta has no sales tax. As I said, my competition is with Alberta. My fleet came from there. So 90 percent of the work that we do, the only part of B.C. that we run through is from the Crowsnest Pass to Kingsgate, okay? That's it — maybe three hours. The rest of our trip is either in the States or in Alberta.

L. Popham: Interesting presentation. I was wondering how much money are we talking about annually or however you figure it out?

M. Sadd: Well, if you have a brand-new vehicle that's worth $150,000 and it's depreciated to $100,000 and you have to pay 7 percent sales tax on it, then it becomes a large amount of money.

In your bill — which I just assumed everybody would have a copy of, and I didn't bring it or give it to you — it basically has a vehicle in there or a depreciation value that somebody has decided is fair.

I haven't studied it in detail, but according to the B.C. Trucking Association, you can have a truck that can prorate, cancel out, pay the tax, prorate, continue to pay tax again under prorate, cancel out, pay the tax again, and continue to do that.

J. Tegart: Thank you for your presentation. It's certainly the first time that I've heard about it and that we've heard it at this table. We've not heard it from the trucking association. It's something that is new information, and we'll take a look at it. So thanks.
[ Page 520 ]

I just want to let you know that, again, on the communication side, if you don't mind my saying this, I was not aware that these things were being held throughout the province. I didn't find out about the tax until just a few days ago when we got the bill in the mail.

I was meeting with our MLA, Linda Larson, in Oliver at the same time that you were having these meetings in Osoyoos and Oliver the day before.

So I've driven from Osoyoos, eight hours here. I will spend the night here and drive back tomorrow to get my bitch in, I guess.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you for coming up. We do have this. You can also file again, if you wanted to add anything additional, up until October 16. Thanks for coming up to see us.

M. Sadd: I did see that, and I e-mailed this. I filed it somewhere by e-mail. Somebody somewhere has my e-mail address.

D. Ashton (Chair): Invasive Species — Gail Wallin — and then Tolko Industries. Sir, we're going to slip you in next.

Gail, welcome. Thank you very much for coming. We have ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have five minutes allotted for questions.

G. Wallin: These are high risk. I'm not allowed to let them go. They are actually imported from the States, because we don't have them here in B.C. yet.

Hello, and thank you very much for having us. In particular, being from Williams Lake, thanks for coming to the Interior. It's always awesome to have you here.

I'm the executive director with the Invasive Species Council of B.C., which is a registered charity. It's a little bit unique in that we actually are inclusive of all interests. We've got green and brown people on our board. We've got all different colours of stripes, from industry to the environmentalist.

Our goal is to bring a collaborative approach to invasive species management in British Columbia. You can't manage on one piece of land and expect that the neighbours next door will manage on exactly the same. We have to manage together.

Our council is about ten years old. Aboriginals have been a key part of our council since we started, and industry, governments, etc. We particularly focus on the economic impact. So often people think about them from the environmental side, yet from a British Columbia side and elsewhere, they actually have a huge economic impact.

I understand you've had a few presentations on invasive species, so I'm going to move to a slightly different….

B.C. has a different model than many of the other provinces in Canada. We actually have a very strong interministry team in the provincial government, but we also have some non-government partners that are well established. Our council is the largest and biggest in Canada, and we work very close, hand in hand, with the provincial government.

I want to start with a little bit of a story about zebra mussels and quagga mussels. We do not have them in B.C., and there's a lot of fret that we have them now. At this point in time we have no known introductions, but in 2012 our council received provincial funding from you folks. We chose to put it into an area that was high-risk to British Columbia, and that was dealing with boaters, particularly coming in from the States.

We went across North America, and we adopted a program called "Clean, drain, dry." We trained our staff on how to clean, drain, dry your boat so that you don't transport invasives from one lake to the next. Unbeknownst to us, on July 4, I got a phone call from the provincial government saying, "Do you have any staff in this area? Can they go inspect this? We think it is an infested boat with quagga mussels," which you have in your hands there.

Sure, we ran in there, because there was nobody else actually trained in B.C., besides our little NGO, about how to identify quagga mussels. We took the samples and sent them down to the States, because that was the best place. It turned out, within 24 hours, that yes, that boat that had been sitting in the Shuswap Lake for seven days was infested with quagga mussels. The question was: were they alive or dead? Immediate phone calls — the provincial and federal governments and ourselves were together.

The reason I want to raise this is because our council played a role that the provincial government needed us to play. We happened to have money in the bank. That was a blessing, as a non-profit. But when that boat was confirmed to have quagga mussels, there was nobody in B.C. that was trained on how to remove quagga mussels safely from a boat. It's a very special training.

Also, we didn't have the high-pressure, high-temperature wash systems in the provincial government or our council at that point. But we needed to treat this boat, because this boater and this marina wanted this guy back on the water. I said our council would bring up somebody from Montana, and I'd buy a boat wash station. I could do that in 24 hours. The provincial government said: "You know
[ Page 521 ]
what? We can't do this. Can you do it for us? We can't act that quickly." It was a really good collaboration.

We brought the person in. He decontaminated it. It took him about a day. It takes you about four to six hours to decontaminate a 29-foot boat. He trained other people in the provincial government how to do it. In order to respond that quickly, it was a collaborative approach. It was between the federal and provincial governments and ourselves. They can handle all the regulatory and encouraging and putting pressure on them, removing the boat from the water. We can't do that, but we could do things that government couldn't do at that time. So we were a team player.

I set that up because I think that model is really important as we move forward. No one agency could have responded to the quagga mussel incident successfully, so it was a collaboration.

The analogy we use for invasive species is forest fires. When there's a forest fire in B.C., you jump on it. We don't worry about whose jurisdiction it is. We don't have the same approach here for invasive species, yet it's the same kind of threat.

A couple of things, and I know it's in the document you've received. Most invasive species are intentionally introduced. We bring them in. We plant them. We transport them, etc. It's intentionally introduced. We want to change that, and it's important to change it. With any invasive species — it's like dandelions in your backyard. If you can get it when you've got one versus 1,000, you're way more effective.

In order to make a difference on invasive species and reduce the economic impact, we need to act proactively — preventing them from coming in — or respond very quickly.

I'm not going to go into it, because I think you've heard the presentation about fire ants and zebra mussels and knotweeds. I'm not going to give you the "why you should care." But they all have economic impacts to communities or provincial government.

Some of the funding options that I was asked to bring to you…. Invasive species — traditionally we used to call them weeds. The Weed Act in Canada has some of the oldest regulations. "Weeds" is no longer the term that's used. It's invasive species. Not all foreign critters are invasive, only some of them. There's a very small percentage.

But the small percentage has huge economic impacts, to the point where some neighbours in West Van and Langley are threatening legal action to the local government or to the neighbours. They believe they've infested their property, because they've spread from one property to the next.

What our council does is it works in collaboration with a whole range of people, from the industry side to the environmental side, saying: "Let's make a difference early on so that we can prevent the impact on our communities."

We think that, understanding government a bit, our traditional funding model of taking core operating dollars isn't the only answer in the long run. There needs to be more money invested early. You've provided in a range of $4 million to $6 million over the years in invasive species. It basically needs to be doubled to have an effective program. We have some options for you for consideration.

First of all, we know there is a pending ATV regulation. Let me back up. Invasive species…. You can either have all British Columbians contribute to reducing their spread, or you can have those areas that tend to spread them particularly take a role in reducing their spread. We know that the taxation and lottery grants are all tools, but we've got some recommendations on the cause, based on how they spread.

One of them is the ATVs. Invasive species — you can see it on maps — travel around transportation corridors. If you go along a pipeline, if you go along a utility corridor, if you go along a trail, you're going to find the spread of invasive species.

Maybe we should be taking a look at the ATV regulation, and just like government did a decade or so ago, set up something like the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, where, when people license their ATVs, they're actually investing back in improving the recreational landscape over which they're moving. The ATV associations that we've worked with, ATV wash stations — those same people could be reporting new invasives out in the land base.

Another one that is a really major introductory pathway for British Columbia is shipping and transportation. Container ships routinely…. Last year at Christmas time the amount of insects…. They were in the Christmas light bulbs that were supposed to go to the B.C. liquor stores. They were highly invasive, and there was a stop on this container. There are lots of those examples. Perhaps even taking a look at a small ten cents a tonne per all the tonnes coming into British Columbia would be a tool that would be one of the causes that brings them in — a place to stop them.

I mean, if you took a look, based on '11 and '12 numbers, even ten cents a tonne would put you at a $10 million contribution to your restoration fund. I just give you some numbers.

Another one that has been raised in doing consultation across the province is the concept of — we don't have it here — a disturbance tax. If you've got resource development coming in, in the same ways you build a mine and you put in a trust fund, maybe there's a way to work with the disturbance factor coming in from large-scale developments or small, to have them invest in the disturbance. We know invasive plant species will impede and transfer, become established in disturbed areas unless it's restored.

Another one that's got a lot of high profile in the last
[ Page 522 ]
year because of the quagga incident is a tool that's used in the States, and that's mandatory licensing of your boats, where you pay a licensing for your boats. If we have about 21,000 boats in B.C. right now, a $5 licensing fee on that would be $100,000. That's a start towards your program.

The last one I'll close with as an example is a tire tax. Again, as I mentioned earlier, invasive species tend to travel around travel corridors, so maybe it's something that everybody that's driving a car, be it an RV or a vehicle, contributes to. In the same way as you have a levy for recycling, you apply a levy to that. You've got three million tires, and you're looking at, basically, a $6 million contribution.

Those are all tools that we looked at as possible new, innovative ways that expand the traditional budgeting approach.

I just want to close by saying that our council is quite willing and has, I think, demonstrated a really strong collaboration with the provincial government in looking for innovative solutions. I think it's really important to work with outside parties like ourselves, where we can leverage in private funding or bring in the federal government, which we've done before on your behalf. We've been able to bring that in through our council. We think it's really critical that it not all be one funding source. Our council, particularly, right now is working with private experts on helping us diversify the funding for invasive species management in B.C.

Gail, thank you very much for the presentation, and thank you for the information.

T. Hoffman: Thank you. My presentation today is a little hurried, but I couldn't miss the opportunity to present to this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to do that.

I have five key messages for the committee. I'm going to start off with those, and then I'll elaborate on each one of them.

The first one is with respect to the forest industry sector. We need to create a globally competitive, market-based operating climate, or hosting conditions, for the forest industry in order to succeed and be competitive in today's competitive global market.

Secondly, we need to ensure that we have access to economically viable fibre. I'll elaborate on that.

Thirdly, First Nations opportunities. First Nations woodland licences, forest consultation, revenue-sharing agreements and revenue-sharing need to be explored in order to allow First Nations to be a significant part of the forestry sector as well as gain socioeconomic benefits.

A fourth message is supporting the forest sector to meet increasing demand for skilled labour. I want to chat a little bit about the need for the skilled labour, not only on the forestry side but specifically inside of our manufacturing facilities.

The last message is to increase outreach to international prospects — a continuation, if you will, of exploring world markets.

I'll come back to the first point: creating a globally competitive, market-based operating climate or hosting conditions. As part of the core review that Mr. Bennett will be undertaking, we need to ensure all efficiencies are explored and a responsive regulatory framework supports industry competitiveness. I know that this is underway and we'll have opportunities — and we will certainly take those opportunities — to engage, but I think that this committee can certainly explore, through your mandate, to ensure that efficiencies are garnered as well as that revenue is spent wisely.

Continuing on with the same theme. Improve B.C.'s competitive tax environment to ensure forest sector competitiveness. I'll read from a document from UBCM that is called Strong Fiscal Futures — just a snippet. "In the initial resource development boom of the 1950s the provincial government used B.C. resources to leverage investment in the industrialization of the B.C. interior. Low resource royalties were used to leverage investment in industrial infrastructure and ongoing management of the land base."

It's my supposition that a return to that would again result in the same type of a scenario — a reinvestment. The old adage of killing the golden goose — we need to avoid it.

Specifically, a review of the timber-pricing system, or stumpage. A review should ensure that the diminishing fibre supply as a result of the mountain pine beetle doesn't distort the timber-pricing system in B.C.

As the mountain pine beetle opportunities diminish, there will be an increase in competition, which will mean an increase in stumpage. That will, again, result in the potential loss of investment, because companies will be forced to close doors if stumpage is too high.

Any changes need to be done, of course, with regard to international trade constraints. So the softwood lumber agreement needs to be held in high regard. But certainly, there's a fine balance there of the province's right to receive revenue from the stumpage and resources. As well, on the other side of the fulcrum is the need to allow for adequate room that would incent investment in the resource sector.

The same theme — with regards to a globally competitive, market-based operating climate — is around resource roads and bridges. There needs to be an enhancement of infrastructure to allow for nine- and ten-axle log haul units — not only log haul but product transportation as well — in the province. Without this,
[ Page 523 ]
we are globally uncompetitive.

There are jurisdictions in Canada, Saskatchewan being one of them, where you can currently use nine- and ten-axle units to haul logs, and they're eating our lunch. We need to take a look at what the opportunities are with regards to bridges and roads to ensure our competitiveness on the go-forward.

Municipal taxation. Now, I know that right away…. Why would a provincial committee be concerned with municipal taxation? It's my belief that although we do have one of the lowest provincial tax structures for industry, a lot of the costs are being borne by the municipalities. Let me just share with you my concern. There's an inequity between the heavy industrial class 4 and the residential tax, and I'm going to use Williams Lake, the community that we're in today, to illustrate that.

For Williams Lake the mill rate for heavy industrial is 92.75 in 2013. It's either the highest or one of the highest in the province. I'm not sure which. It floats between first and second. It has been over the last three to five years. Until 1983 it was legislated that the heavy industrial tax rate could not exceed the residential rate by more than 3.4 times.

Today the Williams Lake ratio sits at 16.27, industrial over residential. Industry doesn't have a vote, but we are bearing the costs that are being downloaded from the province, so we need to look at opportunities where the province and the municipalities can be more effective. The municipalities need to be held to account for their spending to make sure that they are efficient as well, but the offloading of costs from the province needs to be also looked at.

The final one I'm going to offer up with regards to a globally competitive market-based operating climate is around the carbon tax. This adds an unnecessary cost to our industry, both in the transportation of logs and in the transportation of finished products.

Moving on to the second message, access to economically viable fibre. There will be a review of B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness that will be completed this year. This is the mechanism in which stumpage is ultimately determined in the province. I spoke about the need to manage our stumpage to allow for or incent investment in the province. There needs to be a review, but the focus must be placed on getting all of the revenue to market rather than on revenue for the Crown. What I'm getting at there is: how do we ensure that BCTS fulfils its mandate but doesn't erode our ability, through stumpage, to operate?

Timber supply analysis, adequate funding for forest inventories. The mid-term timber supply mitigation strategies must be allocated in order to ensure that we have access to economically viable fibre. There are lots of communities in this region, certainly, wanting to know what their future is. Without the inventories to suggest how the falldown in the mid-term can be mitigated, we're kind of heading into dark waters.

First Nations opportunities. The key message here is around consultation and resource-sharing agreements. We need to explore ways to include the First Nations through FCRSA, or forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements, but they must be court-approved processes. We need to ensure that however we proceed in that arena, we're not just throwing money but engaging meaningfully the First Nations communities in that revenue-sharing.

Supporting the forest sector to meet the increasing demand for skilled labour. We need to set some targets. I would implore, plead with, this committee to look towards some sort of goal-setting. By way of example, graduate 10 percent more skilled trades each year for the next 15 years — some form of metric to ensure that the demand for skilled labour is met.

I'm going to jump over to my last point: increased outreach to international prospects; the continued promotion, certainly started by previous Minister Bell, and marketing in Asian markets of B.C. wood products; wood frame construction through FII, Canada wood, etc.; and financially supporting research and development of new, innovative products.

D. Ashton (Chair): Sir, thank you very much. I know that you had X amount of time, but do not forget to include a copy. You have till the 16th to file a copy, so if you do want to expand on that, please, would you?

L. Popham: At the beginning of your presentation you mentioned that one of the first things we could look at is trying to find some efficiencies. I just wondered if you could give me two examples of where you think that would be found.

T. Hoffman: In our business one of the bigger ones is certainly around red tape — approval of cutting permits. That's a big issue. I mean, there are First Nations consultations that go on; there are other segments towards those approvals. There are, in each step, efficiencies that can be gleaned.

If I look across the border to Alberta, they have the ESRD, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. It's a one-stop shop, all departments. It's a clearinghouse. You don't have to go to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation in order to look at consultation, then back to FLNRO and back and forth through the other ministries. It's streamlining of approvals, predominantly.

J. Yap: Thanks, Tom. On your last point, regarding marketing to the Asia-Pacific, I'm interested in learning to what extent the Asia-Pacific is an important market
[ Page 524 ]
for Tolko and if you or members of your company have participated in the trade missions. There are at least two that are happening in the next couple of months.

T. Hoffman: Yes, we have, historically, and we will continue to do so. Just real ballpark figures — they're not accurate. For our markets — at Tolko we market forest products around the world — our historical average was around 70 to 75 percent to the U.S., 25 to 30 percent domestically. We're now about 33 percent Asia, 30 percent domestic and 35 percent U.S. So yes, we have, and we will continue. We have a very strong marketing and sales group that has penetrated the Asian markets quite substantially.

G. Holman: Just quickly, you indicated the carbon tax. You used the term "unnecessary." Can you just quickly describe how it applies to the industry and why you say it's unnecessary?

T. Hoffman: Basically, all of our rough products, all of our logs, come in on trucks, and a lot of our finished products leave by trucks. On the carbon tax that we pay, the benefits, if you will, are realized in the Lower Mainland, but we're paying for it out of this part of the world. We don't see any return on that investment, per se. It may be unnecessary. There's no return on that investment for this area. All of our products, whether they're rough or finished, are moved. And it's an expense that, in rural British Columbia, is a significant component.

D. Ashton (Chair): Tom, thank you very much, I appreciate it. Don't forget to get a submission in, if you want, before October 16.

Welcome, sir. Thank you for coming. Ten minutes for the presentation, I'll give you a two-minute warning, then we have up to five minutes for questions.

Good afternoon, and welcome to members of the Finance and Government Services Committee. I am an advocate of balanced budgets. With this in mind, I will address areas that I think we should be looking at in our budgeting.

In some of Premier Clark's addresses, she talked about balancing budgets and reducing the deficit. My economics professor stated, among other things, that there is no free lunch. Deficits drain funding away from legitimate programs and limit the flexibility of any government to carry out its mandate.

There are two areas that I feel we need to make more funding available for. I'm always concerned about the financial resources that are made available to the court system. It seems to me that the U.S. system of justice moves faster than ours. I'm not advocating their system. It just seems that we take longer to start trials. When I watch the news, it always seems that long periods of time take place from when someone is charged until they get a trial.

I think for the sake of victims and families as well as those charged, we have to move this along to an expedient resolution, not drag it out for years. Maybe the complexity of the cases is an issue, but funding has to be a factor as well.

The other area is skilled-trades training. A news article indicating that the Japanese potential buyers of LNG have already gone on notice that they don't think we'll have enough skilled people to bring the proposed projects on line. You look at the potential for large, labour-intensive projects like LNG plants, mines, Site C, etc. If you look at the Vancouver Sun today, the headlines are about the shipbuilding announcement that was in North Vancouver yesterday by the federal Public Works minister. He was talking about another 1,000 workers.

We're talking about massive amounts of skilled labour required over the next ten years or so. If we are serious about handling this business, we need to go almost to a war fighting to gear up for it. This is an unprecedented opportunity for the province, and it would be a shame to miss out on this because we couldn't handle it.

Some areas of concern are not directly related to the next budget but are concerns about how the province is financially structured.

HST versus PST. In my economic studies, value-added taxes were emphasized 30 years ago. HST was introduced so poorly that it was doomed to failure, but it should be brought back, maybe as an election issue or a deal between the two major parties that allows the public more comfort about the subject.

In my working career, I worked with the old federal manufacturers' tax before GST and with PST before HST. Both were administrative nightmares as well as inefficient. The bottom line is that we've made ourselves uncompetitive with other jurisdictions that either have no tax, like Alberta, or have it harmonized, like Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. Just when we are on the threshold of huge investment projects, we have put up barriers that act as disincentives to invest. We owe it to ourselves to offer tax efficiency, not inefficiency.

The next item is the property purchase tax. I am asking that we address the issue of the trust mechanism that is allowing property owners to avoid paying this tax. Sort this out and eliminate this loophole of allowing for tax avoidance. Our company owns some commercial property, and it is utilizing this trust deferment. The transfer is inter-company, so no actual sale is taking place. I suspect others are doing the same thing.

For the transactions where actual value is changing hands, we need to sort out why this mechanism is being utilized to avoid taxation. I'm not entirely clear on how
[ Page 525 ]
extensively this is being utilized, but a great deal of tax revenue is being deferred as a result.

Equalization payments. It is my understanding that this is due for renegotiation in 2014, and some work is probably being done currently. The whole program is a joke. It's a pitiful attempt at socialism that is a failure. Tax money earned in B.C. is being used to subsidize university tuition and daycare rates in Quebec. The hydro rates in Manitoba are lower than they should be because of an inflow of equalization payments.

Right now there is no incentive to clean up your own backyard as long as someone else is sending you a welfare cheque. The Premier of Quebec has commented or bragged about how 50 percent of the equalization payments go to Quebec. This offers no incentive to improve the cost and investment structure of that province. Quebec has outlawed shale gas exploration because we have developed ours and are stupid enough to send them an equalization payment.

A better mechanism would be to rebate a portion of the GST back to the province that produced it. This would be a more equitable redistribution of wealth than the current mechanism.

B.C. Hydro. The more I try to understand energy policy, etc., the more confused I get. It appears that B.C. Hydro is saddled with huge debt while the government bleeds dividends out to finance God knows what. We are headed for disaster if we continue to saddle it with debt and utilize it as a source of government's funding at the same time.

I mentioned that there is no free lunch, and this applies to B.C. Hydro. It should have flexibility to be a leader in investment policies and strategies, but it is heading for a wall if we keep milking it for all it's worth.

National securities agency. I applaud the government for taking this step. It was long overdue. We are not living in a vacuum. The securities industry is a worldwide business, and trying to be a player in it from little old B.C. is not viable.

In summary, some big things could be on the table for the province, and Premier Clark has talked about a prosperity fund. Let's get this started now, even though the big cash-generating projects are some years away. Let's get used to the idea of putting some money away, like most of us have to do in our everyday lives.

G. Young: I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to be here. There are very, very few democratic opportunities for anyone in British Columbia, and this is one of the few. That's one of the reasons I'm here. Thank you very much.

I am pleased to find out that you are not getting any extra compensation to sit on this committee, and for any other committee, panel, study or whatever, the government has got to stop giving MLAs a whole bunch more money when they're already paid well. The local MLA gets over $45,000 more a year to be a secretary or whatever, when that's really just your job.

Anyway, our debt is growing every year. Both NDP and Liberals don't seem to care. There's little concern over the debt left to children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Our current debt is about $65 billion, excluding forwarding by B.C. Hydro. For the panel and those not paying attention, that is $65 thousand million. When you take all the zeros off your financial reports, it doesn't seem quite so bad. So maybe if you stuck it all on there, people that looked at it would be a little more shocked at what's going on.

Service charges without reducing a debt: $2.665 million a year. Liberals plan to borrow another $8 billion a year with no reason to do it — 18.4 percent of our gross revenues. That's what they want to borrow, adding $328 million to our debt.

The Balanced Budget Act has never been enforced. Maybe it's about time we did, or just get rid of it.

Freeze all hiring, of this date, for all government ministries, agencies, Crown corporations for 3.5 years, and allow attrition to lessen staffing numbers. This includes the Premier's office.

Eliminate permanently all bonuses paid to people for simply doing their jobs, sometimes very poorly. This is not a suspension or a temporary move with future compensation. Just get rid of it.

Freeze all pensions and benefits to MLAs. Note that the NDP and Liberals processed legislation a little while ago, before the election, to provide 15 months' more pay if you didn't get voted in. This includes top-ups if you take another job at less and a $9,000 training allowance. What kind of…? I won't say it. To sit there and "I'm going to lose the election" and vote yourselves in another 15 months' pay…. Maybe every government employee should get the same compensation. It's a joke. Rescind it immediately, because you can.

Freeze all fares, tickets, permits, licences, certificates, etc., for 3.5 years. These are just another form of the tax that taxpayers cannot appeal.

ICBC. The government has listed itself as the only shareholder in ICBC. Isn't that clever, when it's really the
[ Page 526 ]
policyholders who are the shareholders. This allows the government to siphon off hundreds of millions of premium profits every year, and you should not be allowed to do that. That's garbage.

No investment, tax break or incentive for any and all professional sport complexes. If they want it, they can build it. No more hidden contracts and dealings that take tax money and turn it into a refund for corporations — i.e., the secret shadow tolls on the Sea to Sky Highway, which we're not supposed to know about.

What about the great contracts for high volumes of water from Williston Lake to fracking companies? I can't find any contractual information on that. And if it's such a good deal, why do you keep it from the public?

Any supposed independent panel or committee to be appointed by only the Ombudsperson. This eliminates any favourability to a government agenda. Average citizens are by far the best choice.

B.C. Ferries once was an extension of the highways department, and it should be treated similarly. We can find a Canadian person to run the corporation, and considering the huge amount of wages and benefits now supplied, it's a bit of a joke on the taxpayer. No bonuses. Quotes that I remember were: "When rates were raised a number of years ago, it was because we are too busy." This is a quote on television. Add a fuel surcharge, and ridership went down. When this happened, the response was: "We have to raise rates because ridership is down." Can anybody run this corporation properly?

The heralded and supposed windfall of natural gas is bordering on complete misinformation. A look at the future and current events shows Russia, China and the U.S.A. and other countries tapping into shale gas themselves. By the time any facility would be built, the international price of gas would probably drop significantly. We would lose billions in supposed revenues. Suppliers would whine to the government and get more tax breaks, paid for by the consumers of British Columbia.

Waste of revenues in ministries is bordering on extreme and badly needs an independent review with some binding rules on government. When you cut back on the ministries, the first thing they do is take the most publicly visual thing and say, "Oh, we have to cut back on that," just to irritate the public and try to justify more money. The fat is in the bureaucracy. We can certainly get rid of a lot of it, and we can save millions of dollars. It's supposed to be a business. Run it like one.

One thing that irritates me, if you want to look at spending money and wasting it — look after the pennies; the dollars look after themselves — is that you drive down the road and there's a construction project. There's a huge, expensive sign put up that says "Your tax dollars at work." Who knew? What a stupid thing to put up when we know we're paying for it.

Cancel any further preparation and construction for Site C dam, predicted to be $8 billion, so no doubt it will be $12 billion to $14 billion. No government contract has ever come close to the predicted cost. We pick up the tab. No hydro project in the world has made money for taxpayers. This is all researched. You can check it yourself.

Cancel or find a way to stop all run-of-river projects wherein the government has decided to pay two to three times the going rate for any hydro produced. The dams interrupt and damage our pristine waterways and some fish habitat and spawning. Instead, invest in the promotion of wind-generated power and other green opportunities, such as tidal- and current-generated power. My information tells me that wind-generated electricity is more generation, more electricity, than any other source in British Columbia. The United States is stopping building dams because they don't work.

Lotteries. One website indicates that the Health Ministry will receive 50 percent of revenues. Obviously, that's not the case. Government takes the lion's share for general revenue. Some tickets have gone up 50 percent. Do you know of anybody, a pensioner or an average citizen, who just got a 50 percent increase in their wages? What a joke. It's just another tax grab.

New and modern thinking is needed to prevent another Port Mann Bridge fiasco. The current new structure caused many problems and about a 50 percent increase in the predicted cost, which amounts to about $1 billion too much. We could have twinned the Port Mann for a few million as opposed to the billions. We seem to have to have some wonderful-looking structure, which costs us too much.

Taxes are the government's usual method of dealing with cost overruns, expensive and poorly planned changes. This is not responsible in any way. The somewhat new enviro-tax on just about anything you buy is controlled by the manufacturing companies, and they get 100 percent of the revenues. So-and-so corporation says, "Great" — in the lobby — "we'll do this for you. Let us tax as much as we want, and we get to keep it." And it goes somewhere else. This is not responsible government.

Pacific Carbon Trust — and I include carbon offsets — is a joke. It provides no real benefit to taxpayers. The formula for carbon offsets is very simple.

G. Young: This is a democratic process, and you can turf me out, but I'm going to continue until I get my message across.

D. Ashton (Chair): You have ten minutes, sir, for your presentation, so use it wisely.

G. Young: The carbon trust, including carbon offsets, is very simply buying and selling pollution — nothing more. If a tree does some good and it's on your property,
[ Page 527 ]
you can claim a carbon offset tax and you can sell it to a polluter. What kind of thinking is this? Get your head out of the bag.

Income sources. I'll give you this, because I think you need some. Substantial increase to tobacco products; all revenue to health care. Increase in taxes for all imported alcoholic drinks or products, giving B.C. products a bit of a counter on the dumping of foreign products; all new revenues to health care, because both of those issues relate to health care.

Restore the corporate capital tax limit eliminated in 2007. This was a windfall of over $600 million to banks, and banks really need more money. Stop subsidizing industries that do not need it — i.e., resource extraction, oil and gas. Eliminate or reduce all corporate tax breaks, including the residential property tax. Stop the subsidies to the entertainment industry; $8,000 a job is a subsidy. Are we thrilled with the stars?

Taxes on earnings from people who do not live in B.C. or are out of the country. They collect it back. If you earn it here, the money should stay here.

Eliminate lobbying. The perception of the average person is that government is for sale. If you donate enough money, you get a lobby and you get a tax break. It happens all the time, and it's disgusting — to be a bought government. And that is the perception we have.

That's a partial list. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them.

Sir, thank you very much for your presentation. I would also encourage you…. You said it's a partial list, so you have until October 16 to submit more if you wish. That is available on the website, and there's a process to do the submissions.

G. Young: Thank you. I may do that. But my faith in the government making changes by what the taxpayer feels is right is very diminished. It's, "We do what we want anyway," such as the Forests Ministry did when they got a message from their own export committee. They said our logs don't meet export criteria. The minister immediately increased the export of logs. Hello? His own ministry said: "Don't do it." "Oh, we're going to double it, because we have friends that donate to us."

D. Ashton (Chair): Al, it's ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning. Then we've got five minutes for questions.

A. Richmond: I should have known that you'd have a test. Between you and Marvin, I'm sure you put one in there. You have Eric sitting beside you, I'm sure, and then MLA Yap will probably have something too.

Thank you so much for the time and the opportunity to speak to you today. I commend you for your commitment to engage the public in your deliberations, and your on-line survey asks questions regarding the priority of programs, services and what can be done differently and what programs or services could be reduced or eliminated to save the taxpayers money.

I have a presentation, but I only brought nine. I have two more coming, so we'll have them for you before I leave here.

Your commitment to balancing the budget resonates with local government. As many of you know, we believe it to be the cornerstone of building a sustainable province and sustainable communities. The Premier's vision to build British Columbia's economy aligns with the Cariboo regional district vision statement of "Building Communities Together."

Property taxes have been a hot topic over the past few years. We've heard from industry that it's unfair and from our taxpayers and homeowners that it's too high. A number of studies have been recently undertaken that look at the options to local government's dependency on property-based taxation — the Cariboo regional district's Strong Regions report in 2007 and, most recently, the UBCM's Strong Fiscal Futures white paper released at the UBCM convention this year in September.

I'd like to take a few moments to review with you some of the highlights of the Strong Fiscal Futures with you. The key findings of the study. The current financial system for local government has been in place for a generation and without any substantive change. In the meantime, the range of services that communities provide has increased. We think it's time to look at the services local governments deliver and ask if we have the right tools available to fund those services.

The financial system is sound at present, but there are some serious challenges coming down the road. Some of the challenges relate to the cost of replacing aging infrastructure or building new infrastructure to comply with standards mandated by other levels of government.

There are a variety of estimates on what is out there and what it will cost to build new water systems and waste-
[ Page 528 ]
water systems, expand transit services over the next decade. But everyone has agreed the costs in B.C. will run into the billions.

Another challenge that many communities are finding is that simply maintaining current levels of protective services has led to significant cost increases in recent years. Reducing protective service levels is not a realistic option for many communities or one that would likely be supported by the public. So that cost pressure is likely to continue.

The report is saying that those costs, along with any of the other pressures, will make property tax unaffordable for many B.C. residents within the next decade. If we sit down with the province now, though, we can implement changes to better manage the system.

I've got some questions I'm going to ask up front before you ask them to me. Hopefully, I'm pre-empting what you're going to ask me.

What kinds of changes are we talking about? The report recognized the importance of building the economy and the role local governments can play in that. It also points out one of the weaknesses of the current foundation. Property tax does not reflect economic growth and can be unfair to lower- and middle-income households.

So we were thinking about ways, as the economy grows, that revenue tools can be diversified to become more reflective of the economic growth and to ease the system's dependency on property tax, which will benefit lower- and middle-income households. We also believe there are gains to be achieved for taxpayers by working with the province to improve the management of shared services like drinking water and policing as well as sharing best practices across the local government system. This is an area that would cost the province nothing but has the potential for significant savings to the taxpayers.

So how much are we asking for? We're all from local government, many of us — a lot of experience. Nothing extra immediately.

Our immediate priorities relate to ensuring funding already in place is maintained. However, we have looked at a target of an initial $200 million per year within five years and $500 million per year within ten years. These amounts are consistent with the local government goal of eliminating infrastructure deficit within 20 years while maintaining the lowest property tax and debt levels in Canada. With the economic growth anticipated over that period, we think these targets are both reasonable and achievable.

Expenditure management. Better managed joint mandates with the province — things like drinking water regulations. The province is responsible for drinking water, but local governments are often delivering drinking water systems. As standards increase, the margin for actual benefit decreases, but the cost of meeting those standards is significant. We all want a clean, dependable supply of water. If we want the standards to be better, we need to ask: at what cost?

The report speaks to a range of provincial decisions that cost local government money, but there are lots of things local government can do that cost the province — i.e., building in floodplains, the costs of emergency measures with Emergency Management B.C. to control that flooding. And what are we going to do about it?

We agree that this needs to be part of the conversation between the province and local governments. Clearly, discussion goes both ways, and we'd welcome the opportunity to sit down with the province and work through all of these issues.

Controlling local government cost. That means looking in the mirror and looking at ourselves. Part of the framework identifies areas where we can do something constructive, work with the province. We wanted to be specific because we are asking them to join us at the table. So in the interest of transparency, we wanted to be as clear as possible on what we want to discuss.

Another part of the framework, though, looks at what local governments can do through sharing best practices. We've identified a couple of areas already, like better benchmarks to determine the appropriate levels of business taxation. Our view is, though, that there a lot of things that can be done in the best practices area, and once we begin work on this, more ideas will come forward.

People say local government should get their own house in order. There's a report focus on costs and ways to drive those costs down. Cost management is a significant part of the report. Our commitment from the beginning was to look at the system from both sides — revenues and expenditures.

We believe there are some real gains to be made by sitting down with the province to do a cost-benefit analysis of shared mandates such as water treatment standards. And in our view, we are at a point of diminishing returns from increased regulations, where the costs far outweigh the benefits. We think it should be the other way around.

Another factor in cost management is our own house, which is why excellence is also a part of the framework. We want to increase ways in which best practices can be shared across local governments so that when there's a breakthrough in one area, that knowledge can be transferred to other communities.

Second, local governments are already doing a pretty good job of managing their costs. We have one of the lowest per-capita property taxes in Canada. Not only that, but there's a trend reaching back over the last decade to reduce the overall share contributed by businesses to the property tax.

There are some who act like the sky is falling when it comes to local government spending, but they're wrong. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said local government spending is out of control because
[ Page 529 ]
it outpaced population growth and the rate of inflation. Are they right?

Spending has increased beyond those measures, but for good reasons. Another level of government introduces a change in regulatory standards, and your population hasn't changed, nor has the rate of inflation. The cost of delivering those services has. Spending has also increased because local government does much more than they used to do ten or 20 years ago, particularly in recreational services and protective services.

So the CFIB is half right. Spending is up, but benchmarks they're using to measure whether we're doing it right as an increase to our communities are not accurate. It doesn't tell the whole story.

Cost to taxpayers? The report talks about fairness to taxpayers. Will the changes reduce the tax burden or add to it? With the cost pressures coming down the road, reducing tax burden may not be a realistic objective. What we can do and should be trying to do is make the system fair and more responsive to the economy. At the same time we are proposing ways to ensure value to taxpayers through working with the province on shared mandates, by promoting excellence and building best practices within local government systems.

How can local government build the economy? We think that both local and provincial governments' efforts to grow the economy would be more effective if they were coordinated, so we want to engage the province on this. Local government actions may be quite different in different circumstances, but ideally, it is the cost trade on interventions that would be the most beneficial to economic growth, including ways of finding which local governments can use the best tools available to support growth. We've given some examples in the report.

We've talked about a community infrastructure development bank. I'll let you read some of those issues that are contained in the report.

The resource community's northern dividend. When the report speaks about growing the economy and providing for local government's share of growth, it is not limited to LNG. The Premier was speaking to the northern dividend that was specifically related to LNG. That's one economic driver — potentially a huge one — but that isn't the only thing that's going to run B.C.'s economy.

As important as LNG is to the provincial economy, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is not the only component of the economy and, further, that resource development isn't just about location of the resource but where it's processed. Secondary industries that can produce goods and services needed for resource extraction and processing are often located elsewhere and provide those services, such as professional services to the industry.

We are suggesting a sharing of the portion of all provincial revenues when the economy is performing well, regardless of whether economic performance is related to LNG or increased tourism, manufacturing, film production or high-tech.

In conclusion, we're not asking for more funding at this time. We're trying to retain what we have — things like traffic share revenue — and we know that additional funding to strengthen will need to wait till the economy improves.

In conclusion, I'd like you to take the time to read the Strong Fiscal report. The committee encourages the government to sit down with UBCM and discuss various issues in the report and establish a committee to strengthen British Columbia's local finance system. I've included a link to the paper.

D. Ashton (Chair): Al, thanks. We just have to reserve it and keep it the same for everybody.

Well, thank you very much for being here today. I understand that you have a meeting tonight, so good luck at the meeting.

D. Ashton (Chair): Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Invasive Plant Committee. Please come on forward. Thank you for coming. We've allotted ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give a two-minute warning on that and up to five minutes for questions or comments from the board. The floor is yours.

C. Mumford: My name is Cathy Mumford, and I live out in Alexis Creek — actually ten miles west of Alexis Creek — in the Chilcotin.

I'm here on behalf of the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Invasive Plant Committee. The Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Invasive Plant Committee is a multi-stakeholder non-profit society dedicated to minimizing the spread and impact of invasive plants. I understand that Gail has talked to you today about invasive species and that every place you've been, somebody has talked to you about invasive species and plants.

C. Mumford: Anyway, I've given you all a nice poster, which I see you're looking at right now. There's another little brochure in there about the invasive plants that we're after in this area and a bit more information about CCCIPC. I thought rather than going into facts and figures, what I would do is tell you a little bit about myself and how invasive plants affect me.

I moved to the Cariboo almost 40 years ago and have been involved with weed management ever since. In 1980, I moved to the Chilcotin, where my husband and I bought a ranch, raised our family and are now involved in semi-retirement projects.

I'm presently the coordinator for CCCIPC, a job I started in late June. I'm also a part-time environmental farm planner for the Cariboo-Chilcotin area and spent many years as range resource officer for the Forest Service. That's where I got my initial weed management training or interest.

I live along the Chilcotin River where the Chilco and Chilcotin rivers meet, where the Hudson's Bay Co. had a failed attempt at a fort almost 200 years ago and where arrowheads I've collected have been dated at 4,500 years of age. It's a wonderful place. Highway 20 passes through our property. This includes old Highway 20 along the river's edge and the relocated paved version along our northern boundary.

When Highway 20 was relocated, the seed mix used along the right-of-way was contaminated with scentless chamomile. Now, 40 years later, this invasive species is found all along the right-of-way to Bella Coola. I've been complaining about scentless chamomile along the highway for at least 30 years. It's been confined to the highway. It comes down my driveway a little bit. I stop and pick it, or if I've got my sprayer with me, I spray the scentless chamomile. I've been able to keep it under control.

In 2010 wildfires raged across the Chilcotin. At my place the fire burned half of our fences and most of our pasture. Now that all the trees are gone, the runoff from the adjacent plateau down through our property is quite impressive. The driveway is impassable in the spring, our grazing lease is underwater, and creeks and waterfalls are present where none were found before.

As we live in a relatively dry part of the province, we quite appreciate this extra water that the fire has caused. But the problem now is that there is so much runoff in the spring that the water is coming down the highway, it's taking the seeds off the scentless chamomile, it's coming down through my property, and now it's down to the edge of my hayfield. Before we had a few plants here and there. Now I've got a whole drainage full of scentless chamomile.

This is one way in which the weeds along the highway which weren't treated significantly have now become a problem that's impacting me personally. And it's not just impacting me; it's impacting my neighbours too.

Along with the scentless chamomile, I've watched other species march west along Highway 20. Canada thistle is now at my doorstep, just down the highway a few kilometres. Unfortunately, Canada thistle is so well established in other areas of the province that it's no longer on the radar as a species to treat provincially. Although Canada thistle remains as a priority species in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, control of the species is not currently possible because there just aren't enough dollars to do it.

There are over 600 hectares of mapped infestations of priority species in the Cariboo-Chilcotin that are under Forest Service or FLNRO and MOT jurisdiction to treat. Of these 600 hectares, they're only able to treat 23 hectares. There's only sufficient funding to treat 23 hectares. This is 4 percent. The gist of what I'm saying is that we need some more dollars for treatment. Now that I've started this new job with CCCIPC, I have been made aware of some other problems that we have in the area.

I just came back last week from Bella Coola, where we met with the Nuxalk. Down in Bella Coola, Japanese knotweed is threatening the estuary and public safety, because it's growing along Highway 20 and utility infrastructure. It's actually growing at the water shutoffs that the CCRD has down there.

In Quesnel marsh plume thistle negatively impacts free-growing status of plantations and grazing of forest and range land. Toadflax, introduced decades ago as a garden ornamental, threatens the ecological health of the Tatlayoko Valley. Pastures in Horsefly dominated by hawkweeds, ox-eye daisy and Canada thistle offer no benefit to the producer.

Fraser River grasslands continue to be threatened by well-established knapweed and leafy spurge infestations. Baby's breath has escaped from the Toosey Cemetery to Beecher's Prairie, and mountain bluet dominates the graveyard in Barkerville.

You've heard this before, but invasive species threaten the health of our resources and the viability of the industries they support. Invasive species cause social, economic and environmental damage.

With my job as coordinator, part of my job is to get out and meet with people and educate and coordinate and all those sorts of things. I went to the Tatla Lake fall fair and the Bella Coola fall fair with my display, and I was really quite surprised at the people that came to talk to me. Just about everybody is concerned about weeds. They want to do the right thing, and they want to know what they should use to treat the problems they've got. So they are interested, and they are engaged. I think that's good news as far as this issue.

In closing, I'd like to say that to protect B.C. we must continue to invest in prevention by prohibiting the introduction of new invasive species, but we have to not forget about the ones that we've got. We can't forget about
[ Page 531 ]
the scentless camomile that's along the highway or the Canada thistle that's coming along the highway.

We must continue to invest in management by ensuring the control and reduction of invasive species that threaten B.C.'s economy and public safety, and we must continue to invest in education and coordination by supporting multi-stakeholder collaboration and communication.

M. Hunt: One of the challenges is, the longer we're at this, the longer the list gets.

M. Hunt: I've noticed you've got hypericum on your list as well, which I find really interesting.

M. Hunt: I've always found that getting to the roots is the easiest way to deal with it, because it's just a pain.

I'm noticing that your treatment is dealing with two different levels, local level versus landscape level. Local level, I'm assuming, is a small….

C. Mumford: One thing about St. John's wort is there's quite an infestation down Bella Coola way and not so much up our way. They do have some biological control down there for it.

C. Mumford: Sure. I've got baby's breath planted at my place that I bought at the nursery 20 years ago.

C. Mumford: It has a flower head on it like this, and I chop it down religiously, and it comes again. The same with oxeye daisy. I dug it up on the road 30 years ago thinking: "Well, there's a nice daisy flower. It's on the road, so it should survive at my place in the cold Chilcotin." That's how a lot of these things get established.

M. Hunt: So is part of your request to us, even though we're a Finance Committee, and we're not everything else…? Is one of your requests ultimately that we deal with some kind of legislation dealing with nurseries and what they bring into the province?

C. Mumford: I would think so, but I kind of think the legislation is maybe there. It's just education.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentations. We had the provincial group speak to us earlier today, and they quantified the amount of funding that historically, I guess, we have been provided and what ideally they'd like to provide, and they suggested some revenue resources.

If government were to provide additional resources to the provincial body, would the regional bodies be happy with…? Or how does that allocation happen to regional bodies? Do the dollars flow through the provincial, and then that's negotiated with the regional groups?

C. Mumford: It's my understanding our funding comes from Forests and Range. They used to be Forests and Range. They give a grant to the regional committee. They give a grant…

C. Mumford: …to our regional committee. Then in this area the CRD does the spraying. Our committee doesn't do any operational work. The CRD has their own contracts, and then they run the Ministry of Forests contracts and the MOT contracts.

G. Holman: I guess the committee is going to have to consider how the request from the B.C. organization overlaps, or not, with the regional groups.

C. Mumford: Right. In our particular case, our regional group has decided that we're not going to do any operational…. We're not — I shouldn't say "significantly" — advanced, but there's been a turnover of coordinators in the last couple of years. It's just easier for us if we let the regional district, who knows what the heck they're doing, do that end of things, and we would stay out of the operational end of things.

I said we were down in Bella Coola last week. The Nuxalk are very interested in undertaking the spray program down there — and the treatment, the pulling, of other weeds — and getting a crew organized. We would far rather…. They live down there. Rather than us man-
[ Page 532 ]
aging what's going on down there, let's get them up to speed and support them.

D. Ashton (Chair): Cathy, thank you. Anything else? Thank you for the presentation. Drive safe going home.

Next we have Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce. Is that Jason in the back? The chamber is not here, so Graeme Wallis, please come on forward.

Welcome. Thank you very much for coming. We've allotted ten minutes for the presentation. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have up to five minutes for questions. Sir, the floor is yours.

G. Wallis: Thanks for bearing with me here. I'm just on the upswing of the fall cold here.

One of the topics that I wished to discuss today was the topic of labour market efficiency, labour productivity and the emerging focus on tooling our provincial workforce for a resource-based economy.

Broadly speaking, there are two main forces that drive economic prosperity and improve the overall outlook of living standards for Canada and within our province. Those two items are terms of trade — so effectively being able to sell our products to the world at higher prices — and the second side of that being able to produce more for every hour that we work.

Over the past ten years our terms of trade have been favourable, surging by about 25 percent. However, our productivity improvements have been dismal in comparison. Our per-unit labour costs continue to soar as the resource sector continues to sap skilled labour and drive up wages, particularly in northern communities. That's the trend that we're seeing.

Simply put, I feel that our goal as a province is to centre our economic engine on sectors that heavily demand skilled labour. To continue to do that efficiently, we need to be able to ensure that we can support our growth with a workforce that is aligned with the skills required to get the jobs done.

British Columbia's economic action plan and the B.C. job plan have taken great strides in acknowledging these points and drive solutions. However, there is an obvious regional bias in our provincial planning regarding the education of skilled tradespeople that needs to be addressed.

I've held discussions with various interested parties, tradespeople, aspiring apprentices, business owners, educators and some of our regional policy-makers and union members. The general consensus shows that there are still obvious constraints within the system. Completing an apprenticeship program is often a volatile process.

Situationally, employers bid on job contracts and lay off workers upon completion. This lack of consistent on-the-job training causes a lag in how quickly we can move our apprentices through the program. Often apprentices move back and forth between school, EI support and competing for jobs on a per-contract basis. So effectively, the contract risk gets passed down from the employer to the employee and is absorbed by the taxpayer.

Our educational systems are built on a premise that biases towards professional programming and university education versus a true multi-path system that equally promotes and drives our youth towards trades pursuits. The B.C. job plan acknowledges these biases; however, it lacks the time-relevant and goal-specific focus to realistically address within the required time frame.

Our job plan touts that over one million additional jobs will be required, based on our economic growth targets; 43 percent of these will be within skilled labour. With the financial resources of our province, we need to consider this changing system. Our labour force is our most important resource, and continuing to expand and focus on investment in the trades and trades training are critical success factors involved in our provincial economic action plan.

Our economic action plan is based on the concept of one new dollar of investment into our province and the economic multiplier effect of sending that dollar through our communities and businesses. So in our budget planning we must consider all players in the community, the efficiency of the workforce at hand, and how to leverage and realize upon the strengths in our system to better realign trades education with our resource-based economy.

A well-trained workforce that is aligned with the needs of our province will drive down per-unit labour costs and increase the productivity and efficiency of our large development projects. In order to do this, we must consider a budget structure that continues to foster awareness and trade program development, focusing on a realistic training framework that is applicable and well-aligned with the needs of our specific industrial projects. We need to allocate resources to continue to review, streamline and revamp the framework of our trades training programs, focusing on front-end-loaded education that continues to allow for a longer time on the job for our workers in the field.

Focusing on time-sensitive goals for trade job creation and training, they are aligned across the three pillars of administrators, policy-makers, workers and then their businesses. We need to provision our communities and task forces involved in the process with resources to work with trades unions. We must focus on breaking down barriers found in their bureaucracy and simplify
[ Page 533 ]
the certification process of our journeymen in training.

We must continue to provide and allocate resources towards the B.C. jobs plan and ensure the close monitoring of the goals that we have stated to achieve.

Lastly, we have to work closely to involve the perspectives of our regional communities to ensure that our economic objectives are aligned with the needs of each community. This is to ensure that trained workers stay local, rather than simply commuting to the north.

In review, I want to thank the committee and its delegates for their time. I would like to extend my congratulations to the current government on the announcement of the joint commitment between our governments and Malaysia-owned Petronas for the investment within our province. And I want to finish by saying that as a province, we have the ability to undergo a great change and growth in our economy. Focusing on trades training and investing in education programs that are aligned with our future are critical to our success and growth.

Please, come on forward. Gentlemen, thank you for coming. We appreciate it. So ten minutes for the presentation. We have a question period after, up to five minutes. I'll give you a two-minute warning. The floor is yours.

W. Cobb: Well, thank you for the opportunity, for you guys coming here and the hard job I know you have of trying to balance wants with needs.

I had two presentations to make, but you've heard two tonight already that I was going to give one on, and that was invasive plants. So I'm just going to lend my support behind those two and suggest that you don't continue to cut funding for the invasive plants and that you increase the funding. And number two is that you stop banning herbicides that actually kill these weeds.

From there, my second presentation, of course, is on the B.C. Innovation Council. With me I have our CEO from our regional group, Bill McQuarrie, from Kamloops. That's why I didn't want to present earlier — because he was on his way up from Kamloops.

I want to give you a little background from where I sit. I tend to be a little bit of a redneck, and I say things that I probably shouldn't say, but anyway, take it where it comes from.

A year or so ago B.C. Innovation Council, otherwise known as BCIC, was under review, and as I said, from where I sit, they were living off the backs of us regional organizations. When the crunch came, BCIC had to justify their existence. They had accomplished virtually nothing except for the distribution of the funding that was given to them by the province, and in that case, they threw the regional groups under the bus to save their own butts.

In my opinion, the minister of the day had no idea or concept of the ramifications that changes would have to these regional organizations.

Now I'll turn it over to Bill to give you his feelings and what is actually happening. But yeah, I feel that we were thrown under the bus as a regional group that has done a lot of good work.

B. McQuarrie: Thank you, Walt, and thank you, members of the committee, for allowing me up here. I'm going to take just a couple of minutes. I'll give you a very, very brief background of ISIC and the science council network. I'll do a little bit of whining, and then after the whining I'll give you some solutions which may possibly work to resolve some of the issues that we're facing.

We were an economic development agency with a mandate to help entrepreneurs within the region develop innovative science and technology ideas and then turn them into active and ongoing companies or businesses. The economic revitalization of the region through the innovative use of science and technology was our mandate.

More than just app developers, we worked with individuals in the environmental sciences, agriculture, forestry, mining, transportation and education. Examples of some of the companies we've worked with over the years include iCompass, Visual Statement, Digipen, Arrow Transport, IdeaLever, G.C. Green Carbon, ROI Media and Net shift.

We've also done some significant work in the bioenergy solid waste side and connected communities. In fact, our current president was the first individual to experiment successfully with connecting schools wirelessly. He, at that time, was the IT director in the Ashcroft school district, and it became the model for Connected Communities throughout the province.

Over the 20 years of experience in the region as a science council, it has allowed us to refine and build our skills, develop strong contacts that became excellent referral and mentoring networks and build trusted relationships with governments and communities. In fact, we have the enthusiastic and ongoing support of every municipal and regional government in the region.

Then BCIC, as Walt has alluded to, implemented a new program following our core review. It was a new program model, and they explained at the time that these changes were being made at the specific request of government. The changes included — and I'll just deal with the four key ones here — programming that was solely focused on developing just technology companies — i.e., software and hardware developers.

Program objectives, design and implementation would
[ Page 534 ]
be controlled by BCIC and BCIC staff or approved contractors. Regional council directors and staff would have no input. Community concerns were not to be considered as this was a one-size-fits-all initiative that would be managed out of Vancouver. In fact, the letters of support that we had provided from municipal and regional governments were ignored. What worked in Vancouver would work in Williams Lake, period — no ifs, ands or buts.

Funding would be reduced by 60 percent over 30 months, and expectations were that these shortfalls would be made up through a fee-for-services and private sector contributions. We were told, again, that these changes were initiated and totally supported by the provincial government.

We would effectively become a branch office of BCIC, implementing their programs to clients of their choosing with contractors they had approved or provided, and we were to do this with significantly less money than in past years.

An example of the economic and social impact that this would have on an organization such as ISIC and other rural science councils was that part-time executives and resident mentors for the smaller regional councils would be provided by BCIC, based in Vancouver, and charged out at $60,000 per year plus travel.

We advised BCIC that we would not be bidding on the contract as it did not meet our core values, allow for community input, was not economically sustainable and did not take regional goals and characteristics into consideration. However, we were encouraged to bid, with the promise of further discussions. We did bid and were advised without further discussions that our bid was unsuccessful.

Other councils are feeling the impact and are closing or are in the process of closing, leaving much of rural B.C. unserved. Sci-Tech North, based in Fort St. John, closed in August. The Interior Science Innovation Council, whom I work for, will be closed as of December 31 of this year. Northwest Science and Innovation Society is in the process of closing. That's up in Terrace.

The executive directors of the Kootenay Rockies Innovation Council has resigned, as has the ED from the Kootenay Association for Science and Technology. Both Kootenay EDs have expressed serious concerns about the viability of their councils under BCIC's venture acceleration program and feel there's a strong probability of closing in the spring of 2014.

Was it truly the goal of government to ignore rural B.C. for a quick fix and fast numbers? Or was it simply, as Walt alluded to, BCIC's response and quick fix for their core review?

Did you know that under the current plan, if an entrepreneur came to me with an innovative idea for transporting LNG safely and quickly, we would be unable to accept?

Are you aware that if an individual came to me with a new idea for farming and ranching and simply needed an independent third party to validate her research in order to complete that process, we would be unable to help her, even if it meant that families could earn more money, stay on the land and therefore in the community?

Imagine my having to turn away a group of investors who want to look at taking open-pit mine tailings and turning that waste product into concrete — fully invested, wanting to use the university to conduct the necessary materials research. The idea will also reduce the visual and environmental impact of open-pit mining. Today, based on the BCIC-led mandate, we would be unable to help them.

Our clients more often than not come to us with ideas that are resource-based. It's about where we live, where we work and what we know. Quite often our techie community has dirty fingernails, callused hands and thinks a rusty nail is something you pull out of a 2-by-4 instead of ordering from a bar in Yaletown. Their PhD equivalency was earned out in the field through the school of hard knocks and hard-won experience.

Do we still work with software developers? Yes. But again, we are more likely to come across a developer working on a more efficient GIS cataloguing system for forestry management or a new piece of communication software that will make it easier for home-based schooling in remote areas. Seldom do we work with those wanting to write new gaming apps for your iPhone. The latter is more suited for the systems in Kelowna, Victoria or Vancouver.

Recommendations. I have three of them. Bring the operation of the regional councils back into government. You did it before, and it works very well. Separate and manage Kelowna, Victoria and Nanaimo as part of an urban program. They are not rural and have very different needs and much higher costs than we do.

Fund the rural regional councils by splitting the funding between our current ministry, Citizens' Services, and Advanced Education, Mines, Forests, Agriculture, Natural Gas Development and Environment. Bring in federal partners like Western Economic Diversification and the National Research Council. Look at private sectors in mining, energy and forestry for sponsorship.

Commit to three years of funding at $200,000 per year for those rural councils that can hang in there until April 2014. Bridge funding for the fourth quarter would go a long way to ensuring their survival.

Let us do what we are good at, do what works for each region. We are in place here, we are established, and we have regional support. We are trusted, and we believe in what we are doing. In fact, we have some volunteers who have worked for us for 20 years. We don't get that kind of dedication and enthusiasm unless we are doing some-
[ Page 535 ]
thing truly beneficial.

J. Tegart: I just wanted to say thank you for coming up. Certainly, I have heard from one of your board members, as a local MLA, and suggested to him that this was a great venue for some input. If we don't know, we can't do anything about it. So thank you very much.

D. Ashton (Chair): Up next we have Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce — Jason Ryll. You walked in the door — perfect. The presentation is up to ten minutes. I'll give you a two-minute warning. We have five minutes allotted for questions or comments, if required, from the committee.

Hi. Welcome to Williams Lake. I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity for me to speak to you this afternoon and address or perhaps bring to light some issues that we feel require your attention.

Some issues have been brought forward to the chamber of commerce. One issue we see that has a big impact on financial issues in our province and, subsequently, on our community is that of the many layers and levels of government bureaucracy and, more specifically, when it comes to interdepartmental communication.

An example of this has been brought to my attention recently by a property owner who needed to remove a pre-existing concrete wharf that was on their property when they purchased it. Over time the wharf became weathered and broken down and so required that it be removed from their property.

In order to try and go about a proper process, the landowner, in his own words, "made the mistake of asking a question." He approached the Ministry of Environment, who said that the owner needed to consult with First Nations, then with Fisheries, then a biologist, then an architect. It seems to the landowner that nobody was talking to each other.

This process was very restrictive and prohibitive. Further to this example, he followed the process. Then, when his neighbour wanted to use some of the materials that were left over on his property, he was told as well to go through a similar process with Fisheries and Environment and biologists. All for the removal of an old wharf and relocation of materials to a neighbour's property — for a stone fence, was the end result.

We feel that this type of interdepartmental confusion is hindering residential development or even just maintenance of those properties. Landowners, property owners, are getting to the point where they're almost scared to ask the question: "What do we need to do to get this done?"

However, it's this same type of confusing goose chase that property developers also have to go through, which, in turn, we feel restricts investment into communities. What should have been a straightforward process ended up being very restrictive, which the property owner regretted. It was costly and drives this kind of activity to happen under the radar, if you will.

I'm not one to complain without a possible solution. A recommendation or possible solution could be, obviously, a streamlined process for permit applications like this, along with a timeline for people wanting to get something done on their properties, whether they are residential or commercial in nature.

Another issue that directly affects business is the lengthy and often difficult process for licensing for an establishment — specifically, liquor licensing. I know that that is being reviewed right now — the liquor laws. However, a case in point. A local business here applied for a liquor licence from the liquor control licensing branch. While this business in the long run did end up getting their requested licence, it was a process that took two years to complete.

This is also not conducive to encouraging business investments in our community. Business owners cannot afford to wait up to two years in order to accomplish their business plans. Again, a possible solution to this could be a more streamlined and perhaps even a more local decision-making body behind this regulation process — either a local person or possibly more staff to the liquor control and licensing branch to address and alleviate application processes like this one.

Another example of this lengthy application process is in forestry, where we had a local mill tied up in an application process to purchase a timber supply area that lasted almost six years and almost ended up in court because of it.

It's certainly not a process that encourages investment, especially for a government that seems to so keenly want to help investment in our natural resource sector. Streamlined application processes need to be created, whether it's for licensing, environmental applications, etc., for proper growth of our local and provincial economies.

While far-reaching health care and education are also two topics that need attention, I won't go into great detail over complaining about shortfalls in both sectors. They are both far-reaching. However, I can address a couple of specific issues within them that could impact you as our provincial representatives within Finance.

One in health care. We are all acutely aware that there are a number of skilled worker shortages in our health
[ Page 536 ]
care system. However, that in itself is almost self-defeating. I say that because there lies another problem that is more of the case, and that is staffing position shortages.

I have the benefit, if you will, of knowing this firsthand, as my wife is a nurse at our local hospital. While, yes, there are nursing shortages, what there seem to be more of…. Or sort of the snake eating its tail is there aren't positions for nurses to apply to. Those positions are held back, if you will, because of the health authorities trying to meet their budgets.

We would have greater success in recruiting more nurses specifically to work in rural areas like ours if there were more positions for them to apply to. Instead, there only exist casual or on-call positions available for them, which is less attractive to potential employees who look to uproot and relocate their lives and families.

It also makes investments in homes for these potential employees that much more difficult. As you can imagine, it's hard to get approved for a mortgage or apply for a loan when your position is casual and there's no guarantee as to how many hours you're going to work in any specific pay period.

More full-time or even solid part-time positions will retain and attract more staff to work in rural areas. And more staff results in greater patient care, which, I think we can all agree, is the goal we're all trying to work towards in health care.

In education, I'd like to encourage the committee here today to review the resources available to educators today. I’m not here to advocate for more pay for teachers, but instead, to give them and, therefore, students the tools that they need to succeed — especially in rural settings. Instead of teachers using textbooks that are old, damaged — some dated, without current information — we could instead be using technology to our students' advantage.

High-speed Internet is being made available provincewide, and we feel that there is a huge cost saving available to school districts around the province in utilizing that high-speed Internet. Downloadable content for teachers and students is something that is already being utilized at post-secondary levels, and there's ample argument that it could be used in high school settings as well. I think you and I both know that there are already districts that are using these tools around our province and in other provinces.

I'd like to see and make sure that B.C. is not left behind. Teaching resources like textbooks would be current. Content would be up to date and easily managed by district administrators.

Once again, I'd like to encourage that B.C. not be left behind in this case. The more we can increase efficiencies in our different sectors, the better we can encourage investments in our province.

I'm curious. On your comments regarding this member of the chamber who had difficulties getting a liquor licence: was that for an LRS store or for an establishment like a liquor primary restaurant?

J. Ryll: No, it was for a restaurant and a gaming centre. It wasn't for a liquor distribution branch, by any means.

J. Yap: So it was for a restaurant. Was the delay on the part of the liquor licensing, or were there municipal issues?

J. Yap: I'm interested because, as you may have heard, the province is doing a comprehensive review of liquor policy and regulation in the province, and I'm leading it.

So if the chamber or your member who was affected would like to comment on their experience and any suggestions, now is the time to do it.

We're open for suggestions to the end of October. The most efficient way of getting to provide your input is through the website, and you access it through the gov.bc.ca website and look for the button that says: "Liquor policy review." Click on that, and you're in the website.

J. Ryll: Right. Sure. I'll consult with this member and solicit any other members that have had problems or difficulties.

J. Yap: We'd love to hear, especially from this region, on any issues that we should learn about and think of ways to streamline it, as you say.

Sir, welcome. Thank you for coming back early — appreciate that. It gives us an opportunity, for ourselves, to get somewhere else tonight at a little earlier time. The presentation is ten minutes. I'll give you a two-minute warning, and then we've got five minutes allotted for questions. The floor is yours.

C. Huffman: Hello. My name is Cuyler Huffman, and I am the president of the Cariboo Cattlemen's Association. On behalf of the cattlemen's association, I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for this opportunity to present the needs of local producers in the beef industry.

The Cariboo Cattlemen's Association consists of producers from Anahim Lake, Big Creek, Alexis Creek, Tatla
[ Page 537 ]
Lake, Riske Creek, Springhouse, Chimney Creek, Soda Creek, 150 Mile House, Beaver Valley, Big Lake, Rose Lake, Horsefly, Lac la Hache and soon to be Clinton. Our association is proud to be supplying locally raised livestock in a sustainable manner.

Fencing is one of our major points. There's only one year of funding left in regards to range fences. This term needs to be extended so that range fences can be put in place. A lot of this is due to the mountain pine beetle, so therefore, a lot of these trees have knocked down existing fences.

The removal of any dead trees along or on range fencelines will help keep cattle on the ranges and prevent excess dry wood if a wildfire were to happen. These rights-of-way that fences travel on actually act as a barrier to fire.

One year of funding is left on the highway fencing program. We need to extend the term of this and to expand it to include secondary highways. For example, Highway 20, which is west of Williams Lake here, has a large number of cattle bordering the highway — probably around 5,000 to 6,000 head. This highway is very busy with logging traffic and, with proposed mines in the area, is only going to get busier. It has very substandard fencing for most of the length of it.

Water, of course, is always a big issue for ranchers. Producers have now fenced out a lot of their natural water sites for riparian-area protection, such as the creeks, dugouts, springs, lakes and so on. This means that cattle cannot access the water the way they once could. This, in return, helps the environment but is another added cost to producers, as they now have to put in waters, watering troughs and so on in areas where they would normally have used Mother Nature as a source of water with unrestricted access.

Dam funding is also an issue of contention. Ranchers are licensed dam users that are required to hire professional engineers to inspect water storage dams to ensure safety and proper function. In some cases where dam licensees are not able to financially afford the inspection, they're required to pull, or deactivate, the dam, destroying the habitat that that body of water has created. To me, this seems ridiculous. Ranchers are the only sector to bear the brunt of these costs, where these dams are located on Crown land, for the most part, and are of concern to the public.

Research and marketing. Research money for universities to do studies with ranchers — for example, wolf studies to help maintain a wolf population balance and, also, water issues.

Make a simple process for the transitioning of a ranch from one generation to the younger generation. As of now it is very difficult to transfer a ranch. That makes it very hard on the older generation, wanting to retire but unable to transfer ownership over — as goes for the younger generation, who gets very frustrated.

Offering some funding or rebate to help encourage the transfer process. In a few years from now there may not be a lot of younger ranchers that want to take over the ranch because the process is so discouraging.

The Ranching Task Force. The Growing Forward program has been successful, and Growing Forward 2 is also up and running. It works well to distribute funds to different research and marketing programs. We need to maintain the Growing Forward program for future use, as sometimes these programs fall through the cracks, but as an association, we feel that it's quite valuable.

Thanks for the opportunity to meet and listen to our association's points. We recognize there are limited funds. If we were to obtain funds for our region, we would provide the most growth with that funding. The beef industry is a significant addition to the economy of the Cariboo and B.C. There are many jobs linked to the beef industry. From trucking, packing plants, the feed industry, wholesalers and retailers, many rely on our industry.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thanks, Cuyler. I saw you brought three of your young ranch hands in here with you too.

D. Ashton (Chair): Blaine, Cassidy and Kacey, welcome. Thanks for coming. Your dad did a good job tonight.

A question about the riparian areas and having to use water troughs. I guess I'm not clear. Are you asking for financial support to provide an alternative, other than just letting cattle walk down into them?

G. Holman: Okay. On the dams on Crown land. If it's on private land and there's a dam, presumably that's a situation where the private owner has to…. But you're talking about a situation in which we're leasing Crown land?

M. Elmore: Cuyler, thanks for your presentation. With respect to fencing, you say there's one year left of funding. What is the annual amount that's allocated for fencing, and what's your recommendation? Because you say it needs to be expanded.

C. Huffman: I'm not honestly sure what is allocated at this time. I know about what it costs to fence. I think they're averaging about $13 a metre. That's what it's costing for highway-quality fencing.

C. Huffman: Some of them were privately built. I believe a lot of them probably were privately built. Some of them are really old dams that have been in place that ranchers probably put in years and years ago to secure water storage for agricultural use.

I'm not understanding your transitioning problem. You look pretty young to me, so I think you already qualify for one of the young ones. But I'm not understanding. You allude to it, but you don't tell us what the problem is. What is the problem in transferring ownership?

C. Huffman: Well, I'm sorry. This wasn't my point, but I should have understood it more clearly before I came. I guess just with the price of land and everything else. There's nothing we can do. But it's very hard for a young rancher in this industry to continue on with the margins that we're at right now, which is just the place where the market is at, at this point, I guess.

M. Hunt: So we're not dealing with a legislative or a legal problem in transferring. We're dealing with a price problem in transferring.

M. Hunt: Okay. I just wanted to clear that. Because if it was a problem…. You know, two different ways of dealing with things — right? So I just wanted to clarify what the problem was.

L. Popham: Always been a pleasure to deal with the Cariboo Cattlemen's Association.

My question is about the water and troughing issues. I know in this area there has been a variety of different concerns. Up in Big Creek there are some mitigation problems with logging practices, with pine beetle, specifically Randy Saugstad's story.

Considering all of the troughing demands, how much do you think that would cost annually to fund it properly or to fund a program that would get that under control?

C. Huffman: I'll just refer to something else that I have here. With FRISP, the farmland-riparian interface stewardship program, what B.C. Cattlemen's has sort of allotted for that, which is the collaboration with the ranching community, ministry and Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff…. This helps the ranchers in adopting practices that benefit both their ranch and the environment.

Programs offer assistance through a non-enforcement approach and have proven to be successful. What we've said is about $100,000 per year for five years.

L. Popham: Sorry, that's for all of B.C. That's from the B.C. Cattlemen's? Those are their numbers.

L. Popham: Yes, and I think we've heard that number. But I guess, just for this area…. You don't have to answer right now. You can get back to us on that. I know that there are different circumstances in the Cariboo.

C. Huffman: Yes, it is. Funding urgently needed. As of March 31 there's no funding available to deliver this FRISP program.

Do we have anybody on the list? None? At this point in time I'd like to adjourn the meeting.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

1) Martin Sadd
2) Invasive Species Council of British Columbia	Gail Wallin
3) Tolko Industries Ltd.	Tom Hoffman
4) Bill Carruthers
5) Gary Young
6) Cariboo Regional District	Al Richmond
7) Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Invasive Plant Committee	Cathy Mumford
8) Graeme Wallis
9) Walt Cobb; Bill McQuarrie
10) Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce	Jason Ryll
11) Cariboo Cattlemen's Association	Cuyler Huffman

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:	Stephanie Raymond (Administrative Assistant)

Witnesses:	Bill Carruthers
	Walt Cobb
	Tom Hoffman (Tolko Industries Ltd.)
	Cuyler Huffman (Cariboo Cattlemen's Association)
	Bill McQuarrie
	Cathy Mumford (Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Invasive Plant Committee)
	Al Richmond (Cariboo Regional District)
	Jason Ryll (President, Williams Lake and District Chamber of Commerce)
	Martin Sadd
	Graeme Wallis
	Gail Wallin (Executive Director, Invasive Species Council of British Columbia)
	Gary Young

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES