Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 47 — Wednesday, October 15, 2014 (HTML)

Mountain Room, Best Western Plus Mission City Lodge
32281-32215 Lougheed Hwy, Mission, B.C.

Present: Dan Ashton, MLA (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

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

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	1217
C. Thorne
K. Santiago
G. Viljoen
S. Vander Waal
R. Ens
C. Schafer
R. Velestuk
C. Paetkau
J. Hogan
B. Hyndman
A. Robinson
H. Treleaven
F. Pattison
E. Murakami
L. Perrin
J. Bateman
E. Zubek
B. Cox
L. Palm

D. Ashton (Chair): Good morning. Thank you very much for coming today. 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 was scheduled and done on October 8 to hear from four additional communities — Dawson Creek, Quesnel, Smithers and Castlegar. This week we’re in Surrey, Mission and Delta.

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 Twitter.

We invite all British Columbians to take time to make a submission and participate in the 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 questions from the committee. Time permitting, we will have an open mike at the end at the meeting. Five minutes are allotted to each presenter. If you wish to speak, please register with that nice young lady over in the corner.

Today’s meeting is 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 live via audio on our website.

I’ll now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. Good morning, Jane.

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

G. Holman: Morning. Gary Holman, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, spokesperson for democratic reform and a former proud resident of Mission city.

G. Heyman: Good morning. I’m George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, and I’m the opposition spokesperson for TransLink, technology and green economy.

S. Gibson: Hi. I’m Simon Gibson. I knew my way here. I’m the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission riding. Welcome here, everybody, and welcome, colleagues.

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

D. Ashton (Chair): Also assisting us today is Susan Sourial, sitting to my left here, and Sarah Griffiths over here. They’re from the parliamentary committees office. Hansard Services is doing all the recording for us. That’s Ian Battle and Alexa Hursey.

Thank you very much. Ladies, come on forward. Mission Literacy in Motion — is that correct?

D. Ashton (Chair): Wonderful. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning if it looks like you’re going to push into that. Please, the floor is yours, and thank you again for coming.

C. Thorne: Good morning. My name is Candie Thorne, and I am the literacy outreach coordinator for Mission Literacy in Motion.

We’re a not-for-profit group. We’re here to speak to you because we respect the democratic process and the work of this committee and are happy to have been invited to speak to what is needed.

We want to thank you for the recommendation last year about annual funding of $2.5 million for community literacy work here in B.C. In addition, we’re grateful that the Ministry of Education provided $2 million at the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year. Though it is less funding than required, it is helping us this year to run literacy and learning programs in our community — unique programs that support people who are not served in other ways. However, there is no funding committed for the 2014-15 fiscal year and beyond. That makes literacy work
[ Page 1218 ]
in this province unstable and uncertain.

We are reaching the point where difficult decisions will need to be made about how to support people who require literacy assistance. We cannot tell you how disappointed we are that your recommendation about literacy funding was not accepted. However, by attending today, we’re letting you know that we’re not giving up on the select standing committee process. We hope that you can still help us, because we know you believe in the work that we are doing.

The positive impact of literacy funding for communities as a whole cannot be denied. It affects everything from health care to employment to the economy. Increased literacy rates improve a community’s ability to participate in today’s B.C. jobs plan. The funding enables us to reach all parts of the community — adults, youth, families, seniors, aboriginal peoples and immigrants. We are able to translate the funding we receive into a wide array of literacy programs right here in Mission.

We run a basic computer program for seniors and at-risk adults. One adult learner, having never used a computer before, received one-to-one tutoring. As a result, she learned to navigate social media and, through Facebook, located her son — and, by extension, her granddaughter — after no contact for ten years. The volunteer in this program is a high school student. He’s an outstanding young man.

We have a Mother Goose program for parents with babies, newborn to two years of age. It’s an entirely oral program, a level playing field where your education and literacy capabilities are not a factor. All participants come away with an arsenal of songs, rhymes, stories, parenting skills and tips.

A reading buddies program is hosted and partnered with the Mission public library. It is for struggling readers, grades 1 to 4. These children meet once a week with a volunteer. The volunteer, either an adult or a high school student, spends time with their little buddy, learning to enjoy books. The reading is a by-product of that mentoring relationship.

Last year more than 35 high school students participated as members. This program speaks directly to the benefits of continuity of program. It counts 14 consecutive years of operation. This result equals high school students returning to the program as big buddies, having been little buddies themselves.

One of our adult volunteers, a retired nurse, was drawn to this program, as her grandchildren are far away. Her little buddy was an ESL boy with a twin sister who had a big buddy. These four came together to play a board game at the end of their reading time, and the retired nurse was concerned that her little buddy was falling far behind his little sister. His parents had language barriers, and his learning issues were thought to be ESL-related. Through the diligence of this volunteer, it was discovered that he had hearing problems. After being fitted with a hearing aid, he was soon caught up to his sister.

A similar program called Book Buddies is directed specifically to aboriginal children and is held in a local elementary school, where a snack and transportation are also provided.

These two programs are truly heartwarming. You have to see them in person, experience them firsthand, to grasp the true nature and the strength of the commitment that abounds between learner and mentor.

The last program I’m going to speak to you about is something called Working and Playing Together. It’s a program where parents and families with multiple challenges that did not fit the services offered through agencies came together with a facilitator, who scripted a specific program to their needs.

Some of the results included a mother who, through participation in this program, chose to go to rehab for three months and who continues to this day strong and healthy. Another mother, again by choice, went to a 21-day intensive mental health program and came back to deal with parenting and custody issues in a healthy manner. This enormously successful program no longer has funding.

We have many other programs for all ages and demographics, embracing and responding to the community of Mission. But before I close, I want to be sure to speak about a significant factor that enables the funding we receive to go so far and do so much. It is our volunteers.

They give their time to translate the programming, created through literacy outreach work and funding, to on-the-ground reality. My board of directors are all volunteers. The dollars allocated grow into these varied and needed programs because of our volunteers. They are dedicated and willing, with the care and concern to reach out to help their fellow citizens with no expectation of remuneration or recognition. To simply be allowed to volunteer as a one-to-one tutor, you’re required to take 20-plus hours of training.

We have the grassroots commitment to do the work that will support and grow our community. What is needed is committed and sustained funding for the literacy outreach work to lay the framework for these programs. We are a link in a chain, and we want to make the chain stronger. We’ve come a long way, done some good things, but there’s more to be done.

We’re not here to ask for more money in these difficult times. We’re here to ask that the government continue to provide the minimum amount of funding required for the coordination of literacy work annually: $2.5 million for the province, according to the recommendations that you made last year.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. This is my first year on the committee, but having travelled around the province extensively for the past three to four weeks and heard a presentation on community literacy in virtually every community, it’s not hard for me to understand why the committee last year made the recommendation.

I know that you’ve impressed committee members around the province, not just your group but all the community groups. One of the things that’s been particularly impressive is the passion that people who have presented have brought to the issue but also the tailoring of the program to what’s specifically needed in the community.

My questions are relatively simple. What would you say the approximate ratio of volunteer hours to paid hours is in your community for the literacy society? Do you have quite an extensive roster of volunteers? Is this program really drawing people out to help?

C. Thorne: Oh, absolutely. A ratio. They do hundreds of hours of work. In the literacy outreach position that I work in, there are two of us, and we together work 50 hours a week. I would say…. Oh, man. If I’d have known you were going to ask me that, I could have brought you actual…. We have more than 100 volunteers. Some of them do an hour a week, and some of them do three or four hours a week.

M. Morris: Further to what George was saying, in every community the passion has been there. It certainly hasn’t been lost on this committee.

One comment, though, that you’ve made that I haven’t heard from any of the other groups is you’re saying that the time for a one-to-one tutor…. They require 20 hours of training?

M. Morris: Is that a provincial requirement? Is that a requirement that’s set up by the society? Where does that requirement come from?

C. Thorne: I don’t know specifically the background of that actual requirement, but you wouldn’t be a confident tutor if you came to me and said, “Oh, I want to tutor,” and I said, “Okay. Here’s somebody here who has low learning” — or is perhaps ESL, or maybe they want to do a university entrance. If you don’t know how to teach an adult…. An adult learns differently than a child. Particularly if you have a low-level learner adult, the approach has to be different than the way you and I maybe learned in school, right?

C. Thorne: I’m sorry, I don’t know the answer to where that actual requirement comes. From our group, we have an adult educator who, as a volunteer, teaches at least twice a year a group of volunteers that are ten or 15 people per group. To provide the tools that those volunteers are going to need, she feels they need 30 hours. But it’s pretty hard to get volunteers to…. If we get them to commit to 20 to 24, we’re pretty happy. She tries to jam in everything she can, with information about how to do learner-led — lay those kinds of programs out — and where to look for resources and how to go about teaching. In our group, that is a requirement before you’re asked to tutor with an adult.

J. Shin: Thank you for your presentation and for the work that you do. You’ve mentioned a number of wonderful programs here. I’m curious to find out if any program is getting more increased demand as of late, if there are any wait-lists for any of these services that you’re providing.

Also, secondly, I just want to get a sense of how many individuals you service on an annual basis and where you find them.

C. Thorne: We do outreach at a number of events in the community like at Diwali — it’s next week; we will be there — that type of thing. This Friday is a Connect event, which is for at-risk people in the community. We’ll be at that. We do outreach as often as we can in that way. We sit on committees to do outreach. So no matter where you work — maybe you work for community services, but you don’t have the service that that adult needs — they know, just through partnerships and information amongst the different groups.

And as far as a waiting list, the Mother Goose program always has more people than we…. We offer two that go on at the same time in two different locations. It runs for a total of 30 weeks in a year, and we always have a waiting list for that program. Reading Buddies — I always have more little buddies than I have big buddies. In the last three years I’ve had 50 volunteers in that program. It runs
[ Page 1220 ]
the school year, and I always have more little buddies than I have big buddies. I have adults and high school students, as I mentioned, in that program.

In tutoring in the adult literacy program we just about always have learners waiting. One of those reasons is…. Sometimes we have a tutor waiting, because you have to have the right match. When you have an adult working with another adult, you can’t just deal out the cards and say: “Well, I’ve got ten learners, got ten…. Good. We’re done here.” It doesn’t work like that. We have lots of need that we work all the time to meet.

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, ladies, thank you very much for your presentation. Greatly appreciated.

C. Thorne: Well, thank you for your time. We really appreciate your committee and the time taken for this.

Up next we have Communitas Supportive Care Society. Karyn and Gillian. Welcome, ladies. Thank you for coming today.

D. Ashton (Chair): We have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. Then we have five minutes allotted for questions, and you can see there’s usually lots of questions that take place. Please, the floor is yours.

Who will look after our children? That was the question that was being asked by parents in 1974 in Yarrow, British Columbia. The query came from aging parents who were caring for adult children with disabilities, and they wondered what would become of their children as they themselves aged.

Four decades ago options were limited. In 1974 the roots of Communitas Supportive Care Society were established through a collection of families. Within that first year two group homes for individuals with developmental disabilities were created — one in Rosedale, B.C. and one in Abbotsford.

In both these homes residents lived in and contributed to community. They were valued for their abilities, and parents were relieved to know that their children were safe, were treated with respect and, most importantly, were loved.

Forty years later Communitas Supportive Care Society has expanded to 46 different programs with 450 employees throughout the province who support people with a variety of abilities and disabilities, ranging from acquired brain injury to developmental disabilities, mental health challenges and illnesses to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, autism in children to age-related dementia in seniors.

We serve people in 24-7 residential care in a variety of day service options, respite arrangements, clubhouse models, drop-in centres, community inclusion settings and even social enterprise initiatives. We work alongside families and individuals to assist with their goals for independent living, the development of basic life skills, securing meaningful employment in our communities and inclusion and advocacy within mainstream society. We work collectively to plan, strategize and equip people to dream together about a tomorrow that is inclusive of all citizens regardless of abilities or disabilities.

Recently when I asked the question of our leadership team, “Why are the services of our society important to communities in B.C.?” their response was immediate and direct. “People matter.” Today, as representatives of Communitas, Gillian Viljoen, program director, and I, Karyn Santiago, chief executive officer, bring before you, the select standing committee, that simple two-word message: “People matter.”

As you make weighty, challenging recommendations to our elected representatives of this province, we remind you that Because People Matter is essential. We would like you to support the recommendations for a call to excellence in social and community supports, a mandate for broad, strategic social policy that is inclusive of all citizens and a commitment to the ongoing, financial investment in effective, sustainable services delivered by community, for community.

Communitas currently receives ten to 50 new phone calls per month from families and individuals looking for help. One out of four questions comes from an aging parent caring for an older adult child with disabilities. “Who will look after my son when I pass away?” One in five questions reflects a family journeying through mental illness with someone they love. “My 19-year-old son has been in and out of the psychiatric ward three times this year. Do you have any programs that can help him?”

Still other calls come from exhausted parents of toddlers and school-age children desperate for help with respite care and, in some circumstances, foster care options. “My daughter has daily seizures and multiple behavioural needs. Do you have anyone who can look after her?” Many of these calls are heartbreaking, and we are reminded again and again that people matter.

At times any one of us may find ourselves as the individual or family member at the end of the phone looking for support. At other times we are the individual offering that support. In either situation we relate best to an approach that is personal — person-centred, community-based supports offered by family, friends, peer support workers, our employers, government facilitators and
[ Page 1221 ]
fellow workers. It is this person-centred approach that most effectively ensures good outcomes.

G. Viljoen: Justin Beales is a great example of having experienced both worlds. When he first approached Communitas, he had been in and out of hospital for four years, dealing with mental illness. He was unable to work, and he ended up on disability assistance. A friend told him about Communitas Social Enterprises, a training program we have focused on recycling and shredding services that gives people recovering from mental health challenges an opportunity to achieve healthy, productive lives while reclaiming their vocational life.

Justin decided to give the program a try. He began working one day a week, then two, and he noticed a difference right away. As Justin says: “I started feeling better, mentally and physically. Doing physical activity and being out around town all day made me feel mentally alive.” Being part of a team created a sense of belonging and gave Justin opportunities for contribution. As he grew more confident, he was given greater opportunity for responsibility, and he became a driver mentor to other clients.

It became clear he had strong organizational skills, and he soon began managing accounts in the small office. He took each step slowly, adjusting to the new processes and feeling his way into his strengths. Today Justin is a full-time employee who works halftime in the office and halftime on the truck, and he serves as the operations supervisor. He has not been in hospital since he came to Communitas Social Enterprises and is no longer on disability assistance.

K. Santiago: Coast Mental Health’s executive director, Darrell Burnham, reminds us that having steady employment also results in a dramatic drop in the use of emergency and psychiatric services, meaning long-term reductions in the cost to society.

According to a recent report from the National Council on Welfare, the annual cost may be up to $120,000 per person in prison or in a psychiatric hospital. Compare this to $6,000 per year for vocational training through Communitas Social Enterprises, which not only restores productivity but creates an environment of individual growth and contribution.

Without Social Enterprises’ vocational training supports, Justin’s life and recovery might well look different. Throughout the year at Communitas alone, 80 to 100 men and women work their way towards mental wellness through similar training opportunities. People matter.

G. Viljoen: Who will look after our children? Forty years later the same question is still being asked by families in our region.

Matthew’s House is a recent addition to our directory of services, and we’re really excited about Matthew’s House. It was a dream that began with Abbotsford citizens Doug and Andrea Froese and their son Matthew.

At birth Matthew suffered severe asphyxia, leaving him completely dependent on others for his activities of daily living. As the family cared for Matthew, they encountered other families with similar stories, limited resources and limited access to support. Doug and Andrea dreamt of a home away from home for families, a place where children could be well cared for by expertly trained, compassionate caregivers, while parents stepped back to rest and just be refreshed.

K. Santiago: While Matthew’s House is addressing the needs of some families, there are still many unsolved challenges.

If a family does not have the ability to travel, where will we find and/or train respite care providers who are skilled in complex health care needs and behavioural supports for our children? How do we resolve the wait-lists for respite care that prevent families from accessing support in a timely, non-crisis-induced manner? How do we address the challenges faced by many families who do not have disposable income for the supports that they require?

Matthew’s House is one solution to the challenges faced by families who are looking for supported home care options, respite services that serve the needs of their families, inclusive age-appropriate opportunities for children and youth as well as opportunities for a future beyond high school as fully human interdependent citizens.

It is said that a society is best judged by how it cares for its most vulnerable citizens, and when we see people with all abilities and disabilities as people of value, people who contribute to our own lives, our lives are enriched. Community inclusion, belonging, citizenship become more than concepts. They become our lived reality and our lives are made richer.

Looking to tomorrow, we invite the standing committee to consider the needs of all citizens as you make recommendations. By supporting the social service sector throughout British Columbia and by investing in our communities, we will collectively deliver solutions that support one in five British Columbians who experience some form of mental illness; 1,400 youth with disabilities who will transition into adult services each year, looking for support and goal-planning assistance; and a growing population of seniors who need supports to age gracefully in place.

“People matter” — two simple words that would remind us of the true value of the investment in social services and social supports.

J. Yap: Thank you. A couple of questions. First of all, what is the breakdown in your financial picture — the percentage of public funding versus your own fundraising and fee-for-service?

The second question is: can you expand a little further on your social enterprise side of your operation? I see you have a recycling division. Could you tell us more about the other social enterprise work that you do?

D. Ashton (Chair): Ladies, it has to be rather quick. We only have a couple of minutes left and another question.

K. Santiago: There is about 80 percent public funding, and 20 percent is fundraised fee-for-services, other sources of income — including social enterprises. We’re about 60 percent developmental disabilities, 40 percent mental health and seniors support.

G. Viljoen: Yeah, we support approximately 35 clients who have mental health challenges. They work at the STEP enterprise program that we have, and they drive the trucks together with a mentor driver, just learning the skills that are related to how to get back into the vocational world and become well again.

S. Hamilton: Thank you for your presentation. I’m just curious. I’m looking at your directory here. As a percentage, how much of the work that you do is direct services and how much is referral services?

K. Santiago: Referral as in from one of the agencies that funds us or the ministries?

S. Hamilton: Yeah. You have quite a list of different agencies that you deal with here.

K. Santiago: Yes. Absolutely. Almost all of it is direct referral. We would love to see that changing. Matthew’s House is the exception. Matthew’s House is coming as people approaching us…. Matthew’s House is currently unfunded by any dollars from the provincial government. They were generous donors in the construction. The operating costs are primarily fundraised. We do charge a fee-for-service.

G. Holman: Just a quick question. Thanks for your presentation. Just to try to get a handle on which funding envelope, provincially, we’re talking about. Does it come primarily through one ministry or a range?

K. Santiago: No, because we’re provincial. We have funding across the province from different health ministries — Fraser Health, Interior Health, Island Health. We also receive funding from CLBC. We receive funding from MCFD. Also, we’re in long-term care, as well, with a small seniors complex.

D. Ashton (Chair): Up next we have the B.C. Agriculture Council — Stan and Reg.

Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for coming today — greatly appreciated. We have ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. As you can see, we do use the question period up. I’ll give you a two-minute warning at eight minutes.

S. Vander Waal: First of all, thank you very much for having us here. We appreciate the opportunity to leave you some thoughts with regards to agriculture and maybe some of the things that we see as important in terms of where the government can help us and where we can also help government.

Maybe to start, what I’d like to do is just give you a little bit of a personal…. Where do I come from? How do I fit in the picture of agriculture?

I’ve actually been in farming all my life. I’d say that in the last 30 years — 29 years to be exact — my wife and I actually have built a greenhouse business in Chilliwack. We grow flowers there. I guess you could say I’m really a prime example of a person who started from nothing in agriculture, and today we have, I want to say, a sizable and comfortable business. We have over 300 employees now, three locations. I’m going to say it’s been a fun and successful journey.

When I look back…. Now I have kids growing up. I look at them, and I say, “You know what? How will they move forward in agriculture, and what will keep them in agriculture?” because I see some of the challenges that we deal with today. I just think: “Wow. If I would have known all these things that I’m dealing with today, would I do agriculture again? Would I do what I’m doing today?” It takes a lot of planning. It takes a lot of investment.

After my Thanksgiving dinner, which I’m sure you all enjoyed as well — all part of the bounty that comes from agriculture — I went to Alberta to visit our facility out there and just see how the crops are doing for Christmas, just to give you a little bit of an idea how we move forward in our thinking process. It’s never done in agriculture. Like, as soon as you’re done harvesting one crop,
[ Page 1223 ]
you’re thinking about what you’ve got to plant the next year and, basically, what could get in the way of making that crop a success.

That leads me to some of the other things that I think about when I look at agriculture and, again, look at my kids and say: “What’s the future of this?” Then I say: “You know what? What’s changed in agriculture today?” There are a lot of things changing in agriculture today. That’s one of the things that leads me to become involved in an organization like the B.C. Ag Council.

Being the current chair of the Ag Council…. I’ve also been the chair of the Flower Growers and involved in a number of different committees and that kind of thing — all, really, to be included in the discussion. That’s why we appreciate coming here today and actually being able to make this presentation as well. I think that in a lot of ways, as government, government is busy trying to run the province, set good policy, develop regulation that allows business to move forward and allows the citizens of the province to have a good living.

Looking at all those needs, there’s this need for collaboration. How do we get there? The government has said that one of the most recent goals for agriculture is a $14 billion goal by 2017. It’s a big number. We look at that and just say: how do we get there? Again, that comes back to some of the things.

What’s changed in agriculture? Really, what does it take to get there? Being involved, I think, is a big part of that. Do we sit down? Do we talk about things to kind of help move things forward? What are some of the complexities?

When we look at some of the complexities, there’s changing consumer demand. Consumers today expect a lot more from a farmer than they did 30 years ago. When I started, I remember, working for my dad, it was pretty basic. You grew something, you took it to a market, and it sold. You didn’t have to worry about marketing in most cases. It was very simple.

Today we have something called traceability. Traceability is something that we, as consumers, want to know where our food came from. Is it going to be safe? What kinds of chemicals did they use? These are all very important things.

We’ve got another thing called provisions for species at risk. We’ve got these little fish that swim in the ditches and that kind of thing that we would have thought, 30 years ago, meant absolutely nothing to us. Today they’re kind of critical, and we as farmers are supposed to make sure they stay alive and healthy. In the meantime, we have to deal with certain things like manure. We also have to prove that we’re good stewards.

One of the things that I thought of is: what are the things that have changed in terms of the cost of doing my business? I thought of things like…. What’s the most recent one? Multi-Material packaging in B.C. Sudden new costs that just kind of hit my expense list. I just thought: “Wow, there’s no return on that one.” And there are more things like that.

We recognize, as farms, that these are still things that we need to do. We’re part of the whole social network, as well, in this province, so we’re not pushing back on those kinds of things. We understand there are things we need to do, but they drive cost. The interesting thing is that, as consumers, most of us just don’t want to pay any more for what we put into our mouth from day to day.

When I look at all that, I just say: “You know what? Going forward, what are some of the important things that are really affecting us?” I mentioned packaging. I look at PST, HST, where we ended, where we started, what that did and what it took us back to. There is ongoing pressure to keep that cost low, of course. Really, this issue is not just an issue for small or larger growers separately. It’s all of us. Small or large, we all have these same complexities to deal with.

When I say, “Okay, this is a new world of agriculture,” and I look at this new world of agriculture, I just say: “You know what? Based on what agriculture is today, the increased regulations, how do we get there and how do we get to that $14 billion number?”

Some of the things I see that are necessary going forward is just to say that we need to have a discussion on how we get to there. We really need to build the parameters. Where do farmers spend their investment dollars? When I look at future generations, where should we direct them? What policies do we create in terms of, basically, what their future is? What kinds of costs will those bear? How will their associations help them get there?

I think it’s important that government continue to support strong industry, lead marketing, such as programs like We Heart Local. You’ve probably heard about our We Heart Local program. That’s really been a great program, very successful. It really ties into buying local. I think most of us would agree today that we are quite sensitive to where things are coming from, and we like that buy-local feeling. What does it mean, though? How does it present value, and how will all of us as consumers…? I think the government wants to support us on that. We’ve had great support in the past. We want to see more of that.

The other thing is the ALC. We’ve had a review of the ALC. We need to have adequate funding to keep that working so that can actually continue the regulation and make sure it can enforce and actually, you could say, help agriculture in the future.
[ Page 1224 ]

We also need the government and the associations to work together, to actively collaborate, build the policy and the regulation to support a vibrant agriculture, find a way to fund the organizations by maybe a self-funding program such as in provinces like Ontario. Strong organizations help government and farmers promote good stewardship and social responsibility.

Wrapping up, we need to review the ag taxation policies. Our current ag taxation policies, I think, are too loose in some ways. Local governments…. Government is losing out on revenue where they should be getting revenue because tax breaks are being given where they maybe shouldn’t be given. In other cases, tax breaks should be given.

We can have discussions about unused farmland, PST exemptions. We can even go further and define farm classification. What does that mean? Who gets farm classification?

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. Very few things interest me as much as a discussion about food and how to get it.

I noted in your submission that you talk about the necessity to ensure that the Agricultural Land Commission has the resources needed to enforce regulations. You refer to the consultations in light of the recent changes. I’m wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on what the consequences of the Agricultural Land Commission not being adequately resourced for that purpose would be for food security in B.C.

R. Ens: I think what we heard was that because of the difference in land prices between farm use and non-farm use, the impetus for someone to use farmland in a way that it’s not zoned for or that it’s not intended for is very high.

The current complaint-based…. Where it’s only responding to complaints when they’re out there, might be reacting after the barn doors have been left open and the horse has left already. It’s ensuring that the commission has the resources to police the regulations, enforce regulations, and maybe even educate landowners as to what their rights are.

E. Foster: Basically, where I was kind of looking at it too…. Just to your comment about land being taxed as agricultural that really isn’t being utilized. I know for these small — I call them urban areas with big lots — five- and eight-acre parcels that have agricultural zoning, for rural municipalities, it’s just killing them on taxes.

I would really appreciate input from the Ag Council. These aren’t agricultural properties anymore, and they shouldn’t be taxed as agriculture. But I think it’s a real discussion that needs to be had — to really define what is agriculture and to give those benefits to the agricultural community and not to people building million-dollar houses and letting a horse run around.

R. Ens: I think it’s not just…. I mean, one of the complaints is that you’re targeting small agriculture, and that’s definitely not what we want to do. For the new entrant, the young farmer who’s starting out, or for a small agriculture, there has to be flexibility to reward and encourage that behaviour. But yeah, it’s a discussion that has to happen.

E. Foster: Just a quick follow-up. I think that’s why we need the Ag Council involved heavily. Let’s get the definition of what is agriculture, big or small, and then police it accordingly.

Just to follow up on Eric’s question. Is it primarily around property taxation? I know you don’t want to get into the details, but is there a single taxation issue that you believe needs to be thoroughly reviewed?

S. Vander Waal: I think Eric kind of hit the nail on the head. That’s definitely a big component of it. I think it’s really in the assessment area. You could say, what is classified, but it’s also the definition of what is a farm. We need to kind of define what that means. A farm needs to contribute something. It can’t be only a hobby. It has to be a commitment to it.

S. Gibson: Thank you. Good information. Appreciate it, and good to see you again.

What about the relationship with local government? We have the provincial government; we have local government. Tell me a bit about that in terms of provincewide. Is the relationship good? Do we need to talk about that at times? I come out of a local government background. Of course, we administer much of how the ALC works in terms of working with the province. Any comments on that?

R. Ens: I would answer, I guess, that it’s all over the map — one. We see all of it. The other part, though, is
[ Page 1225 ]
that as an organization our resources are limited, so our involvement with local government is probably less than what it should be. There’s one of me.

Meaningfully engaging a bunch of rural municipalities is difficult for us as a council to do. This looks at: how do we engage with government at all levels? How do we, as farmers, as rural landowners, contribute to engaging with government to build good policy and good regulation?

G. Heyman: You talk about global food demand doubling in 40 years. You raise the issue of local food security. I think we’ve seen this summer that droughts in California are really driving up prices for the food that’s available. In your opinion, do we have the capacity within the existing agricultural land reserve, if we plan properly, to significantly increase B.C.’s local food security and production?

G. Heyman: Is there any one most important thing that you would advise us to focus on to do that?

S. Vander Waal: Really, I think it comes down to, again, the support for local farming. Part of it is that everything is always based on revenue. If the results are there, of course, you encourage development in any type of business. That includes agriculture. Part of it is that there’s not always an equal playing field in terms of what comes from out of the province into the province, making it difficult for a farmer, sometimes, to compete.

I saw in the paper a while back that broccoli is going to double or something in the next year. That might be a lot cheaper down in Mexico than here.

It’s good to see you again, gentlemen. We talked about relationships with local government, and I just want to take that a step further. I’m going to brag a little bit with my association with local government before I got into this gig. If you want to look for a model when it comes to good relationships, look to Delta.

You can call it downloading if you want, but Delta has a fantastic relationship with the provincial government when it comes to policing activities on farmlands. We cannot staff up the Agricultural Land Commission and the people that work for the commission enough in order to properly watch what’s going on in our farmlands and our local communities. We’ve got a great relationship with our bylaw officers, and I think that’s a template, moving forward, that you might want to encourage supporting and expanding around the province.

Gentlemen, you have till the 17th. If you do have any further input that you would like, please get it into us. We can accept presentations up until the 17th, okay? Have a good day. See you, guys.

Up next we have board of education, school district 24 — Cindy, Shirley and Ray.

Welcome, folks. Thank you very much for coming today. We have ten minutes allotted for the presentation and five minutes for questions, and as you see, we use the question periods up. I’ll give you a two-minute warning up to ten minutes, and then we’ll slip into the questions.

C. Schafer: Good morning. Thanks very much for having us. My name is Cindy Schafer, as you know. I’m the chair of the Abbotsford school district, or board of education. Here with me today, of course, is the vice-chair of the board of education, Shirley Wilson, and our secretary-treasurer, Ray Velestuk. On behalf of the Abbotsford board of education, I would first of all like to thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’m going to begin by telling you a little bit of information about the Abbotsford school district, just to give you a bit of context, because we do have about two or three points that we want to make with regards to comments or suggestions.

The Abbotsford school district provides a wide array of educational programs and services to more than 19,000 students in 47 schools. We have a successful record of student performance and can boast — sometimes do boast — that graduation rates are well above the provincial average.

As one of the fastest-growing communities in B.C. — and Canada, for that matter — Abbotsford is both ethnically and culturally diverse. As the largest employer in the city of Abbotsford, we employ approximately 2,100 teaching and support staff. We are very fortunate in our school district that our student enrolments have resulted in a relatively stable financial environment. However, we still work hard to develop and maintain a sustainable operating budget focused on student achievement and our strategic goals.

We continue to pursue efficiencies to ensure our allocation of resources is focused on student learning, and with almost 90 percent of our operating costs staffing-related, there is little room of discretionary spending. Therefore, creating efficiencies is always challenging.

Our ability to plan for future expenditures, incorporating initiatives and priorities from our strategic plan and the B.C. ed plan, remains a priority for us. This supports our inclusive and transparent budget process, which we base on sound principles and rational decision-making. Our board remains committed to providing a world-class, innovative and individualized education experience for every student.

I’m going to talk a little bit about the cash management strategy and the capital cost–sharing initiative. In last year’s provincial budget the government introduced a new cash management strategy aimed at the SUCH sector, which, you probably realize, is the school districts, universities, colleges and health authorities. The strategy was developed in response to Auditor General reports that cash balances held within these sectors were well in excess of what was needed for operating purposes, resulting in increased borrowing costs to government.

As a result, government created the central deposit program, the CDP, as a means to better manage cash resources and improve management of the province’s debt. We believe there is an obligation to support measures promoting improvements to how public sector resources are managed, so we support this. The CDP is one of those measures which will save, we believe, valuable financial resources.

While we expect government to continue promoting this program, we do believe that additional mechanisms could or, in fact, maybe should be considered, allowing government entities to better utilize the CDP.

In Abbotsford, for instance, we currently have over $25 million on deposit with the CDP, and we are committed to keeping the majority of our cash on deposit with the program. While we support the CDP, we are concerned about part of the cash management strategy aimed at utilizing surplus cash balances for ministry-approved capital projects.

We believe additional consideration and analysis are required, and we do urge the government to consult with boards of education before proceeding further with the implementation of this policy. This new capital funding policy requiring current surpluses and reserves to be directed to capital construction projects would undermine the extensive planning effort our board has undertaken and would jeopardize fulfilment of our strategic plan or, basically, our ability to strategically plan for the future.

I’m going to talk about funding — but not in the way you might predict — related, really, to enrolment increases. We recognize and exemplify how to manage within a fiscally strained public sector environment. We do feel it is important that districts receive timely funding information and that operating grant allocations be predictable, stable and equitable.

We understand that current funding will increase in order to meet the requirements of new collective agreements. However, with enrolments in the K-to-12 sector expected to increase in coming years, we are concerned about how funding allocations will change in order to meet this increased demand. We believe it is prudent to start planning for this now to avoid a funding shortfall during a time of growth in public education.

That’s basically our presentation. We really thank you for your time, and we’ll be happy to take any questions if you have any.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. Just a couple of questions. I want to understand the CDP program and the concern there and also your comments, under funding, about the K-to-12 system expected to increase. Is that just for Abbotsford because of your growing population, or is there a demographic that’s at work there provincewide? I suspect it’s the latter as well, so for you, it’s both.

Also, there’s “we expect current funding to increase in order to meet requirements and new collective agreements.” You haven’t explicitly stated it, but implicitly, I take it, there’s a concern about the recent teachers settlement imposing cost increases on the district that may not be funded by government.

Is your question about the CDP related to the actual CDP itself or the capital component of that cash management strategy?

G. Holman: I guess I’m just trying to understand what the initial rationale was. I take it the concern is…. Okay, you’ve put the cash in this program, but now government is saying, “Well, now you’re going to have to use that for capital programs,” whereas you hadn’t initially planned to do that.

R. Velestuk: Really, the CDP is a government initiative. The government, essentially, becomes our bank, because what we do is take the resources that…. When government provides our operating grants to us, we in turn redeposit any surplus funds, any excess cash we have. Instead of leaving it with our financial institution, we deposit it in the central deposit program, which is held by
[ Page 1227 ]
government. That in turn reduces the borrowing requirements of government.

If you look across the province, there may be $500 million or $600 million that is on deposit with the CDP from school districts. Having that on deposit with the government means government is not out borrowing that $500 million or $600 million. We receive an interest rate return on the money that we deposit with that program.

We think that is actually an excellent measure of government to not give us the money. We go invest at the bank, we earn interest on it at 3 percent, and the government, having paid us the money, is borrowing and paying interest at 4 percent and losing money. So let’s figure out this cash distribution that works for all of us.

The concern around the capital component and the use of for future capital is really twofold. From our perspective, we have got…. We’ve met with the Treasury Board folks a number of times, but a comprehensive…. You can see from our financial information, we have a $14 million accumulated surplus.

The most part of that, about $9 million of that, would be encumbered for some pretty significant projects, including managing some pay equity issues internally that we have to deal with. About $5 million, we believe, would be unencumbered money that is surplus to the district but helps us deal with cost pressures that arise from time to time.

The issue would be having to utilize those resources for capital. But furthermore, one of the initiatives, and the rationale for the CDP to begin with, was that this excess cash existed. Government wanting school districts to basically contribute 50 percent towards future capital really is going to put districts in a position where they’re going to have to save more money.

It almost begins to increase this idea of: “Okay, we need to put money aside for a future capital project. We want to build a new school. We’re going to need to contribute some of the money to that project. Let’s start building some reserves someplace so that when we want to proceed with that project, we have the resources available to contribute.” I think that it sort of defeats one of the purposes of government, of trying to better manage the cash in the first place.

The other part of that, just one more part of that, is that when government has got our money on deposit, you’re not borrowing it. So if we have to take money out of that CDP to put it towards capital, now it’s defeating the purpose of reducing that debt-to-GDP ratio that the government is concerned about in their finances.

G. Holman: Sorry. There was a question there about how you’re expecting enrolments to go up and whether that was just an Abbotsford population growth issue or whether it’s a demographic….

S. Gibson: Thank you for your presentation. I’m obviously aware of some of the…. Isn’t this really getting down to the fact that…? What’s a priority? The province may recommend that you use some of these unallocated funds for a particular cause, and you may contest that and want to use them another way. So isn’t it rather…?

Maybe to simplify the issue — to some extent, maybe oversimplify it — isn’t it really the province saying, “We want you to spend this money in this way,” but you choose to spend it another way? Isn’t that a part of the paradigm?

I’m oversimplifying, but I think the recent issue that I know has created this controversy — that was really what it was all about. Isn’t that correct?

R. Velestuk: It is, and we were one of the districts that did contribute to a capital project out of surplus funds to see a capital assizement project move forward. But the long-term effect of this program could be the exact opposite of what the intent is.

The long-term effect could be districts starting to put money aside to be able to have enough capital to be able to say: “We want to build that $20 million school. We need somewhere between $5 million and $10 million to contribute of our own money. Let’s start putting the reserves aside.” It has the longer-term effect, I think. That’s what the suggestion is: to have a good discussion about that — the longer-term effect of doing the exact opposite of what is intended in the short term.

S. Gibson: Yeah, I think that’s a good point, Mr. Chairman. I think maybe we need to have that earlier dialogue to say, “Okay. Where are we going?” — some kind of vision that we’re all sharing. Right now I think that there isn’t a clear shared vision, in my view. It’s not a criticism of anybody. It’s just, I think, we’re working through the process.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you for clarifying it’s 50 percent. In the letter it said: “The new capital funding policy requiring current surplus users to be directed to capital construction projects.” It was my understanding it was also a portion. It wasn’t the entire amount.

Up next we have Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association. Good morning, Carol. How are you today?
[ Page 1228 ]

D. Ashton (Chair): Good. Well, thank you very much for coming. We have allotted 15 minutes for the presentation — ten for your presentation and up to five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two-minute warning if you get close to the ten.

C. Paetkau: Great. Thank you. Good morning. It’s been a long, long route for all of you, so thank you for being here today to listen to my presentation and everyone else’s.

My name is Carol Paetkau. I’m the executive director of the Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association. We are located here in the valley. I’m also founding director of the 2014 Brain Injury Alliance, which I believe you have heard from already on your tour. I’m speaking on behalf of both organizations here today.

Some of the material that has been already provided to you you’ve already heard, so I’ve included some of that in my written submission. I won’t be covering it all today. I’ll be touching on parts of this document. As you can see, it’s quite long, and I can’t speak that fast.

Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association is one of many local community organizations in B.C. that serve people with acquired brain injury and their families and supporters. Acquired brain injury — or, as we call it, ABI — includes both traumatic brain injuries from some type of force to the head as well as acquired non-traumatic brain injuries that occur from strokes, aneurisms, anoxic injuries, tumours, etc.

There are no comprehensive and reliable statistics for the incidence and prevalence rates of ABI in Canada, so some of the numbers that you’ll see in your document have been extrapolated according to what’s occurring in the United States. Conservative estimates back in 2010 were that there were 22,000 injuries every year in B.C. Recent statistics look at possibly 38,000 per year. Simply putting it, conservative estimates say that 60 people per day, or 2.5 people per hour, sustained a traumatic injury in B.C. alone. Again, that’s probably about 50 percent of the actual occurrence of ABI.

Recent statistics extrapolated from a study out of Neurological Health Charities Canada look at the prevalence of people in B.C. in 2009-2010 who are actually living with consequences of traumatic brain injury: approximately 36,947 people or 0.83 percent of the population. Again, we don’t know exactly. We don’t have good statistics. We don’t have a good database. Health records don’t always capture coding for brain injury if there are other severe injuries involved as well.

As you can see, the numbers are inconsistent. I apologize for that. I do my best to capture what I can. They don’t capture, in our belief, all the people that live with acquired brain injury. However, even with those conservative estimates that I’ve provided, I believe the numbers are quite staggering. I’ve provided you with a number of charts and graphs, which I won’t go through. I’ll let you do that at your leisure.

Why is brain injury important? Aside from the numbers, brain injury holds the highest fatality rate of those under the age of 45. It’s the greatest disabler of people under the age of 44. More children die from brain injuries every year than from all other causes combined.

The world is becoming more and more aware of the long-term effects of damage to the brain now more than ever because of the intense scrutiny of the media on NFL players and the CTE — chronic traumatic encephalopathy. That’s a mouthful.

An increase in hospital visits for children concussed in sports shows that the community is finally starting to understand that the brain is delicate and that it has long-term, profound effects on survivors and their families.

Even 22 years of working in this field of brain injury didn’t prepare me or my family for the overwhelming feelings of grief and confusion we experienced this year when my 16-year-old son was diagnosed with a brain disorder. He doesn’t fit technically under the category of acquired brain injury. However, the cognitive issues that he experiences on an intermittent basis are certainly very similar to the population that I work with.

Like the thousands of families affected by brain injury each year, we had to come to terms — and we’re still coming to terms — with the changes in my son and the effects of the life path that he was on prior to his diagnosis. I empathize severely with the people that are experiencing brain injury every year and their families.

Brain injury can have profound effects on a person’s ability to manage their lives. Each year in B.C. hundreds of people with brain injuries are discharged from hospital or leave GPs’ offices, sent home to ill-equipped families that don’t have resources, don’t know where to turn, don’t have the education or the background to support them.

They end up oftentimes with no support system at all — or maybe they’re not even diagnosed so they don’t know what’s wrong with them. Yet somehow we still expect them to function as normal contributing members of society.

However, a person with a mental handicap wouldn’t be sent out of a doctor’s office on their own to cope. “Go manage your home. Go manage your finances.” Yet we send cognitively impaired people out into the community every year and expect them to contribute to society.

As you’ll note in table 1.1, “Health and social issues,” brain injury plays a significant role in the development of other costly heath and social issues, including mental health, homelessness, learning disabilities, suicide, early death and criminal justice system involvement. You have some statistics in front of you.

There’s a high correlation with brain injury and incarceration. Homelessness — up to estimates of 59 percent
[ Page 1229 ]
of people that are homeless. Some estimates go up to 77 percent. It makes sense. If you have a cognitive impairment, you can’t manage your finances. You can’t manage employment. You are a high risk for poverty and homelessness.

Given the high cost of medical and rehabilitation costs, the burden of crime on society and the high cost of long-term care — as many individuals end up inappropriately placed in seniors centres, even at a young age — it would appear that the adequate investment in brain injury services at the community level would dramatically reduce the demand for government resources and provide an outstanding return from the province’s participation in community programs.

As you can see by the “Comparison of brain injury and the leading injuries and disease” chart, brain injury actually occurs at a rate of 100 times that of spinal cord injury, 30 times that of breast cancer and 400 times that of HIV/AIDS. In fact, brain injury occurs at a rate higher than all known new cases of multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, HIV/AIDS and breast cancer per year combined.

Where does B.C. rank in comparison to other provinces? You can see by table 1.3, “Dedicated annual brain injury funding,” that Ontario is the leader in providing dedicated funding to their community brain injury groups such as ours, followed by Saskatchewan and Alberta. Other provinces dedicate approximately $4 to $5 per resident towards a dedicated brain injury fund.

Based on this, a comparable fund in B.C. would require approximately $15 million to $20 million per year, yet the province of B.C. has a population of 4.6 million and has no dedicated brain injury funding and provides no secure direct annual funding for its community brain injury organizations.

Properly funding brain injury services, education and prevention would result in an enormous reduction of government expense and improve the quality of life for thousands of British Columbians. However, for decades — and I’ve been around for a couple of them — formal requests to government to adequately fund brain injury have repeatedly been denied.

Lack of funding and the ever-increasing unmet needs of the brain injury community have only served to increase government costs, reduce quality of life, put the community at risk for further brain injuries and place unnecessary demands on system resources.

Why is it important to fund community brain injury organizations? People living with ABI are often the most complex and difficult to serve and require specialized services. Health authorities do offer some services, but a large percentage of people are left without help, due to health authorities’ exclusionary criteria. So unfortunately, despite a dramatically increased need, which increases every year, critical brain injury services have been in serious decline.

Fraser Valley Brain Injury provides specialized brain injury services. We’ve been here for over 16 years, but we have had to reduce services and limit what we offer to a very vulnerable population who needs them the most. Due to lack of resources, we’ve dramatically cut our prevention education, which places the community at risk for brain injury.

For example, there’s a noticeable decrease in skateboard and bike helmet use and an increase in unsafe longboard use in the communities we serve. An 11-year-old child died this summer because he was not wearing a helmet. We believe that’s a direct result of lack of awareness of the importance of protecting your brain and our lack of presence in the community.

Brain injury groups have not been able to access the neurotrauma fund, which I believe you’ve heard about. This is funded through the Ministry of Justice from traffic fine surcharges. The fund has been receiving $2 million per year since 1997. During that time, brain injury services have received less than $1.5 million of that.

Even the small amounts that Fraser Valley received from that fund provided us with an opportunity to develop some creative, innovative programs and engage community partners. We have lost 30 percent of our revenue over the last four years as a direct result of that.

Changes to the brain have a profound impact on a person’s life and the lives of those around them. We believe it’s time for the province of B.C. to recognize the true impact of brain injury on health and social systems. Fraser Valley Brain Injury asserts that a new funding mechanism is desperately needed, as the management of the neurotrauma fund has not been beneficial for the brain injury community of B.C.

We fully support and endorse efforts by the Brain Injury Alliance to establish and administer a new brain injury fund. We believe that they are in a position to adequately do this and have developed a formula for distribution based on geographical size, a community’s injury rates, community served.

With leadership, we believe that the provincial government and ABI alliance are in a good position to establish some wonderful supports for people with brain injuries today and into the future.

E. Foster: Thank you very much, Carol, for your presentation. I have a couple of questions, and I don’t mean to diminish the seriousness of the situation in any way.

The first thing I want to ask about…. You talked about the young fellow with the longboarding and no helmet, and we have it with bicycles. We passed legislation in the province a couple of years ago on motorcycle helmets, and we made it illegal to wear an ice cream bucket on your head when you’re riding a motorcycle. We were taken to court by four different organizations on that. We
[ Page 1230 ]
won them, so that’s a nice thing.

A request. I would ask you — the organizations — to lobby hard for enforcement of helmet laws. Take the longboard. Take the bicycle. Take the motorcycle. People aren’t listening. You’ve got a great message. People aren’t listening. That would be a request for your organization to lobby, and we’ll push that forward.

The other thing is, of course, the money ask, and so on. We probably haven’t totalled it up yet, but we’re into the billions of dollars in the last couple of weeks on asks. Where do we go? I understand what you’re saying. Like I say, I don’t mean to diminish your situation or your organization or anything like that, but you just asked for $15 million a year. That’s a lot of money.

C. Paetkau: It’s pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part. One of the things that we’ve talked about is the possibility of, perhaps, a surcharge on the fines for distracted driving as a possible revenue source. The actual alliance document, which I believe you guys already have, has a funding formula to draw from different ministries, not just one particular ministry such as Fraser Health.

E. Foster: There’s only one bucket of money, though. Everybody gets it out of the same bucket.

C. Paetkau: I agree. That’s perhaps a suggestion that we’ve approached regarding the fines for distracted driving as a potential source of revenue to at least start a minimum fund of $2 million. Literally, neurotrauma…. And $2 million per year goes into spinal cord research, maybe a smidge of brain research — brain research, not brain injury. We no longer have access to that money. We don’t anticipate that we will ever have access to that money again, so we are asking for your support.

M. Morris: Good presentation. We heard that from other groups throughout the province here. I commend the work that’s done on the 2014 Alliance.

I think a lot of good work has been done on there. You provide some good statistics for it. Basically, just a comment saying that you guys have done a lot of work this year, and hopefully it will provide some food for thought for our committee down the road.

G. Holman: Just quickly, what’s the rationale for not being able to access the neurotrauma fund?

C. Paetkau: It’s been sporadic since its ascension in 1997. I’ve been around for a while. Every five years the Rick Hansen Foundation that administers the fund — and it’s by legislation; it is well within their rights to do that — makes the assessment of priorities. Sporadically, they’ve said: “Okay, brain injury can have about $350,000 for community-based programs. You guys determine your priorities, and we’ll let you form committees to split that money.”

Then in 2010 we were just informed, “We’re not providing funding for brain injury,” and I believe it went into the Man in Motion reunion tour. That’s my belief. And that’s where it is.

D. Ashton (Chair): I’m sorry, Carol, we’re out of time. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thanks for coming.

D. Ashton (Chair): Up next we have University of the Fraser Valley. Hi, Jackie. How’re you doing? Thank you very much for coming today. We have 15 minutes for the presentation, of which ten is for yours. And then up to five minutes…. We do ask lots of questions. I’ll give you an eight-minute warning. Please, the floor is yours.

J. Hogan: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the budget process for 2015.

I’m Jackie Hogan. I’m the CFO and VP, administration, for the University of the Fraser Valley. I’d like to say hello to Simon Gibson, who is a former faculty member at the university. It’s nice to see a friendly face here.

UFV is celebrating 40 years of providing excellence in post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley. From our roots in 1974 as a community college to our status now as a full university offering degrees and a full range of programs for the Fraser Valley, we’re very proud of our history, our accomplishments and the accomplishments of our students and graduates.

We’re recognized and known for our commitment to student learning through our small class sizes and applied learning experiences, our accessible admission processes and dedicated faculty and staff. We are the only public post-secondary institution situated in the Fraser Valley, serving students and community members from Hope, Agassiz, Chilliwack, Mission and surrounding areas. We continue to be the post-secondary institution of choice for high school graduates from these communities and from well beyond, enabling access to excellent education close to home for those residents in those communities. We are extremely proud of the accomplishments of our students and our alumni.

Our strategic goals: to provide the best undergraduate education in Canada; to be a leader of the social, cultural, economic and environmentally responsible development of the Fraser Valley; and to be innovative, entrepreneurial and accountable in achieving our goals. Those are our strategic directions, and it’s what we live by.

The B.C. jobs plan and the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint
[ Page 1231 ]
recognize the importance of post-secondary education and emphasize the skills gap in the workforce. As noted in these plans, by 2022 approximately 78 percent of job openings will require post-secondary education, yet only 50 percent of today’s workforce has the level forecast to be required. That’s a big gap, and UFV is well positioned to be a contributor to filling that gap. We have relevant applied, technical and professional programs that fit the needs of the labour demand.

An educated population benefits all British Columbians, supporting both career progress and human potential as well as economic development and engaged communities.

We look forward to engaging with the Ministry of Advanced Education and the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to establish a framework for achieving the objectives of these plans, a framework that recognizes the commitment to our communities, our institutional mandate and the demands of our students.

UFV is committed to access, affordability and student success, and to fiscal prudence and financial discipline. We are engaged, along with all public post-secondary institutions and the Ministry of Advanced Education, in identifying administrative efficiencies and opportunities for collaboration through the administrative service delivery transformation project. That’s a mouthful.

This work complements and enhances the measures the post-secondary sector has undertaken over the past few years. We’re proud of some of the accomplishments that we’ve achieved, including the recently established joint procurement consortium which will enable the sector to further capitalize on our collective strengths and purchasing opportunities.

Although this important work is underway and encouraging, it must also be recognized that the current funding pressures facing UFV are significant. While the ASDT initiative supports best practice and opportunity for efficiency gains, it also identifies cost avoidance and service improvement projects that will not realize absolute and immediate dollar savings. Many of these projects will require investment before gains can be realized.

In addition, the impact of inflation, annual capital allowance shortfalls, grant funding reductions, changes to ESL funding and the impact of compensation settlements have seriously eroded our base funding levels. From 2004 to 2012 grant funding per FTE generally kept pace with inflation. However, since 2013 the average grant per FTE has declined, while inflation has increased by 5 percent. If this trend continues, it will have a serious impact on our ability to continue to deliver the high-quality education required to ensure B.C. stays competitive and able to respond to opportunities of a global market.

One area this is already evident is in the support services for students with disabilities. UFV supports the government initiative to invest in programs for persons with disabilities. We’ve seen an increase of approximately 30 percent in the number of students registered with our disability resource centre. We look forward to supporting additional students. However, the services these students require are different and more individual and require additional supports.

A further challenge comes from the recent changes to funding for deferred maintenance and infrastructure that require cost-sharing contributions from institutions. The cost of maintaining buildings and constructing new buildings — very expensive and very much a burden on institutions and something where we’re looking for opportunities to have recognized that stable, predictable and sustainable funding will be required in order to deliver on the critical goals identified in the government plans for the success of B.C.

I also just wanted to touch on — I’m thinking about the time here — the changes to the accounting policy that have created a challenge for post-secondary. The incompatibility between the all-funds, no-deficit legislation and the accounting treatment required for the public post-secondary is a large issue.

The concept of balancing results on an annual basis restricts the use of financial resources on hand for their intended purpose. For example, cash reserved for a specific purpose may not be spendable, and cash earned must be set aside to fund non-cash items such as amortization on capital assets. Institutions are forced to maintain higher-than-optimal cash balances and yet also may need to cut student programs. Neither of these consequences is in the best interest of students, institutions or the province.

In the past post-secondary institutions were able to build surplus and draw it down in order to engage in larger projects and smooth natural business fluctuations. A resolution to this issue is essential in order to enable post-secondary institutions to contribute to the economic stability of the province.

A range of options that could be considered includes rescinding the balanced-budget directive, permitting a multi-year approach rather than the current annual approach or allowing the non-cash depreciation expense to be offset by accumulated prior-year reserves. We would welcome a productive and solution-oriented discussion on this issue to consider alternatives that would support both the provincial fiscal standing objectives and post-secondary operational challenges.

UFV is actively pursuing ways to relieve the financial challenges. We are encouraged by our partnerships with industry and look forward to enhancing these initiatives. We have a growing and diverse international student population who contribute to campus life and global perspectives. However, the ability to generate additional revenue is increasingly important.

The tuition limit policy, which has been in effect since 2005, has kept tuition increases linked to general infla-
[ Page 1232 ]
tion. While this policy has had a positive impact on the affordability of education, keeping average tuition for students in B.C. among the lowest in Canada, it has also embedded inequities across the system and across programs.

A proposal that allows for greater flexibility along with enhanced access to financial resources for qualified students would be welcomed. A review of the policy, including consultation with both students and post-secondary institutions, could reveal a more equitable and accountable tuition policy that provides flexibility while maintaining affordability.

We appreciate the commitment of government to fiscal discipline and thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the budget process. We’re committed to providing high-quality education to enable a strong and competitive economy through the contributions of our graduates.

One of the areas that I know some universities in the U.S. are looking at…. This is kind of a question out of the blue, so don’t worry. You mentioned international students. Of course, because they pay considerably more, they help fund and offset the cost of the conventional students’ tuition.

There’s a trend now where universities are trying to get more mature students, not just like Elder College but where mature students would come back midcareer. The price point is not sensitive for them. A program would be in the evening. Some of the larger private universities in the U.S. are looking at this as a way to offset, because often that tuition would somewhat be paid by their employer, or else they’re in a financial situation where they can pay more.

Has UFV looked at this model at all? I know it’s used more in the U.S. than in Canada. It’s, again, a question out of the blue. You’re probably not expecting it.

J. Hogan: We welcome many adult learners into our programs. A portion of our student population is adult learners returning and taking courses. Our programs are priced the same for all students, international being one set of fees and domestic students being another set of fees. We’re captured under the tuition limit policy for fees for our programs.

We do have a continuing education division that allows for development of programs, more on a professional, continuing level. We do look at opportunities for pricing programs and meeting market need in that area. It’s a smaller portion of our base operation. It’s not a large portion. That’s something we’re developing.

G. Heyman: Just for a little bit more clarity, your recommendation that the issue of being able to access reserves be reviewed — is that specifically for capital costs or maintenance or for programs as well? You have another recommendation about stable, sustainable long-term funding.

J. Hogan: Yeah. For capital, it is the largest area that we would struggle with, being unable to access our reserves. However, the all-fund, no-deficit, balanced-budget scenario that we work with — it’s very restrictive in allowing us to have a large expenditure in one year, whether it be for capital or for investment in a program or for meeting urgent, emerging needs. It doesn’t just fit into the capital scenario. It does fit into being able to access those reserves for emergent needs.

D. Ashton (Chair): Jackie, thank you very much. Greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your input today.

Gentlemen, good morning. Thank you very much, Aaron and Bryan. Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce?

D. Ashton (Chair): Wonderful. No problem. Thank you for coming. Ten minutes for your presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and then we have five minutes allotted for questions.

B. Hyndman: Excellent. Hello, Mr. Ashton and members of the committee. Thank you very much for having us. It’s an honour to present to you on behalf of the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce.

My name is Bryan Hyndman. I am on the board of directors and currently third vice-chair and chair of the public policy committee. Joining me today on my left is the chamber’s public policy adviser, Mr. Aaron Robinson. Thank you for the opportunity to present.

With over 900 members, the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce — serving Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody — is the largest and most comprehensive business organization in the Tri-Cities. Across the three municipalities there is a population of nearly 220,000 people, with another 150,000 expected to move to the area in the next 20 years. This growth, and the management of it in a smart and responsible manner, is definitely one of the larger concerns of the chamber.

Our presentation today is split into two parts — provincewide principles and specific local priorities.

Firstly, the chamber would like to congratulate the province on its goal of balancing the budget. We believe that maintaining a balanced budget will foster a healthy and robust economy in B.C. that will signal to the rest of the country and the world that we are open for business.
[ Page 1233 ]
We believe that balancing the budget should remain a priority for the government.

Next, we would like to impress the importance of economic diversity in the budget. I’m in banking, and as we say, diversification is the key to a successful, balanced investment strategy. Ensuring that the B.C. economy remains resilient in the ebb and flow of the market is essential for promoting investment in B.C. Facilitating this investment in various sectors should be a budget priority.

The last provincewide principle that we would like the committee to take into account is the balancing of foreign investment initiatives to buying-local initiatives. Maintaining this balance is no easy feat, but programs like the LNG Buy B.C. program, which facilitates the connection of local business and large players in the LNG industry, are of great benefit to small business and local players alike.

The main theme across these principles is balance and moderation — balance and moderation in the budget, balance and moderation in various sectors and balance and moderation in foreign versus local investment.

With regard to our region, we have three priorities — the Riverview lands, the Fraser River and transportation.

To begin, the Riverview lands. The Riverview lands are a gem in our community and a huge opportunity for the province. The current Renewing-Riverview process that B.C. Housing is undertaking has been fantastic at engaging the community. The chamber has been identified as the economic adviser in that process and has been heavily involved.

Riverview used to be a beacon across the country for mental health services before deinstitutionalization in the 1970s. There is now an opportunity to again attract world-class mental health services, research and programs to B.C. and the Lower Mainland.

As an institution, Riverview used to be a thriving community of nearly 4,000 people and an economic driver in the region. After deinstitutionalization, that community was dismantled and jobs were lost as mental health services moved to a purely community-based model. The truth is that the community-based model is only successful for certain cases in mental health and that there are some cases that are more suited to success in tertiary care.

In addition, mobilizing resources in the community is more expensive than maintaining services in a campus. Riverview presents the province with an opportunity to reintroduce a mental health campus that could service the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province in cases where community-based services are unsuccessful, inefficient and expensive.

While the province has indicated that any development on the Riverview lands must pay for itself, the chamber believes that the province should re-examine investment and partnerships for mental health services on the Riverview lands.

A mental health campus on Riverview will bring job density to a rapidly growing region and provide better-quality mental health programs. A provincial mental health campus will also attract other investments like research and post-secondary education, private addiction clinics and other support services. These other spinoffs are great economic drivers and provide permanent, long-term jobs.

This position is supported by a resolution that was passed unanimously by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce in May 2014. It’s attached in your package and contains statistics for your consideration.

On the Fraser River subject. This past year the Richmond Chamber of Commerce championed a report on the economic importance of the Fraser River. This report has been endorsed by chambers across the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley, received national attention through the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and has been presented, with favourable reception, by approximately a dozen federal cabinet ministers in Ottawa.

The report highlights the economic impact of the Fraser River, which is comparable to the St. Lawrence, and highlights the dangerous neglect and underfunding that the Fraser River has received. You will see the attached executive summary. We can forward the report electronically, if anyone on the committee wishes.

The chamber would like to see the province work with the federal government to champion the Fraser River and preserve it as an economic driver in Canada through a comprehensive stewardship plan.

Lastly on transportation. We would like to address investment in transportation networks. We are grateful to the province for the large amount of investment that has flowed into the infrastructure of the Tri-Cities. From the Port Mann/Highway 1 Improvement Project to the Evergreen line opening in 2016 — all are excellent improvements to the community and the region. But we do want to make sure that the province completes the network, through a number of initiatives, so that these investments give the highest return.

This completion will come through the mayors transportation plan. We would like to see the province work on side with the mayors to make sure that their plan comes to fruition. Chambers across the Lower Mainland have been supportive of the process and would like to see the plan further developed and moved forward.

We would like to see consideration given to finishing the major road network north of the Fraser, with an aim of improving the connections between Coquitlam, New West, South Vancouver, Delta and Richmond. This has been on the docket for more than 20 years, and we would like to see the investment made to finish the connection of the Tri-Cities to the rest of the region.

Lastly, we would like to see the transit infrastructure around the Evergreen line connect Port Coquitlam to the SkyTrain network. As the situation currently stands,
[ Page 1234 ]
there are no plans to further integrate the Evergreen line into Port Coquitlam. The chamber sees this as a priority for the region.

With that, I thank you very much for listening and open myself to any questions the committee might have.

J. Yap: On the Fraser River report. I don’t think that’s been formally submitted to the committee.

J. Yap: Yeah. If you could, that would be great — before Friday, which is the deadline for receiving follow-up information.

G. Holman: Further to the Fraser River question. You referred to a comprehensive stewardship plan. Does that involve environmental stewardship as well as economic? Can you talk about that just a little bit?

A. Robinson: From the report that Richmond put out there, the stewardship comes in all forms. So making sure that…. What that report is looking at is the diking and dredging of the river to make sure that it doesn’t flood over to affect the current infrastructure essentially south of the Fraser. Because if there’s any break along the dikes along there, that flood can wipe out the entire part. It’s been compared to New Orleans in scale of damage. So that would definitely affect both the economic stuff around there and also the environmental stuff.

B. Hyndman: As Aaron points out, that is all included in the report that we can forward.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good. So don’t forget. October 17 is the cutoff — so this Friday, if we can get it.

B. Hyndman: Right. We’ll try and get that done this afternoon, just to make it easy on everybody.

You ladies have been sitting there, and you have opportunity for the open mike. So please come forward. The open mike is five minutes. There won’t be any questions attached to it. It’s just strict presentation from yourselves for us. Okay?

H. Treleaven: Thank you for having us and allowing us an opportunity to speak to you very informally, as it is. I’m the coordinator for the Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Katzie Seniors Network. We’re one of nine seniors planning tables that are funded by the United Way and operate in the Lower Mainland. Fran is one of our active members, who has been working on our seniors housing task force. We’ve been looking at opportunities for building affordable seniors housing in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and ways to do that.

F. Pattison: I’m Fran. I’m simply a senior. I’m in that age group that was born between 1946 and 1964. Some of you will also be in that age group. We represent the big bulge — most of us.

F. Pattison: We represent that huge bulge that’s going through the system. The good news is, I suppose, that by 2036 most of us will have been dying out. But the bad news is that between then and now we’ve got this huge, looming problem of: where are you going to house us?

Eighty percent of us in this room will afford our own accommodation, no problem. But 20 percent of us, of that big bulge, are going to be considered low income. By that, I mean $1,500 to $1,600 a month maximum income. When you look at housing that comes out of that money, for the low-income people, it kind of doesn’t leave too much else for health care, food, etc.

Really, what we’re trying to do in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows is look at possibilities for how we’re going to house our low-income…. Now, in Pitt Meadows….

This is the other thing I want to say. Homelessness across the province has just, to me, captured way too much attention. In Pitt Meadows we might have three people who are homeless, and in Pitt Meadows we’ve got 1,100 bulge baby boomer seniors. Of those, 200 are going to be low income. Where are those low-income seniors going to live? That’s what we’ve been working on in our communities.

There’s not much there right now. I, for one, don’t want to go and live with my son when I run out of money. Many of us do just want to live frugally — like, really frugally. As a low-income person, I don’t want a lot.

D. Ashton (Chair): Fran, there aren’t any questions. I’m sorry. It’s just input. I do apologize. But you know,
[ Page 1235 ]
there is a bit of a break here. If I went into recess, I’m quite sure you could grab a few people’s ears if you needed to.

H. Treleaven: Just that our ask would be that you perhaps look at the SAFER subsidy levels given to seniors in relation to the rents.

I also wanted to add that I wanted to commend the province on the creation of the seniors advocate office and the appointment of Isobel Mackenzie. I had the honour of meeting her and listening to her speak yesterday and feel that she has a really good sense of the issues. I hope that when it comes time for her to report, there’ll be some opportunity for the government to listen.

F. Pattison: No, just that I can’t imagine the hard work it is for you people to have to balance a budget across the province. But good for you.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor, welcome. Thank you very much for coming. Sir, welcome to the committee. We have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions or comments. I’ll give you an eight-minute warning, at eight minutes, so you’ll have two minutes to wrap up.

D. Ashton (Chair): No, a presentation, sir. You’re allowed to make a presentation to us.

Well, as you know, I became interested in Lyme disease because I had two cases, 25 miles apart, in Hope, B.C. and Agassiz. I became sort of a red herring for everybody because I admitted the first 100 percent on two cases. I got two cases 100 percent positive, and locally positive. So we became alarmed and thought there was an epidemic in our area. But I couldn’t convinced the establishment there was a problem.

They’re becoming believers now because they changed their idea that the Americans have 300,000 instead of 30,000, which is big tenfold jump in the last year. I think I’m getting the message to the people that we do have a major epidemic on us of Lyme disease.

The first two cases, as I said, were positive locally. They sent a team out, and they did all sorts of studies right across the lakes in B.C. They found Lyme disease pretty well spread all over British Columbia. Every area of the province has Lyme disease, but it’s hard to convince the establishment. That’s been my problem. I’m a member of this association, and yet we have a big divide in the prevalence of Lyme disease.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you people think there is a Lyme problem? Have you heard about it even? That’s right. Most of you haven’t been educated on it. Our medical schools…. I taught for five years, but some of the staff members didn’t agree with what I was teaching about Lyme disease. So it became a real big divide in our association to the point I was….

I saw 3,000 people before I retired in 2008 because they wouldn’t let me renew my licence. They wouldn’t give me my licence. In 2008 I had seen 3,000 people, and I got all the files for them in Hope. I decided two things. I could either sue them for my licence or educate. I decided I would educate them. That’s my philosophy.

I go across Canada every year. I didn’t last year because I had a brain tumour. But everywhere I go now, right across to Halifax, every province except Quebec…. Fifty percent of the people right across Canada are patients of Lyme disease, and yet it’s being denied by our medical association. This is my philosophy — to try and educate the medical world that we do have a problem.

During my studies, of course, I studied the long-term effect and found success. All my patients wrote to the college, told them what I had done for them. They had seen many, many specialists. They had been investigated. They were invariably told that they were all mental. I’m not kidding. Most of them were on antidepressants. And they all improved.

I saw 3,000 people. The majority of them improved to some degree, and some were very happy. Twenty-eight of them were permanent wheelchair patients, and now they’re walking. They have written to the college, but they seem to ignore the fact that something, maybe, in what I’m doing is possibly having some merit in studying. I just can’t get that across.

I think some of you know Dr. Pat McGeer. He’s a classmate from medical school. He’s a politician. He was a…. Well, if I say “Stick it in your ear, McGeer,” he’s that fellow. He’s a classmate, and he found that I was right — that the postmortem that he did on Alzheimer’s patients had live spirochetes in the brain, which verified what I’ve been saying — that chronic Lyme disease is an infection.

You can look him up. It’s in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, September 2008. Still, the establishment went after him. I know he hasn’t got a licence right now, so I don’t know what happened there. But he doesn’t have a licence either.
[ Page 1236 ]

It’s a situation that’s critical in the sense that a lot of people are going misdiagnosed. I use the term misdiagnose. I’m talking about myself. They say: “Well, what proof do I have?” The proof that I have that really exemplifies what I’m saying is that we have the highest MS in the world, bar none. No other country has higher MS than we do.

We range anywhere from 240 to 340 per 100,000, and we have the absolute lowest Lyme in the world — about 1 to 2 per 100,000. Now, that is my proof. If you want the proof, I’ve got it here. The World Health Organization gave me the stats for the Lyme, and the Lyme association gave me the stats for the Canadians having the highest MS in the world. If you want, I’ve got all the evidence here for you, okay?

I found that a lot of my chronic Lyme patients were untreated for so long that the scar tissue became permanent, and they had all sorts of pain, neuropathy, arthritis, mental fog, nausea and vomiting, epilepsy.

During my studies…. I came across it because I had a brain tumour. For my brain tumour, they said: “Ernie, it’s malignant. This 10 centimetres has grown rapidly. It’s got to be malignant.” Even though the biopsy was done through my fractured area…. I had a fracture when I was playing hockey with my grandson. They said it’s a meningioma, but they thought the rate of growth — 10 centimetres — was too rapidly growing to consider it benign, so I had it taken out.

During that time I studied the treatment of malignancy in the brain. I came across this Dr. Montgomery, who’d had a child with a brain tumour. The brain tumour was a golf ball–size tumour. I think I’ve got a photo of it. What happened was that the parents said they wanted to try the medicinal marijuana. Of course, all the specialists said: “Oh, if you do that, you’re no longer our patient. You could just say goodbye to us.”

Dr. Montgomery went ahead with the treatment of the…. Oh, I guess I don’t have the tumour here. The tumour, actually, to my amazement…. I saw pictures of it. The tumour was golf ball size. In two months after cannabidiol, which is a medicinal marijuana, it went to 50 percent. At four months it went to zero. At eight months, it’s gone.

I thought: “Oh, this is phoney. I’m a medically trained, evidence-based, medicine-trained person.” I said: “This has got to be a hoax. This has got to be a promotion.” I had the MRI sent to me. This all came from a reputable university medical school. I thought: “Well, there’s something to this.”

Then there was another case of a child with severe epilepsy. They had tried all the Dilantin, Phenobarb, carbamazepine — you name it. All the anticonvulsants failed to stop the seizures in his child, so the family said: “Well, what’s our alternative?” ECTs. Well, ECTs are going to destroy the brain, so they said: “No, we want to do cannabidiol.” They went all the way to Colorado. They’re using Valium rectally to stop the seizures. That’s the only thing that will stop it. She would go into overdose and have to do CPR and whatever.

Got to the Stanley Bros., and they got some CBD, cannabidiol. They took that in solution, went to a motel there in Colorado. Two drops. They were used to injecting this child with Valium every 20 minutes. Dravet syndrome — that’s the disease. Most of them die with aspiration and cerebral anoxia. They actually die.

The two drops were given by the family. The seizures, the first hour — none. Two hours — none. The whole evening — none. They gave two drops three times a day, and the child did not have a seizure for a whole week. But legally they had to stay there, because marijuana, or cannabidiol, which is found in everything….

Cannabidiol is found in flax, hemp, black chocolate. It’s found in milk. If you’re going to condemn cannabidiol because it’s found in marijuana, we should be condemning all the fruits and vegetables that we eat, because cannabidiol is found there. In fact, cannabidiol made from hemp is legal, but if it’s made from marijuana, it’s governed. That’s how mixed up…. We are not really coming out with the truth about this.

Anyway, the child has stopped convulsing. They went back, and they told them the medicine worked. They said: “Forget it. It’s all coincidence.” Well, there are now 40 people who have taken their child, and two of them are my patients. They said: “Can we go?” They phoned me. I can’t do any practice, but they phoned me. I said: “Try it.” I said: “Look, I’m convinced.” Read on Charlotte’s Web and read Dr. Sanjay Gupta. That’s who I ask you people to read.

Sanjay Gupta, three years ago, when I started studying my brain tumour, said: “Don’t touch marijuana. It’s habit-forming. It’s carcinogenic. It’s introducing infections. It’s a habituation that leads to heavier drugs.” Now, I agree there is some danger, but if my child had Dravet syndrome and was seizing every 20 minutes and I had to give rectal Valium to stop it, I’m going to use cannabidiol, and you will too. You read Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s file. Read one; read two. I strongly recommend that. There’s going to be a lot of skepticism, but it’s helping people.

Now, my brain tumour. They said: “Ernie, it’s going very fast.” I expect it to grow about two centimetres a year. I started taking hemp cannabidiol, which is legal. I started taking the cannabidiol. The tumour, the little fragment that had to be left because it was too deep — they said: “Well, we will just watch it.” Two MRIs, and the tumour has not grown at all. I’ve got to admit that I am using cannabidiol produced by hemp. They can get that without any problem.

Anyway, it’s a situation that I was looking for something to help my Lyme patients, because chronic Lyme, untreated for 20 years, can lead to a lot of problems. It can
[ Page 1237 ]
lead to permanent scars. When my patients started to say, “Dr. Murakami, I’m having severe pain. I tried a puff of marijuana, and the pain disappeared. My neuropathy disappeared. My nausea and vomiting disappeared. I’m able to sleep.” I said: “Well, I don’t believe in smoking — pot or cigarettes. Try the cannabidiol paste.” They said: “Even better.”

That’s what made me go and do some research with Dr. Eva Sapi. She’s a well-known researcher and a good friend. We lecture across Canada and the States together. At first she said: “Ernie, cannabidiol is in marijuana. I’m not going to get involved with that. The university wouldn’t accept it.” I said: “Can I send an article on the antibiotic effects of cannabidiol?” I sent it to her. She said: “Ernie, where can I get some cannabidiol?” She was convinced, and she convinced her university there was a merit in using cannabidiol.

I want to show you this graph. I just got this recently. It shows the effect of cannabidiol. This cannabidiol, the left one here, is the standard. Live spirochetes in a solution. This is New Haven University. The far left is doxycycline, the standard antibiotic. This is one millimole per litre of cannabidiol, five millimoles of cannabidiol per litre, ten millimoles of cannabidiol per litre.

I asked her: “Please do it this way and do something else to compare it with.” They compared it with DMSO, just to show that it wasn’t just an incidental finding. It showed a drastic result. This ten millimoles is nearly as effective as doxycycline, which you’re probably all aware of. Doxycycline can be prescribed for years and years as an anti-acne medication. But if you get for 30 days, like I was getting…. I was getting condemned by my own college.

D. Ashton (Chair): Could you just wrap it up, Doctor? Would you mind? It’s time to start wrapping it up, please.

E. Murakami: Okay. I’m saying that we’re doing research. It’s getting effective results. Cannabidiol now is going to be tested on the cysts and eggs at New Haven University. The university is supporting this project, and we are financing them with our fundraising. We fundraise for Dr. Pat McGeer, who is doing cannabidiol on brain tumour cells. I can say that I’m very happy what we’ll find out.

The cannabidiol does have an antibiotic effect, which has now been proven, for the first time, because I haven’t found any literature on cannabidiol on Lyme disease…. It is killing Lyme spirochetes at New Haven University, under Dr. Eva Sapi.

I’m hoping that you people can support these projects that I’ve started. If you have any doubts about this, please phone me any time. I’m on Facebook. I’ve got all my things that I talk about on Facebook. You’ll find that everything is there that I talk about, that I speak about.

I’m recommending a study by Dr. Eva Sapi on the ebola virus because I feel it’s got an antibiotic effect. It’s got an inhibitory effect on the HIV virus. If it does have an inhibiting effect, it could be very crucial. What I’m trying to say is that if it slows it up…. It takes about two weeks before the patient dies. If you can extend that, then the antibodies produced by the body can overcome the infection. This is my theory.

J. Shin: Thank you for your presentation, Doctor. For me, what puzzles me is that for a condition like this, if we are looking at early diagnosis, then the patient can be treated with antibiotics quite successfully to a full recovery. It just surprises me, given the fact that a significant number of infected people won’t necessarily develop that telltale rash. You’re also looking at symptoms varying depending on the strain that you’re infected with and also the individual.

A lot of these are already established in the U.S. and other parts of the world. I’m really surprised that in Canada we are lagging this much behind. Would you be able to just comment a little bit on why there is, it sounds like, a lack of support or awareness for something that, as you say, is obvious?

E. Murakami: The IDSA guidelines. The Infectious Diseases Society of America developed guidelines, and 30 days is all you need, which has not been proven. My classmate Dr. Pat McGeer has proven that. He’s taken Alzheimer’s from patients that’ve died from their disease, and he can still grow the spirochete to show that it’s still there. But the establishment says: “No, chronic Lyme disease is a scar tissue, not an infection.” And yet my classmate Dr. Pat McGeer has proven them wrong. You can look it up, the Journal of Neuroinflammation, September 2008.

Still, they don’t believe what I’m saying. Unfortunately, the infectious disease doctors of Canada accepted the American IDSA guideline, and they won’t change their mind. Doctors like myself are harassed, to the point that I lost my health. My wife begged me to give it up, but I said: “I can’t let my patients die.” My wife said: “Please give it up, because you’re going to die. The college is harassing you.” They harassed me for five years, and I fought them and fought them.

J. Shin: It’s the College of Physicians and Surgeons that you’re referring to.

E. Murakami: Yes. The College of Naturopathic Physicians are fully on board. I lecture to them every year about treatment of Lyme disease now.
[ Page 1238 ]

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you, Doctor. I have 30 seconds left and one more question.

S. Hamilton: I want to go the Canada Health Act. They have prescribed treatment regimes. I know that there are issues with Bill C-442. I want to bring it back, however, to your discussions about doctors turning away patients. Are they turning away patients because they can’t prescribe based on those treatment regimes? What are the issues here?

E. Murakami: The biggest issue is that the college goes after people who treat long-term Lyme disease, and I can give you the names of about 20 people who have been threatened. Some have given up their licence. Some have given up for health reasons. Some just have quit because of the harassment.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor, thank you for the presentation. We wish you good health in the issue that you’re facing right now.

E. Murakami: I’m free to discuss anything at any time. I’ve got a phone number, 869-9922. Any time you’ve got a question, just give me a call. If you want me to give a talk, I’ll come any time.

Good morning, Lynn. Thank you for coming. We have ten minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions and comments. Welcome.

L. Perrin: Thank you. I know some of you here. Simon, George, Gary — happy to see you here today. Welcome to the beautiful Fraser Valley. I’m here to talk about a fund for spill recovery from toxic diluted bitumen spills.

I live in Abbotsford. We’ve had three spills from the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline since 2000. So far there have been 80 spills from that pipeline. Right now they’re working on repairing some of the old pipeline on the Coquihalla and in the Fraser Valley. They’re shipping diluted bitumen through the current pipeline right now.

I guess I could ask: how many of the panel have read any of the submission or done any research on toxic diluted bitumen? I’ve been doing it since September of 2011. I have a master’s in public policy.

I encountered Kinder Morgan in the green space behind my home in 2011, September. They were cutting down trees to allow their helicopters to fly over the pipeline and look for leaks. That’s why I’m talking to this committee.

Our first responders have responded to those three spills, and we haven’t gotten a dime. Our local government has not gotten a dime from Kinder Morgan for the time that they spent on dealing with those spills.

In 2005 the spill was into a wetland, and it was a week before that spill was discovered and dealt with. In 2012 there was a spill at the Sumas tank farm. It took six hours for Kinder Morgan to respond to that spill.

Now, the current pipeline has a 300,000-barrel-per-day capacity, and the expansion they want is 530,000 gallons per day. The province — the Ministry of Environment — did some studies with regard to the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline, and at 500,000 barrels a day, a leak would equal 21,000 barrels per hour.

My calculations — and it’s kind of been confirmed by the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan — are that you’re looking at, at least $1 billion for spill recovery. Even then, only 15 percent of that spill is recovered.

My suggestion, my strong suggestion, to the province…. My first request would be to say no to the expansion. However, even if we don’t have the expansion, even the risks from the current pipeline could be really, really expensive. I highly recommend at least a $2 billion spill contingency fund. I don’t think that it should come from the pockets of B.C. taxpayers. I believe that you should be demanding a bond from Kinder Morgan immediately. I believe that if Enbridge proceeds, that you obtain a bond from them as well.

I’m a directly affected person, according to the National Energy Board. I’m a commenter in their hearings. I believe that there’s no way that I, my community and my province should be paying for any kind of response, any kind of emergency management. Right now Kinder Morgan, in their NEB documents, are asserting that local governments should be their emergency responders and that they shouldn’t have to pay anything for that service.

There are a lot of other issues around this. I sent you some documents electronically. Actually, I first sent a letter to this committee a year ago. Since then we’ve seen their application. It certainly causes me much more concern than I had a year ago.

One of the things that they have in their application is their spills scenario. Pretty well all along the Thompson and Fraser rivers, the spills would mean spills into those rivers.

Also, in the Fraser Valley there are two aquifers that the communities use for our drinking water and our farmers use for an industry that is worth $2.5 billion annually, and that’s agriculture. Ninety percent of our farmers get their water for poultry, crops and dairy from the aquifers and also the groundwater in Matsqui Prairie.

There are a lot of expenses that will occur from a spill. And it’s not if; it’s when. We’ve already had 80 that we
[ Page 1239 ]
know of. They have to be a certain size of spill before they’re even counted. There have already been 80.

For your information, the Auditor General of Canada did an audit of the National Energy Board and the Transportation Safety Board. Nine times out of ten, breaches are not…. There’s no follow-up from those agencies. Nine times out of ten, regulations are not being enforced by those agencies.

I encourage you to read what I have sent. One of the documents I’ve sent is from the application, and it lays out all of the risks and the costs of a spill.

I guess the one last thing that I would like to mention is that in that document they mention the psychological effects on communities from the potential of a spill. There are health care implications in that, so there are added costs to our Health Ministry as well.

M. Morris: Just a couple of points, and I welcome your response to them. The Kinder Morgan pipeline has been in the ground for 61 years and been supplying bitumen or crude oil to the refineries in the Lower Mainland here. That helps our agricultural sector achieve the results that they’ve got today and helps people move back and forth to their jobs within the Lower Mainland and create the lifestyle that everybody’s so used to around here. It’s a significant part of life in British Columbia and around the world.

So 80 spills. I’m very familiar with the spill issues through the National Energy Board and the northern gateway pipeline application and whatnot. And 80 spills, some of them very small — most of them are very small in nature — over 61 years is 1.2 spills per year, perhaps, and a few litres for the most part.

How do you respond to the fact that our whole world revolves around this — for agriculture, industry? You probably came here today in a vehicle that used fossil fuels or rode on a bus or something that used fossil fuels. It’s an integral part.

L. Perrin: Yeah, okay. First of all, none of the 300,000 barrels is going to B.C. refineries. Earlier this year the NEB allowed Kinder Morgan to not ship to Chevron anymore. All of the oil coming to the one B.C. refinery that is left — that supplies us, that was getting oil from that pipeline…. It’s now getting it by truck, barge or rail.

Kinder Morgan — all of the oil going through that pipeline, except for a very small amount of jet fuel, is being exported to either Los Angeles or to China. Cenovus started shipping bitumen to China in February 2013, so none of it is for our refineries.

Yes, I agree that we do need it. My issue is actually the diluted bitumen. It’s carcinogenic. Fraser Health has said they’re very worried about a spill into the aquifer because they’re responsible for drinking water quality.

I agree we need crude oil. But none of what is flowing…. The diluted bitumen is not for…. Our refineries can’t even refine it.

G. Heyman: Thank you, Lynn. Just quickly. You’ve recommended a figure of $2 billion for a spill recovery or a spill contingency fund.

I’m not sure if the documents that you’ve e-mailed outline the rationale for that number. But if you have some….

L. Perrin: Yeah, it does. Actually, what I did was I went to the transcripts from the northern gateway hearings. It’s quantified. I think it’s $14,000 a barrel — the recovery cost.

We may say: “Oh well. Who cares? Ten barrels, 20 barrels — no big deal.” But in my town, our storm drains, our storm sewer…. There are these little, yellow fish that are around that drain. That says: “Don’t even put a litre — a litre — of oil into that.”

We have quite a few…. Actually, we have some really important salmon-bearing creeks that are in Abbotsford — Nathan Creek; West Creek, just in Langley. We have really important salmon habitat. A barrel would be too much for those salmon. But $14,000 a barrel is what is in the transcripts of the northern gateway hearings.

Jordan, thanks for coming today. Thank you for the handouts. We have ten minutes for the presentation and up to five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two-minute warning at eight, if required. Please, the floor is yours.

I think I say this every time I come and present to your committee, but you are the hardest-working committee in provincial politics, particularly this year, when you’re in Victoria. You’re kind of sandwiching your committee work around the sitting this fall.

J. Bateman: You’re the hardest-working…. I’ll make sure to send a memo to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition so that they know, too. It’s good to know.

This year I had the delight of sitting down and writing up a presentation to you. Some of my old chestnuts are gone. Usually I would come here and recommend the elimination of the Pacific Carbon Trust. That’s been taken away.

I used to come here and recommend full disclosure of MLA expenses. Gosh darn it, you’ve gone and done that too.
[ Page 1240 ]

I came one year and talked about slowing the increase in health care spending, and we have seen British Columbia bend down the curve on that.

J. Bateman: I know. This is great. I appreciate the fact. Even reducing the size of the PavCo board — the government did that as well.

It’s exciting to look back over the past few years and see some of the policies that have been put into place either by accident or on purpose. I’ll just take a victory lap, though, and pretend it was all because of these presentations and the work of this committee.

This year I wanted to come in and speak to you about debt reduction. Debt reduction is something that, frankly, has been back-burnered in recent years. I think after the 2008 fiscal meltdown, governments of most political stripes felt the need to spend in order to stimulate the economy. That’s water under the bridge now, but we’re seeing in B.C. post modest surpluses — knock on wood — and I know that this committee will receive literally billions of dollars in spending requests from well-meaning, amazing community groups and other folks that have come and presented to you.

I wanted to put in for some debt reduction with surplus money. I have a section in here on a debt reduction act. Really, it builds on the Alberta model. Nothing happens by accident in government. You have to have a strategy, a plan. You have to have a dedicated philosophy when it comes to things like debt reduction.

It’s easy to say: “Ralph Klein paid off the debt through oil and gas money.” Certainly that was a huge part of it, but he had to have a plan in place to make sure that those surpluses were actually being applied to the debt. He did that through a couple of pieces of legislation, including a debt reduction act.

This is a big priority for our supporters. We did a quick survey of our B.C. supporters. We had more than 1,000 responses within 48 hours, many of whom wrote many comments. I read them all and tried to distill it to some of the best ones in here.

For our supporters, they feel that for every dollar of B.C. budget surplus, at least 62 cents of it should go towards debt reduction. They see the value in reducing the debt, therefore reducing interest costs and gaining that great snowball effect that happens when you start to pay off debt.

So bcdebtclock.ca has been set up by us. It’s a real-time accounting of the provincial debt — $62 billion. In the 15 minutes that I spend talking with you today, the debt will go up by about $140,000. So, large numbers that we need to get under control.

The second piece of legislation that we wanted to recommend was around improving budget controls. Essentially, what we’re suggesting is a legislative financial accountability act. To put it in the simplest terms possible, we believe that any time a bill is introduced into the Legislature, there should be some type of price tag, pricing, attached to it.

We feel it’s very important that our politicians, our elected officials, don’t order from a menu without knowing the cost of the bill. We’d like to see that applied to every bill — government, opposition, independent bills, all of those — taking a look at what the costs are. A cost estimate to implement and a cost estimate going forward, so we know.

Yesterday, obviously, we saw in the House of Commons the federal NDP leader talking about a national daycare program — billions and billions and billions of dollars of spending. It’s important that we have cost estimates on all of these different programs, so that we know, as taxpayers and as the people who monitor the budget, exactly what the cost of this legislation is.

That’s a very significant thing for our supporters. They’ve been asking for this for a long time. Some of them call it a truth in budgeting act. We just call it a legislative financial accountability act.

Then, finally, the last piece of new work we’ve done is around local government spending. I know this is a touchy issue, especially with some former municipal leaders, myself included, in the room.

We were pleasantly surprised by the provincial government’s leadership in commissioning the Ernst and Young report on municipal wages. We think this is an important issue provincially, because if municipalities are overpaying for labour, that drives up the cost for provincial taxpayers because eventually the province will have to match that money.

We make some recommendations in here, including one we steal from Mr. Morris’s hometown of Prince George around equipping smaller communities with professional negotiators to match up with CUPE and other unions — IAFF probably even more so than CUPE. Matching them up with professional negotiators — is there a way for the province to help co-fund those professional negotiators, realizing that the tax dollars saved at the property tax level can be invested in other things?

Can we create a wage index across all of these different levels of government, Crown corporations — the hundred most common jobs that virtually every municipality, regional district, provincial government agency or Crown corporation has — actually comparing the wages across and seeing if we can start to give our negotiators better information? There’s a section in there on that as well.

That’s all I have. The key for us is debt reduction above everything else. That just snowballs. Once you get the debt under control, you find yourself with more excess cash and capital to spend on many of the priorities that
[ Page 1241 ]
you’ve heard about here. Debt maintenance now, I think, is about $2½ billion or $2.8 billion a year. That’s about 50 percent of the education budget. One wonders, if you had another $3 billion in your pocket, what we could do with that.

These are the issues going forward. We hope that we’re moving into a time of robust economic growth that sees huge surpluses being posted. We’re cheering for big, in-the-black budgets, and we can start having the discussion about what to do with those surpluses.

E. Foster: Thanks, Jordan, very much. Back to your comment about the local government and the taxation. As you say, most of us come from local government, a lot of us. It’s a huge challenge. I guess my ask or my question is…. You know, your comment: “Okay. We’ve got to get this under control.” We, certainly, as a government have said, “Look, this is a serious issue, because we’re all one taxpayer.”

Your comment on sort of having a scale, if you will. The cost of living in Terrace is a lot different than the cost of living in Vancouver or in the Okanagan, where property values are way out of control, costs are out of control. How do we do that?

J. Bateman: Yeah, I think we have to…. If you’re putting together a wage index, I think you would want to compare comparable communities. There may be certain jobs that don’t exist in Terrace that do exist in Victoria, for example. You’d want to be sensitive to that.

You’re absolutely correct. I mean, this is the problem, frankly, with the arbitration system for the firefighters. They don’t take into account a community’s ability to pay. Everyone is gauged the same way as whoever signed the first deal, which I think was Delta or Richmond this time around.

In my community, in Langley, the firefighters are looking for 20 to 25 percent pay increases over four or five years. That’s completely beyond the public’s ability to pay. I was speaking with the mayor of Prince George, Mayor Green. She’s desperate to try to get this under control because the deal that was cut in Richmond for some reason affects what’s going on in Prince George.

You’re absolutely right. We need to do a better job of divvying up the province into the regions or at least the cost-of-living regions. That makes sense. That would have to be taken into account in the index, for sure.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think we all, obviously, share a desire to ensure that citizens’ tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently. The debt certainly is an issue that we’re aware of. In fact, we’ve seen the greatest increase in the provincial debt that we’ve ever seen over the last three years, in terms of the speed of its rise. It’s huge.

But I’m going to ask you a flip side of the question. We’ve sat around the province for many days hearing numerous submissions, as you pointed out, from various community groups and institutions seeking stable funding or more funding.

Many of them come with what appear to be quite creditable studies — obviously, we’ll have to check those out — that indicate that an investment in certain services, whether it’s education or a certain kind of health care, will actually pay significant dividends, although not in the first few budget years. But down the road they’ll result in far greater need for expenditure for a different range of social supports or health care.

On the assumption that at least a number of those are accurate, but given the drive to balance the budget on an annual basis, what would you say, or what would the Taxpayers Federation say, is an appropriate way for us to deal with questions that actually could save the taxpayer a significant amount of money over the long term and help pay down the debt or prevent further debt from accumulating but require certain decisions now that are difficult to make in this climate?

J. Bateman: I think weighing the short term versus the long term is the eternal crisis of every elected official, unless you’re serving for 30-year terms. That’s just bound to be the constant balancing act. For us, we see reducing the debt as a path to actually opening up capital for those long-term investments. It’s one of the reasons why we’re so supportive of a legislative financial accountability act. Give us those hard numbers.

You’re right. Business cases need to be made for these things. They need to be credible. They need to be independent. Frankly, you can have 1,000 great business cases; you’re not going to have the money to invest in all of them. You just don’t have endless revenue or endless resources. So it’ll take wisdom and very careful planning. Frankly, we like governments to set priorities. The government will have to decide how those priorities match with those business cases.

For us, though, you’re right. The business case element is…. Of all the things that happened in recent years as far as budgeting and groups presenting cases to government, the move towards business cases and proving out costs long term is a very positive step, because it does give you a better handle as to what your investment may render down the road.

G. Holman: Thanks, Jordan, for the presentation. Always very detailed. I’ll take this to bed tonight.

One. Particularly given some of the recommendations made previously about B.C. Hydro and the concern around its debt situation, we’ve had a number of presenters around Site C expressing concerns about the $8 billion proposed investment there. According to B.C. Hydro, the first four years of its operation, because the power isn’t needed immediately, would result in $800 million in losses. Do you have a view on that, particularly given your concerns about B.C. Hydro?

My second question is a little more provocative, I guess. Our tax rates have been going down over the past decade. Do you see a relationship between declining tax rates and forgone government revenue and B.C.’s, as George described, increasing debt situation?

J. Bateman: On Site C we don’t have an official position. We have supporters who are…. Frankly, they’re split down the middle on Site C, so we’ve chosen not to take a position, other than the fact that we want to make sure the business plan is credible, obviously. An $8 billion investment is a mind-boggling amount of money for a government monopoly. I don’t want to get too far into that.

On the tax rates. If you go to page 5, the truth is: taxes ain’t as low as we think they are. This is a graph from the B.C. budget document comparing income tax rates for families of four making $60,000 a year. We chose this number because it’s the scenario closest to the average household income in B.C., which is just a shade under $70,000.

If you take a look at that, B.C. actually, in provincial income tax, lags behind Saskatchewan, lags behind Ontario. If you go to the total provincial tax, point 8 there, you see that we’re actually behind Alberta and Saskatchewan as far as overall provincial tax burden goes.

This is a good reminder to us that taxes…. The Fraser Institute calculated, I think, 45 percent of an income now goes to taxes. We hear from many families — and people on fixed incomes, especially — that they feel strapped. They don’t have the ability to pay any more. One of our things has been that we almost need a summit of all these different taxing agencies and levels of government in a room to talk about the overall burden that British Columbians can handle.

The $8-a-month increase for ICBC seems fine in isolation, but you add it to the MSP, add it to B.C. Hydro, add it to EI, CPP…. All of a sudden it starts adding up and becomes unbearable.

D. Ashton (Chair): I apologize, but I treat everybody the same. Thank you for your input today, Jordan. If you have anything else that you want to submit by Friday the 17th, electronically, we’ll take anything else. Have a good day, and thank you for coming.

Welcome, Doctor. Thank you for coming today. We have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning and five minutes for questions. I’m pretty staunch with the timing.

I see that you heard from Dr. Murakami earlier today, but in ten minutes I will share why addressing better testing, treatment and education about Lyme disease in B.C. is a Finance Committee issue just as much as it’s a Ministry of Health concern.

I’m Dr. Elizabeth Zubek, a physician who worked at the UBC complex chronic diseases program since its opening. I was one of four doctors who have resigned from that program. Doctors do not make resignations lightly, and not from programs that they are passionate about. Yet I will not focus on the mismanagement of funding allocations within that program, because the financial issues that you are concerned about are B.C.-wide regarding the financial impact of undiagnosed and untreated Lyme disease in a large segment of our population.

There’s firm evidence that Lyme disease is endemic in B.C. The Public Health Canada website map, which I’ve given you, shows a big swoosh of risk areas throughout southern B.C. It has bright red triangles showing endemic areas by two of our most populated centres — the Fraser Valley and Victoria regions. Our population is at risk.

In the U.S.A. the CDC admitted that yearly cases of Lyme disease were ten times higher than the number reported, or 300,000 cases per year. And it’s not like ticks need a passport. With climate change, in fact, our tick population is expected to rise dramatically in upcoming years, and the endemic regions will expand further north. But many of you have been briefed by the CDC and Public Health officials already that we’re not to be concerned, and they cite epidemiological data. This is where it gets tricky, and I’m glad that you actually have a medical doctor on your panel.

Tests can be used for two purposes: for epidemiology and surveillance, which is what the CDC and Public Health do; or they can be used to make a diagnosis, which is what I have to do as a physician. That’s what all of you want if you come down with a crazy headache, joint pains and weird neurological signs that make you wonder if you’ve got multiple sclerosis or if you’re just going crazy.

Now, every test has a specificity and a sensitivity. In other words, when it’s positive, can we be sure it’s right?
[ Page 1243 ]
And when it’s negative, can we be sure it’s right? If you work for Public Health and the CDC, you want surveillance. So you need tests that are very specific. In other words, you almost never get a false positive. They can tell you how many absolutely true cases of Lyme there are, but what their tests lack is sensitivity.

They’re only about 50 percent sensitive in picking up cases of Lyme that are truly there, and their test is based on only one strain of one Borrelia species. There are over 100 species of Borrelia in North America and over 300 species identified worldwide. If your loved one came down with symptoms suggestive of Lyme disease, would you be satisfied if their doctor ignored it, based on a test that only had a 50 percent chance of picking up one strain? That is what we are doing in B.C. right now.

What is the financial impact when we doctors rely on inaccurate tests and falsely tell people that we have ruled out Lyme disease? I’ve enclosed some figures to show you the financial impact, taken from a survey done this year in the United States entitled “Severity of chronic Lyme disease compared to other chronic conditions: a quality of life survey,” by Lorraine Johnson and Dr. Ralph Stricker, a well-known infectious disease specialist.

You can see that in our general population 16 percent exhibit poor health. In the population who have Lyme disease, poor health is seen in only 23 percent of those in their first six months of Lyme. But if undiagnosed, it goes to 56 percent in months 6 to 12 and an average of 72 percent in late stages. Obviously, early detection is enormously important. Have I mentioned that we don’t have good tests available?

Now, as the Finance Committee, you know that a lot of money is directed to health care, and you know that most of it is directed to the chronic disease segment. Now look at the numbers. The survey respondents reporting fair or poor health with chronic Lyme disease were 72 percent, which is higher than for people with other chronic diseases. Of those with congestive heart failure, 62 percent reported fair or poor health; stroke, 54 percent; heart attack, 51 percent; diabetes, 46 percent; multiple sclerosis, 37 percent.

Lyme disease leads to a very sick population, even compared to other chronic diseases, which means they consume resources. How many? Look at the numbers of hospital visits, doctor visits — over 19 per year; admissions to hospital; 13 percent needing home care visits. That all costs money. And how many of these people can still be contributing, productive members of society?

Ticks are biting doctors, teachers, business people, politicians. They’re not able to keep up with their jobs, 43 percent stop working altogether, and another 26 percent reduce their work or change the nature of their job.

So 43 percent stopped working. Think of the tax revenue lost, the worker productivity loss. Why did this happen? Right — they didn’t get that early diagnosis, when three weeks of a $50 antibiotic could have prevented this whole mess.

What can we do about it? We can educate the public and doctors that Lyme exists and be upfront that our tests are inadequate for diagnostic purposes. The CDC and Public Health can certainly use them for what they were intended — surveillance data. However, if we want not just population health but fiscal responsibility, we will ensure that money is not wasted by using surveillance tests for making, or failing to make, an early diagnosis of Lyme, such that we have an unproductive, unhealthy segment of our workforce draining resources.

The test that we really need costs $260 to $600 privately. If we developed them in-house, the cost would dramatically decrease.

Let me leave you with an example of one patient I saw as a consultant to the complex chronic diseases program. She went from being a productive and energetic health care worker to someone on disability with severe pain and neurological difficulties, who’d gone through multiple specialists, multiple CT and MRI scans, was on chronic pain medications and still had no diagnosis.

Listening to her, she had classic symptoms of Lyme disease but had never had that classic Lyme rash, which doctors know of as a bull’s-eye. In fact, only 25 percent of people with Lyme have had that rash, and only 20 percent of those were the classic bull’s-eye, so we doctors can’t use that as a major symptom for our diagnosis. But her husband had had a bull’s-eye rash and was treated, and her best friend had had Lyme and was treated.

It was pretty obvious to me that her diagnosis was Lyme disease, as the cause of years of her disability and tens of thousands of dollars billed to our health care system. Why couldn’t I treat her? Well, she couldn’t afford $400 to do a more sensitive, privately funded Lyme test, and I am too afraid for my medical licence to treat her with long-term antibiotics without having a positive test to back me up.

The complex chronic diseases clinic had no funding to do any tests beyond what MSP covered. So I had to send her home from the central specialty Lyme clinic in B.C. saying: “I think you have Lyme, but I can’t do anything about it.” She remains supported financially by our government and is still sick.

This is what we have to deal with. It is financial. It is personal. It is a matter for us, as people who can change the course for people of our province — me as a physician and you as politicians. Lyme disease is endemic. We need resources set aside for testing, for treatment and for education.

This is a matter I share with you, as the Finance Committee members, as MLAs responsible to your constituents, as people who are in this type of work because you want to make a difference, and as people who walk across the grass in Victoria, where, as you now know, Lyme is endemic.
[ Page 1244 ]

J. Shin: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve heard quite a bit from the different stakeholders and individuals — patients, doctors like yourself — about this particular issue.

Would you shed some light? I had no idea that in Canada this was slipping right through the cracks. Would you give us an idea as far as your advocacy for better diagnostics? I do agree. I don’t understand why we’re still doing the western blot, with the kind of sensitivity issue.

As far as your previous conversation with the ministry, perhaps, or with other venues — with the College of Physicians and Surgeons — where are we right now as far as seeing the kinds of changes that we need to see?

E. Zubek: Absolutely no changes. There was the wonderful Schmidt report, which I’ve attached for you. If we follow the Schmidt report, we’d have no problem. The problem is that the CDC follows very specific guidelines for surveillance. They have to have these true positives.

Now, there was a Lyme vaccine developed about ten years ago. The crux of the matter is that there are these outer surface proteins of Lyme disease, outer surface proteins A and B, which were incorporated into the Lyme vaccine.

If somebody reacts to those proteins, it means they have Lyme disease. But because those proteins were used in the vaccine, they’re saying: “Oh well, it could be a false positive test, because this person might have had the vaccine.” Well, that vaccine was out for a short period of time, given to a few people in Rhode Island. Nobody in B.C. has had that vaccine.

If we had a test and they’re positive for outer surface protein A and outer surface protein B, they’ve got Lyme disease here in B.C. But the CDC says: “Well, we can’t use that for surveillance purposes, because it might be a false positive. What if that person once upon a time had a vaccine? It’s not a true test.”

We’ve got a problem — the difference between: are we using it for surveillance? Are we using it for diagnosis? What I’m saying is that we need tests for diagnosis, but we can’t get that past the CDC, because that’s not their priority.

G. Holman: Just a quick question. Thanks very much for the detailed information. Just quickly looking at the Schmidt report and hearing from others about disturbing cases, apparently, where doctors have lost licences or been harassed. Could you speak to that for just a little bit? Dr. Murakami presented to us just earlier today.

E. Zubek: Yes. Doctors are terrified of treating Lyme disease. I came out and joined the CCDP last year. As a doctor in this province for 20 years, my practice had been audited for financial reasons maybe twice over 20 years for minor things. I joined in May. I had my methadone licence audited in July, I had my opioid licence audited in September, I had my billings audited in December, and I had my opioid licence audited again in May.

Now, four times in one year since I started openly treating Lyme disease. That may be a coincidence, but it’s very odd, after 20 years of practising in B.C., to be audited so much. I know of other physicians who have had repeated audits since they’ve started treating.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor, thank you for your presentation. Greatly appreciated. I apologize. We just have a tight schedule. If you have any additional information that you want to submit, we can receive it up until the 17th, which is Friday.

Up next we have the Mining Association of British Columbia. Mr. Cox, welcome. How are you today?

D. Ashton (Chair): Good. It’s 15 minutes for your presentation, of which ten is allowed for documentation to us, and then I’ll give you a two-minute warning at eight minutes. Okay?

D. Ashton (Chair): As you can see, we ask a lot of questions here, so I have to be very precise on your ten minutes for your presentation.

Thanks very much for having me today, everyone. My name is Bryan Cox. I’m the vice-president of corporate affairs for the Mining Association of British Columbia. Happy to be with you today to talk about some of the recommendations we have as you move into the Budget 2015 process.

We can go through the slide deck that you have in front of you. The first slide there gives an overview of who we are as an association. The Mining Association of B.C. is the pre-eminent voice of mining in the province of B.C. Speaking on behalf of coal, metal, industrial mineral
[ Page 1245 ]
producers as well as advanced development companies and smelters throughout the province, our mandate is to encourage the responsible development and operation of mining and related facilities in the province of British Columbia.

MABC and its member companies place a high priority on issues of responsible development, as evidenced by the adoption by MABC members of the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining program, a globally recognized accountability framework for the mining industry.

We represent one of the most important job creators in the province. We work in partnerships across the province, partners in job creation, creating direct jobs through our mines and indirect jobs through our suppliers, capacity-building through our contribution to training programs, educational institutions, including MineralsEd, the Aboriginal Mentoring and Training Association, the Centre of Training Excellence in Mining and numerous other organizations. Our vision and mission is to ensure we have a thriving mining industry in B.C. for generations to come.

The next slide gives an overview of MABC membership. We have 48 members and varying degrees of size of companies, all the way from Teck to Avanti to New Gold, Quinsam Coal — very diverse membership.

The next slide gives sort of a snapshot of the mining industry at this juncture. MABC’s membership represents an $8.5 billion industry which last year contributed more than $500 million to the B.C. government and government agencies. The mining industry directly employs more than 10,000 British Columbians, and there are an estimated 16,000 additional spinoff jobs represented by suppliers. The B.C. mining industry is a competitive employer, offering an average salary and benefits package in excess of $114,000 annually, creating jobs in communities across the province.

The B.C. mining industry continues to face a number of challenges as the result of fluctuations in commodity prices, a conservative international investment climate and a competitive global market. Gross revenues for the industry were $8.5 billion in 2013, as mentioned, down from $9.2 billion in 2012, which was a further drop from $9.9 billion in 2011, when commodity prices were more favourable. Net income for industry remains challenged at $1.4 billion in 2013, down from nearly $3.7 billion in 2011.

Alternatively, payments to governments rose this year to $511 million, helping government provide those much-needed services such as education and health care to British Columbians. We expect the remainder of 2014 and 2015 to reflect ongoing pressures in the industry, as demonstrated by the recent announcements of projects being delayed and mines going into care and maintenance until a more competitive operating environment emerges.

MABC, however, remains optimistic about the long-term potential for this industry. With an estimated $30 billion in potential projects currently in varying stages in the permitting process, we are positioned with tremendous opportunity for growth within the B.C. mining industry and the provincial economy.

The next slide gives a snapshot of some of the projects and operating mines throughout the province. As you can see, we are a job creator all across the province, particularly in the northwest of the province, with the northwest transmission line allowing access to the very substantial mineral deposits that are there.

Into the recommendations, slide 6. MABC is encouraged by the targets and goals set by the B.C. jobs plan and B.C. mining strategy. However, to attain these goals, key permitting departments must be properly resourced. Permitting delays caused by a lack of sufficient resources delay private sector investment and job creation. We commend the government on its efforts to improve the permitting process; however, there is more work to be done.

Therefore, we have a couple of recommendations around that. The first recommendation: ensure that ultimate oversight for the mine permitting process rests with the Ministry of Energy and Mines and ensure that adequate resources are allocated to that.

Recommendation 2: ensure that all of the natural resource ministries have adequate resources to support the responsible growth of the mining industry, with a particular focus on ensuring that any new fees on mine permits include specific key performance indicators; ensuring that effective timelines are applied to the environmental assessment review process; and ensuring clarity on First Nations engagement and consultation.

Regarding skills training, as mentioned before, with approximately $30 billion in projects at various stages, we’re going to require thousands of employees over the coming years. We are very supportive of B.C.’s skills-for-jobs blueprint and changes to the Industry Training Authority. Also, as one of B.C.’s largest employers of First Nations, we are pleased to work with groups like the Aboriginal Mentoring and Training Association, AMTA. We encourage government to continue focusing on First Nations skills training and engagement.

Our recommendation: MABC recommends that government ensure adequate resources are placed on skills training in Budget 2015, with a particular focus on First Nations training and continued funding for the AMTA centre of training excellence in mining, Northwest Community College’s School of Exploration and Mining — among other initiatives.

Negotiating resource revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations. MABC commends the province for creating new partnerships by signing agreements with First Nations to share direct mineral tax revenue on new mines and mine expansions.
[ Page 1246 ]

With 15 economic and community development agreements now signed with First Nations, the province is clearly on the right track. However, there is always more work to be done. The recent William Supreme Court decision provides a further opportunity for government, First Nations and industry to work together to ensure shared prosperity.

Therefore, recommendation No. 4. MABC recommends that the government of B.C. allocate adequate resources in Budget 2015 for the continuing negotiation and implementation of revenue-sharing agreements, otherwise known as economic and community development agreements.

MABC congratulates the government on the completion of the northwest transmission line. As mentioned earlier, this allows a huge opportunity to access mineral deposits in the northwest.

However, I wanted to mention that with the transition of the HST back to the PST, a 7 percent tax is applied to the cost of electricity, which is unique to B.C. among other competitive jurisdictions in Canada. While we remain optimistic that a future review will result in the creation of an exemption for that, it has a negative impact upon the competitiveness of the industry.

Our recommendation is that MABC support a review of the application of PST on electricity usage for the mining industry.

I’d like to thank the committee for their time today to talk about our recommendations. We are focused on measures that would enable British Columbia to capitalize on the opportunities offered by B.C.’s mining sector to contribute to the strong and robust economy through thousands of high-paying jobs and economic activity in all regions of the province.

One of the vexing challenges of our times is the need to obtain social licence to undertake a lot of these resource-extraction projects, as you’ve touched on in your presentation. I wonder if you can share with us some of the things that you and your members are doing to kind of address that and to make the case to ordinary British Columbians that mining is very important to all of us, not just those directly employed but every British Columbian.

It’s obviously a big challenge for everyone in natural resources, as we move forward with developments. From the industry level, we are really trying to make the connection between the benefits of mining to all British Columbians — basically, the fact that the resource extraction that’s done in parts of the province benefits all of us, from what goes into our phones to what goes into solar panels, wind turbines, car batteries. All of those require mining products. A lot of that is education just in the general sense.

From project-specific terms, our members are always engaged at the community level with their various communities of interest. I think the adoption towards sustainable mining by the Mining Association of B.C. is a real step towards that engagement of all of our communities of interest — First Nations communities close to where the projects are going to be located and are located. I think that’s a constant job of education both on the macro level and on the micro level as we move forward with the industry.

M. Morris: I noticed the theme in the recommendations is more resources within the various ministries to help out with the permitting process. In your estimation, how much of the process do you think is affected by what you’re determining to be a lack of resources — half your applications or half the time frame that it takes to run through? Can you give me a better sense of that?

B. Cox: It’s tough to quantify. It’s a project-by-project basis. I think the key is really ensuring the oversight. I mean, there’s such a necessary need for different ministries to be engaging on natural resource projects, but I think it’s very important for there to be a defined ownership of the projects as they move through the permitting process and environmental assessment process.

It’s really about ensuring effective resources and that there’s the focus at the project level to move the projects through the environmental assessment and permitting process.

In terms of the social licence question and the oversight issue, do you think there’s a problem with a conflict, or at least a perceived conflict, with the Ministry of Mines also providing the regulatory oversight?

B. Cox: No. We haven’t found that. We find that the Ministry of Mines does a very good job at oversight. There are various other ministries that are involved in the permitting and environmental assessment process as well, so there’s really cross–natural resource interaction and oversight through the process.

G. Holman: You mentioned the northwest transmission line and the request. By the way, I was looking back at — I was on last year’s committee — a number of recommendations from your group that show up in our report, for better or for worse. You mentioned the northwest transmission line, on which there was a substantial cost overrun.

Also, it’s my understanding that the industrial rate paid by mining operations is about half, say, the rate of residential users, but you are requesting looking at the PST on electricity use. Certainly, in northwest B.C., and also in general, don’t you already get a pretty good price on electricity compared to, say, residential users?

B. Cox: B.C. does have a competitive electricity rate. The PST application is unique amongst our competitive jurisdictions, such as Ontario, Manitoba — and Saskatchewan, as well, I believe. It would provide a levelling of that. Being a global industry, as we are, it would provide…. The more competitiveness we can provide to proponents as they come to invest, the better.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you Bryan. Appreciate it. Thanks for your presentation today.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good. We’ve allotted ten minutes for your presentation. Five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two-minute warning if I think you’re going to broach into it. Please, go ahead.

L. Palm: All right. Thank you. My first comment is that the document I’m giving you needs a correction. I had 2014 budget consultation, but this in fact is 2015 consultation. I wanted to point that out.

My name is Linda Palm. I’m the general manager of PacificSport Fraser Valley. Thank you for this opportunity to address your panel today here in Mission. Throughout a lifetime of involvement in sport myself, I have definitely found that the benefits that sport brings to those who experience it are very strong.

On behalf of our board of directors, members and staff, as well as the thousands of constituents who benefit from our programs and services, either directly or indirectly, I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to the provincial government for its continued investment in sport in our region and throughout the province. This government’s commitment to sport has been instrumental in ensuring that B.C. leads the nation as a culture that values sport excellence and, more importantly, that values sport as a vehicle for health promotion.

PacificSport Fraser Valley is a multisport training support centre for athletes and coaches. The centre also works in collaboration with community partners and key stakeholders to support increased sport participation. The not-for-profit society is now based in Langley, with a satellite office in Abbotsford, and covers the area from Hope to Pitt Meadows and south to White Rock. We are affiliated with a network of five regional centres — and I think you’ve heard from most of them by now — and with the Canadian Sport Institute Pacific’s three national campuses.

The Fraser Valley regional sport centre has developed a variety of programs and services to support Fraser Valley–based sport initiatives at all stages of the Canadian Sport for Life continuum. To complement our efforts in promoting and program delivery, we collaborate with the Fraser Health Authority, school districts, private and community schools, municipal recreation departments, boys and girls clubs, provincial sport organizations, local sport organizations and multisport organizations.

Together, we strive to provide valued services and purposeful program delivery that meets our collective vision of healthy communities inspired and enabled to participate, play and perform.

Led by ViaSport, the sport sector is now being driven by a three-year strategic plan which is supported by four key pillars which encourage sport for life at all ages and abilities, engage British Columbians across both urban and rural communities, leverage new and existing partnerships and build a strong and sustainable sport system.

Provincial, regional and local organizations are working together to develop a baseline to begin measuring the true impact of sport in our province, with the collective goal of increasing awareness and participation in sport across the province at every stage of life and in every community.

By now you are no doubt aware of the good work being done around the province by the PacificSport centres in advancing the government’s mandate to increase sport participation in B.C. Here in the Fraser Valley we have been extensively engaged in educating front-line delivery agents on the importance of physical literacy and how to integrate fundamental movement skills into their programming.

We have made great strides with municipalities and are building strong relationships with the Fraser Health Authority, with similar goals of education and implementation. Here are some highlights from the past year in the Fraser Valley — and I won’t go through all of them; I’ll just touch on a couple.

In our program delivery aimed at aligning with Canadian Sport for Life and increasing sport involvement through day camps, after-school initiatives, information sessions and workshops, our staff have touched every one of the 14 municipalities or districts in our region and many of them on several occasions.

The centre staff have created programs to fill gaps in the system, such as an adapted strength-training workshop for athletes with a disability, after-school programs for at-risk populations, and day camps and strength training for aboriginal communities.

We have leveraged partnerships throughout the region to amass benefits for our 200 registered athletes at a value approaching $500,000.
[ Page 1248 ]

Our greatest challenge is in choosing where to focus our limited human and financial resources. Some work is underway in the education sector, where grants from the B.C. sport participation program — which the provincial government jointly funds with the federal government — are funding mentorship programs with generalist teachers in selected school districts in each of the PacificSport regions, representing a very small segment of the entire school population.

The positive impact of these programs is evident in the testimonials we receive from the teachers, who have gained confidence in delivering activities and skills that develop fundamental movement skills in their K-to-3 students. As generalist teachers, they are very credible in teaching academics but lack the training and the skills in teaching movement and managing classes in open environments.

The opportunity to facilitate teacher engagement in physical literacy has untold benefits to our next generation of recreaters, athletes, leaders and parents. We have a chance today to provide the foundation that will instil the love of movement and participation among young children and youth for their lifetime.

In my personal lifetime of being involved in recreation and sport, I have not experienced a better time than now or a better means of creating a profound impact on a child’s self-confidence, enjoyment of sport and, indirectly, their long-term health.

I strongly recommend that the provincial government consider allocating sufficient funds to expand the training of every front-line person working with children, but especially the K-to-3 teachers, to ensure these leaders are equipped with an understanding of physical literacy, the tools to develop fundamental movement skills in their students and knowledge of the Canadian Sport for Life framework.

From year to year sport delivery in B.C. continues to become more coordinated and effective, with stronger connections being made with residents in every region. With the continued support for sport and, in particular, for PacificSport, we will, together, inspire our citizens to use sport to enhance their lives and their health and to build vibrant communities.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. We did have a recommendation last year around sport funding. One of the things that was mentioned was multi-year funding. Is that still an issue for you?

Also, could you just quickly describe your involvement with First Nations communities in the area?

L. Palm: Sure. First, on the multi-year funding, this has been a concern for us for a number of years. I’ve been involved with the organization now for 17 years, and I have found that the problem that exists in terms of cash flow is very difficult and, also, in terms of maintaining your staff.

We can only offer a one-year employment agreement because we do not know what our funding is going to be in the next year. We basically live on a fiscal year. In terms of starting programs with partners and promising to be able to continue them into the next year, we can’t do that. We can only offer a program that fits within the current fiscal because we’re never sure what our funding is going to be in the next year.

It would certainly improve our planning, it would improve our ability to retain good staff, and it would make life a lot easier in terms of managing cash flow.

L. Palm: Yes. We have a program called IGNITE athlete development program. It’s intended to help athletes who are just on the brink of going to national status to learn good strength and conditioning techniques. It’s a generic course; it’s not sport-specific at all. It’s a general course that teaches them the foundations of gymnastics for balance and agility, power. Also, it includes track and field — things like power, speed and strength.

Also, what we found was that the aboriginal community had specific sports that they were wanting to focus on, so we put together a specific program for the aboriginal community. It was very successful because they were able to work with just their own community. We had good results in terms of the attendance and the outcome of the athletes who were involved in that.

We’ve also done a number of Xplore SportZ camps, which are day camps. What we’ve tried to do is show them how to run a sport camp which is not mainstream sports but different kinds of sports, like archery, water polo and things that are probably less likely to come into their life unless they have a chance to explore it. We’ve shown them how to do that, and we’ve tried to transition them into managing it themselves. They have access to coaches who can deliver those services for them.

M. Morris: Good presentation, Linda. Of course, we’ve heard from your counterparts in various parts of the province here. Just curious: what’s the federal component of PacificSport with respect to funding?

L. Palm: I mentioned the B.C. sport participation program. If we’re successful in winning a grant through the organization — I think it’s ViaSport — that assesses those, that’s jointly funded 50-50 between the provincial government and the federal government. That amount has been in the neighbourhood of $11,000 to $15,000 over
[ Page 1249 ]
the last few years.

The other one that we get federally is the summer student grant program, which typically is around $6,000 a year per student that you’re able to get approval for. So not a lot.

M. Morris: Did you see any change after the Own the Podium, the 2010 Olympics or anything like that? Was there any ramp-up in any of the funding opportunities?

L. Palm: I can’t personally say that I saw that, but maybe we weren’t chasing the right funding sources. There may have been some opportunities that we missed.

D. Ashton (Chair): Linda, thank you very much for your presentation. Thanks for coming today.

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

Chair:	* Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	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
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Sarah Griffiths (Committees Assistant)

Witnesses:	Jordan Bateman (Canadian Taxpayers Federation)
	Bryan Cox (Mining Association of British Columbia)
	Reg Ens (Executive Director, British Columbia Agriculture Council)
	Jackie Hogan (CFO, University of the Fraser Valley)
	Bryan Hyndman (Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce)
	Dr. Ernie Murakami (Dr. E. Murakami Centre for Lyme Research, Education and Assistance Society)
	Carol Paetkau (Executive Director, Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association)
	Linda Palm (PacificSport Fraser Valley)
	Fran Pattison
	Lynn Perrin
	Aaron Robinson (Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce)
	Karyn Santiago (CEO, Communitas Supportive Care Society)
	Cindy Schafer (Chair, Board of Education, School District 34 — Abbotsford)
	Candie Thorne (Mission Literacy in Motion Association)
	Heather Treleaven
	Stan Vander Waal (Chair, British Columbia Agriculture Council)
	Ray Velestuk (School District 34 — Abbotsford)
	Gillian Viljoen (Communitas Supportive Care Society)
	Shirley Wilson (Vice-Chair, Board of Education, School District 34 — Abbotsford)
	Dr. Elizabeth Zubek

2) Communitas Supportive Care Society	Karyn Santiago
	Gillian Viljoen

4) Board of Education, School District No. 34 (Abbotsford)	Cindy Schafer
	Shirley Wilson
	Ray Velestuk

7) Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce	Bryan Hyndman
	Aaron Robinson

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES