Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 45 — Wednesday, October 8, 2014 (HTML)

Present: Dan Ashton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; Jane Jae Kyung Shin, MLA; John Yap, MLA

1. There not yet being a Chair elected to serve the Committee, the meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. by the Committee Clerk.

2. Resolved, that Dan Ashton, MLA, be elected Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. (Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA)

3. Resolved, that Carole James, MLA, be elected Deputy Chair of Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. (Mike Morris, MLA)

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

7. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions regarding budgetary expenses.

• Jay Fedorak, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Commissioner, Investigation and Mediation

9. The Committee met in-camera from 12:09 p.m. to 12:18 p.m. to consider the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s application.

11. Resolved, that the Committee endorse the application of the Commissioner to utilize surplus STOB 60, Professional Services, Judicial Reviews Funds, in Fiscal 2014-15 to manage office budgetary expenses. (Gary Holman, MLA)

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
Election of Chair and Deputy Chair	1115
Presentations	1116
D. Profili
L. Green
M. Mobley
L. Abubakar
K. Poore
R. Beuschel
B. Barr
J. Nugent
A. Graeme
G. Leier
R. Fayant
K. Palfenier
G. Johansson
P. Nash
K. Boon
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner: Supplementary Funding Request	1141
E. Denham
J. Fedorak

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Good morning, Members. As this is our first meeting of the third session of the 40th parliament, our first order of business is the election of a Chair. Are there any nominations?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Scott Hamilton has moved Dan Ashton. Carole has seconded.

Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Asking a third time, any further nominations?

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you very much again. I’m honoured to be elected twice within a month-and-a-bit period.

D. Ashton (Chair): Second that? Are there any other nominations, for the first time? Any other nominations, for the second time? Any other nominations, for the third time?

Up first we have a video conference and teleconference — Dawson Creek, Quesnel, Smithers and Castlegar. Castlegar is on the line first of all.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton and Chair of this committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We’re an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with a mandate to hold provincewide public consultations on the next provincial budget.

The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper that is released by the Minister of Finance. Following the consultations, the committee will release a report with recommendations for Budget 2015 no later than November 15, 2014.

This year we are holding 16 public hearings in communities across the province. A video conference session is also scheduled for today to hear from Dawson Creek, Quesnel, Smithers and Castlegar.

In addition to the hearings, the committee is accepting written, audio and video submissions and responses to a short on-line survey. You can make a submission or learn more by visiting our webpage at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. You can also follow us on Facebook and on Twitter.

We invite all British Columbians to take the time to make a submission and to participate in this important process. All public input is carefully considered as part of the committee’s final report to the Legislative Assembly. The deadline for submissions is Friday, October 17.

Today’s meeting will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for any questions or comments from the committee.

Today’s meeting is also being recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services. A complete transcript of the proceedings will be posted to the committee’s website. All of the meetings are also broadcast as live audio via our website.

I would now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. I’ll start with Jane.

J. Shin: Good morning. My name is Jane Shin. I’m the MLA for Burnaby-Lougheed and deputy spokesperson for trade, immigration and multiculturalism.

G. Heyman: George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, spokesperson for TransLink, technology and green economy.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Good morning. Carole James, MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill and Finance critic.

S. Hamilton: Good morning. I’m Scott Hamilton, and I’m the MLA for Delta North.

J. Yap: Good morning. I’m John Yap, the MLA for Richmond-Steveston.
[ Page 1116 ]

D. Ashton (Chair): Also, helping us out today is Susan Sourial from the committee office, and from Hansard we have Ian and Alexa that are helping with the conferencing. So thanks, folks.

S. Hamilton: Mr. Chair, if I could ask, just with respect to the extension of the submission dates with regard to any last-minute information that previous presenters have had, will we be contacting those previous presenters and telling them about the extension?

S. Hamilton: I’m sorry. October 17 was the deadline; it’s now the 23rd for submissions.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): There’s another committee that has extended the deadline.

D. Ashton (Chair): We’re on to Castlegar. Just before we get started, please, to those that are in the audience at Castlegar, accept our apologies for not being able to get into Castlegar.

We started off that day late because of fog in Victoria. When we got to Cranbrook, the weather for the next morning was not projected to be very good. With the airport conditions at Castlegar, having a plane which is commercially registered and being able to take off…. We couldn’t leave at night because of, again, the closing of the airport. In the morning, with the possibility of fog, it would have thrown our schedules completely awry.

We do apologize, and we’ll make every effort to include Castlegar for a visit, subject to who is on the committee, for next year. But again, please accept our apologies. It was not taken lightly that we could not get into Castlegar.

Up first in Castlegar is Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy, and it’s the Castlegar branch. Is that correct?

D. Profili: Yes. Well, I’m the regional manager. I’ll be speaking on behalf of the West Kootenay–Boundary.

So ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. I’m sorry. I’ll have to interject, if you just hear me quickly. Then we have the five minutes for questions or comments.

D. Profili: My name is Desneiges Profili, and I’m the regional program manager for the Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy. CBAL is the Columbia Basin and Boundary region’s not-for-profit literacy organization.

I understand that you heard from Katherine Hough in Cranbrook last week. She is one of our coordinators in Cranbrook.

CBAL employs 15 literacy outreach coordinators, of which nine are based here in the West Kootenay–Boundary. With me today I have Lani Green, who is a participant from local literacy programs.

I first want to start by thanking each and every one of you for having us here today and to extend a thank-you to the B.C. government for the funding that is provided to Decoda Literacy Solutions for the coordination of literacy work across the province. We know that this task is one of great importance, and we thank you for allowing literacy to have a voice throughout this process.

Our presentation is simple. Literacy is important. Literacy is the common thread within resilient and thriving communities. It has a direct impact on issues such as crime rate, poverty, health and wellness, economic prosperity and workplace safety.

When the province made the momentous move to fund literacy coordination, the field was able to focus resources on identifying community needs, building and expanding new and existing partnerships, coordinating and delivering literacy programming for learners of all ages and creating community plans that would shape the work for the coming years.

The concept was solid and has been a valued process that continues to be a core function of literacy outreach coordinators. As a field, we are proud of the work we do, not just because it feels good but because the work has a meaningful and long-reaching impact on the individuals who participate in literacy programs. That in turn benefits the communities, the region and the province.

The term “literacy” is not a finite concept. It is lifelong
[ Page 1117 ]
and life-wide. No better example of this can be found than in the ever-changing modern world, a world that is complicated by the advancement of technology. Multiple literacies challenge the common belief that literacy is just about reading and writing. This adds to the complexity of meeting the needs of men, women and families who attend literacy programs.

Needless to say, the work is not done. Forty percent of British Columbians do not have adequate literacy skills, the skills needed to help them communicate effectively, acquire essential workplace skills, bank on line or support their own children’s literacy development. Literacy is not a choice. It is not something one can simply opt out of. It is demanded of those living in a modern world. Not only is it necessary; it is a fundamental human right.

Last year this very committee made many recommendations, one of which was to provide $2.5 million to Decoda Literacy Solutions for the purpose of supporting literacy initiatives across the province. There is no doubt that the committee understood the importance of this work. Once again we implore you to make the recommendation to support community-based literacy programming for an annual amount of $2.5 million, which we believe is the minimum amount needed to support this important work.

One might ask why — why fund literacy. The province supports literacy and learning in a variety of ways. We acknowledge and appreciate those commitments. But participants who attend literacy programs are not funded in other ways. These are not core programs provided by the K-to-12 system, post-secondary institutions or libraries.

These are community learning programs. This funding is essential, and if we continue to erode the foundations of our funding, we jeopardize communities’ abilities to leverage other funding sources. It is no secret that literacy outreach coordinators, together with their organizations, are able to maximize the funds provided by the province.

To give you an idea of what programming looks like here in the West Kootenay–Boundary, here is a snapshot based on our 2013-2014 stats. Ninety-four programs and 66 workshops were offered across the region last year, and 1,937 unique adult clients and 1,914 children attended the adult and family literacy programs. There is $400 leveraged in additional funding to the $180,000 we receive in this region by the province, $174,000 of in-kind contributions from community partners.

Today there are no funds dedicated to literacy outreach coordination for this upcoming fiscal year. With the loss of the province’s commitment to fund literacy coordination, the long-term effects will be irreversible. This is not a dream. This program is happening today across the province in countless communities. Today families, adults and children are attending literacy programs.

What we are asking for is an annual commitment of $2.5 million. This is essential in ensuring that learners across the province will be able to access programs and services for years to come.

To understand how these programs impact the lives of those who attend programs, I would like to now turn the presentation over to Lani Green, who is a program participant in community-based literacy programs here in Castlegar.

L. Green: My name is Lani Green. I came to Canada from the Philippines nine years ago. When I came to Canada, I was very quiet and didn’t socialize very much with many people because I didn’t have the confidence that people could understand me because of my strong accent.

I moved to Castlegar fours ago from Revelstoke, where I met my husband, and now we have two beautiful children. I attended the Mother Goose program in Revelstoke when I had my son back in 2009. I really liked it, so when I moved to Castlegar, I wanted to participate in a similar program.

Not only did I find a Mother Goose program but many more wonderful programs that Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy is offering in Castlegar. I am happy to participate in all of them. I have been benefitting from all of CBAL’s wonderful programs since I moved to Castlegar. I have also attended the adult basic education, which is so wonderful for the people who want to finish their courses, like getting their GED despite their age and circumstances.

A wonderful teacher from Selkirk College comes in to help you with your studies while your little ones are being cared for in the other room, which allows you to focus more on your homework.

I also attended ESL classes twice a week to improve my conversation skills and my English. These are only some of the great programs that CBAL is offering in Castlegar, and I’m very thankful and glad to participate in all of this.

CBAL has had a lot of effect on my personal life. I have met so many wonderful people and made friends from all over the world. It has given me confidence to be able to face the world with a positive attitude. For that, I have come across this literacy quote by Kofi Annan.

“Literacy is a bridge from misery to hope. It is a tool for daily life in modern society. It is a bulwark against poverty and a building block of development, an essential complement to investments in roads, dams, clinics and factories. Literacy is a platform for democratization and a vehicle for the promotion of cultural and national identity. Especially for girls and women, it is an agent of family health and nutrition. For everyone, everywhere, literacy is, along with education in general, a basic human right. Literacy is, finally, the road to human progress and the means through which every man, woman and child can realize his or her full potential.”

D. Profili: Actually, that concludes our presentation. I really want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today. Of course, if there are any questions, we’ll turn it over to you.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about the kind of work that you’re doing now and where you’re seeing the current pressures. Are there areas in the community, whether it’s youth or seniors or others, where you’re seeing greatest need in the area of literacy right now?

D. Profili: It varies community to community, but as a common thread that we’re seeing across communities, seniors and technology is one that seems to be coming up more and more. In terms of young adults, we’re seeing a lot of young families, whether we see them in school-age programs…. We do partnerships with the schools with a program called PALS — parents as literacy supporters. That’s set in kindergarten classrooms.

Depending on your community, young parents are looking to upgrade, so the AD programs that we offer in partnership with the colleges in three of our communities have been quite well attended. It’s successful because it has the partnership between…. We have the ADM structure. We intertwine family literacy, and we have someone coming in for children so parents can actually attend the program.

Cranbrook is the same. I know they have the YPEP program there. It’s quite an active program that’s actually full right now.

If we had to look at two streams — young adults, and we’re seeing the seniors. There seems to be quite a group that are coming into the programs, a lot of our drop-in programs, looking for technology and then other things like GED and upgrading so they can enter programs at colleges.

M. Morris: I’m just curious. You mentioned 40 percent of B.C.’ers lack functional literacy. That seems like a very high number to me — 40 percent of British Columbians. Could you just elaborate on that a little bit? Is our education system failing us, or where does this 40 percent come from?

D. Profili: The 40 percent. Those are stats taken from the IL, which is the international literacy survey that’s done. The new survey that’s coming out that I think will affect that 40 percent and change the way that we look at that number is the PIAAC, which is the program for the international assessment of adults. That’s another assessment that will be coming out.

You know, a stat is a stat. It’s taken among a sample of people. It is a high number, when we look at 40 percent. If you’re looking at technology, if you’re looking at reading, writing, numeracy, those are those kinds of surveys our sample is based on.

So 40 percent — I agree with saying that it might be a high number. I don’t ever like to say that our education system is failing us. I mean, when we’re looking at adults I think we’ve come a long way in our education system. It’s very different how education is delivered today than it was ten to 20 years ago even. So I would never say the education is failing somebody, but I do think that there are gaps.

There are gaps. There are people who are falling through the cracks, and community programs are, kind of, there because people…. Either they’re not ready to enter formal systems, they don’t want to go back to college, they don’t have time to go back to those kinds of commitments where they have to spend months in a program. So community-based programs are there to assist those people that can’t go back and go to college and can’t go back to any kind of training program. We try to fill those gaps that are there.

D. Ashton (Chair): I have two more questions coming, and we have two minutes left.

G. Holman: Thanks very much for your presentation. Just quickly, you mentioned that you’re not assured that you’re going to get funding after the end of March of next year.

G. Holman: So as I understand it, in this current year you’ve got close to 2,500 clients, 94 programs, and you’re not sure whether that programming can continue after the end of March next year.

D. Profili: Right. Let’s just be really clear. The funding that I’m talking about specifically, the $2.5 million, funds the literacy coordination — so the outreach, the person that’s doing all the work coordinating those programs. We do have other funds, so we do leverage funds, as you can see. It’s well known that we do leverage other funding.

The issue with the $2.5 million — we wouldn’t say that everything is going to end at the end of March. We would never say that. I would never say that, because in this kind of a situation in this kind of field, we do what we can to make sure we can maintain the programs that are essential. What losing that $2.5 million does is it loses
[ Page 1119 ]
that focused coordination piece that’s needed to connect all of those pieces.

We’re able to leverage funds, leverage in-kind donations, and we aren’t able to do that unless we have someone doing that work on the ground floor. It kind of reverts back to what it was eight to ten years ago, when there were all these other program partners that were working within the community.

When you look at Interior Health and you look at the school system, they don’t have extra resources to put towards these programs. They can put some towards hours helping to plan, to come to a meeting, usually outside of their own work time. Sometimes they can put funds towards programs as well. That’s great, but if we don’t have the person doing the coordinating, if we don’t have the person that can write the grants to get the funding, it does put those programs at risk.

I, personally, would never say that those programs, after March 31: “It’s done. It’s over if we lose that money….” But what will it do? It will erode those programs. They’ll go back to what they were, and I think we’ve just come too far, in the last seven years especially, in this field to step back and say: “You know what? We can’t offer those programs anymore.” We need to find a way to fund these programs.

D. Ashton (Chair): Desneiges, really quickly, we have Simon Gibson for the last question. We only have about 30 seconds.

S. Gibson: I’ll ask the question really quickly as well. The challenge that I have found with adult learners and people that I know is that the people that most need help with literacy are the ones that are most embarrassed about it — particularly adult males, who fail to come forward but are lacking in the skills that we’re discussing. Can you speak, very briefly, on how you get those kinds of people into the system? Because they’re the ones that need the most help.

D. Profili: Years ago targeted programming was something that people would often do. They’d focus on a group that’s either low level or low income — any kind of a program, right? When we’re looking at literacy programs, we really feel that we have to open it up and offer it to anybody who can walk through that door. It’s not just for that group of people. So whether we tailor programs, of course, to meet their needs, we try to make sure that the door is open for anybody that wants to come and wants to learn.

I think it’s the same as a food program at schools. So if we have a food program, the breakfast program…. If I open it only to those kids who have to come to school and say, “there’s no breakfast at home for me,” so they have to come and eat at the school, there’s a stigma attached to that. Now we see in schools that we open up to any child. If you come to school and you are hungry, no matter where you’re from, you’re welcome to come.

We’ve based our program in this area on that same kind of premise. The door is open to any learner that wants to walk through that door.

And Lani, thank you very, very much. Again, accept our apologies for not getting to Castlegar.

D. Profili: Completely understandable. It’s one of the things about living here in the Kootenays.

D. Ashton (Chair): Yes. Thank you. Well, you folks have a great day. See you in a bit.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good. I hope you can see us. The cameras will swing over to the individuals when they come to questions. We have ten minutes allotted for the presentation, five minutes for questions or comments from the committee. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. Once again, welcome, and thank you for participating in this.

M. Mobley: Thank you very much for having me. First of all, I’m Michelle Mobley. I’m the literacy outreach coordinator for Dawson Creek Literacy Now, under Decoda Literacy Solutions.

Firstly, I’d like to thank you for the recommendation that was made last year regarding the annual funding of $2½ million for literacy work in B.C. We are grateful that the ministry had provided $2 million at the end of the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Though this is less funding than required, it helped us to continue most of the programs and services that Dawson Creek Literacy Now provides. However, there’s no funding with the 2014-15 fiscal year and beyond. That makes the literacy work of Dawson Creek and around the province unstable and certainly uncertain.

Traditionally, literacy has been viewed as simply reading and writing. However, literacy is so much more in its entirety. It’s about how we communicate with one another, how we deliver, process and make sense of information. It’s about our health, our quality of life, our understanding of the world around us and the resiliency of individuals and our communities. It has the power to improve health, grow economies and increase security and civic participation. Through literacy development, individuals, families and communities become stronger
[ Page 1120 ]
and more adept to change.

Now, 40 percent of adults in British Columbia do not have the literacy skills they need to achieve their ultimate goals, to function and thrive in the modern economy and to fully develop their knowledge and potential. That represents over one million people who are under-equipped to cope with today’s technology- and information-based society. As a result, new knowledge-intensive occupations become increasingly out of reach.

Having low literacy can turn seemingly simple tasks into chores. Things like reading a map or a bus schedule, filling out a rental agreement or a job application may not be possible without assistance. They have fewer choices in jobs, education and housing and generally experience poorer overall health. Better literacy skills improve employment prospects and income, reduce dependence on social assistance, promote health and reduce criminal offending, just to name a few of the social benefits.

It is vital to ensure that all children get a strong start, but it is also critical to increase the opportunities for adults to acquire and continue to hone the literacy skills they need, because literate parents are the most important influence on the literacy of a future generation.

Here in Dawson Creek our task group members represent the school district, college, literacy organization, the early years, seniors, employment services and community service organizations. We provide free computer and tech classes for seniors that focus on assisting and keeping them up to date on the basic use of technology so that they can stay connected to family and friends. We host seven book-share locations around the city through which we have given over 5,000 books, games and other literacy-related materials. We give presentations on the importance of early literacy and until recently provided workshops and games afternoons for seniors.

Literacy Now is also part of a number of community tables. We partner with other organizations to bring numerous community events and workshop opportunities to the public. We create awareness around literacy issues and promote community engagement.

We are reaching the point where difficult decisions will need to be made about how we support people who require literacy assistance. In Dawson Creek we have already had to make adjustments to offset the financial shortfall of 2013-14. Without a commitment to annual funding, community literacy programs will likely begin to fold by the end of the current fiscal year.

I’m here to ask that the government continue to provide $2½ million annually, the recommendation that was made by the standing committee last year.

Literacy is so vital to everyone in this province. It involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential and to participate fully in the wider society.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Michelle. You may have heard me ask this of the previous person, but I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the priority areas in your community. I think one of the great strengths of the literacy programs is that they meet the needs of their own communities, so there are some commonalities but some differences community by community. I wonder if you could talk just a little bit about the priorities and specifics in your area.

M. Mobley: Absolutely. One of the things that we find here in Dawson Creek is that older adults lapse, people who are middle age, because we have such a labour shortage, particularly in oil and gas. It’s so easy for people who leave school early or without continuing with post-secondary education to get a good-paying job. We find a lot of folks that get to their 40s, 50s and further whose bodies can’t keep up with the labour demands, and they’re looking for a change of work but don’t have those skills necessary to make that change.

M. Morris: Good morning in Dawson Creek. Just curious. You did mention that a lot of people assume literacy is talking about reading and writing and some of the basic skills that we need to get through life, but you also mentioned technology. How big a pressure is technology putting on your resources and with the literacy program that you’re administering up there?

M. Mobley: The biggest one that we do with technology is for seniors. We do find a lot of seniors are being given things like iPads and laptops for birthdays and Christmas, and they have no idea where to start. We’ve been providing those at no cost. We’re going into our fourth year now, and we are still finding new seniors coming out who have an iPad or MP3 player, and for a multitude of reasons, they’re looking to be able to learn how to utilize this technology to their benefit.

As far as the younger folks — the non-retired, shall we say? — getting them into the literacy society is probably the biggest challenge itself.

Like it was mentioned before, there is an embarrassment factor, I think, with a lot of folk — a stigma that goes along with it. But it makes upgrading in a few cases difficult.

S. Gibson: Thank you for your presentation. It’s been my experience that males predominantly, although not exclusively, struggle with some of the areas that you’re working on with your clients. How do you ensure that males in particular are integrated and an active part of your program?
[ Page 1121 ]

M. Mobley: Well, I think we just add them. Basically, what we do is…. I mean, we can’t pull people in off the street. It’s a really difficult situation. We just try to make all of our programming as accessible as we possibly can with it. We try to be open, friendly, honest. We try to offer everything at no cost or low-cost and just try to remove as many of the systemic barriers as we can, from our end.

Well, Michelle, thank you very, very much for coming today — greatly appreciated. Enjoy the rest of your day.

D. Ashton (Chair): Up next we’re switching over to Quesnel. We have the College of New Caledonia Students Union. I have Leila — and somebody else with you?

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you very much for coming today. The process is that we have ten minutes allotted for the presentation and up to five minutes for questions or comments from the committee. Please, at your convenience, you’re more than welcome to start.

L. Abubakar: Awesome. Good morning, and thank you for taking the time to meet with us this morning. My name is Leila Soila Abubakar. I’m the executive director for the College of New Caledonia Students Union.

L. Abubakar: The College of New Caledonia represents approximately 4,500 students within the British Columbia northern Interior from Burns Lake, Fort St. James, Mackenzie, Quesnel, Prince George and Vanderhoof campuses.

Not only do our members cover a large geographical area; we also have a very diverse demographic with an average age of 37 years old and students ranging from high school to retired seniors continuing lifelong learning. Our student demographic consists of both domestic and international students from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

Post-secondary education and training is amongst the most important social programs provided by the B.C. government and is indispensable to improve B.C.’s competitiveness and standards of living. By equipping British Columbians with adaptive skills for a rapidly evolving workforce, education also helps to address socioeconomic inequities.

With us today is a list of five recommendations we are making to this committee.

K. Poore: Before we bring forward the five recommendations, I would just like to acknowledge that we are in the Lhtako Dene traditional territory. I would also like, before I get into the recommendations, to add that the indigenous nations have always sustained their peoples by their stewardship of the watersheds of British Columbia.

As of August 4, 2014, a tragic [audio interrupted] the substance into the Quesnel River and watershed from the Imperial Metals Mount Polley mine, and the B.C. government’s regulation [audio interrupted].

To get started on the five recommendations, we have: increase core funding, implement regulations on international tuition fees, establish an upfront needs-based provincial grants program, eliminate the interest charged on B.C. student loans and maintain the commitment to adult basic education. [Audio interrupted.]

Post-secondary education not only creates better opportunities for better jobs, but it also creates many benefits for individuals and society as a whole. An educated society creates a stronger economy. It also creates a more equitable society that balances socioeconomic injustices traditionally faced by those in marginalized groups such as women, people with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and other people of racialized backgrounds.

Higher education in British Columbia has always been funded with a mix of government spending and tuition fees. Over the last decade we have seen an increasing reliance on student tuition fees and other private sources of funding for education. When accounting for inflation, per-student funding from government to [audio interrupted]. As government funding increases, post-secondary institutions are pressured to increase tuition fees as a way to make up for these [audio interrupted].

Many students pay for their education in three ways: first, through tuition fees while enrolled in post-secondary education; second, the accumulated amount of interest from student loans; and third, the increased taxes throughout their working life. Viewing a student’s contribution to public education as a snapshot of a few years’ worth of tuition fees does not take into account the true contribution of students after graduation. The tax contribution of post-secondary graduates pays for the cost of their education many times over in their future taxation.

L. Abubakar: Second recommendation: regulation of international fees. As our government anticipates significant shortages in the labour market over the next 15 years, international students offer a pool of skilled labour workers. A great number of international students, like myself, make the transition to the domestic workforce and help reduce the skill shortages. We also make the transition to immigrate and naturalize in Canada and B.C., becoming
[ Page 1122 ]
permanent residents and contributing to the economy and tax system over our lives.

As a result of institutional systemic underfunding, they are turning to international fees as a funding model in the absence of a truly accessible and fully funded post-secondary educational system. Unlike domestic fees, international fees are not regulated by policy, and institutions can increase their fees at any rate they choose.

There are myths perpetuated that all international students are wealthy with unlimited financial resources from their home countries, that they are given grants to participate in post-secondary education overseas and that the higher the sticker price of post-secondary education, the higher the quality and value perceived. This is not the case. For typical international students, in fact a majority of us, the opposite is true. Students and their families make plans and sacrifices so that we might attend post-secondary education in Canada, much like domestic students.

Increasing tuition fees that are not anticipated during their planning process leave international students to find alternative ways to cover the shortfalls. As international students do not qualify for student loans and most bursaries, we heavily rely on credit cards and private debt, and taking on extra work to finance our education.

On to our third recommendation: creating a student grant program. Increasing tuition fees and the prevalence of loan-based financial assistance have pushed students’ debts to an all-time high. Students and their families are now forced to take on more education-related debt than any other previous generation, while the median earnings for their families have remained stagnant.

In 2004 the provincial government eliminated the student grant program. According to a report released in October 2008, students in British Columbia receive the lowest proportion of non-repayable assistance in the country. Only 12 percent of student aid in B.C. is not in loan form.

Reactive measures, such as the repayment assistance program, assist some students with their debt once it’s already incurred but do nothing to reduce the need to borrow in the first place. While the repayment assistance program does provide students with a tool for debt management, it remains inferior to its predecessor — the B.C. student grant program — both in funding and in scope. Student grant programs more effectively relieve the financial pressures that students face and enable students to focus on being successful in their programs.

K. Poore: On to our fourth recommendation: eliminate student loan interest. Increasing tuition fees have pushed many students on to loan-based financial aid to finance their education. B.C.’s average public student debt is $27,000. Compound interest adds an additional $8,000 onto that amount over a ten-year repayment schedule. Students and families with the lowest financial resources have to borrow the most for post-secondary education.

As a single parent myself, the amount borrowed so that I’m able to provide for my family while I attend school is much more than for my peers. As a second-year student, I am currently carrying a debt load of $21,000 compared to my peers, whose current debt load is $16,000 for the same program. As a result, the same students end up graduating with higher debt levels and end up paying more in interest payments. Ultimately, they pay more for their education than those who can afford to pay up front.

Not only is B.C.’s rate of interest higher than average, but B.C. is among all provinces in the provision of non-repayable student financial aid. Provinces with comparable tuition fees to B.C., such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, all designate approximately one-third of their financial aid as non-repayable, when in B.C. this is not the case.

Students that do not qualify for loan-based financial aid, receive bursaries or simply do not qualify for their full educational needs will often rely upon family contributions, take on work during the academic year or finance their education with private debt such as credit cards or student lines of credit.

Following graduation, student loan borrowers pay interest on their public student loans at a rate of prime plus 2.5 percent, a rate substantially above the government’s cost of borrowing of prime minus 1 percent and the highest rate in the country.

Our recommendation No. 5: keep adult basic education free. The bulk of adult basic education students have already completed high school and have returned to secondary-level education to qualify for employment or for post-secondary education. In many cases these adults take basic education courses because their high school courses are no longer relevant due to the length of time since they attended high school. This is often the case in math and science courses. In other cases. adults must change their employment or post-secondary field and must take new secondary-level courses.

In 2007 the provincial government eliminated tuition fees for adult basic education. Since that time, operating budgets for B.C. colleges and universities have been essentially frozen, making it difficult for institutions to retain free adult basic education offerings to meet demand. In response, some institutions have limited adult basic education enrolment or reclassified several high school equivalents as university transfer courses in order to charge tuition fees.

Adult basic education is the gateway for a post-secondary credential for many of the most marginalized British Columbians. The demographics of adult basic education also reflect the social importance of providing basic education to historically marginalized groups.
[ Page 1123 ]
Fifty-nine percent of adult basic education learners are women, 29 percent support a family while pursuing post-secondary education, and overall, 71 percent of students in the system live on an annual income below the poverty line, despite half being employed full-time while simultaneously taking [audio interrupted.]

The B.C. government must continuously maintain its commitment to free adult basic education by lifting enrolment targets and providing the funding to support new and existing [audio interrupted.]

D. Ashton (Chair): Ladies, I let you run on so that you could finish. We only have about four minutes left, so if you wouldn’t mind wrapping up, just in case there are questions.

K. Poore: Investing in the public post-secondary education system is investing in the future. This will improve B.C.’s diverse economic potentials and ensure that this province has a flexible and adaptable workforce. This is important and necessary to ensure that B.C. can meet and expand in local and global economies.

G. Holman: Thanks very much for the presentation. Just a quick question about adult basic education. I want to make sure I understand the point you are making. There are still no fees, I take it. You’re suggesting the fact that there are no fees and that there are no sort of targets for enrolment — that this has resulted in a decline in the number of adults taking these kinds of courses. Am I understanding that right?

L. Abubakar: There are still no fees charged, which is great, but because of the systemic decline in operational funding to post-secondary institutions, institutions such as TRU have had to limit the number of seats in ABE. Camosun College did an overhaul in ABE and changed it to be a university program — UT transfer — and charged tuition.

S. Gibson: This is an area that I have some empathy for. Particularly for single parents I think it’s more challenging. However, in general, it’s been my experience that working and going to school, going to university, is actually a very attractive combination. When you graduate, you’ve got not only the experience that you want, but you’ve also got the credential. My own experience was that I did two degrees in four and a half years. I’m not particularly that bright, but I was working almost full-time, and I think it was a real benefit.

I’d like you to comment on that — the advisability of working almost full-time and going to school. I think it’s a good thing, for the most part, except where the circumstances, such as being a single parent, make it problematic.

K. Poore: I think that it is very beneficial to be able to be working and going to school as well as taking care of your young ones. At times it can be a stressful workload, as it is a full-time job being a parent and going to school as well as working. But it is….

L. Abubakar: I’ll just interject. I work full-time, and I go to school full-time. But there is a big difference between working full-time because you choose to work full-time, not because you have to, to pay tuition. I have a job that I work at because I enjoy what I’m doing, and I’m fortunate in what I’m doing. I’m not doing it because I want to pay tuition. I’m doing it because it has something to do with my career and my future endeavours, and that’s the big difference. If you’re doing it out of passion, that’s great. If you’re doing it out of you have to cover costs, then it’s not as attractive.

D. Ashton (Chair): Simon, just a quick follow-up. Then I have Mike, and we’re just about finished in the time.

M. Morris: I have a short question. You don’t need to respond now, but you do have an opportunity to submit some more written material later.

I’m curious. Have you given any consideration as to costing out your five recommendations as to what we are looking at as a province to implement these recommendations right across the board? I wouldn’t mind seeing some figures on that.

D. Ashton (Chair): Ladies, thank you very much for the presentation. I would just remind you that you have until October 17 if you wish to put any additional information in. We would like to hear if you do have anything else to add.

L. Abubakar: Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with us this morning.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you for taking the time. We greatly appreciate you coming. Have a wonderful day.

Up next we have Literacy Quesnel. We have Rebecca. Is Rebecca in the gallery there?

D. Ashton (Chair): Good morning, Rebecca. Thank you very much for coming today. We greatly appreciate it.

We have ten minutes allotted for the presentation. It’s hard for me to interrupt when you’re right in the middle of your statements, but I’ll try and get your attention at eight minutes if it looks like you’re going to run into the ten, and then we have up to five minutes for questions or comments from the committee. The floor is yours.

R. Beuschel: Thank you. I won’t go even eight minutes. In my practice I didn’t go eight minutes.

Good morning. My name is Rebecca Beuschel, and I’m the literacy outreach coordinator for Quesnel. I’m here today with Beverlee Barr. Bev is the president of our Literacy Quesnel Society, the not-for-profit organization that looks after literacy outreach and coordination in Quesnel. Bev will speak to you in a few minutes, but for now I would like a few moments of your time.

I wish that circumstances were different and that there was no need for me to be presenting to you today. I wish I could be in the literacy centre figuring out ways to raise awareness in our community or out in the community providing the service that I love to provide. Instead, here I am, requesting that once again you support my request and many other requests from literacy organizations across the province to provide secure, long-term funding for literacy coordination.

Last year I made a presentation and was pleased when I learned that the select standing committee of 2013 had agreed unanimously to recommend funding for literacy coordination in B.C. in the amount of $2.5 million. Thank you for that support and for that recommendation.

That $2.5 million is the amount necessary for the coordinated literacy work that 102 task groups currently engage in in over 400 communities. I was so happy to hear of the united front presented by this all-party select standing committee to support literacy work in our province. Sadly for all of us, your recommendation was not heeded, and literacy coordination was given $2 million, so $500,000 short of the required amount.

That reality meant that all of our budgets were trimmed and strained, and in our case, we had to decide what activities or services to cut.

Our funding allotment is $30,000 in Quesnel, so when that is cut by $6,000, which was the case for us, that creates pressure for us to reduce or withdraw our services. Our board did not want to do that. Our board did not want to reduce my hours from the current 20 hours per week over ten months to 15 or 16 hours per week.

Therefore, our only feasible option was to move to a smaller location. The office we have secured now is a quarter of the size of the one we had. No meetings can take place in our new space, no training can take place, and no meaningful storage is possible. We will not be able to host our storytime events or any of our parenting workshops in our new literacy space.

The decision to move to a smaller space was difficult but necessary. We want to continue providing as much direct outreach to our community members as possible, but it is really sad for all of us that we have gone from a really small allotment of $30,000 annually to an even smaller one.

I feel abandoned by a government that should have literacy as one of its highest priorities, and if literacy is one of its highest priorities, then there should be meaningful actions and sustained funding to illustrate that point.

Literacy funding and community literacy coordination affect everything from employment to health care to civic engagement to volunteerism and beyond. Literacy programs and access to them affect everyone, regardless of age, race, gender and socioeconomic background.

The funding we have been able to access has enabled us to reach out to people in our community and has bought resources, direction, guidance and knowledge. We’re not asking for more money. We are asking that the government provide the minimum amount of funding required for the coordination of literacy work to happen. Annually this means B.C. needs $2.5 million for community literacy work to happen.

This is the same amount of money we requested last year. Apparently, there is no money that I know of in the budget to support community literacy work. We really need the $2.5 million this year and every year.

Now I would like to turn it over to Bev, our president, to share some of her thoughts.

B. Barr: Good morning. Thank you for listening to us today. I have a bit more of a personal statement. I’ve been involved with Literacy Quesnel for about five years now, and I’ve really been inspired by the local passion and community support we’ve received.

I’m a registered dietitian. I coordinate our local pregnancy program. Every day I see families needing literacy, and it’s often around the basic things. “How do I engage meaningfully [audio interrupted]? How do I navigate the hospital or the doctor’s office or social and health services? How does my partner or husband find a job in [audio interrupted]?” That’s a big challenge right now. I think that as well as parents supporting their children to develop their potential, that’s another big one.

Another literacy impact I observe on a daily basis is intergenerational low levels of literacy affecting many facets of every day — child care, budgeting and health.

I just wanted to share that I strongly support the work that Rebecca is doing through Literacy Quesnel and the community. I think it’s a very important service, and it directly impacts the health and wellness of our community.

D. Ashton (Chair): Rebecca and Bev, thank you very much. Anything further to add?

G. Holman: Thanks very much for your presentation. I just want to say that as you’re probably aware, we’ve been hearing from literacy groups across the province, so I don’t have many questions. The presentations have been very thorough, from my perspective. You’ve made your case exceedingly well.

Just so you know that at least from my part — and I don’t speak for all the committee members — I’m not asking questions because I’ve heard so many presentations. The case has been made extremely well. Thank you for doing that.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, Rebecca and Bev, thank you again. I would emphasize what Gary has brought forward. We’ve heard from your organization this year, as well as we did substantially last year. You’ve done an incredibly good job of raising the awareness, so thank you for coming in today. If you do have anything else to add, please ensure you do get it in before October 17, and it will be received. Thank you again for coming.

We’re over at Smithers at this point in time. Smithers Community Services Association — Jo-Ann.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good, thank you. Listen, thank you very much for coming in for your presentation. How it works is that we have ten minutes allotted for the presentation and five minutes for questions or comments from the committee. If it looks like you’re going to be pushing into the ten minutes — I kind of judge it — I’ll try and give you a two-minute warning. If not, if you can just keep an eye on the clock. It’s a little bit more difficult doing it on line for us and probably for you.

J. Nugent: Okay. I don’t imagine be anywhere close to ten minutes, but anyways, I’m going to do my thing.

Hello. My name is Jo-Ann Nugent, and I’m here representing Smithers Community Services Association. I work as a literacy outreach coordinator here in Smithers and manage our community literacy program.

I just wanted to thank the government for providing the existing funding that we have for our literacy work. Community adult literacy programs provide opportunity for adults to achieve literacy goals through meaningful literacy-based activities that build upon their current skills.

I’m going to give you an example of something that we do here in Smithers that I manage. It’s called the Ground 2 Griddle Neighbourhood Kitchen. It’s a unique literacy program that we offer in our community, and it serves approximately 25 to 30 families, although this is actually starting to grow.

Hard literacy skills such as fundamental math and reading are embedded in our weekly cooking and planning sessions. But one of the most important literacy benefits our kitchen provides is opportunity for marginalized groups of people to find a place within our community. It’s been determined that strong self-esteem is a key foundation necessary for individuals to pursue literacy skill development.

The kitchen works on building self-esteem in our participants by providing space within which to build relationships with other community members and by encouraging the participants to share their own skills and with the opportunity to learn alongside others. For many at the kitchen, this program is the only community-based activity in which they engage.

Our kitchen participants range in age from toddler to 83. The kitchen offers an early learning program for the children of our participants, and this provides skill development in preparation for elementary school. Many of these children do not go to any other early learning program besides that which is offered in our kitchen.

The Ground 2 Griddle Kitchen is just one of the many literacy programs across the province that benefit through the work of literacy outreach coordinators. I am a literacy outreach coordinator, plus I manage a literacy program. Those are just two of the jobs that I do daily. I have three other programs I also manage.

The province has currently set aside $1 million in its budget to fund the coordination of this literacy work. This is a reduced amount from former funding, which used to be at $2.5 million. The $2.5 million is considered the minimum amount with which to do this work.

On behalf of literacy and literacy work in the province, I’m asking that the government reinstate the $2.5 million and make a commitment to literacy work in this province by providing the guaranteed minimum funding amount consistently over multiple years. This is probably a request you’ve heard before. I asked for it last year, as well, when I presented.

I just wanted to point out a couple of things I’ve been learning because of the other programs that I work in. I went to a criminal justice congress last year, and I continue to get information from the Canadian criminal justice congress. Ongoing criminal justice evidence-based research demonstrates the economic impact of providing early intervention and literacy skill development to fam-
[ Page 1126 ]
ilies in our province. Literacy work has been determined a key preventative in helping reduce crime rates, improve health and build stronger communities.

As a literacy coordinator who has worked in this field for eight years, I have seen considerable change in the financial support for literacy work. The expectations of the literacy work remain the same while funding has decreased.

In addition, I have seen existing economic drivers for our province undermined by a provincial mandate that seems very narrow in focus. Many of the training opportunities in our region have a focus for working in the oil and gas industry. This is evident if you take a look at brochures offered from different training institutions and posters that are put up by the Work B.C. office all over the community. This is quite evident.

Existing changes that are coming in school district 54 indicate that they’re gearing people toward one industry only. Many of the training opportunities with this focus forget that this industry in our region remains speculative at best. Our region has survived economically by maintaining economic diversity — diversity that is represented by tourism, fishing, ecotourism, agriculture and forestry.

Few advertisements or promotions of employment in these fields are advertised other than that from the private sector. The provincial economic mandate needs to support the diversity present in all sectors of our province.

The literacy work in our region has a focus to support learners in their pursuit of literacy and all their employment goals. These goals could be working in agriculture or in tourism or in sport fishing. By making an investment in literacy work now, the province stands to benefit by reducing the expense in our health care system, our criminal justice system and in our other social service systems while also keeping our economy diverse.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you, Jo-Ann, for your presentation — very good presentation. Any questions or comments?

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. You’re correct. We’ve seen this presentation — not exactly the same — a number of times from a number of community literacy associations. What’s been notable is the specificity with which people address the tailoring of the program to local and regional needs. That, I think, is of interest to all of us.

One thing you mentioned is…. In addition to the minimum $2.5 million funding, you talked about multiple-year funding for stability purposes. I’m wondering if you had a time frame in mind.

J. Nugent: I’ve been working in this field for eight years, and you spend a lot of time if you’re constantly repeating yourself, looking for funding on a yearly basis. I think time would be better spent if funding was offered in a three-year increment. It gives you time to plan, and it gives you time to implement, and you don’t waste time redoing everything on a yearly basis. Plus it gives you time to see the change.

J. Shin: Hello. Good morning. I just have a quick question to follow up on what George was asking.

Would you be able to give us an idea of how much of a resource or time you have to allocate to go through the administrative hurdles of applying every year? How much time does it end up taking up at your end?

J. Nugent: Oh, that is a really hard question. It’s interesting. I just finished submitting my final report two weeks ago for my current funding year, and today I received the new report I have to do by the end of March. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen some of these reports, but they’re huge. There’s a lot of statistical information. I’m not sure exactly how beneficial any of that information is to understanding literacy work, but I continue to fill it out.

It’s unfortunate, actually, that the bulk of my time right now…. I mean, I have other people working on literacy with me, all part-time. I spend a lot of time looking for money and reporting out on money. Very little is left over sometimes for implementing, and it makes you feel really unhappy. In particular, certain funding pots that used to be at $20,000 a year have been reduced to $7,500 a year for the same literacy work expectation. So you end up scrambling around a lot. You feel like you’re not quite getting everything done that needs doing.

One quick question, and maybe one favour to ask. Input can be received until October 17. If you want to elaborate on the process that you’re required to do the paperwork regarding justification of the funding, I’d actually like to maybe hear your suggestions. You said it’s quite intensive, and you struck a bell with me about whether or not how much of that is required. Maybe your thoughts on it, if you have a minute to put them down and address them to the committee. It would be greatly appreciated.

Good morning. We’re back in Castlegar. Is Selkirk College there?
[ Page 1127 ]

A. Graeme: Yes, we are. Angus Graeme, president and CEO of Selkirk College. We’re just waiting for Gary Leier, but I can get started whenever you’re ready.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay, that would be great. Just a sec. We are a bit early. Do you think Gary will be a few more minutes?

A. Graeme: Yes, he’ll hopefully come into the room quietly and just pick up while I’m going.

Is there no chance I can have the time that we’ve also grabbed as well? I’ve got so much to say.

D. Ashton (Chair): Just to start, Angus, we just want to apologize. There were some extenuating circumstances regarding the possibility of weather on the morning that we were supposed to be in Castlegar — for us to get out of Castlegar, actually. However, it turned out, we heard, that there were sunny skies, and it kind of left a bit of egg on our faces. But we were delayed at the start of the day previous to get out of Victoria, and there was some concern that it would have thrown the whole trip askew, so we had to make a collective decision to jump over Castlegar. So we appreciate you taking some additional time in coming today.

D. Ashton (Chair): If Gary is going to sneak quietly in the room, do you want to start, Angus, and we can go from here, or should we give you a few more minutes?

A. Graeme: No, I can get started. Did everybody get a copy of the presentation in paper form?

A. Graeme: Okay. I did notice with my copy that the page numbers didn’t print out, so you’ll have to just bear with me as I refer you to page numbers. You might want to take a pen and paginate as you go, kind of thing, so we know where we’re at.

A. Graeme: Okay. Just some background on Selkirk College. We’ve made presentations to this group in past years and really appreciate that opportunity every fall to just present some ideas as you go into budgeting for ’15-16. As many of you know, we are the West Kootenay–Boundary community college in the 25 public post-secondary system. We operate in six communities in the West Kootenay–Boundary region and offer almost 70 different programs from academic upgrading right through to degree and most points in between.

On page 2 you’ve got sort of a summary there. As you go on to page 3, what’s cool about that is that our numbers are growing. We have not yet met our provincial FTE target, but when you combine our hard work on enrolment management and international enrolment, we’re growing. We hope to be up another 10 percent this year. I gave you some ’13-14 numbers, and our international students will have doubled in the last two years. What that means is that in a region of 80,000 citizens, about one in eight people come into contact with our institution in any given year.

So a very vital college that’s trying to do the good work of higher education in a region of the province that’s a wonderful place to be in. Students are coming in all the time.

On page 4. Students are satisfied with what we do. We’ve got some feedback from students over the years — really like our approach to education, to teaching, to the knowledge that they gain and how it prepares them for careers.

What I did was I put on page 4 in areas of trades — lots of people are talking about that these days — under the blueprint and other directions that we want to go…. Just some great growth in our trades programming areas, and we’ll get to that in the recommendations around how government can further support our work there.

I’m going to go right on to page 6 and on for the next few pages. I think you can read that on your own time. As part of the 11-community-college system, we did an economic analysis, and we wanted to provide the standing committee and others — I certainly speak about this lots in the region — the sort of return on investment to taxpayers of community colleges in these regions.

We’ve done the work, and we feel — if you add up all the impacts of improved wages of our graduates and how many stay in the region after they go to school with us — we add about $198 million to the local regional economic impact. That constitutes about 6.1 percent of the gross regional product.

There are some other numbers there for you to look at, but for every dollar that government invests in us, we feel that about $8.60 comes back to society. There are some other things for you look up from the students’ perspective on the economy, and so forth.

I’m going to go right over to page 11, because I want to leave some time for the recommendation side.

On page 11 there’s a drawing there around the largest percentage of projected job openings. We know there’s a skills shortage and that B.C. has some economic objectives and some industrial development objectives. We really want to contribute to those under the blueprint and other initiatives of government.

What you see there is that when it comes to things like academic upgrading or high school diploma right through
[ Page 1128 ]
to degree, rural-based community colleges, and indeed the ones in the metro areas, contribute greatly to that skilled workforce that we so badly need as we close in on the end of the decade. We’re really excited to be part of that.

On the next page, 12, just some of the things that we’re trying to balance in terms of our own regional need under the Kootenay Regional Workforce Table that we did with Jobs and Skills Training and also the blueprint and some of the other strategies that government would like to achieve with a skilled workforce — through LNG, through the forest sector and other areas that are experiencing some growth but also a skills shortage.

Again, some numbers on page 13 around why we’re trying to grow some of our program areas — not just in trades but, as you see at the bottom, in the health sector, business, natural resources, new media, technical and professional. With those 60 to 70 programs that we offer, which we’re really proud of, and some new program areas that we’re getting into, we really feel that we can, for our region and for the province, make a significant contribution to where we need to be by the end of the decade.

Some of the areas of focus that we’ve been working on are new programming and student services. Again, we’re really looking at our business model. The core review was very helpful with that. We’ve made some changes to some of our program mixes and our arrays and are really looking at some interesting innovations around how we work with the K-to-12 system, getting the head-start to hands-on program going and really focusing on some of those student populations that we’re interested in attracting, whether it’s aboriginal learners or students with learning differences or disabilities.

We’re doing really good stuff around responding to community need — the top of page 15. Some of our applied research and industry outreach initiatives are having a great impact. We did almost $1 million worth of applied research business with our region. Part of that work was talking to 600 businesses last year in the Kootenays and working directly with a couple of dozen on adopting new technologies for commercialization. So some really good stuff that isn’t just things happening in the classroom or the lab or shop.

We’ve done some improvements to our organization, as well, to respond to the core review.

Just quickly, then, to close before questions, some conditions for success for us under budget ’15-16. We are challenged, with limited operating grants…. As I was listening to the other presentations, it’s a fairly consistent theme: we could do more with a little more.

There are pressures on our operating grants that we’ve experienced under Shared Services and other initiatives to cost-cut in the past. Over the last four to five years we’ve probably taken over $3 million out of our operating budgets if you account for all the things that we’ve had to do. So multi-year funding certainty would help us. Increases to operating grants would help us.

Maybe a look at some financial policy — the carry-forward surpluses and our ability to be entrepreneurial and look for other revenue sources but not have to spend the surpluses in the year they’re earned. And other things like aboriginal service planning. We’d love to be able to contribute to that with the funding that some of the other institutions get. So just some things around resourcing there for you to consider.

Then the big ones for us — the priorities. We are actually having a 50th birthday party today at our Silver King trades campus — 1964. We’ve never had a capital upgrade. The teachers are amazing. They work with some old equipment and old buildings. We have made some improvements there with government grants, one-time funds, but we do need a complete refit of that campus. Then our Castlegar campus is also going to be 50 years in 2016, and it’s really beginning to show its age. So we have aging operating and capital equipment.

The other thing is technology. Some of you have been on the public learning network and noticed that something’s happening for the whole province. It’s bandwidth, connectivity. Technology is another one of the limits to our efficiency and our ability to put on distance learning and interact with the rest of the world.

Just some things to consider. I wanted to go through that relatively quickly. I probably took some of Gary’s speaking notes, but what we want to do is leave lots of time for questions.

G. Leier: Just to build on the issues that are top of mind to me in the course of my duties — the ability to support the institution with both an aging physical plant, and we’re finding the aging of our systems, also, is a huge challenge. If there’s anything that keeps me up at night, it’s those, our inability or our struggles in dealing with those basic issues.

G. Holman: Thanks very much for your presentation. I had two questions. Perhaps we’ve seen this document before. But the economic impacts that you’re quoting…. I’m sorry; maybe we already have that document. If not, could you provide that to us before October 17?

G. Holman: There’s some very interesting data there. I’m looking in particular at the return to government spending in terms of additional tax revenues and reduced costs, so it would be good to have that document.
[ Page 1129 ]

The other question was, on the last page, your investment in infrastructure and facilities. You cite a number of priorities there and challenges. I’m trying to connect that with the previous page where there’s a summary of resourcing challenges.

In terms of the infrastructure and facilities, which are the key bullets under part A that would help you address that? For example, might it be financial policy, carrying forward surpluses and being able to act more as an entrepreneur? Can you connect those two pages for me?

A. Graeme: Absolutely. Part A is more about our kind of year-to-year operating dollars. We do recognize that we’ve got to be diligent at finding other sources of revenue to help run our operations, and that number has been going up over the years.

One of the things was we were really hopeful, around the re-engineering of the system through the blueprint, that we would see a bit of a right-sizing in terms of putting the resources needed to those institutions that are at the front line of producing that skilled workforce.

Funding allocation is really referring to: are the operating grants the right amount in the right place in the 25-member system? I don’t want to take away from what other institutions do, obviously, but just a question or suggestion out there to really take a look at that. We would really love to expand some of our program areas but simply don’t have the resources to do it.

The first three or four bullets under part A, really, are kind of intertwined. Usually, it’s pressure on our operating fees. Having that multi-year funding certainty also allows me to go out and start looking at other ways to generate revenue either from industry partnerships or what have you.

Then the carry-forward. Yeah, we are becoming much more entrepreneurial as a system. I mean, I work with the hydroelectric sector here locally. They have training needs, and they’re really interested in how to pay for that. If I knew over a multi-year period how that was going to affect our operating grant, it would help us a lot.

Under B it’s more around the investment in infrastructure that is really aging here in West Kootenay-Boundary. It’s that other part, to doing more of what we want to be good at. Those two campuses in particular are really starting to, well, crumble a bit.

G. Leier: To give you an illustrative example of where the two bump into each other, one of the most notable programs we had was the launching of the rural pre-med program, which is being heralded as innovative and whatnot. We’re very proud of it, and we’re really looking forward to a tangible contribution to that specific shortage.

We had the standing committee of doctors, which has been very supportive of us, come up and meet our first-year intake, and we’re thrilled. Where it bumps up is when we have a leading-edge program operating in 40-year-old labs.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you. I have a couple more questions and only a couple of minutes left. I have John and Carole.

J. Yap: You have an increase in international students, roughly 7½ percent. Good growth year over year. Where are the international students coming from, predominantly? Which parts of the world? How are you driving the numbers? What’s your strategy in attracting more international students?

A. Graeme: It’s been great, actually. We’ve had our traditional, long-time relationships with Korea, Japan and China, but we are now receiving a lot of our students — probably close to 40 percent now — from India. That’s one of the reasons we chose not to attend the field trip that’s leaving now, this week.

It’s been wonderful to work with India and other, smaller markets in Europe. What we’re offering is not just ESL solely but programs that students are looking for — business, ski resort management, tourism, new media. We have international students now in 21 of our credit programs where either English is still a second language but not as much of a challenge or they’ve come in through the ESL programming that we do.

It’s been great to see that internationalization occur in our credit programming where we’ve got a portion of the student population as international students.

India has been the biggest impact for us. This year we’re offering a complete cohort of gerontological nursing programming to students from India, who will then return to India and practise gerontological nursing.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I think one of the great strengths that we don’t talk about enough in British Columbia is our community college system. I think we’re very fortunate to have a strong system, but I think you’ve identified some pressures very well.

I wondered if you could just talk a little bit under (a). One of the bullets that you have there is a funding model for trades and apprenticeship programs. I’m guessing this has something to do with the expense and the costs of those programs. You’ve got capital down at the bottom. I wondered if you could tell us a little bit more about what you are looking for in the area of funding models.

D. Ashton (Chair): Just very quickly, gentlemen. We have less than a minute left.
[ Page 1130 ]

A. Graeme: What we’re speaking about there is that the funding that we gratefully receive from the Industry Training Authority, of course, covers instruction only. When it comes to operating the Silver King campus and making sure the equipment is up to standard, that has to come from base operating, so it’s coming from other sources to support ITA programming.

What we’d just recommend is that we take a look at that to make sure that all the costs of providing a skilled apprentice are looked at when we fund those programs.

D. Ashton (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation today, and again accept our apologies for not being able to get there.

D. Ashton (Chair): I don’t want to tell you what it’s like down here. It’s the exact opposite. Have a good day.

D. Ashton (Chair): Perfect. Thank you very much for coming today. We’ve allotted ten minutes for a presentation and five minutes for questions or comments.

Once again, please accept our apologies for not being able to get into Castlegar how we were scheduled to come so we could do this face to face. Thank you for taking the additional time and participating in this conference call. The floor is yours. Please go ahead.

R. Fayant: My name is Rod Fayant. I’m the president of PPWC, Local 26 at Selkirk College. I represent the support staff that work at the college. I would like to start off by saying that I wish I had the opportunity to meet you guys in person, as initially planned.

Selkirk College is the largest campus, and an administration centre is located here in Castlegar. The Castlegar campuses offer associate degree, diploma, certificate, degree, college preparatory and adult upgrading programs. The nearby town of Nelson has three campuses specializing in trades, arts and tourism and hospitality programs. Adult upgrading is also offered in Nelson, with a summer school program at the Silver King campus.

We have campuses in Trail and Grand Forks, with learning centres in Kaslo and Nakusp, that provide opportunities for adult education, along with short-term and continuing education and workplace skills development courses across a region of significant size.

I understand that the president of Selkirk College, Angus Graeme, was just here. More than likely, he explained the economic situation facing the college. So my time here today with you isn’t going to be solely focused on specific numbers, as I’m sure you’re well versed in the situation facing post-secondary education from that perspective. My time with you today is going to be focused on the view from the ground.

In the past few years it has become more and more evident that Selkirk College is losing ground on many fronts — fronts that include a loss of programs, a loss of jobs, a loss of infrastructure and a loss of opportunity. Make no mistake, when one area is weakened, all areas are weakened, and the communities we serve are weakened.

In recent history the underfunding of post-secondary education has cost Selkirk College programs and courses such as second year sciences, kinesiology, golf-course management and the one-time Selkirk College flagship: aviation. The communities that we serve are devastated by these cuts.

Not only did it hurt the communities by limiting the educational opportunities, but it also hurts our families directly. There is increased cost passed along to families when they can no longer access the education that they need, either by having to send family members out of town to university and colleges or by not advancing their career opportunities and skills when barriers to higher education are set in place.

This doesn’t mean that the effect of underfunding post-secondary colleges is limited to the cutting of courses. Existing programs are also hurt by their implementation. What I mean by this is that in an era of new, exciting technologies that are filling our society, the vast majority of instruction at Selkirk College is blackboard and chalk. SMART boards, tablets, iPads and document cameras are known to be used in educational settings. Fundamentally, education should be at the cutting edge of new technologies, not playing catch-up.

This also hurts the students’ experience and knowledge base. Experience with these devices can lead to greater productivity in the work world and create new and better ways of learning.

As PPWC’s Local 26 union president, I see firsthand a disturbing trend in Selkirk College’s recent history. That’s layoffs. In the last few years we have lost maintenance workers, cafeteria workers, IT and administration positions.

It goes without saying that every time someone is laid off, the consequences to families and communities are significant. There are obvious, easy-to-see examples of the consequences, like the trickle-down effect of lost revenue in our community, less money to spend on our local businesses, a smaller tax base, and under these circumstances, the reluctance of employees to make major purchases.

But there are also socioeconomic consequences. Families that are under economic stress of job loss are known to have higher divorce rates, criminal issues and displacement from the region. Those are the individuals who are directly impacted.
[ Page 1131 ]

However, there are other consequences for those that are still employed. The fact that a position is eliminated doesn’t always equate to the lessening of duties or any requirement. The loss of a painter doesn’t mean that painting is no longer required. The natural effect of less and less employees is that more and more are trying to do more and more.

The tipping point of the outcome leads to multiple issues. Despite all of the wishes of all involved, at some point quality will suffer. Corners will be cut, and safety will become less of a concern. Without the manpower, common things, such as snow removal, become an impossible task, increasing the risks to students, employees and community. When employees have to rush, safety takes a back seat.

This applies not only to the employees of Selkirk College but to the students and community users. For example, staff and shortages to custodial are common. When someone is away from work for various reasons, their area can no longer be covered as there aren’t the funds to find relief. When the areas can’t be covered, there is a greater risk for unsanitary elements to happen. Employees, students, community users — all are exposed to greater risks of viruses and bacteria.

This is only part of the hidden costs of job loss. It cannot be ignored, but there is also undeniable increase to stress levels. Greater sick-time usage and decreased morale are commonplace under such conditions.

Due to the underfunding, there are significant costs being pushed down the road that will affect taxpayers. One that ignoring will only make worse is the cost of underfunding maintenance and infrastructure. Presently Selkirk College is made up of older facilities. Most of the buildings are closing in on half a century old. At a time when investment should be made to alleviate the oncoming costs for repair, there are less and less resources to work with.

Common knowledge and sense suggest that the ratio of daily maintenance cost is less than the cost of large repairs in the long term. The best-laid plan of identifying foreseeable capital costs is admirable, but when the tipping point is past, outside of a few projects that are funded, maintenance becomes, in general, at best a patchwork endeavour.

There are also the missed opportunities of cost savings. With old, outdated buildings, there are old, outdated technologies. We’ve lost green initiatives or inefficient equipment and mechanics. Simply, we can only afford a hammer. We don’t buy a nail gun.

In closing, I want to stress the importance that in seeing education as an opportunity, underfunding of post-secondary education not only limits the opportunity of access for citizens of this region but also limits the opportunity of economic growth and prosperity for the region and for B.C. in general. A skilled workforce is crucial to the development of business. It gives B.C. and this region a competitive edge that we’ll lose if we don’t take the opportunity to invest in our future.

S. Gibson: I saw that the aviation program was eliminated this year. But in general, how is enrolment at the college? Are most programs fully enrolled? Are there waiting lists for classes? When I taught at the University of the Fraser Valley on the Abbotsford and Chilliwack campuses, we had a chronic problem of not enough room and way too many students. What is the situation with your campuses?

R. Fayant: I think it depends on the program. Some have a higher wait-list than others.

S. Gibson: But in general — for example, programs that are job-ready programs as opposed to more arts kinds of programs. It’s not to say one is better than the other. But in general, how about the technical programs, the job-ready ones? Are they fully enrolled?

R. Fayant: I believe that the numbers are okay there — on costs — for most of them. I don’t have the numbers in front of me exactly and all that. Matter of fact, I think the numbers are still trickling in, from what I understand, so I can’t give you a 100 percent accurate number on that.

J. Shin: Hi. Thank you for your presentation. We’ve heard from the president just previously, and there seems to be a good level of satisfaction amongst the students and the graduates about the kind of instruction that they’re receiving and the programs that are available at the college. But would you be able to comment on any trends that you might have noticed in the last ten years on the percentage of completion for these students as well as the average years that it may take for a student to finish their program?

R. Fayant: Again, I don’t have numbers in that aspect, and my presentation wasn’t based on that type of information. I’m just telling you what I see on the ground. What I see is things falling apart. I see less and less money being invested in education and in the infrastructure of it all.

J. Shin: Gotcha. Have you noticed students speaking of any extra hardships that they’re facing with decreased services? I guess, from the ground level, have you heard some of those sentiments?
[ Page 1132 ]

R. Fayant: Yes, I have heard some of those sentiments. Things are falling apart all the time. I can give you an example right now. Where I work at the college is a gymnasium and that. Our gymnasium has a wall that divides the gymnasium in two parts. Right now it’s broken, so we can no longer…. It’s continuously divided. So right now, if somebody wanted to play a full soccer game, they can’t do that.

It’s happening in all departments all across the college. Part of it is, too, that we get young students at their first-time experience in college and stuff like that. They don’t know what they’re missing.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. The president before you talked about the fact that students who attend courses at Selkirk — I think about 75 percent of them — tend to stay in the community and contribute to the economy locally — tax revenues, etc.

You talked about programs that were either curtailed or eliminated entirely. I’m wondering if you — I realize this will be anecdotal — have any sense of how many students who might otherwise attend Selkirk simply don’t go on to higher education because of the problems of leaving the supports they have at home.

The second part of the question was: how many of those who leave….? Do they tend to come back, or do they tend to leave the community for a longer period of time?

G. Heyman: When students aren’t able to take courses that they’re interested in at Selkirk, do you believe that they go to find the courses at other colleges or universities?

R. Fayant: Yes. I can guarantee that happens. Guarantee that they’ll go on, and they won’t come back. I mean, it’s common knowledge in our area that once you graduate and all that, people tend to move away. Now, the college would keep them there. So when you’re offering less and less and there’s less and less opportunity for them to continue, they’ll often move on to different places.

D. Ashton (Chair): Rod, thank you very much for your presentation — greatly appreciated.

K. Palfenier: I’m in this room by myself, not sure if I was in the right place. But here we are.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, thank you for coming. And accept our apologies for not being able to get there in person.

K. Palfenier: Yeah, that’s too bad. You’ve got to come see this part of the world. It’s beautiful.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, we do try, and we have been. But unfortunately, it just didn’t work out this time.

Listen, we have allotted ten minutes for your presentation, with five minutes for questioning or comments. The floor is yours to start. If it looks like you’re going to run past the ten, I’ll just give you a bit of heads-up, so usually around eight minutes. Please start.

K. Palfenier: Thank you very much. We certainly appreciate this opportunity to present to you, and to hear us out.

My name is Kim Palfenier, and I’m representing sport in our region. I’m the executive director for the Nelson Regional Sports Council, and I was asked, really, just to say a little bit about how sport makes a big difference in our region.

We certainly appreciate the funding that we get from the provincial government. In this part of the world we’re a little remote from the Lower Mainland, much like many rural communities, and sport and recreation make a big difference to our quality of life out here.

The gaming grants and the direct-access grants make a huge difference to each community sport group, not to mention the likes of the Special Olympics, the Seniors Games. Certainly, KidSport is a major part of our three communities out here — Trail, Castlegar and Nelson. The provincial Summer and Winter Games are a big deal to us, because that gives us a much larger stage at which to perform. We truly appreciate that you fund those, and we hope you continue to — very much so.

Certainly, ViaSport, which I know that you support as well — it used to be B.C. Sport — has been making some serious headway with us out here in this region. They have partnered with CBT, the Columbia Basin Trust.

Recently, the last couple of years, we’ve had a task force looking at what is needed in this region.

CBT being a wonderful partner to many groups in this area, we have realized that we need a regional sport centre in this region, including the East and West Kootenays. It is looking like that partnership is going to come to fruition. We haven’t been told officially, but it looks like that is going to go ahead. Now, we’re not sure what that’s going to look like, whether it’s going to have two hubs or one main centre, but to service this corner of the province in sport and recreation. We’re all very, very excited about that.
[ Page 1133 ]

It really fits with one of ViaSport’s goals — to increase awareness and participation in every part of British Columbia. We’re very excited. We’ve been working independently in this region to make that happen forever, so to get some support through our provincial sport organizations is very encouraging.

Sport, to me personally…. I was an immigrant. You might be able to tell by my accent. When I came to the Lower Mainland a million years ago, it was sport that had me connect to my community. I am still friends with those people 35 years later. The same when I relocated to the Kootenays. I again joined some sport teams and made a life for myself here. I wouldn’t be without them. I know that’s the case. Sport really does and can provide a sense of belonging to a community, to groups, to friends. I realize how important it is for people to participate.

With ViaSport, a major part of their goal is to participate in Sport for Life — the Canadian Sport for Life initiative. Their philosophy is to have people start as soon as they can walk, run — whatever — and participate for as long as they can continue that. We certainly have a few people in our region who continue to ski, play hockey, well into their 70s and 80s. In fact, I hosted the B.C. Seniors Games in Nelson’s cycling event, and we had a 93-year-old still cycling. That’s our goal: to make sure that people stay healthy and stay out of hospitals as long as they can. It benefits us all.

With Nelson, in particular…. I would speak about Castlegar and Trail, but I don’t know them so well. In Nelson our population is 10,000 people. Including the regional district area, we have about, they say, 30,000 all told. In that small amount of people we have 50 sport groups. It’s clearly a value and a priority for people in this region to play their sport and to recreate. We feel quite successful in spite of not having a particular sport centre here in this region. We manage to do it anyway.

In closing, I would just like to say we appreciate all the provincial funding we get. We couldn’t do it without it. Our local sport groups in this area certainly are recipients of the gaming grants and any other grants that we can put our pen to. Certainly, CBT helps us along the way as well. We appreciate it. Thank you very much for hearing us out.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about specific programming that you’re doing in the area of Sport for Life. I think we hear a lot about ViaSport and others, where they’re talking about organized sports or more elite athletes. But I know the organizations are looking at more opportunities to pull in school groups, for example. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about the specifics that you might be doing in your area on that.

K. Palfenier: Yes, the Canadian Sport for Life program has been promoted through the PSOs, the provincial sport organizations, and the intent is for that to trickle down to their local groups.

We, my sport council, are constantly promoting that. We participate in the Sports Day in Canada event each year. This year we’re actually having a person from ViaSport come as our keynote speaker to speak to the Canadian sports alliance philosophy, so that we do start children very young but only in a recreation setting. We don’t want competition too early so that we don’t burn them out until early teenage years, so then they’ll never play again. No, the purpose is to make sure that they actually do play for life. Does that answer your question?

D. Ashton (Chair): We’re a little bit ahead of schedule. Are you able to present now? Would that be okay?

G. Johansson: Yes. We did come a little bit early, but we can certainly go ahead now. I can.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you for doing it. Your Worship, we have ten minutes allotted for the presentation and then five minutes for questions or comments from the committee. We have the literature that was sent to us in front of us.

G. Johansson: Again, I want to thank you for making the time available to listen to Hudson’s Hope. We appreciate it. The presentation consists of four parts, all to do with the proposed or existing B.C. Hydro generating facilities.

The first point is regarding involvement of the B.C. Utilities Commission with the proposed Site C. The joint review panel, which examined the Site C proposal, stated that they could not conclude on the likely accuracy of project cost estimates because it did not have the information or the time or the resources. This, they said, affects all further calculations of unit costs, revenue requirements, impact on rates and the impact of rates on demand.
[ Page 1134 ]

The panel said that the project costs and the impact of those costs should be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That is a position that has been long held by groups here — local government, the regional district and the district of Hudson’s Hope as well.

Surely, we feel it would not be responsible for the province to proceed with a project costing in the neighbourhood of $8 billion, or probably more. It’s said to be the largest project likely to be seen in the province for a full generation. But we’ve only had that one independent agency that has looked at it, and that agency says that it can’t judge the accuracy of the projected cost or the impact of those costs.

The feeling in our municipality is that it’s the ratepayers of B.C. who are ultimately responsible for the B.C. Hydro debt. So without scrutiny of a body that has the duty to scrutinize the cost, the ratepayers don’t know what the size of their debt is or what it is likely to be.

We already know that ratepayers will face a 28 percent increase in rates over the five years beginning in 2014. The following five years will also have increases, although the numbers were not announced and are probably not known right now. That puts us to 2024, which would be about when Site C would come on line, and there’s a question of what rate increase that will bring.

For the first time that I can remember — and I’m quite old, so I have a fair memory — I could hear people complaining about the cost of electricity in B.C. They’re looking ahead, and they really want to know what is in store for them as ratepayers going into the next ten, 15, 20 years.

Already in our area we’re seeing solar panels, geo-heat exchangers, micro-distribution and other small endeavours as the businesses and the individuals start to take matters into their own hands and go to some of those things that they feel they have more control over as far as the cost of their energy, their electricity.

The joint review panel said that they couldn’t determine the dam’s cost and the unit energy cost or the dam’s impact on rates and that the BCUC could do those things if it were allowed.

We’ve considered the argument that the BCUC doesn’t have the capacity to examine Site C, but we would point out that BCUC was created in 1980 and its very first undertaking was an examination of the Site C project the first time around. The capacity to examine a project of this size was built into the legislation of the BCUC, and the lack of capacity is an issue that can and should be rectified by restoring the levels of independent, capable individuals.

Consultants can be contracted if need be, and we don’t feel that this involvement of BCUC should be seen as a burden on the public purse. Actually, as early as 1988, I believe, the BCUC became self-supporting, deriving its income from fees derived from the utilities being regulated.

Proceeding with these large projects without expert and independent oversight may well prove very costly in the long run. We feel that it would be time well spent, because there is the time. There’s no pressing need for Site C, and it might provide just an excellent way of getting to the bottom of what is in store for the B.C. ratepayers provincewide.

The second point is that we’re looking at two rivers. Hydro generation in B.C. is based on two rivers, the Peace and the Columbia. The Peace has two dams — the W.A.C. Bennett dam, which is the largest and also backs up the largest reservoir, and Peace Canyon, the fourth largest. Between the two of them, they produce roughly one-third of Hydro’s electricity.

Just as important, it makes other generating facilities efficient. It is called the backbone of the Hydro generation system because when smaller facilities are able to generate, Williston can be reduced severely in its output and then it stores water for use later on. Also, that massive reservoir is a multi-year storage battery. Both the Peace River dams and the complete Dinosaur reservoir formed by Peace Canyon dam, and also a little bit of the Williston reservoir, are located within the Hudson’s Hope municipality.

When we look at the Columbia, it has four large dams, two storage dams and seven smaller dams. It produces about 45 percent of Hydro’s generation. If you compare the benefits that come from hosting those dams on each one of the rivers…. If you look at the Columbia, the total funding for the Columbia Basin Trust was over $330 million, which was contributed to that area in order to compensate for being hosts of this large generating facility. The Peace, in contrast, has no Peace basin trust. The total funding in the trust department is zero for the Peace, so there’s a considerable inequity between those two.

The third point is the grants-in-lieu. All communities except Hudson’s Hope receive an annual grant in lieu of taxes, based on a formula. Hudson’s Hope is treated separately from all other communities affected by the hydro dams. The largest paper that we submitted is the one regarding the grant in lieu of taxes.

Just as an example, in 2013 the district of Hudson’s Hope would have received $2,224,695 if Hudson’s Hope had been treated the same as other communities. However, the actual amount that was granted was $1,225,042 — so a shortfall of $999,663, and that shortfall compounds every year.

If you go to the back of that submission, it outlines what the grant-in-lieu…. It compares what would have been received and what was received and then the shortfalls.

The difference between the amount that Hudson’s Hope receives and the amount that Hudson’s Hope would have received, had we been treated like other communities receiving B.C. Hydro grants-in-lieu, is allocated to
[ Page 1135 ]
other communities. The application of the grant-in-lieu formula — the model was created in 2006 — has been to increase the totals paid to other communities while it reduces that which is paid to Hudson’s Hope, which is the actual host of the two major dams and one complete reservoir and a little bit of Williston. In addition, Hudson’s Hope is the host of the living spots for about 80 families that work for B.C. Hydro.

The last area is the Peace with Site C. There was a quote from a letter that came from then-minister Hansen in November 2010, which states that the grant payable to the district is not affected by changes — increases or decreases — in generating capacity. So not only is Hudson’s Hope disadvantaged by the present allocation system, but it would be denied any increase if Site C were built, even though it is the municipality that is most impacted by that project.

Over 4,200 acres is lost to Hudson’s Hope because of flooding, highway relocation or imposition of a statutory right-of-way that forbids permanent structures from being built. These properties are the choicest properties in the district. They’re waterfront properties where people like to live or just have an advantage of it being waterfront.

Hydro has been buying properties in Hudson’s Hope since about 1975. They now own over 100 properties, some of them very large. In one case it’s ten quarter sections, so that’s 1,600 acres. They are by far the largest landowner.

On those properties, buildings are removed or burned, and the property remains vacant. Some of those have been vacant for 35 years. Once it goes into the Hydro land bank, it doesn’t come out. So you never get that natural cycle of somebody new coming in and improving the property. This landlord….

D. Ashton (Chair): Your Worship, we’re at ten minutes. Sorry. I think there are going to be some good questions on this. If you could maybe just wind it up.

The absentee landlord situation has severely impacted Hudson’s Hope’s growth.

Finally, the Site C legacy. It was supposed to be in recognition of hosting the dam during its operating phase. The province created a $2.3 million legacy. You have a pamphlet on that. Hudson’s Hope, again, has been disadvantaged in that because it’s partly 60 percent based on population, and that will be calculated every year. The larger municipalities are growing and going to grow faster than Hudson’s Hope.

We have three asks: that Site C be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission for need, cost and impact on rates; that the contributions of the Peace be recognized with a trust similar to the Columbia Basin Trust; and the third, that Hudson’s Hope be treated fairly in the grant-in-lieu scenario and also in the Site C legacy arrangement.

M. Morris: Good morning, Your Worship. I’m just curious. Does Hudson’s Hope receive any of the Fair Share money that the Peace region receives from the government?

G. Johansson: Yeah. Hudson’s Hope is part of the Fair Share agreement. The issue for Hudson’s Hope [audio interrupted]. It’s certainly not fair to Hudson’s Hope.

D. Ashton (Chair): Yes. Sorry, Your Worship. Could you say that again? The audio broke up there. We’re listening.

G. Johansson: Okay. The Fair Share agreement — the formula which is created is that for Hudson’s Hope every time we get more industrial tax base within the municipality, then the Fair Share amount is reduced. I do believe that the Fair Share…. Hudson’s Hope receives the least amount of money from Fair Share, although I do believe [audio interrupted].

G. Holman: Thanks very much for the presentation. Just to follow up on Mike’s question, in terms of the Fair Share allocation, are other communities treated the same way? If their industrial base goes up, their…. Mike is nodding yes. Just for you to confirm that. Is that how other communities are dealt with?

G. Holman: Sure, any additional information would be helpful. The deadline is October 17.

You probably are aware that Rob Botterell, who is working for Hudson’s Hope, made a presentation as an individual to the committee, so the position of Hudson’s Hope on Site C is pretty clear to us and the request that you’re making in terms of referring the project to the Utilities Commission.

I really do find the grant-in-lieu policy quite puzzling. I guess I’m at a bit of a loss to understand why Hudson’s Hope is being dealt with so differently, particularly when it’s even more directly affected than other communities. I mean, is there any rationale, just to play devil’s advocate, that the province has provided you for this different treatment?

G. Johansson: No. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand the [audio interrupted]. We got a few presentations to the Ministry of Finance. Once we were told that because our taxes were too low…. So we came back, and we
[ Page 1136 ]
made substantial tax increases, which didn’t really change the level of remuneration [audio interrupted].

But anyway, we did that, and it didn’t make any difference to what they did. We still have no [audio interrupted]. I would be very reluctant to raise any taxes because it didn’t give us any relief.

G. Holman: Sorry. I know I’ve got to be quick. You’re saying that in part you were told that because your taxes were so low, that’s why you’re getting a different treatment in grants-in-lieu?

G. Johansson: It’s the only explanation that I’ve ever heard. That’s why we got this Mr. Read to do the in-depth analysis and explanation, which you received.

G. Heyman: I’m just hoping to understand why the result of not making the cap apply to Hudson’s Hope actually puts Hudson’s Hope at a disadvantage in terms of the grants-in-lieu. Is that because you are no longer eligible for distribution of other money that does accrue to the other municipalities?

G. Johansson: I’ve never been able to figure out how not having the cap tally helped Hudson’s Hope. I’m sorry. I perhaps could request some clarification from those who decide on the formula. We’ve had trouble trying to understand it.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, Your Worship, thank you very much. You have planted a couple of seeds for us to enquire about, so thank you, and thank you for taking the time today to come down and give us this presentation.

D. Ashton (Chair): Hi. Good morning, Phyllis. How are you doing? You’re there with the Nelson Committee on Homelessness. Is that correct?

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, thank you for coming in today. Please accept our apologies for not being able to get into Castlegar so that we could talk personally, but there were some extenuating circumstances.

We’ve allotted ten minutes for the presentation today and up to five minutes for questions or comments. Are you able to proceed?

P. Nash: Okay. Well, I’ll start at the beginning. I’m Phyllis Nash, and I’m a retired college instructor representing the Nelson Committee on Homelessness, known as NCOH.

The Nelson Committee on Homelessness has been active since 2001, addressing poverty and homelessness issues in Nelson. NCOH works with citizens, businesses, local and federal government, and community stakeholders to encourage collaboration, new initiatives, research, information sharing and knowledge building to find solutions for homelessness and for at-risk individuals in our community.

NCOH partnerships include representatives from the faith community, social services, housing groups, government agencies and others.

On behalf of the Nelson Committee on Homelessness, I’m here to express our strong opposition to the decrease in the open hours of the B.C. Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s income assistance office in Nelson and to request that more resources are directed to maintaining the offices of the ministry and that ongoing, sustainable funds be directed to non-profit agencies so they can assist our most vulnerable citizens to apply for social assistance.

The current cutbacks make the system less responsive to the population that is mine to serve. It started with mandatory online applications for welfare in call centres. Now come further office cutbacks.

I would like to list a number of issues. One, effective September 8, the Nelson office of the ministry will be open only between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. on cheque-issue day.

It should be noted that the Nelson office has lost two employment assistance workers, and Trail has lost ten employment assistance workers. The rumour is that these offices will be closed later this fall, and this is believable, as the Castlegar, Nakusp and Creston offices have already been closed, with local services being completely lost.

I just heard this morning a few minutes ago — this is an aside from my presentation — that Michelle Mungall had asked that question in the House yesterday and was
[ Page 1137 ]
told those offices would not be closed. But we’ll have to see, I guess. The impact is not only on the recipients of service but also on this community, which has lost permanently employed citizens who contribute to the community in any number of ways.

Secondly, low-income people often do not have access to a computer, are computer-illiterate, live rurally with several or no transportation choices and do not have a telephone of their own.

Three, more individuals without the capacity to navigate through a complex application process for welfare as the result of limited education, mental disability or mental illness.

Four, lack of a specific local contact within the ministry who deals with this file. It’s now necessary to deal with workers from all over the province, resulting in delays, inconsistencies and accessibility problems for the applicant.

Five, the move toward direct deposit of social assistance in the banks does not work for those who are homeless and have very limited access to bank accounts, if any. Some bank accounts require they do have an address.

Six, while the government’s goal is accessible service, it should be noted that the instructions on how to complete an application on My Self Serve require 14 videos of instruction. I went and looked at it. I understand from the support workers that there’s a total of 172 questions that need to be answered. There are 92 slides. Apparently, you can’t save your information until the end, so often material is lost on the way through this process. It’s horrible by any definition.

The system has become more inaccessible to vulnerable and homeless individuals since 2002, when policy changes resulted in increased numbers of individuals actually applying for assistance. Research has indicated that most of these individuals end up relying on charity, soup kitchens and transient shelters.

It should be noted that the numbers of individuals living on the streets have increased since that date. It is not that there is less need but fewer resources to address the needs of these individuals. Homelessness is particularly costly, both to society at large and to the public treasury.

A 2005 study from Simon Fraser University Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addictions found the cost of servicing the homeless is greater than the cost of housing them. The study found that B.C. has 11,750 people with severe addictions and/or mental illness who are absolutely homeless and that this will cost the public treasury $644 million — that’s about $55,000 per person — in health care, correctional services and social services each year. I actually imagine these amounts have increased significantly since that time, but that was a 2005 study.

My recommendations are to keep the ministry offices in the Kootenays open and staffed so that services are available. On-line and/or telephone applications should be an option for those applying for assistance. Face-to-face application processes must be reinstated for those who need this approach, who do not have the capacity to deal with the on-line and/or telephone approach. Secondly, supervised [audio interrupted] efficient and ongoing resources to non-profit organizations to assist those applying for social assistance in areas where there are not government face-to-face services.

I wanted to sum this up with just one story. I would like to tell you before I prepare this story that currently we have two security guards, one at the beginning of the line and one at the end of the line, as the lineup develops each day in Nelson to visit the social assistance office. There are only two employment assistance officers, workers, present in that office to assist them. So it’s really quite a dire situation.

Anyway, just one story. Recently, an individual with a diagnosed mental illness staying at Stepping Stones, a shelter in Nelson, received a letter indicating he needed to telephone the ministry immediately to discuss his employment search or his October cheque would be withheld.

After calling several times, he was given the number of a worker in Vernon. He called the number in Vernon only to learn that the worker was unavailable. He left the Stepping Stones number for the Vernon ministry worker to return his call and did not hear from her for two days.

It should be noted that Stepping Stones does have a voice mail and no messages were left for him, so it seems that the ministry worker did not call. The staff at Stepping Stones then sent him to the Nelson office during their current hours of operation. He did so, as the local staff said that they would arrange for a worker to call them at their office.

When the individual went to the local ministry office for his appointment on Monday, September 22, it had not been arranged, and he was sent away. He was then told that someone would call him at Stepping Stones. Apparently, there was some kind of misunderstanding.

In the meantime, we don’t know whether he is going to receive assistance for October or not. What is important is that the system is cumbersome. This vulnerable individual with a mental illness lives under an incredible amount of stress. The weight of being unable to navigate the system efficiently affects his health and [audio interrupted].

In many cases this results in hospitalization — costly — and/or aggressive, criminal behaviour — again, costly. So far that hasn’t happened in this case, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it did.

The support for an individual has fallen upon the staff of Stepping Stones, who do not carry this responsibility in their job description. The agency does not have the capacity and/or the resources to provide additional tele-
[ Page 1138 ]
phones and computers so that individuals can [audio interrupted] comply with the ministry’s policy. The whole system really is a huge barrier to the most vulnerable of our citizens.

D. Ashton (Chair): Phyllis, thank you very much. I have a couple of questions coming at you.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for the presentation. Do you have any sense of what the percentage of clients for whom on line or telephone is unsuitable, or who have difficulty with that form of interaction, is of the total number?

P. Nash: Actually, I don’t. I think it’s more than we think because there’s still a fairly significant part of the vulnerable population who are not diagnosed with mental illness yet, or maybe never will be, but in fact do not cope in society. Probably, if they were assessed, they would be.

I’m not sure what that percentage would be. Anything I say would be a total guess. What I do know is that the lineups every day at the ministry office are long. They’re down onto the street.

G. Heyman: Would I be correct in assuming that it’s basically agencies like yours and others that pick up the slack of assisting these people who cannot interface with the technology?

P. Nash: Exactly. This morning, actually, I was at a meeting of our association. Two people at the meeting were giving me a great deal more detail. One of them works for mental health, is an outreach mental health worker, and he had stood in line two days with one of his very, very volatile clients. The other is a community outreach worker that’s funded by B.C. Housing. She had been in the lineup a couple of times now. They’re not doing their jobs when they’re doing that.

The same with the staff at Stepping Stones. I mean, their jobs are to attempt to find people housing and that sort of thing. They’re spending hours and hours assisting people with the computer program or standing in line with them if they’re particularly volatile.

M. Morris: You’ve expressed a wide range of issues, all involving Social Development and Social Innovation issues under that ministry there. Have you taken these up directly with the ministry? Have you accessed their complaint process? A lot of the issues that you’ve brought up are complaints that should be forwarded through the ministry for their attention.

P. Nash: Yes, I have, actually. This presentation — I will send a copy to them as well. But yes, we have directed things to the ministry, to Rich Coleman.

M. Morris: Well, Rich Coleman for Housing, but you’ve also mentioned a whole lot of other issues that come under Minister McRae’s office.

D. Ashton (Chair): Phyllis, thank you very much. Greatly appreciate the input that you’ve given us today. If you have any further information you’d like us to have, we can receive it up until October 17 — if you think of something that you’ve missed or want to re-emphasize what you have.

D. Ashton (Chair): You can send it to us. Hansard will transcribe it, but actually yours might be a little bit easier, just in case we do miss some things. If you do want to send it to us, please do.

D. Ashton (Chair): The best way to send it to us is to financecommittee@leg.bc.ca.

P. Nash: Thank you. I was told to send 15 copies, but obviously that’s when you’re supposed to be here.

D. Ashton (Chair): Yes. Just fire us a copy, and we can distribute it amongst the members. Okay?

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. Have a safe drive back to Nelson from Castlegar.

Next up we have the Peace Valley Environment Association. Mr. Boon, are you there in Dawson Creek?

D. Ashton (Chair): Good. Well, sir, thank you very much for coming. I saw you there. I was actually going to try to slip you in, but we had somebody that appeared.

Mr. Boon, ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions and comments. The floor is yours, and we look forward to hearing what you have to say.

K. Boon: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Ken
[ Page 1139 ]
Boon. I’m a farmer and log home builder. I live in the Peace River Valley. I’m a director with the Peace Valley Environment Association, an organization whose goal is to create a truly sustainable land use plan for the valley.

I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I appreciate the amount of information you are considering.

I hope you agree that one of the biggest financial issues on the table for this province right now is the Site C dam. That is what I’d like to talk to you about.

I’d like to talk about the Site C in terms of its cost, its need, alternatives to it and additional cost considerations, including the value of agricultural land and natural capital that would be lost if the dam proceeds.

The dam is proposed to cost $7.9 billion. It will likely cost more, given that according to the World Commission on Dams, projects of this magnitude typically go into at least 50 percent cost overruns.

In fact, just over a year ago a boat ramp built by B.C. Hydro just a few miles downstream from the proposed Site C dam location went into cost overruns of 35 percent, with B.C. Hydro stating that it was a challenging project in a challenging environment, combined with difficult weather and ground conditions. Imagine how challenging the construction of a kilometre-wide dam that’s 60 metres high would be over a proposed seven-year time frame.

Regardless of the potential overruns, it is surprising that B.C. would consider pursuing this project, given that a number of sources have articulated a lack of need for it.

I’d like to start with comments by economist Dr. Marvin Shaffer, who told the joint review panel on Site C that B.C. Hydro’s demand projections are incorrect because they are inducing new mining and oil and gas load with the offer of low-cost power that it doesn’t have, giving rise to more load growth that would be economically efficient.

Dr. Shaffer stated that the key factor underlining the forecast shortfalls is the elimination of the existing gas-fired Burrard thermal plant as a source of backup energy. The elimination of this alternative was determined without any supporting economic, environmental or other analysis, despite the recommendations of the B.C. Utilities Commission in 2008.

According to Dr. Shaffer, if Burrard were left in place, there would be no shortfall of energy until 2033. B.C. Hydro stated at the hearings on Site C that it would cost only $500 million to upgrade Burrard — significantly less than the $7.9 billion for Site C.

Alternatively, if there’s no hope of refurbishing Burrard, Dr. Shaffer suggested we consider single-cycle gas thermal plants instead of Site C. By way of example, the Shepard natural gas plant in Alberta will generate power for $30 per megawatt hour, whereas energy from Site C is anticipated to cost up to $100 per megawatt hour.

Not only is the cost of generation considerably less, but a natural gas generation plant that provides the same energy output as Site C could be built for 1/6 the cost, at $1.3 billion, with a significantly smaller footprint of 60 acres, versus the 57,000-acre impact that Site C would cause.

Why is it okay to plan to build B.C.’s economy on the export of natural gas in the form of LNG, but it’s not okay to use this plentiful and relatively cheap resource domestically? It is firm and can be built incrementally on an as-needed basis and in proximity to areas where it’s actually needed.

Energy expert Philip Raphals told the joint review panel that Site C would produce a significant and unnecessary surplus of energy which would be exported at a loss. He also stated that B.C. Hydro made comparisons to alternative energy portfolio mixes with exactly the same output as Site C, which was unnecessary. When you’re considering alternatives, there’s no need to overbuild. Building incrementally wasn’t factored into the comparison of alternatives. Mr. Raphals determined that even if B.C. Hydro’s greatest energy predictions are realized, Site C is still more expensive than a combined range of alternatives.

B.C. Hydro stated that Site C will operate at a loss of $800 million for the first four years of operation. This is, of course, depending on the accuracy of their energy forecast projections, which will be significantly affected by the existing proposed rate hike structure and dependent on the markets for our resource-based products, a market which is extremely volatile.

According to reports from B.C. Hydro, in 2013 it was selling 7,417 gigawatt hours of energy to others. “Others” is not clearly identified, but the point is that it is being sold outside of the province and constitutes 40 percent greater output than the maximum potential of Site C.

Additionally, the amount of energy sold to domestic customers in 2014 actually dropped by 8 percent from 2013. In fact, in general, since 2006 domestic demand has been considerably less than forecast by B.C. Hydro. The demand has been in the low 50,000 gigawatt-hour range, whereas B.C. Hydro forecasted it would be well over 60,000 gigawatt hours by 2012.

The joint review panel itself urged B.C. Hydro to carry out serious research into the tremendous geothermal potential in B.C. as an alternative to Site C, as did the B.C. Utilities Commission when they determined Site C was not necessary in the early 1980s. They stated that they were surprised by the low level of effort put forth by Hydro in researching this option and that the effort should be renewed.

The Clean Energy Association of B.C. has identified significant stores of geothermal energy, with the six most likely prospects having the potential to provide over 1,000 megawatts — about the same as Site C. A single 100-megawatt geothermal plant can provide 30 to 40-plus full-time jobs and only cost $400 million. Not only
[ Page 1140 ]
that, these plants operate at 98 percent efficiency, whereas Site C would only operate at about half its maximum rated capacity.

Another very important rationale for not proceeding with Site C is the fact that over 30,000 acres of farmland would be washed down the river. This isn’t just any farmland, as experts at the hearing on Site C told the panel. This land is necessary for B.C.’s future food sustainability. It has the potential to provide fruits and vegetables for over a million people and will be necessary as climate change continues to erode existing farmland that B.C. depends on for imports. We’ll soon be looking for ways to produce more of our food in the province.

According to agricultural economist Wendy Holm, the long-term economic value of horticulture in the valley is $2 billion from farm-gate sales and secondary economic activity. This is considerably more than B.C. Hydro forecasted at a mere $250 million over the same 100-year time frame. There are many alternatives for energy, but there are no alternatives to class 1 and 2 food-producing agriculture land.

The David Suzuki Foundation recently completed a comprehensive analysis of the economic benefits of keeping the Peace River region’s remaining farmland and nature intact and found that it’s worth $7.9 billion to $8.6 billion per year. Of course, that’s for the region, not just for that river valley, of course.

I hope that each of you will seriously consider the rationales I have provided here as you deliberate on the necessity of including Site C in B.C.’s financial future. I would hope that the results of the research conducted by such a wide number of renowned experts will lead you to determine that Site C is not in the interests of British Columbians.

D. Ashton (Chair): Mr. Boon, thank you for your presentation. A good presentation.

G. Holman: Thanks, Mr. Boon. This is really good. A point of clarification. We got a written copy of your submission. It looks like there are links in it. I guess my technical question is whether the information cited by those links is a part of the record for the committee. And then I have a couple of other questions.

D. Ashton (Chair): We can. I think it would be documented as the link if we wanted to, or if you would like to ask for that information to be included….

G. Holman: I’m asking the committee if one way or another the information cited in this report can also be included as part of the public record that we’re considering here, if that’s not too confusing.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): It’s hard to tell, because some of the links are — for example, the word “told” — linked or underlined. So it’s hard to tell if it’s a link.

G. Holman: I’m assuming that that refers to a submission to the joint review panel, for example.

D. Ashton (Chair): Sir, do you have any additional information that you could send to us?

K. Boon: Mr. Holman is correct. Those links do refer to submissions that were made by those experts either at the joint review panel or…. I believe there is some other [audio interrupted] in there as well, of course. But it just confirms where that information came from. And, yeah, I would appreciate it if it could be part of the record.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay. We’ll see, sir. It just may be…. Just leave it with us. But if you do have additional information, would you ensure that you send it to us before October 17, please?

Just two quick questions. I noted where this estimate of a loss of $800 million for the first four years of operation…. Just to be clear there, you’re indicating that this is a statement from B.C. Hydro, not from Dr. Shaffer or any of the other consultants that presented. This is information that Hydro presented.

G. Holman: You’re talking about 30,000 acres of farmland, as you put it, would be washed down the river. It was my understanding that the amount of farmland is in the order of several thousand, not that that’s not significant. I hadn’t realized that the…. Could you explain that figure, the 30,000 acres?

K. Boon: Okay. I find there’s often confusion on the numbers of farmland. It’s often comparing apples to oranges, of course, on the different classes of farmland. Hydro has at the hearings used a different classification system than is normally used by the agrologists. I believe that 30,000 acres is all classes of farmland, from 1 to 5. So if you’re looking at specifically…. That would not be 30,000 acres of class 1 and 2 land that you could do market garden production on. It’s a wider range of….

You used the cost of scalable natural gas–generating facilities that could be cited in different locations in the province as an alternative to Site C should the power be needed. Should I assume that you were using that as an example and not as your recommendation, given that there may well be other renewable sources of energy that are also scalable and citable?

K. Boon: Yeah, most definitely. We’re not just promoting…. We’re just using natural gas as one example. Right now there’s such a full slate of renewables. I mean, for instance, we have solar panels on our shop. We don’t have a single battery. B.C. Hydro is our battery. We net-meter with B.C. Hydro. We found B.C. Hydro very good to work with, setting that system up. There’s no reason why that can’t be implemented more often.

D. Ashton (Chair): Mr. Boon, thank you very much for your presentation and for coming in today.

If we can have a five-minute recess, please, and then we’ll go to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. If you folks would be ready to come up, that would be great. It would help us out. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good morning. Thank you very much for coming, especially for coming a little bit early. It helps us out today.

If you don’t mind, could I let you make your presentation? If there are any questions of yourselves from the committee, we’ll address those, and then what we’ll do is go in camera ourselves and have a discussion. Then there’ll be some form of response coming back to you, and I would assume it may be through writing.

Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner:
Supplementary Funding Request

E. Denham: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, and thank you very much for making time to hear from us today and for consideration of our request. Joining me today are Jay Fedorak, who is our assistant commissioner and deputy registrar, and my colleague Cara McGregor, director of communications for our office.

I’m just going to make a few opening comments and then open it up for questions.

As outlined in my letter of August 25, I’m asking the committee’s approval to use surplus judicial review funds to cover our office’s projected 2014-2015 deficit. This deficit is the result of mandated cost and salary increases, which are ongoing costs for our office, as well as some one-time costs, including contracts for specialized professional services that we had not anticipated and outstanding severance payments from previous years.

As of the end of June of 2014 our projected deficit was $323,000. We took some action over the spring and summer to lower this projected deficit to $173,000, which is the figure that’s contained in my August 25 letter to the committee. We accomplished this by reducing professional services, primarily for legal advice, by $100,000; by cutting back on travel; and by not filling one vacant position. We’ve also deferred some activities in our strategic plan, and we plan to delay those expenditures into future years.

Since I wrote to you in August, we have had two more vacancies created by staff leaving to seek other opportunities. If we do not hire anyone to replace these three vacant positions, we would be in the position to reduce our projected deficit to $86,000. These current vacant positions represent 10 percent of our office’s staff complement.

However, with complaints and appeals up 32 percent from fiscal 2012-2013 and a backlog of case files awaiting active investigation, which has grown from 90 files in our backlog the last time I addressed the committee to 260 files, not hiring these positions would be a very shortsighted strategy. As commissioner, I’m deeply troubled by this increase, and I want to support our staff to reduce our backlog of files awaiting investigation as quickly as possible.

Returning to my request, the Legislative Assembly allocated $300,000 in dedicated professional services funding solely to cover the legal cost for judicial reviews of our office’s orders and decisions brought against the OIPC in the B.C. Supreme Court. This is a matter that we don’t have control over. When former commissioner David Loukidelis requested this additional funding in 2009, he proposed that if the committee granted his request, then at the end of every fiscal year we would return all surplus dedicated professional services funds to the government’s consolidated revenue fund, the CRF.

Since 2009 — with one exception, where we obtained the permission of the committee — we have returned surplus dedicated professional services funds each year to the CRF. The exception was in 2011, where the committee approved my expenditure of surplus dedicated funds to cover the start-up costs related to a new statutory mandate that the government gave our office.

The proposal that I’m making today is that the committee again authorize my office to spend surplus dedicated professional services funds for the current fiscal year, this time to cover a remaining deficit and to partially fill our current vacancies such that we can address our backlog.
[ Page 1142 ]

This is not a request for new money. This is a request to allow us the flexibility to spend dedicated funds to address other priorities. We estimate that $140,000 of the dedicated $300,000 will be unspent this year. If we were authorized to use the $140,000 for other purposes, this amount would cover our projected deficit as well as allow us to hire one of the three vacant positions to deal with the increase of demand for our services.

Thanks very much for consideration of my letter and my request. We are available to answer any questions you might have.

M. Morris: Just a couple. Thanks very much for your presentation. I guess the one that jumps out at me the most is that you’ve indicated a significant increase in demand in your casework there. Have you been able to isolate what the reason is for that demand increase?

E. Denham: I think that access to information and privacy issues are of greater concern to citizens than they have been in the past. I think, especially, privacy is on everybody’s minds these days, so our complaints about privacy issues against organizations have increased significantly and access-to-information appeals at the same time.

I think there’s just more citizen demand of our office’s services. These are members of the public that are coming to our office with their complaints and with their requests for appeal of a public body’s response to an FOI request. The demand is up, and we are looking at everything we can to streamline our processes. We’re undergoing an internal process to triage complaints, do everything we can. The fact of the matter is that the numbers are just…. Our workload is increasing.

E. Foster: When you talk about the three positions that you have open right now…. You mentioned that if you can access these funds, you can fill one of those. Then when we get into next year, are you still going to be short the two in next year’s budget? Or will you be able to fill one or two of those spots on a go-forward basis?

E. Denham: Well, the cost pressures that we’re facing in our office are going to be ongoing. The mandated salary increases and the mandated increases in benefits are ongoing pressures. The fact of the matter is that we have a structural deficit right now, and because of our workload, we are going to need to fill those positions. The committee didn’t grant us any increases last time, so we started out the year with a pretty significant deficit right off the bat.

G. Heyman: Thank you, Commissioner. I’d like to follow up on the question from Mike Morris regarding the demand. Obviously, your office needs to respond to the demand, and my presumption is that besides the complaints that have to do with privacy, you have, in previous reports, talked about the “no response” records to requests of government.

I note that there are a number of requests for your office to investigate, most recently by the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, with respect to the refusal of the government to release a number of inspection reports to do with the Mount Polley tailings breech.

There are two ways to deal with demand. One is more staff, and the other is getting to the root cause of at least some of the complaints. Is it your view that if some of the recommendations that you have made with respect to documentation of government decision-making and timelier release of documents…? In other words, actually meeting the timelines in the legislation for requests for information would lead to a decrease in approximately what percentage of the complaints you’re dealing with?

E. Denham: It’s hard to say the exact percentage. Certainly, some of the recommendations I have around systemic problems in the system — the need for new information management legislation, the need to properly document records, the need to respond in a more timely way — then our office wouldn’t be dealing with the number of, for example, time extension requests that we get from the government.

There’s just more demand on our office, and I see it across the country. It’s not just a B.C. issue. I think citizens are more engaged in their information rights than at any other time.

G. Heyman: Just as a follow-up, I’ll refrain from asking for a percentage, but have you noticed an increase over the last couple of years in requests for investigations such as the one from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre — just sort of systemic investigations? What does that mean for your office in terms of the resources that have to be diverted to respond to that?

E. Denham: We have received several requests for investigations into alleged systemic issues. This is the second request that we’ve had from the environmental law clinic to look into issues around the duty to report issues of significant risk to British Columbians. This is the second request. We received that request yesterday at 4:38 in the afternoon, so I haven’t read the 60 pages yet.

Yes, we do receive more complaints from advocacy groups, from civil society groups but also from individuals that are looking for information for their own, their individual purposes.

It’s just across the board, George, and it is similar to what my colleagues are seeing across the country.
[ Page 1143 ]

S. Gibson: Thank you. This is an important subject. I see that ICBC scores well as a plurality of your requests.

Excuse my ignorance on this, if I’m allowed to ask this question. Is there a component of financial benefit to these folks? Are you kind of conscripted into allowing these people — who have concerns about ICBC, ultimately — to turn into a financial benefit for themselves and, perhaps, using your body to be a part of that process, if you know what I mean?

Most people will have dealings with ICBC. They often have monetary goals in mind, ultimately. That’s my first question.

E. Denham: ICBC is a public body. It’s probably our number one public body when it comes to complaints and requests for access to personal information. But remember how much information they have on all British Columbians. They have the custody of large amounts of personal information. When people are involved in a claim, they may be filing requests for access to their own information to help in the adjudication of that claim.

I think the numbers are high, but ICBC has a very solid access-to-information-and-privacy program. We’re often in touch with ICBC. They’re one of the leaders when it comes to protection of privacy and the accountability of their programs.

S. Gibson: A quick question, if I may. I come out of a local government background. One of the challenges we had — like 911, or any of those — was frivolous communication. Folks would even contact our office asking questions or bothering us with, really, things that they could get themselves — frustrating and very expensive.

Are there ways in your office that you can discourage frivolous contact or provide a database, like commonly asked questions so that if I’ve got something that I’m concerned about, I don’t have to talk to somebody individually? I can go through some kind of welcoming database that can provide that information. Is that something you’re looking at?

E. Denham: That’s a great question. A lot of the focus of our work in recent years has been to issue guidance documents, FAQs, and we have done a complete rebuild of our website. It’s more helpful to individuals, so they can find the information. Otherwise, we get 4,000 calls a year from people looking for things. But we can quickly point them to the website, and more and more individuals are using the website. That’s a really good tool.

To your first point, we have the discretion not to investigate a complaint that we think is frivolous or vexatious or without merit. So we have the ability to turn away complaints. We don’t have to investigate every complaint. That’s really helpful to our office.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation and the work that you do. A couple of quick questions, just to make sure I understand what you’re presenting to us.

It seems that the $145,000 that you’re proposing be transferred from the earmarked legal fund can be…. I guess it depends on how you compare numbers, but it seems like the mandated increases, essentially, make up for all of that amount. Do I have that right?

The other question — or point, I guess — is that the $5.5 million that’s been budgeted…. What you’re proposing would not increase that amount. It’s a reallocation within that budget, and therefore, it would not increase the deficit, for example, for the fiscal year.

E. Denham: That’s exactly right. Most — not all — of the $145,000 is due to the mandated salary and benefit increases. I’m not asking for any new money to the $5.5 million budget we have. I’m just asking for flexibility to spend the earmarked funds that have been set aside for judicial reviews.

Historically, we’ve spent about half of that on judicial reviews, where we have to hire external counsel to assist us in our litigation. We have the $300,000. I’m just asking to set the funds free so that we can reallocate them to the deficit and, also, hire at least one of the vacant positions because of our workload.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, as well, for the presentation. Again, a question of clarity.

You mentioned that there are three vacant positions, two related to investigations and complaints. You mentioned a 200-plus backlog right now of complaints that have come forward. Could you give the committee a rough idea of either the amount of time people would be waiting or an extension if those positions weren’t filled? You’re proposing filling one position. That’s obviously going to have an impact. If neither were filled or if one were filled, is there going to be a timeline impact?

E. Denham: It’s really troubling to me because, I think, a couple of years ago I came before this committee, and I said: “You know what? We’ve almost caught up with our backlog.” Having 50 files waiting assignment means that for each of those files, they’re waiting about five months before their file is assigned to an investigator.

Our investigators can handle about 35 open investigation files at a time. You can’t load people up with any more than that. Then for each one that comes in the door, it’s waiting for five months before assignment.

Then, Carole, on top of that, it can take 30, 60, 90 more days to finish the file, depending on the complexity of it. From a citizen’s perspective, from an individual’s perspective, this is a long time to wait, especially on top of…. If you think of FOI, they’ve already gone to the public body. They’re not happy with the response. Then they’re coming to us, and they’re waiting for their appeal.
[ Page 1144 ]

So it’s really troubling. If we don’t fill those three positions, then it’s just going to take longer. This is a matter of grave concern to me, from a public service perspective.

J. Yap: Just so I’m clear, the proposal is to transfer the $145,000 to cover the part of the deficit of $173,000. Then that difference, less than $30,000, you’ll manage within the budget.

E. Denham: The difference is about $54,000, and the $54,000 we could use to hire one of the three vacant positions. Do those numbers add up for you?

J. Yap: So $173,000 less $145,000 — that’s less than $30,000, unless I’m missing a number here.

E. Denham: We have a new number, John, because we had $173,000 deficit, and that was the number that was in my August letter. Since that time we’ve had two more vacancies, so the October 8 estimated deficit is down to $86,000, if we don’t fill those other vacant positions, and $140,000 is what I’m asking for — the funds to be set free. That allows us some capacity to hire one of the three vacant positions, okay?

That is an August letter, where we were sitting at $173,000 deficit. Since then two more people left, so it brings the deficit down. I haven’t filled any of those positions pending the discussion with the committee.

E. Denham: Only one, because that’s all we can afford, given the fact that we’ve got this deficit.

J. Yap: You mentioned earlier there would still be a deficit amount. Is that to take you to the rest of the year? I guess my question is: will the $145,000 cover the deficit?

J. Fedorak: If you give us the permission to exercise the flexibility that we’ve requested, then our deficit will be covered, and we will be able to hire one person. By hiring one person, we’ll come in fairly close to breaking even, but it will be on the positive side.

If we don’t get the permission to use the money in that way, we obviously won’t fill that position. We’re projecting today $86,000 short. We’ll do our best to shave everywhere we can in the budget to bring that number down as best we can, but it will make our operations extremely difficult. Whether we’ll be able to completely eradicate the deficit given our current funding level, I couldn’t say for sure.

That’s why we’ve come at this time. We wanted to come before you in a timely manner, not come at the end of the fiscal year and present you with a problem that would be much more difficult to solve at that point.

J. Yap: I take it you don’t have a contingency line, or you’ve already used it in your budget.

Just a question from myself. I’m assuming that you will be doing that anyway — looking to shave everything that you can to ensure that we do get to zero. Okay.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you for starting early. Through Kate, we’ll get back to you real quick. Thanks for coming in today.

D. Ashton (Chair): So moved, with the language we decided — Gary, thank you. Is there a seconder? Seconded, thank you. Any discussion on that?
[ Page 1145 ]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Maybe if we could just read it into the record.

D. Ashton (Chair): Oh, read it into the record, okay. I thought we did. That was in camera. I apologize.

G. Holman: I move that the committee endorse the application of the commissioner to utilize surplus STOB 60, professional services, judicial reviews funds, in fiscal 2014-15 to manage office budgetary expenses.

D. Ashton (Chair): Just one thing, Kate. Will you let the commissioner know, please, verbally? Then we’ll follow up with a letter.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I certainly will. Thank you so much, Members, for your additional time today.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

1) Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy, Castlegar Branch	Desneiges Profili
	Lani Green
2) Dawson Creek Literacy Now	Michelle Mobley
3) College of New Caledonia Students’ Union	Leila Abubakar
	Kaila Poore
4) Literacy Quesnel	Rebecca Beuschel
	Beverlee Barr
5) Smithers Community Services Association	Jo-Ann Nugent
6) Selkirk College	Angus Graeme
	Gary Leier
7) Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 26	Rod Fayant
8) Nelson Regional Sports Council	Kim Palfenier
9) District of Hudson’s Hope	Mayor Gwen Johansson
10) Nelson Committee on Homelessness	Phyllis Nash
11) Peace Valley Environment Association	Ken Boon

Chair:	* Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	* Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	* Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	* Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
	* George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	* Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	* Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
	* Jane Jae Kyung Shin (Burnaby-Lougheed NDP)
	* John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Byron Plant (Committee Research Analyst)

Witnesses (Castlegar):	Rod Fayant (President, Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 26)
	Angus Graeme (President, Selkirk College)
	Lani Green (Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy)
	Gary Leier (Selkirk College)
	Phyllis Nash (Co-Chair, Nelson Committee on Homelessness)
	Kim Palfenier (Nelson Regional Sports Council)
	Desneiges Profili (Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy)
Witnesses (Dawson Creek):	Ken Boon (Peace Valley Environment Association)
	Gwen Johansson (Mayor, District of Hudson’s Hope)
	Michelle Mobley (Dawson Creek Literacy Now)
Witnesses (Quesnel):	Leila Soila Abubakar (Executive Director, College of New Caledonia Students Union)
	Beverlee Barr (President, Literacy Quesnel Society)
	Rebecca Beuschel (Literacy Quesnel Society)
	Kaila Poore (College of New Caledonia Students Union)
Witnesses (Smithers):	Jo-Ann Nugent (Smithers Community Services Association)
Witnesses (Victoria):	Elizabeth Denham (Information and Privacy Commissioner)
	Jay Fedorak (Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner)
	Cara McGregor (Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES