Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 74 — Monday, September 21, 2015 (HTML)

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; Claire Trevena, 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	1703
R. Rees
H. Banham
T. Wilson
G. Wilson
M. Bourcheix-Laporte
A. Knott
E. Hendrix
R. Ciceri
R. Waraich
R. Gloor
J. Dunn
J. Garson
D. Baxter
R. Nickelchok
J. Robinson
I. Bruce
K. Aben
F. Ballantyne
P. Bacchus
S. Corbeil
C. Mallet
J. Hux
I. Humphreys
G. Dirom
B. Gutray
J. Morris
J. Stewart
H. Legal
D. Baer
M. Conlon
A. Woodsworth
A. Klukas
G. Han
A. Hijaab
L. MacDonald
R. Truscott
A. Montani
D. Wright
H. Pastrick
S. Bohus

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Scott Hamilton. I’m the MLA for Delta North and the Chair of 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 was recently released by the Minister of Finance. The committee will issue a report by November 15, 2015, with recommendations for next year’s budget.

We’ve had to modify our planned schedule of in-person community meetings this year, as the Legislature has been called back to session on September 28. In order to accommodate as many presenters as possible, we’re holding public hearings in communities across the province through in-person sessions or via teleconference, video conference or Skype.

British Columbians are also invited to participate by sending in written, audio or video submissions or completing an on-line survey. You can make a submission or learn more about the consultation in general by visiting our webpage at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations.

We invite all British Columbians to make a submission and contribute to this important process. For those of you in attendance today, we’d like to thank you for participating.

All public input will be carefully considered by the committee as it prepares its final report to the Legislative Assembly. Just a reminder that the deadline for submissions is October 15, 2015.

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. Today particularly we have to pay special attention to our timing.

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

Now I’d like to take this opportunity to ask the committee members to introduce themselves. I’ll start with Claire.

S. Chandra Herbert: Good morning. Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA, Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour.

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

S. Hamilton (Chair): Also assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial here to my left, Lisa Hill and Stephanie Raymond from the Parliamentary Committees Office. Michael Baer and Jean Medland from Hansard Services are also here recording our proceedings.

We can get started. First, I’d like to call up Mr. Richard Rees and Dr. Heather Banham of the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C.

Good morning. As I said, ten minutes for the presentation. We’ll go to five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a heads-up. When you have about two minutes left, I’ll try to catch your attention. We’ll go, so if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

I’m Richard Rees. I’m the president and CEO of the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C., which means that I’m the staff, the CEO. We’ve changed to the nomenclature that’s used across the country.

I’ve had the privilege of presenting to this committee many times over the last few years, and I’m very pleased to be joined today by Dr. Heather Banham, who is dean of the Okanagan School of Business at Okanagan College. Dr. Banham is the second vice-chair of our board of directors, and she will deliver our opening remarks.

H. Banham: Thank you, Richard. With the enactment of the Chartered Professional Accountants Act on June 24, 2015, CPABC now represents more than 32,000 professional accountants and at least 6,500 students and CPA candidates. This was a major milestone for our profession, and we’re pleased that the passage of Bill 4 received unanimous support from both parties in the Legislature.
[ Page 1704 ]

We’d like to take this opportunity to thank all parties for their vision and support. We’re also particularly grateful to Minister Wilkinson and all the staff at the Ministry of Advanced Education for their efforts during the past two years.

I’m pleased to report that CPA legislation has been enacted or will be enacted in every Canadian province by the end of this year, creating a truly national profession.

CPAs are globally recognized as leaders in business, government, public practice and other sectors where financial management is required. Our members advise multinational corporations, small businesses, not-for-profits, government agencies and countless individuals.

CPABC is now one of the largest professional organizations in B.C. Our members are on the front lines of business in this province, and they see firsthand what issues are affecting investment and the economy. It is through that lens that we present to you our 2016-2017 budget recommendations.

R. Rees: Thank you, Heather. I would like to begin with a brief economic snapshot that includes research and analysis from our annual B.C. Check-Up report and CPABC’s Business Outlook Survey. I’d like to start by saying that we live in an era that is extremely challenging for British Columbia’s and Canada’s economy, and we wish the committee well as it charts a course for our province in a turbulent world.

According to the B.C. Check-Up, in 2014, B.C.’s real GDP rose by 2.7 percent, representing an increase of 1.2 percentage points over the previous year. For the fifth year in a row, job creation was positive, with manufacturing, resources, transportation and the hospitality sectors generating the most new jobs. All together, 12,800 new jobs were created in 2014. Provincial unemployment was down 0.5 percentage points to 6.1.

Labour compensation per employee increased by 2.1 percent to reach $52,321. B.C.’s exports to other countries totalled almost $36 billion, a 7 percent improvement over the previous year. At $58,621, B.C. had the highest consumer debt per capita in the country.

While economic conditions nationally and internationally remain challenging and volatile, B.C. is poised to lead the provinces in economic growth this year, with a projected GDP growth ranging between 2.2 percent and 3 percent. While the B.C. government net debt-to-GDP ratio increased by 0.1 percentage points to 17 percent, this was well below Canada’s 31.2 percent.

As we noted in our post-budget commentary earlier in the year, we’re pleased to see that the Minister of Finance remains committed to achieving modest budget surpluses over the next three years. Nevertheless, our businesses are facing challenges that could impact their capacity to generate economic benefits for the province. According to more than 3,500 of our members who participated in the CPABC business outlook survey in the last couple of months, 73 percent believe that the ability to attract and retain employees is the most substantial challenge to business success in B.C.

This challenge is becoming more significant in every region as businesses are struggling to find local workers with the necessary skills and experience to fill positions. These issues are exacerbated by high housing costs, which are making it more difficult to recruit workers from outside of British Columbia.

While the provincial government has done a good job in creating a stable, business-friendly climate, more can be done to help businesses thrive through red tape reduction and greater collaboration at the regional level. We also believe that government can increase economic stability by playing a key role in reducing debt levels of the next generation, by supporting and promoting financial literacy initiatives for British Columbians.

Based on our members’ input and our economic analysis, this year, CPABC’s recommendations focus on five issues: the challenges of recruiting and retaining skilled labour, the impact of high housing costs, supporting the growth of small business in B.C., improving the financial literacy of B.C.’s youth and enhancing productivity.

First, I’ll begin by addressing the labour market. In the coming years, B.C.’s labour market will be affected by two major trends: an aging population and an emerging knowledge economy. According to the B.C. 2022 Labour Market Outlook, B.C. will have to fill one million job openings between 2012 and 2022, and nearly 670,000 of these will be due to retirements. We’re also witnessing a shift to more knowledge-intensive jobs, and it is estimated that three-quarters of new job openings will require post-secondary education.

We are very conscious of the labour market projections for our own profession. Our research has concluded that we need to produce almost 1,300 new CPAs annually for the next ten years just to sustain the capacity within the province. We are working with post-secondary institutions and our employer partners to grow the profession and meet the needs of our economy.

In addition to labour shortages, geography and skills mismatches also pose a challenge. For example, it’s estimated that the LNG projects could generate up to 100,000 jobs between 2012 and 2022, which greatly exceeds the current labour force in the regions of the province like the north, where many of the individuals who live there do not have the skills that are in demand. In addition, underemployment of educated workers is an ongoing issue.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that labour and skills shortages cost the provincial economy up to $6 billion in forgone gross domestic product and $785 million in tax revenues. To address the situation, CPABC recommends that the B.C. government expand current initiatives that support education and skills training,
[ Page 1705 ]
such as the Canada-B.C. job grant, and that government should also promote existing programs, such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s express-entry program, to address temporary labour supply challenges.

I’d now like to discuss the high cost of housing, which our members continue to cite as presenting a challenge for business, which we raised in our submission last year. In July 2015, the average home price in B.C. surpassed $600,000, which was an 11 percent increase on the average price in July 2014. By comparison, the national average price was about $437,000.

This problem is particularly acute in Vancouver, which ranked as one of the three least affordable major markets in the world for the seventh year in a row. It’s also important to note that renters are facing rising rental prices and low vacancy rates.

There are many theories regarding B.C.’s skyrocketing housing prices, but to ensure that B.C. remains an affordable place for people to live and work, it’s important to conduct research to determine whether there are ways to mitigate this situation.

We recommend that the government begin collecting data to monitor the flow of foreign investment in housing, which would help policy-makers identify the root cause of rising housing costs and determine whether it’s appropriate to regulatory matters that can be taken. In addition, we should look to other jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Australia, to address the policies that they have brought into place to try and address the issue.

The small business sector. We commend the B.C. government for introducing measures to support small business. However, more can be done to encourage business expansion.

The mobile business licence is instrumental in reducing red tape. It could be expanded to more regions across the province. Expanding the program to more regions will help businesses in remote areas and easily operate across communities. Given the economic growth that is taking place in the resource sector, this could help small businesses by playing a supporting role as suppliers or contractors at various sites around the region.

Beyond reducing red tape, our members have told us it is increasingly important for businesses in different industries to collaborate with one another. The government can better support business growth by fostering a dialogue between different industries in various regions of B.C.

We recommend the government promote the creation of mobile business licences in all eight development regions and encourage the consolidation of licences where possible.

We also think the government should work with the Small Business Roundtable and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to create forums for businesses to collaborate, discuss challenges facing their local economy and discover the potential for innovation across sectors.

Economic growth is important, as is reining in rising consumer debt, which is not only an issue for individuals but also for the economy as a whole. During the last five years, B.C.’s consumer debt per capita increased nearly 48 percent to more than $58,000, the highest in Canada.

I’m pleased to report that CPA Canada has taken the lead in this important issue through its community connect program. This is a national financial literacy initiative that includes 11,000 professional accountants who are trained to conduct free financial seminars and to help Canadians gain the skills and the knowledge required to make better financial decisions.

We will also be working with the Canada Revenue Agency to develop new sessions on tax literacy for students. We believe that if British Columbians, particularly our youth, can improve their financial literacy, they can reduce their debt, which ultimately creates a healthier economy.

To support this goal, we call on the B.C. government to encourage private, public and government partnerships to bring real-life experience into the classroom. The provincial government can also work with CPA Canada’s community connect program to integrate financial literacy into its secondary education curriculum and bring experts in to speak to senior students.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mr. Rees, you’re past your ten minutes. You’re welcome to continue, but I do have three questioners.

On the matter of housing, you made some comments. It seems to me that the institute would be very well placed because of your profession and your breadth and scope throughout the economy — not just British Columbia but nationally and internationally.

Has any intentional research been done? Have you gone down that path to provide, from an accounting perspective, thoughts on some ways for government to consider, in regards to housing?

R. Rees: Not terribly formally. I think it’s actually a bit of a surprise to us that when we ask our members what the biggest issues are that are facing their businesses…. When they say it’s the ability to recruit people from out of province, that’s not what you hear when you read the paper.

There was a whole thing about the property purchase tax in the papers on the weekend. The focus, generally, is on the fact that our kids can’t afford…. Where do they live? I’ve got two kids in their 20s, so I know all about it.
[ Page 1706 ]

To actually then hear…. The message we wanted to bring to you is that it’s actually businesses that are suffering, as well, in their inability to bring technical people in.

It’s interesting again…. The whole question about the property purchase tax comes up and was in the papers on the weekend. My own view on that is that if you reduce the property purchase tax, all that would happen is that the government would get less money and the prices would stay the same. It’s a market-driven thing. People are spending as much as they can on their housing, because they have to have somewhere to live.

The observation that I think I’d leave with you, though, is that it’s clear when you look…. The New Yorker estimated that there are eight markets in the world that have this problem of foreign investment in real estate. Vancouver is one of them. The other seven have all done something.

What they’ve tended to do is that they’ve come up with things where they actually levy — whether it’s more property taxes, more property purchase tax or stamp duty, as it’s called in Australia and Hong Kong. They say: “If you want to come and invest in real estate here and you’re not going to be a resident, we expect you to pay more.”

Again, when you’re trying to then look at the government’s objective, I think, of trying to make housing more affordable for British Columbians, particularly at the lower end, maybe there is some way of generating some money there that could help. I know the problem that you have is the fact that if you reduced tax, if you don’t get it back, you have to reduce programs.

In northern B.C., the northern three-quarters of the province…. B.C. is a very urbanized province. Eighty-five percent of our population lives down here. We have a lot of trouble attracting the technologists, the engineers and the professional people. A lot of them live down here and will commute to Prince George or Fort St. John or wherever they might have to do a job, which adds costs to the contract because, of course, whoever hires them ends up paying that fee in the first place.

That’s problematic for us. We’ve got low-cost housing up there in comparison to down here. We’ve got education. We’ve got all of the facilities up there, but everybody wants to congregate here on the Lower Mainland.

I’m interested in your comment about mobile business licences, because that might perpetuate this problem that we have here. What do you mean by mobile business licences?

R. Rees: It’s the fact that if you’re operating a business in B.C. and you have to have a business licence, it’s municipality by municipality. Basically, it means that a lot of small businesses have a licence in one community. They may get offered work in the next one, but they can’t legally operate there, technically. That’s the whole thing that stops people moving across these borders within British Columbia.

I guess it’s almost…. Free trade or labour mobility in business licences would be a good idea. If the municipalities could agree on a standard and issue business licences on a consistent standard so that the one that you had in Kelowna would let you go and work in Vernon, that would be a good idea. I don’t know whether that’s a good example.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Unfortunately, long answers and long questions have led us to run out of time.I just checked with the Clerk. If I could ask George to ask your question and, Mr. Rees, if you can answer it in writing, the committee can get a copy of your answer later.

The first is: do you think there’s a qualitative difference between foreign non-resident home purchasers and non-resident home purchasers — period?

The second question is: Do you think the only area in B.C. that needs to be addressed is Metro Vancouver?

S. Hamilton (Chair): If you’d take that on notice and get that back to the committee, we can….

S. Hamilton (Chair): You’ve got lots of time to think about it. October 15. Thank you very much.

Could I ask the Capilano Students Union — Taylor Wilson — to come forward, please, and provide us with your presentation? As you’re walking up, I’ll remind you. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a two-minute heads-up and then cut you off or give you notice that you’re cutting into your question time. Then we’ll have five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

T. Wilson: First off, I just want to thank you all for letting me speak here. I know you guys have a ton of people coming in, so we really appreciate you guys listening to us.

As you can probably tell by my nice little placard here, my name is Taylor Wilson, and I represent the Capilano Students Union. That name most likely gives away that I represent students at Capilano University.

Now, Capilano is the only university on the North Shore. A communal hub, the university has had speakers on campus like the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, Justin Trudeau and even Ryan Reynolds and has hosted events like all-
[ Page 1707 ]
candidates forums for municipal and federal elections. Some of the courses offered at Cap include the award-winning and internationally renowned tourism management program, as well as my area of study — film, which boasts an 85 percent employment rate in B.C.’s film industry in the six months following graduation.

After four years at Capilano, I have learned it’s a special school. With a focus on on-the-job training and career placement, programs like these set Capilano apart from its contemporaries, such as UBC and SFU. Its enrolment is in the realm of around 7,500 students, comparable in size to UBCO, UNBC or Okanagan College.

I speak of these schools specifically, because, despite having similar enrolment, if not lower than Capilano’s, they have housing and residences that Capilano University lacks. This is especially egregious because of the current housing situation in the Lower Mainland. As we all know, the literature surrounding affordable housing in Vancouver is numerous — with some stats, like one-bedroom vacancy rates in North Vancouver hovering around 1.5 percent.

Specifically for students, the Capilano Students Union did its own study in 2014 and found that of the 600 students surveyed, 70 percent of renters are housing-insecure. Furthermore, despite being a communal hub, 57 percent of students commute from outside the North Shore for more affordable municipalities like Surrey or Langley. According to TransLink, the 130 bus, which goes from Metrotown to Capilano, is the seventh most overcrowded bus in Vancouver.

Unfortunately, the lack of housing at Cap especially affects international students. As we all know, an increase in international student enrolment is one of the tenets of this government’s strategic plan. We know that Minister Wilkinson went to Asia with a consortium of university presidents in the hopes of attracting international students, and Cap has the Wong and Trainor centre for international experience, specifically designed to assist international students and build relationships with domestic ones.

Not having residences just creates even more barriers for these international students — the only remedy of which is our own CSU housing registry or Craigslist, and Craigslist is terrifying if you’re just leaving home and entering a new city, let alone a new country. I know I did it, and I ended up having a roommate who reminded me of Norman Bates in Psycho, if Norman Bates never paid rent and tried to scam me. It was not fun.

In closing, we desperately need residence buildings on campus, and, as it will allow for higher international students and better enrolment numbers, and thus by extension, in the B.C. jobs blueprint, we believe it’s in the best interests of this government to assist us. We’re not asking for UBC Vancouver’s gigantic Totem Park or the residence halls you might find at UVic, but something similar in nature to the Neyoh building at UNBC or the Purcell House at UBCO — again, schools with similar enrolment rates as Cap. Cap supports it. The CSU supports it. The District of North Vancouver supports it, and even developers see the value of it.

In June, I was lucky enough to join my colleague in discussions with Oliver Webbe, the president of Darwin properties in North Vancouver. He himself had a proposal for hypothetical market housing on campus, and I’ve even attached it in my slide show on page 5, so it can be done. We have the property for it. Seeing how positive a response we got from that small Darwin example, there’s even an opportunity for public-private partnership, saving this government money, because that’s what we’re all about, right? We just need your help.

If I could be specific, we have five major asks. We strongly hope that you will consider all of them, a combination or even just one.

First is to gain permission from the Ministry of Advanced Education to build residences on campus.

The second is to allow Cap to borrow money for the purposes of establishing housing on campus, which would fall in line with the University Act in which, as we all know, subsection 58(1) reads that “a university may borrow money for the purpose of (a) purchasing or otherwise acquiring land for the use of the university, or (b) erecting, repairing, adding to, furnishing or equipping any building or other structure for the use of the university.”

Third is to have the government collaborate with the university to build residences on campus; fourth, to allow the university to access its reserves for the purpose of building affordable housing; and finally, fifth, to consider allowing Capilano to enter into a public-private partnership in order to build housing.

That’s about all I have. I hope I came in under my time, but if not, I’m willing to pay the late fee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well done, Mr. Wilson. Yes, you came significantly in under your time, and in plenty of time — that much more time for questions, and that’s just fine. And we have some.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for a very clear presentation. I appreciate it. You’ve answered one of my questions, which was around land and whether there’s land available. But I wonder…. You have stats in here. Around 57 percent of students commute to the North Shore. Do you have a percentage of the number of students at Cap who come from outside the Lower Mainland, who may be from other parts of B.C. or other…?

T. Wilson: I don’t have that off the top of my head. I can only offer anecdotal evidence. I know in my program, specifically, I would estimate maybe 20 percent to 30 percent come from outside of Cap. It goes back to those
[ Page 1708 ]
special programs we have, like film, that ultimately end up dragging the students in from all over the province.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I would imagine it would be a high number because of the specialty areas in the university. If you have any stats around there, if you can send them, that would be great. Thank you. I appreciate it.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much and, again, a very good presentation. I’ve got a couple of quick questions.

Do you have any figures on the percentage of students’ income that is going on market housing at the moment? Secondly, are you keeping any stats on the dropout rate of students who are just so pressured because they can’t deal with the housing crunch that they’re facing? My third one, which I must say is a completely naive question given your presentation: there is absolutely no student housing at Cap college at the moment?

In regards to your first one, we found in that survey that, I think it was, about 70 percent was housing insecure. Housing insecure is quite often thrown around a lot. It’s hard to define. In this particular survey, they looked at 30 percent of your income going specifically to housing. As I recall, in that survey, they ended up with…. I think it was 30 or 40 percent that…. It was actually 50 percent or more going to housing. But I would have to get those exact stats for you, which I can totally do.

C. Trevena: The dropout rate. Are you keeping any stats on people who drop out because of accommodation?

T. Wilson: We do have those statistics. Again, I don’t have those off the top of my head. It’s an unfortunate fact that it’s been quite a constant on campus, that people just can’t afford to go to Cap, despite having one of the lowest tuition rates in the province.

C. Trevena: It’s got low tuition, but the housing costs are really pushing people out, even though the low tuition.

J. Yap: A great presentation, very focused. On the question of public-private partnerships to build housing…. I think that’s a great idea. The challenge, as you may have heard, is the impact on provincial debt. Like any other university, Capilano University’s debt would be included in the province’s debt.

I’m wondering if you and other colleagues have given some thought to creative ways for addressing this issue. That, to me, is ultimately the challenge. Any thoughts on that?

T. Wilson: Definitely. One of the things, as you know, with the University Act is that unless we have permission from the Ministry of Advanced Education, we can’t access our reserves. And we access our reserves if we end up in a deficit. We would have to get special permission from the Ministry of Advanced Education to allow us to go into a deficit, to access those reserves. That’s just one option regarding how we can deal with the debt issue. It’s definitely a big thing on our minds.

J. Yap: Just a quick follow-up. The reserves — are they at a level sufficient to help with funding for a housing project?

T. Wilson: They can definitely help. I specifically recall the one at Purcell house at UBCO. I think that ended up costing $16 million. In our reserves, we have $8 million, so it’s a fair chunk.

S. Gibson: Thank you for your presentation. If this was built out to its fullest size, what percentage of students enrolled in Capilano University would be resident in these buildings?

T. Wilson: Approximately, I would say maybe 30 percent. I’d say 30 to 40 percent of Capilano students would be willing to move into residences.

S. Gibson: I have taught at UFV, which is a sister university, and we got residence late. It’s only a very small percentage of students who actually use the residence, as you probably know.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee. And we exercised brevity. This is fantastic. You were concise. We got all the information we needed.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Thank you again. We appreciate you taking the time.

Welcome, Mr. Wilson. As I’ve said to others, ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute heads-up, if you’re getting close, so you can wrap up your thoughts, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.
[ Page 1709 ]

Hon. Members of the Finance Committee, good morning. My name is Greg Wilson. I am the director of government relations for B.C. for the Retail Council of Canada. RCC has been the voice of retail since 1963. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the retail community.

As I’m sure you know, retail is the largest private sector employer. More than 2.2 million Canadians, about 300,000 British Columbians, work in retail. Retail sales in British Columbia have continued in a positive direction this year. However, because most consumer goods are purchased from suppliers in U.S. dollars, consumer prices will inevitably rise, which will impact the most vulnerable households. This has the prospect of impacting sales in coming months.

I thank you for the opportunity to outline the retail perspective while you’re developing your recommendations for the 2015-2016 budget. Retail strives for transparency and simplicity when passing costs imposed by government along to consumers. The PST exemption for children’s clothing and footwear is a burden for retail operations and creates risk for the protection of consumers’ personal information. Once again, I want to point out that the exemption favours consumers who are in a position to spend the most on clothing, either buying more clothing or more expensive clothing.

You will appreciate that apparel retailers have limited capacity to determine whether children’s clothing in adult sizes is in fact being purchased for use by a child. The large majority of consumers are undoubtedly being honest when claiming the exemption for children’s clothing in adult sizes, but there is an undeniable risk of the exemption being granted inappropriately in some cases and consequent revenue leakage for the B.C. government.

Completing the paperwork for the exemption creates a problem for retailers and consumers alike, as the necessary certification is generally completed at a busy point of sale. It creates a further obligation for retailers, as these receipts must be retained and stored.

We recommend that government address this issue by limiting the exemption to children’s sizes. Either increasing the sales tax credit or early childhood tax benefit would provide more targeted relief to families in need while reducing both inequities and the cost of the current exemption.

Finally, retail encourages the government to continue work to harmonize regulations between municipalities and provinces and reduce internal barriers to trade between provinces. These measures not only reduce the cost and paper burden of doing business; they also create jobs and improve the sale of Canadian products in our home marketplace. Such harmonization is topical amidst the debate surrounding the Ontario retirement pension plan and the federal election–time discussion about the Canada Pension Plan.

We encourage British Columbia to work to address issues surrounding pension adequacy through negotiations with the federal government and other provinces to improve the Canada Pension Plan rather than going off on our own.

As employers, retail is acutely aware of the cumulative impact of payroll taxes and continues to urge government to carefully consider those costs. Nonetheless, we advocate measured and planned changes to the Canada Pension Plan over a number of years to address the issues surrounding pension adequacy. It is fairer, simpler and more effective to alter the Canada Pension Plan rather than creating separate pension plans for each of the 13 provinces and territories.

We can also improve the experience of youth in our job market. An age or experience threshold for public pensions would help protect jobs for youth. The basic income threshold could be higher than the $3,500, where it has been unchanged for 20 years, enabling university students working during the summer to retain more of their earnings. The adequacy-of-pension issue is important for our society and, as corporate citizens, important for our long-term prospects.

British Columbians and our largest employer sector, retail, will benefit from a continuance of your efforts to manage the cost of government. The strong retail economy is an engine of job creation in British Columbia. We in retail have benefited from this growth in recent years, and we continue to contribute to the benefit of B.C.’s economic growth.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson, for that. I will go to the committee.

I’m trying to think of the issue you raised initially, about children’s clothing and the paperwork burden. You mentioned a kind of twofold process. One would be a size category, and the other would be a tax credit that presumably would be claimed during income tax filing.

G. Wilson: As it stands, there’s an exemption from the provincial sales tax when you pay for children-sized clothing or clothing for children, and footwear. Essentially, that’s administered at the retail cash desk, so there’s a risk, at that point, of leakage of personal information. I know that other privacy officers across the country share our concern about that sort of leakage of information.

The larger issue is whether it’s really, truly efficient. It’s not, in our opinion, serving what the societal goal here is, which is to reduce the impact of the provincial sales tax on low-income households. Instead, it’s benefiting those who buy the most or the most expensive clothing.
[ Page 1710 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Let me ask about beverages that may not be so good for children. We had an earlier presenter suggest that the PST should be added to sugary beverages. I’m just curious. Do you have any thoughts on that?

On the pension question, thank you for your remarks around public pensions. I’m just curious. What more do you think the B.C. government needs to be doing to help push along the pension issue?

G. Wilson: Well, I think that there’s probably the opportunity after the election to revisit this issue with the federal government. We’d encourage British Columbia to do that.

What’s happening in other provinces isn’t working for either the efficiency of the economy or for pension-age Canadians in other jurisdictions. Inevitably, it’s going to be most unfair to people in the smallest, least populous provinces. Plus, to us, it’s a readily apparent concept to most Canadians that it’s simply simpler for Canadians and for businesses to file to one pension plan.

Your other question was about sugary beverages and what have you. Retailers do work with governments on this issue. Most of this work is, in fact, done with the federal government. But Ontario, for example, has a proposal to change these things. To us, the relevant issue is really about consumer labelling.

I don’t know that we have a concern, particularly, about how the labelling varies from province to province but more a question of effectiveness. Is the current labelling effective? There’s an amount of evidence that it’s not effective. The difficulty is that Canadians and Canadian governments are interested in changes from time to time and the current labelling addresses concerns of 20 years ago. The labelling hasn’t altered in that time.

One of the questions and discussions that came up out of the most recent quarterly report for the province was the increase in government revenue from retail sales, which seemed kind of counterintuitive when you looked at the growth numbers. Even the Finance Minister mentioned that, as well — that he felt that a little more work needed to be done on that particular piece.

I think there’s been discussion about, perhaps more U.S. tourism coming up and buying, perhaps less cross-border shopping with people going down south. I just wondered whether you had any insights from your perspective on those numbers.

G. Wilson: It’s timely. We recently, last week, released our fall Retail Conditions Report. We surveyed members who operate, collectively, more than 10,000 stores across the country. It’s a voluntary survey, so just because of size it has more relevance, but it’s not necessarily statistically accurate.

The evidence suggests that in fact cross-border shopping…. While it’s gone down, it’s not as dramatic as is represented in the public sphere. In fact, what’s happened, more likely, is that Canadians, instead of travelling to the U.S., are travelling to other parts of Canada, and more Americans are coming here.

But year over year in British Columbia, retail sales are consistently being up 5 percent. That’s a good number. You do wonder whether that’s sustainable.

J. Yap: Thanks, Greg, for your presentation. On the issue of the children-sized clothing, I can appreciate it would be very frustrating for your members. What is the extent of the audit process and the enforcement that’s going on? I imagine that you probably have some anecdotes, and maybe even some survey information, on how this is affecting new members.

G. Wilson: We, obviously, have new stores opening and new stores coming to British Columbia, and it’s interesting when they experience this, because they’re coming to British Columbia, where this system is different than in other jurisdictions.

They find it odd. Of course, they’re trying to come up with ways of collecting the tax and implementing the exemption electronically, but they’re, of course, left with the obligation to retain paperwork for the province.

The most interesting thing for my members is that we can’t even learn from the Ministry of Finance what the impact of the exemption is. So if we knew what the impact of the exemption was, we could, perhaps, suggest how one could change the sales tax credit or what have you to offset the removal of the exemption.

D. Ashton: Mr. Wilson, thank you for your presentation. Just quickly. Independent retailers as opposed to chain retailers — what are you noticing these days?

G. Wilson: Independent stores…. Like most of our large and medium stores, the impact is very different in the community in which they’re operating. Independent retail is very strong in the Lower Mainland but more challenged in areas in the Interior, small communities such as Penticton.

There’s a greater challenge for those retailers. They’re having greater difficulty competing with some of the….
[ Page 1711 ]

G. Wilson: No, more the variety of products that people can purchase on line. They have concerns about impending changes to de minimis levels. It’s a federal issue. But for the importation of goods that come through the post or by courier…. They’re concerned about those issues. They’re concerned about cost issues, obviously — deeply concerned about cost issues.

D. Ashton: Thank you. Just finally, the area you mentioned, Penticton, is kind of the centre of the wine-growing area, and we have great difficulty getting our product interprovincially. I know that your help would be greatly appreciated in any way, at least in planting the seed, because it does make a difference.

We can put wine into Europe or wine into Asia quicker, and it’s more financially beneficial to the growers. However, they do want to ship across Canada. But the barriers that they reach are just absolutely incredible.

G. Wilson: As there are barriers in British Columbia to the sale in grocery stores. We’ve had this argument with other provinces. We do favour the removal of those barriers, as we favour the removal of the barriers that artificially restrict where Canadians can purchase your products.

C. Trevena: Two quick questions. On the children’s clothing issue, is B.C. the only province that has this exemption? The second one, while you consider that, is the response to Dan’s question about shopping on line. Is it possible to track how much business is being done on line rather than in person, in stores, or is that just a quantifiable nightmare?

G. Wilson: The first question is most of the provinces that did have that exemption…. There were a few provinces that did have a similar exemption. It disappeared when they went to the harmonized tax. It’s just odd in British Columbia because you have this children’s purchase of adult-sized clothing.

With respect to the…. I’m just trying to get the second part of your question again.

C. Trevena: It was to be able to quantify the amount that’s going on line rather than….

G. Wilson: On-line sales. About 50 percent of retail businesses do on-line sales under 3 percent of their total sales. For the largest seven Canadian retailers, their on-line sales equal those of eBay and Amazon in Canada. You have a situation where, over time, what’s happened is that the largest retailers are able to compete.

This is generally how I react to these questions surrounding the difference between independent and medium and large members. Independent members will adjust, but it will take longer for them to adjust. This is probably why they have some alarm over increasing availability of on-line sales should the de minimis level rise.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Lots of good questions, lots of good answers, and right on 15 minutes.

We now have the Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres — Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte.

Mariane, welcome. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention and give you two minutes so you that can wrap up, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Thank you very much for having me here today. It’s the third presentation I’ve given to the committee on behalf of the Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres. We really appreciate these public consultations.

Today I’m giving the brief on behalf of the Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres, which I’ll be referring to as PAARC, and on behalf of its 30 member associations, which are artist-run centres located in Vancouver, Victoria, Kamloops, Kelowna and Nelson.

The Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres represents artist-run centres in British Columbia. Artist-run centres are non-profit organizations working in the fields of visual and media arts that present non-commercial and experimental artwork. They are geared towards the benefits of the practising artist.

Artists-run centres support professional artists at all stages of their careers, pay professional artist fees and employ cultural workers and administrators. Since the early 1970s, artist-run centres in Canada have formed regional, national and international networks, and the majority of Canada’s internationally recognized visual and media artists have emerged from the artist-run centre movement.

Artist-run centres provide essential services to members of the cultural community. These services are fostered through peer-to-peer engagement, including socioprofessional networking opportunities and access to artistic distribution and production resources. Artist-run centres constitute key components of the Canadian visual arts system. They provide community engagement programs and activities, support the development of artists and cultural workers’ careers and foster artistic innovation.

B.C. artist-run centres are thriving, but they are underfunded. The B.C. artist-run community is one of the most active and most recognized in Canada. The Canada Council for the Arts has recently recognized the quality of activities of B.C. artist-run centres.

In 2014, the Canada Council for the Arts restructured its support to artist-run centres program, with the impact
[ Page 1712 ]
that many centres across the country saw their operating funding cut and allocated to other centres. B.C. was the only province that did not see any of its member centres cut and actually saw one new member enter the funding pool. We think this testifies to the vitality and quality of programming that our members produce and showcase.

The Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres recently commissioned a provincewide sectoral study to analyze the impacts of recent changes to provincial cultural policies and funding instruments on British Columbia artist-run centres and their ability to remain financially and operationally viable while maintaining their core values and mandates.

The results of this study demonstrate that surveyed institutions, while pursuing their specific practices, are responding to a number of constraints, including the historical trajectory of artist-run culture, the requirements of institutionalization for securing funding and long-term stability and satisfying demands of their region and surrounding communities.

In this regard, we would like to highlight the high level of adaptability that artist-run centres demonstrate as they develop innovative frameworks to serve artists, grow and put forward cultural production in the province and meaningfully engage communities. We believe that artist-run centres, being flexible organizations that foster artistic experimentation and community partnerships, may serve as examples of innovative and adaptable arts organizations.

Artist-run centres are spaces with capacities to adapt to the changing needs of the communities they serve by fostering new models of artistic production and new types of institutional collaborations. Artist-run centres allow for the possibility of developing or incubating new practices and encounters across cultural practitioners, artistic practices and audiences.

Organizationally, this manifests through facilitating artist practices, educating and cultivating discourse around artistic practices and developing audiences for artists’ work — for example, through artists’ talks, publications, web applications and interorganizational partnerships. We believe this is really vital to bring cultural products outside of the province’s territory.

B.C. artists are actively involved in national and international networks of like-minded organizations. The international distribution of artists’ films and videos and participation in national and international book fairs, for example, are concrete examples of the ways in which artist-run centres contribute to growing audiences for the work of B.C. artists outside of the territory.

Artist-run centres work toward adequate pay for curatorial and administrative staff, in addition to being committed to paying artists equitably for the work they accomplish. Artist-run centres abide by national payment fee schedules and advocate on behalf of artists with continued necessity to remunerate professional artists for the work they accomplish.

Artist-run centres also provide mentorship and stewardship for younger artists and cultural workers. Many centres in the province have youth-engagement programs and collaborate with local universities to expand their curricula by offering internships and practicum opportunities. In the last years, many of our centres have benefited from the B.C. Arts Council early career development programs.

The current challenges that artist-run centres face right now. They are underfunded in B.C. in comparison to other Canadian artist-run centres. Between 2008 and 2013, median provincial funding attributed to B.C. artist-run centres was, on average, $21,000 under the Canadian median. Between 2008 and 2014, PAARC members gaming grant averages decreased by $9,837. This represents a 26 percent decrease in funding.

Operating funding from the B.C. Arts Council represents between 9 and 12 percent of artist-run centres’ total public-sector revenue. This percentage is lower than any other province in which comparable data is available. For example, in Ontario, these funds represent between 19 and 23 percent of artist-run centres’ total public-sector revenue.

Finally, less than half of the organizations that we represent as an umbrella organization received operating funding from the B.C. Arts Council in 2014-15.

Low levels of operating support for artist-run centres have resulted in a high level of dependence on project money, which cannot be applied to support ongoing projects and initiatives and does not allow organizations to count on the stability needed to develop organizational capacities and, in turn, long-term stability.

For those organizations in our membership with operating funding, many indicate that more operating funds are needed to grow the directorship and staff positions, to provide incremental increases to wages and to work towards a livable wage.

To this effect, we believe that increased funding to the arts is aligned with economic priorities that have been identified by the current government — notably, the creation of sustainable jobs and investment in sectors that actively participate in the knowledge economy.

British Columbia is the Canadian province with the highest number of working artists, 1.8 percent of the province’s labour force. The city of Vancouver is the Canadian metropolis with the highest percentage of artists, 2.3 percent of its labour force. B.C. is second in rank among the provinces, with 3.65 percent of its labour force being comprised of cultural workers. Together, artists and cultural workers account for 5.45 percent of the province’s total labour force.

Accordingly, we urge you to set in place measures that will incite artists to continue producing and presenting work in B.C. by increasing funding to the B.C. Arts
[ Page 1713 ]
Council core budget and to gaming community grants to organizations and also by increasing funding to artists and cultural producers themselves.

Artists are essential to the vitality of the province’s cultural sector, but they suffer from economic precarity. The average earnings of working artists are 37 percent below the Canadian labour force average, and 48 percent of artists in Vancouver have higher-education degrees, but their median yearly income is evaluated at $12,900. Lack of funding stability, notably through community gaming grants, is of concern to our members. We believe that a three-year model for the attribution of funds would help secure organizations’ activities and continued development.

At present, we are also particularly concerned that planned changes to the operating funding to visual arts organizations program at the B.C. Arts Council may have the impact of reducing the support that our member organizations receive. In the next funding round, this program’s eligibility criteria will be open to a wider range of organizations. We therefore anticipate an increased number of applications to this program. However, the program’s total allocations will not be increased.

We welcome the support of a more varied range of organizations receiving funding, but we fear that increasing the number of potential applicants to this program without increasing the program’s budget is counteractive of sustaining growth in the sector. This is a concrete example that demonstrates the need to increase overall funding to the B.C. Arts Council.

Following this presentation, the recommendations that we’d like to make this year are in concordance with those of our colleagues at the ProArt Alliance in Victoria, whom you’ve heard from, and of the B.C. members of the Independent Media Arts Alliance. Recommendation No. 1 is to increase the budget of the B.C. Arts Council to $32 million, with a plan to increase the council’s legislated appropriate investment to $40 million over the next two-year period. The second recommendation is to increase community gaming grants to organizations from $135 million to $156 million in 2016-17.

Another recommendation is to provide stable, predictable funding for the arts sector by instating three-year funding cycles through the community gaming process and B.C. Arts Council operating grants. We also believe that the government should develop a capital program, similar to the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Canada cultural spaces fund, to help organizations purchase, improve and maintain or expand venues for art, culture and community.

I would like to thank you for listening to these recommendations and also to thank the committee for the recommendations that it has made to the last two budgets. I’ll just read to you the recommendation that was made last year — and we hope that you instate this year again: “In recognition of the economic benefits and jobs created by a vibrant arts and culture sector, the committee recommends increasing arts funding through the B.C. Arts Council and community gaming grants, and implementing a multi-year funding model.” This is our hope for this year again.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. You’ve gone one minute into the question period time. We won’t have as much time, but that’s okay. You wanted to finish your thoughts.

E. Foster: Thank you very much for your presentation again this year. I guess I’m just going to ask a question on the gaming grants — your request to increase your share of the gaming grants. On the gaming grants, there’s a top. If we recommend that we give more money to one organization, who do you suggest we take it away from?

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: We recommend that you increase the gaming grant allocations as a whole.

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Well, I don’t think that there should be any cuts to other organizations. We’re not saying that we’re better than any other sector.

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Well, the B.C. government has predicted surpluses for the next fiscal years up until the end of its term, so we do believe the there is some money to be played with in that area.

S. Gibson: Thank you for your presentation. I think we all realize that arts are an important element of a modern society. What percentage of your budget is raised through fundraising, approximately, through donors?

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Through the private sector? That varies from organization to organization. The model that is aimed for is 33 percent federal funding, 33 percent provincial funding and 33 percent private revenue and earned revenue. We don’t have numbers for B.C. artist-run centres in that case, but I believe that it’s around that. Organizations would tend to aim for that.

The figures that you give regarding artists’ income — obviously, they’re low, but my understanding is that virtually every artist has other income. They have other jobs. I’m not saying that you’re being misleading, but to state the income that an artist receives understates their overall income, in my view.
[ Page 1714 ]

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: That understates the overall income. However, those numbers were from 2006, and those aren’t the only numbers that we have — Statistics Canada and then a health strategy 2011 study. They are perhaps a bit outdated.

I agree with you that most artists are forced to have other jobs. However, I think that this is counteractive of the discourse that the province has been putting forward in the last years, particularly linking the knowledge economy, the creative economy, to the B.C. jobs plan — increasing funding to Emily Carr for a new campus.

There is a sense that the province does fund education, youth engagement with early career development programs, which are fantastic. As I mentioned in my speech, a lot of our members have benefited from B.C. Arts Council early career development programs. But afterwards, there is a sense that there is a big drop, that artists that are engaging in the beginning of their careers are not supported, cannot viably make a living here from their work. Same thing with cultural workers.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mariane, I’ll stop you. We’ve got one minute left, less than a minute.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you. My understanding is that the statistics on artists’ incomes actually include all of their income. At least, the statistics I’ve read include their incomes, whether it be from landscaping, gardening, whatever. But if you’re going to work as an artist, you don’t have a lot of time to do another job at exactly the same time. That’s my understanding.

Just back to the question around gaming, recommending that we move to $156 million. Is it my recollection — and you might be able to help me out here — that $156 million was the total amount of money that the B.C. government used to give to gaming grants back in 2008 before the large-scale cut? And — if you know this or not — I’m pretty sure the B.C. government had a signed agreement with communities and non-profit organizations saying that one-third of gambling revenues would go to charity in this province, yet $156 million is far from one-third.

I think if we were going to get to one-third, the original agreement, it would be $300 million or something more, because gambling revenues have continued to increase in this province. It’s not that we don’t have money from gambling revenues. We have more now than we’ve ever had before. It’s just that we’re giving less now than we ever have before to charity. Is that right?

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: I think that’s right. I wouldn’t be able to give you specific numbers there, but we are advocating for a return and then perhaps an increase to pre-2008 funding. For artist-run centres, I do have a number. Between 2008 and 2014, the members in our association that did receive gaming grants…. Their grants, on average, decreased by $9,837. That represents a 26 percent decrease in funding from 2008 to 2014.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can you send the statistics you had on the impacts? The statistics you used in your presentation — it’d be helpful to know where you got them from.

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Absolutely. We will submit a digital report. Thank you very much for your time.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’re completely out of time. Mariane, thank you. Very tough questions, very eloquent answers. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Here’s someone I’ve been looking forward to hearing from: the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada. Angie Knott, come on up and tell us all about what you’ve got to say. Welcome.

Angie, you’ve got ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a high sign when you’ve got a couple of minutes left, and then we’ll go to questions. Thank you. The floor is yours.

A. Knott: Okay. Thank you very much. This is a brief presented by the Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada on behalf of the patients and families affected by pulmonary hypertension in British Columbia.

The Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada is a federally registered charity. Our mission is to empower the Canadian pulmonary hypertension community through awareness, advocacy, education, research and patient support. We’ve been working to better the lives of Canadians affected by pulmonary hypertension since 2008. We represent the Canadian pulmonary hypertension community, which consists approximately of 5,000 patients, and roughly 600 of those reside in British Columbia.

We provide direct support to our B.C. members through both national programs and through specific programs delivered both in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island, and we collaborate on a regular basis with the B.C. Pulmonary Hypertension Society to serve the province’s pulmonary hypertension community.

Because I suspect none of you have ever heard of pulmonary hypertension before, it is a rare but very complex and serious lung disease which is progressive and
[ Page 1715 ]
fatal. It’s defined by high blood pressure in the lungs, which leads to the enlargement and weakness of the right side of the heart and a serious type of heart failure. It can strike anyone regardless of age, sex, social or ethnic background, although it does tend to prefer women in the prime of their lives.

PH is difficult to diagnose because it shares many of its symptoms with other conditions. Because of this, many people are misdiagnosed. Without treatment, the average life expectancy of somebody living with pulmonary hypertension is less than three years. And ironically, many patients spend two to three years of their life seeking an accurate diagnosis. It’s estimated that approximately 5,000 Canadians have been diagnosed with this disease, but as many as 10,000 may be affected by the condition.

There is no cure for this disease currently, but there are nine PH-specific treatment options that have been approved by Health Canada since 1997. Thanks to these advancements, many PH patients are living longer and healthier lives.

With respect to British Columbia specifically, it’s really impossible to know the exact number of people who suffer with PH in British Columbia. This is something that rare diseases often struggle with because we have no registries. However, given that the province ranks third in the population of Canada, we can suppose that the community of PH patients in B.C. is one of the largest in the country, at approximately 600 patients.

There is only one clinic specializing in the treatment of this disease in B.C., and it is located at the Vancouver General Hospital Lung Centre. Patients who reside outside the Lower Mainland have to travel to Vancouver to receive treatment and be followed by a specialist. Travelling from out of town to receive specialized treatments may obviously put financial strain on patients who are often unable to work as a result of the illness. The situation poses particular hardship to patients living in rural areas, who often cannot afford to travel to see their PH-treating specialist.

Like other rare disease communities, the PH community in B.C. faces many challenges, along with the physical burdens and social impacts associated with living with a chronic and progressive illness. These include limited awareness of the illness, diagnosis delays and uncertain access to the best treatments.

In 2013, PHA Canada commissioned a survey to measure the physical, social and economic impacts of pulmonary hypertension on patients and caregivers. That survey reveals that even with the current available treatment, PH takes a significant physical toll on the vast majority of patients and caregivers, and it really limits their abilities to work and perform everyday activities.

I won’t rattle off all of the statistics. Those are included in your packages. But about 85 percent of patients experience some symptoms or limitations with everyday activities. These include things like climbing a flight of stairs or having difficulty walking a short distance. Some even find it difficult to have a conversation because of the breathlessness they experience.

The caregivers we surveyed spend nearly 50 percent of their time on activities relating to caring for their relative with PH. A major issue that these patients face is also social isolation due to a lack of understanding of the disease.

Our survey results also indicate that living with PH makes it very difficult for patients and their caregivers, many of whom are in their prime earning years, to maintain their employment and financial independence. Nearly 60 percent of those we surveyed reported no longer working or having partially stopped working. Nearly 40 percent of the surveyed caregivers were forced to make changes to their employment to provide for the care of someone living with this disease.

As an organization serving the community, one of our priorities is obviously shortening delays between the appearance of symptoms and a proper diagnosis of the illness. Early treatment slows the progression of the disease. Therefore, often patients are actually able to remain in the workforce, and they feel better for longer.

We’re working with medical professionals all over the country to raise knowledge of the illness within the medical community and to increase public awareness of the symptoms. As I mentioned, it’s a difficult disease to diagnose because it shares so many of the symptoms with other more common conditions. A misdiagnosis of asthma or COPD, even sometimes anxiety, is really common with these patients.

According to our recent survey, in many patients, the time from first symptoms to diagnosis was two years or longer. And 51 percent of the patients we surveyed stated that their family doctor did not initially recognize the symptoms of the disease and thus did not refer them to the proper specialist.

So access to treatment is a big concern for us recently. It’s a concern for patients in B.C. As I mentioned, since 1997, nine specific treatments have been approved in Canada. Thanks to these treatments, patients are living longer and healthier lives. As I said, untreated — two to three years. On average we’re seeing about seven to nine years of life on treatment, and many are living longer than that.

However, despite these available treatments, rates of hospitalization have increased by 44 percent during the past decade. Effectively one-third of patients surveyed through our burden-of-illness research report feeling that there are insufficient medication options to optimally manage their disease. Thankfully, there are new and innovative therapies available in Canada, and there are many under investigation as well.

We are particularly concerned about the accessibility of optimal treatment options for PH patients in B.C. who
[ Page 1716 ]
suffer from two particular types of pulmonary hypertension. One is called pulmonary arterial hypertension, or PAH. The other is called chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, or CTEPH.

With respect to PAH, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CADTH, recently released something called the therapeutic review recommendation report of drugs for PAH. The final recommendations of this report seek to severely restrict physicians’ ability, at diagnosis, to exercise their individual clinical judgment essential to the best treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. PAH is a rare type of pulmonary hypertension, affecting approximately 15 in every million Canadians.

The report specifically recommends an initial trial with one class of PH drugs called phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, or PDE5s, for newly diagnosed patients who are assessed in functional class 2 or 3. Although this therapy as a front-line approach may be effective for some PAH patients as a standard first-line approach, it cannot be recommended or justified for the appropriate care of PH patients. Just like any disease, individual management of these patients — especially because the disease is rapidly progressive — is crucial.

We’re concerned that the CADTH recommendations for a stepped approach to initial therapy can be applied to restrict access to treatment for adult PH patients. If heeded by public drug programs, these recommendations will prevent PAH experts from making prescribing decisions from among all Health Canada–approved therapies for each individual patient to ensure best outcomes for these patients.

This restrictive alignment by CADTH is not acceptable to our community. Moreover, Canadian PAH-treating physicians, including those that care for patients in B.C., are concerned that such uniform and rigid treatment recommendations are not appropriate to look after such seriously ill patients and may actually endanger their lives.

The other issue that we’re facing, particularly in B.C. — in B.C. only, at the moment — is unequal access to CTEPH medication. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension is another serious type of PH. It results from multiple or recurrent blood clots in the lungs, known as pulmonary embolism. The clots and recurring scar tissue limit the flow of blood in the arteries in the lungs. It’s uncommon, but it’s usually progressive and life-threatening, with a poor prognosis both in terms of quality of life and life expectancy.

If left untreated, CTEPH patients have an average survival of only five years. It is the only form of pulmonary hypertension which can potentially be cured through a complex surgical procedure. However, many patients are not surgical candidates or continue to have residual CTEPH post-surgery.

Until recently, there were no treatments at all approved for this particular type of pulmonary hypertension. Adempis is the first and only Health Canada–approved treatment specifically for CTEPH. It has proven efficacy in increasing exercise capacity, improving functional class and improving quality of life in these patients. It represents a much-needed medical treatment option for these patients. It was approved in 2013 following a priority review by Health Canada because it is the first drug indicated to treat inoperable or persistent and recurrent CTEPH after surgery.

B.C. PharmaCare decided not to list Adempis for CTEPH treatment on the public drug formulary, restricting patient access to this drug, which most patients will not be able to afford without public funding.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Ms. Knott, I was desperately trying to get your attention to give you the two minutes, but we’re out of the ten. You can keep going, but it just cuts into question time.

A. Knott: Up until now, eight jurisdictions in Canada have approved this drug, and most of the other ones are expected to do so. B.C. will likely be the only one that has not done it.

We have three recommendations for the committee. Really broadly, PH is one of over 7,000 diagnosed rare diseases in Canada. Rare diseases actually affect 1 in 12 Canadians, which makes it seem a lot larger than one particular disease that only has 600 patients in Canada.

In order to facilitate the diagnosis of PH and other rare diseases, to reduce the delay of effective treatment and to increase life expectancy and quality for these patients, we urge you to set in place measures to facilitate public awareness of rare diseases in B.C. We would suggest that that happen through an increase of resources allocated for promoting rare disease awareness in the province.

The province needs to develop comprehensive programs that will aim to better educate both the general public and the medical community on the realities of living with a rare disease; on the physical, emotional, social and financial strains that rare diseases represent for both patients and caregivers; and on the importance of not minimizing symptoms and of seeking timely medical consultation.

We also encourage the province of British Columbia to disregard the flawed CADTH recommendations, which limit access to PAH treatment and allow for physicians to make those very important, life-saving decisions for the long-term benefit of their patients.

Finally, we strongly urge B.C. PharmaCare to reconsider their decision not to list Adempas on the CTPEH
[ Page 1717 ]
formulary. We call upon PharmaCare to trust the work being done by physicians specialized in this disease, with extensive expertise in the treatment of CTPEH, to determine when Adempas is the right choice for their patients. All patients should have immediate publicly funded access to any and all Health Canada–approved medications.

M. Morris: Great presentation. Having served a three-year term on the Drug Benefit Council reviewing all of the horrendous diseases that we have across Canada and British Columbia and all the new drugs that we have, my impression is that we have a very rigorous drug review program in Canada and British Columbia.

You’ve obviously advocated before the Drug Benefit Council for approval of this drug and weren’t successful. Something that this committee can’t do is interfere with the drug review process here, but I’m curious as to what the reasons were for not covering this.

J. Yap: You mentioned in your presentation that you have approximately 600 patients in B.C. You also mentioned that…. There was another number you said that you didn’t have, but just based on B.C. being third in Canada….

A. Knott: Yeah. The statistics are definitely hard to come by. We use numbers of, basically, me calling the 15 specialized centres in Canada and saying: “How many patients on treatment, roughly, do you have?”

J. Yap: But we don’t know how many could have it and are just not symptomatic yet.

A. Knott: Or downplaying their symptoms. I think we all have a tendency to do this when we experience certain things. We also downplay, on our own, that we should probably go see a doctor.

J. Yap: Would the medical and health care community not be aware that that is an issue for this particular disease?

A. Knott: Because it’s so rare and doctors are often taught to look for more common diseases — it shares symptoms with so many common diseases — it’s often a diagnosis of exclusion. So that diagnosis of exclusion takes a long time.

One of the things we are doing as an association is really focusing on educating medical professionals to consider this disease a little bit earlier in their diagnostic process. Certainly, it’s a challenging disease, just because of the way it comes on — shortness of breath, feeling a little tired. Often people think, “Oh, I’ve put on a couple of pounds. I should probably exercise a little bit more,” and then….

S. Hamilton (Chair): Ms. Knott, I’ll stop you. I’m going to go to Spencer, because we’re out of time.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for your work for people suffering and struggling with PH. A friend was misdiagnosed for years. She let me know about it, and I’m like: “Never heard of this before.” So thank you for speaking up for those who are a very small number but who certainly need the care and attention.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Appreciate that. Thank you very much for your time, Ms. Knott, and for taking the time to present to the committee. That’s great. That’s very informative.

Welcome. As I said, we have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you about a two-minute warning, if you can keep an eye on me, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. So if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

As the representative of the Pacific chapter of the Independent Media Arts Alliance, and also representing VIVO Media Arts Centre, I’m presenting this brief on behalf of the 14 B.C. organizations representing more than 17,000 members in the Pacific IMAA membership. The independent media arts sector in B.C. is characterized by a wide range of practices, practitioners and organizations that are actively involved in the production, presentation and dissemination of independent media artworks.

The term “media arts” applies to all forms of time-related or interactive artworks that are created by the recording of sounds, visual images or the use of new technologies. These artworks are forms of creative expression that encompass the fields of film, audio, video, and digital and electronic arts. The term “independent” means that the artist maintains complete creative control over the work.

The activities of independent media arts organizations across B.C. include hosting exhibitions; organizing festivals and performances; participating in national and international film and video distribution networks; offering training opportunities to artists, community mem-
[ Page 1718 ]
bers and audiences; commissioning and producing new work; and providing access to production equipment and facilities. We also maintain media archives.

In February 2015, the Pacific IMAA released a sectoral research report which drafts a comprehensive portrait of the independent media arts network in the Pacific region. The report sheds light on the context for and scope of activities and independent media art centres in B.C. as well as the challenges that these organizations currently face.

We hereby wish to share some of the key facts and ideas that emerged from this research. We’ll also submit the full report with the submission of a written version of this brief. We believe the assessment the report makes of the current situation of independent media arts centres in B.C. demonstrates the vitality of our network’s contributions to the province’s cultural and creative industry sectors.

Independent media arts centres provide valuable services to media artists and make key contributions to the media arts sector as well as to the artistic sector as a whole. The activities of independent media arts organizations serve as a breeding ground for the development of new media applications and artistic innovation, with direct and indirect effects on the local creative media industry.

Research has revealed that stakeholders highly require the following services from the independent media arts organizations: community building and networking; exhibition and distribution support; education and development opportunities; and access to equipment, production and technical support.

Further, Pacific IMAA member organizations receiving operating funding from the Canada Council for the Arts demarcate themselves at the federal level by averaging high levels of support from the Canada Council for the Arts. Effectively, between 2008 and 2013, average Canada Council operating grants allocated to Pacific IMAA member organizations were consistently the highest in the country and surpassed the Canadian average by about $12,000 annually. This testifies to the quality of these organizations’ activities, to their vitality and to their success in relation to peer organizations in Canada.

To demonstrate the vitality of the B.C. network of independent media arts centres, I would like to share the following statistics. In the last year, in B.C., the network organized over 570 public activities, attracted over 260,000 viewers, presented over 400 new works, supported more than 880 artists, counted over 17,200 memberships, and over 1,300 volunteers donated their time and energy to B.C. independent media arts organizations, clocking in more than 35,500 hours.

Changes in new technology have had significant impacts on media arts centres. In order to remain relevant and to respond to the challenges brought about by changes in new technology, centres are devising strategies to adapt or expand their activities, notably through the expansion of their mandates or areas of focus and through the establishment of partnerships with those in the creative media industries, including for-profit new media companies and higher education organizations.

Independent media arts centres in B.C. are thriving as agents of cultural innovation. However, our network currently faces many challenges due to the changing contexts of operation and low levels of provincial funding.

Research posits that increases in operating funding to media arts organizations from the B.C. Arts Council are a significant need of the sector, both in terms of the value of allocated operating grants and the number of organizations receiving operating funding. Only 57 percent of B.C.-based organizations in the Pacific IMAA membership currently receive operating funding from the B.C. Arts Council.

Research has revealed that, compared to their Canadian counterparts, independent media arts organizations in B.C. are significantly hindered by low levels of support at the provincial level. Financial data analysis has demonstrated that between the fiscal years 2008 and ’13, B.C. media arts organizations’ median total provincial public sector revenues have consistently been considerably below Canadian medians. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, B.C. media arts organizations’ median total provincial revenues were, on average, $25,768 under the Canadian median.

Lack of adequate financial support to independent media arts organizations yields significant challenges in the area of organizational development. Amongst other considerations, these constitute obstacles to the development of collaborative relations with other organizations, the development of activities with potential to increase outreach and earned revenues and the development and implementation of strategies to address changes in new technologies that will ensure B.C. artists have access to modern creative tools of production and dissemination.

It should be noted that operating funding is particularly lacking for the support of indigenous media arts production and dissemination. Support, training and capacity-building in the media arts sector needs a directed, focused discussion around indigenous media arts practices, organizations and future directions.

This measure would be in accordance with the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Effectively, in 2013-2014, none of the organizations that were awarded operating funding or project-based funding by the B.C. Arts Council were focused on developing indigenous media arts production.

Lack of staff is a widespread challenge amongst surveyed centres, with the impact that centres often lack resources to undertake activities with potential to increase outreach, development and earned revenue. Examples of such activities include improving or developing news sections of websites, developing effective social media outreach strategies and implementing marketing and promotion activities.
[ Page 1719 ]

Lack of appropriate space and equipment to undertake activities is a challenge that many of our members face. Many surveyed organizations aspire to own their own facilities in order to ensure the sustainability of their organization, increase their capacities and guarantee that facilities suit the nature of their activities. Further, in order to remain relevant and meet the changing demands of independent media arts producers and audiences, substantial investments in cultural infrastructure are needed to secure both organizational stability and growth.

We thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for taking the time to consider the needs of the independent media arts sector. We also thank the committee for having recommended increases in provincial arts funding for the last two years.

We urge you to maintain your stance on the importance of adequately financing cultural production in the province and join our colleagues of the ProArt Alliance and of the Pacifica Association of Artist Run Centres in making the following recommendations for the 2016 provincial budget.

Increase the budget of B.C. Arts Council to $32 million, with a plan to increase the council’s legislated appropriate investment to $40 million over the following two-year period.

We propose increasing community gaming grants to organizations from $135 million in 2014-15 to $156 million for 2016-17, with the goal of increasing gaming grants steadily in the long term in accordance with the October 31, 2011, Skip Triplett report.

To provide stable, predictable funding for the arts sector, we are asking if the government is considering reinstating the multi-year grant process that existed in the community access grant. The current community gaming grant and B.C. Arts Council streamlined process ease administrative burden and help to provide stability and improved planning to organizations who receive this support.

Using this current short-form application process, we would like you to reinstate the multi-year funding pilot introduced for the community gaming grant program as an option for organizations, noting the option to use the short form for those that are doing the same work, with the long form for organizations adjusting their programs and budgets.

The government should develop a capital program similar to the department of Canadian Heritage’s Canada cultural spaces fund to help arts organizations purchase, improve, maintain or expand venues for art, culture and community.

Further, in light of the vital contributions of independent media arts organizations to the B.C. cultural landscape, and in response to the current challenges faced by these organizations, we make the following recommendations: that adequate measures be taken to support indigenous media arts production in B.C. by directing funding to indigenous media artists and media arts organizations; to create opportunities for independent media arts organizations to develop new models and adapt to changes in new technology by fostering collaborations between non-profit and for-profit organizations in the media arts sector through the Creative B.C. agency; and to direct educational arts funding to independent media arts organizations whose operations include training programs and access to production facilities in line with the B.C. Art’s Council’s recent increased funding to youth and professional-training-oriented funding.

These recommendations are consistent with recommendations we have made to the committee in the past. We are reiterating these asks as we feel they are critical and should be addressed in order to ensure the continued development of the independent media arts sector in B.C. Thank you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. You must have practiced that. You’re dead on ten minutes.

It was mentioned earlier. We all know the value of the arts for society and the importance of the arts for society, but I’m wondering: has there been any study done on the multiplier effect of how much money comes back into the economy for investing in independent media arts?

E. Hendrix: There has, back in, I think it was, 2009, when there were massive cuts to B.C. Arts Council and gaming. I don’t remember the exact number, but I believe it was $1.36 for every dollar invested.

M. Morris: Well, thank you. You know, as you were making your presentation, previous presentations we’ve had…. I’m a supporter of the arts, but, at the same time, I’m also aware of the fiscal situation in which all of the provinces in Canada operate here. In 2009, there was a significant downturn in the Canadian economy, which led to a whole bunch of drops across Canada.

As you were making your presentation, and in a previous presentation I heard before…. It adds up to millions of dollars that you’re asking for, for funding from the provincial government. We operate on a balanced-budget concept, unlike the other provinces that we have across Canada. We’re also looking at increasing jobs and resource development in the province so that we have more money coming in to contribute to things like this.

The position I take…. I don’t know what my colleagues would do on this, but, as this province increases the amount of money that we have coming in through the various sources of revenue that we do have, I would see that more money would go to things like supporting the Arts Council. But right now, we’re in the situation where
[ Page 1720 ]
we’re trying to balance things out here. We have health care issues. We have all kinds of housing issues, student issues and whatnot throughout the province here.

I appreciate where you’re coming from. I will certainly take it into consideration, but we’re in a real tight situation right now.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I can’t resist adding a little comment there as well. If you look at the increase in gaming funding, the money that’s come in from gaming and the funding that hasn’t gone back out, I think there is certainly room, from my perspective.

I appreciate your raising the issue of indigenous arts. It’s not something that has been raised previously, so I appreciate you raising it. It also fits with other presentations, where many of the arts and culture groups have talked about the existing funding providing, just barely, a basic for the existing organizations but not an opportunity to grow or not an opportunity for new artists to come in.

I wonder if that’s something that you’re seeing as well, through your organization.

E. Hendrix: Yeah. The Independent Media Arts Alliance represents many different organizations. Certainly, across the board, I think that organizations are struggling, in terms of being able to improve services. A big part of what we do with the revenues that we have is pay artists and pay instructors. That, I do think, adds significantly to the betterment of people’s lives.

Just a note on the indigenous media arts organizations. Through my discussions with the members of the IMAA, capacity is a massive difficulty for those organizations, to the point where they often aren’t even applying, just because they just don’t have that capacity to do so. The ones that do and that are successful — the difference in those in those communities is tangible.

S. Hamilton (Chair): With that, and with just less than a minute to go — George, please.

G. Heyman: I’ll declare my interest up front. I am on the board of a small arts organization, and I’ve witnessed firsthand how much people work for so little and, in many cases, a marginal existence. I’ve been watching over the last couple of months the tremendous interest in Metro Vancouver in a variety of arts-based festivals. I’m wondering if you have or have access to any studies that demonstrate or quantify the role that a vibrant arts community plays in attracting people to the province and Metro Vancouver as a place to live.

One of the challenges we’re facing is attracting, recruiting and retaining talented, skilled people in a whole variety of fields outside of the arts. It strikes me that one of the things that does attract people to an area and keep them, along with the environment or the nature of the city itself, is the cultural milieu.

E. Hendrix: I’ll just say that I don’t have an official document, a research document that’s been done on that specifically.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present, and good luck.

Next we have the Research Universities Council of British Columbia — Robin Ciceri.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good morning. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a heads-up, if you watch me, with a couple of minutes left to wrap up your thoughts, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

R. Ciceri: Thank you very much for the opportunity. I’m here this morning representing the Research Universities Council, which you may know is made up of UBC, SFU, UVic, UNBC, Royal Roads and Thompson Rivers University. Last year I met with the committee and made a presentation about how the universities are meeting the labour market and student demands in times of fiscal constraint. Today I have some of those recommendations that carry forward from last year, but I think there’s more of an urgency this year.

It’s specifically in terms of the economy, and I was conscious of the member’s comments on the current fiscal environment. I had the opportunity of speaking with a very well-recognized B.C. economist in the last month, and he said that the drop in the Canadian oil prices is the biggest exogenous shock to the Canadian economy he has seen in his career. That was fairly powerful and, I think, bracing.

One of the things that I wanted to do today was to use the submission that you have in front of you just to highlight some key points. The way that it’s structured is actually to respond to the Premier’s mandate letters to ministers, which are very much focused on economic objectives. I wanted to talk to you specifically about university education. We need investment right now in all types of post-secondary education, as you know, and I know universities and colleges around the province have presented to you.

One of the things I specifically wanted to talk about is university graduates in a labour market that is really in extreme flux. We hear that constantly, and we are also challenged by some of the myths that are out there. I
[ Page 1721 ]
think there’s some good information in B.C. that dispels some of those myths and actually can point to the real value and the importance of actually increasing our capacity right now around our post-secondary system and, specifically, the universities.

One of the frames for this, as I said, is the Premier’s mandate letter. The first part of the mandate letter is on implementing the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint. I think that’s of interest to everybody, as to how institutions have responded to implementing the blueprint.

On page 2, the first thing that we do here is we speak to student outcomes. One of the things that B.C. has done for many years, through B.C. Stats, is a baccalaureate student-outcome survey. What we have done is looked at the last five years and have done a five-year longitudinal review of the results of graduates two years out, in terms of their outcomes in the province.

We can actually trace it into regions to see where they’re attaching in regions and the kind of employment they’re getting. Across all the spheres, including the arts students, there are high outcome levels, high employment levels, much higher than the rest of the provincial population. That is what we reflect on page 2.

Specifically around the mismatch in terms of skills to the economy, one of the things that the universities have done since 2006 — and you can see it on page 3 — is shift their programming in response to student and labour market demand. You can see that there has been a 46 percent increase in health professions. Business and management — 34 percent. You’re probably all familiar with young students that are entering university and are interested in pursuing a business education. Engineering and computer science at 34 percent. That’s from 2006 to 2013.

Then the skills blueprint set a target of 25 percent for re-engineering post-secondary education. On page 4 of this submission, you’ll actually see the numbers of FTEs in the different program areas where the research universities have shifted and aligned their programs as part of this skills blueprint. You can see right at the top, 1,945 FTEs have shifted into engineering programs. This also speaks to student demand and labour market demand. You can see a total of 5,600 student spaces have basically been aligned into these new program areas.

One of the things that is happening at the same time amongst the research university is that there is incredible demand for spaces. As you would know, in the Lower Mainland there’s unmet capacity, but the result of this is driving up GPAs across the board, particularly in the science, technology and engineering programs, where it becomes more and more difficult for students to be able to access those programs.

One of the things that we are clearly recommending is that there be consideration of new spaces at the undergraduate level in these areas, even with the shifts that the universities are making, because you need an overall diverse set of programming. As I said, the arts grads are clearly getting jobs. If you talk to the CEOs in the tech industry in B.C. — you know, Amazon, etc. — they will speak very much to wanting to have the liberal arts students with the critical thinking capacity that can really be adaptive and creative in the particular environment they’re in.

One of the other pieces that I think is really not paid enough attention to or is overlooked is the importance of graduate students in the economy — in all aspects of the economy. Right now, as everyone looks to diversifying the economy in the tech sector, graduate students very much are absolutely key, moving back and forth between industry and the university sector as they pursue their studies.

There are many, many examples of internships. Even at the undergraduate level, I’m sure it’s been pointed out to you that there are probably over 10,000 co-op programs that occur each year for students in terms of placements.

Graduate student spaces are absolutely key, and that’s really around the province. In the north, for example, there’s a demand for graduate spaces, and in all parts of the province. In fact, the province’s 2022 labour market outlook shows four out of seven regions will have demand for jobs requiring a graduate credential. So as I said earlier, I think that’s one of the components of the labour market that does get overlooked.

Along with this is the fact that B.C. is the only province not to provide graduate student scholarships. If you’re making a decision about where you’re going to go to university, you’ll look at the scholarships that are offered, and unfortunately, we don’t have one right now in B.C. Instituting or implementing a scholarship similar to the one previously, the Pacific Century scholarship, which provides funds to graduate students would really go a long way to keeping and retaining our students.

We speak briefly to aboriginal students. It is a commitment and a very strong focus of the research universities, and we continue to support the cross-sector aboriginal partners table.

There’s a table on page 6 that speaks to international student growth. It’s updated from our submission last year. You can see in ’13-14, there was a 10 percent international growth. That’s around, at Thompson Rivers and other universities — UNBC, UBC, SFU. That also really contributes to the communities that those students are in.

Last year we spoke about financial constraints and balanced budgets. I’ll just touch on that briefly again. To this year now, with the downturn in 2008, it’s $170 million in cost pressures that the universities have managed and developed internal efficiencies. It’s pretty hard to sustain that level of new internal efficiencies without a deterioration in quality and, actually, an impact. We’re concerned about that.

Research. Leveraging funds for B.C. B.C. is second per capita in attracting funding into the province from the
[ Page 1722 ]
federal granting agencies and attracts $700 million a year.

Going forward, we have five recommendations. The first is to reinvest the $50 million in operating funding that was reduced in the last three years and invest that in targeted areas. This is not about overall, blanket increases but very specifically targeted in those areas where it’s required.

Along with student spaces, introduce the graduate student scholarship that I mentioned.

Maintain the province’s commitment to the B.C. knowledge development fund. It’s a remarkable research fund, and the universities have really been able to benefit from that. The province should take recognition for that, and we ask that it continue.

We’re seeking approval to self-finance capital from universities’ own revenue streams for residences, which helps with program growth and student demand in accommodating students in student life on campus and, also, accelerating capital infrastructure development.

The last thing is we’d like to participate in the ten-year technology skills plan the province has outlined that they’re going to develop. We’d like to work together with partners to be able to develop that ten-year technology skills plan.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for the presentation. I think you’ve highlighted for us the importance to think ahead about how the impact of specific actions on funding and programs that are in reaction to today’s events can play out with impacts over a longer period of time.

You touched on the value of liberal arts. I want to go back to it for a minute. There’s a bit of a zero-sum game with the transfer of FTEs to training that specifically fit the skills-for-jobs blueprint. But you and others have highlighted the importance and the role that liberal arts education plays in preparing people for both creative and entrepreneurial and critical thinking in a business environment. Even in the technology sector, people talk about the importance of that as a base upon which to add very specific training and skills.

I’m wondering if you can comment — any thoughts that you have or studies that have been done that predict any possible negative impact from downplaying what’s too often thought of as too broad a base of liberal arts, without a specific end-point focus, in that context.

R. Ciceri: We don’t have the numbers in terms of what potential impact could be. I think we need to distinguish between Canada and the United States, in terms of some of the going-forward trends, because the media can sometimes make a commentary on the United States. The situation in Canada, I think in terms of the liberal arts, is different.

I guess the simple response to that is: we’ve got 25 percent that is targeted around re-engineering; we have 75 percent which are responding to student demand and labour market demand. The universities, I think, maintain that they are still in a responsive situation and that student demand and the labour market demand that reflects students’ choices is really what is the litmus test.

I don’t think we see any negative implications from an overbalancing one way, but I do think we will see negative implications if we don’t invest specifically in the university side of the equation. That is something that…. Not just with the improvement in the fiscal environment. Even in constrained times, if we don’t invest, we are going to see longer-term implications just from not having those graduates. But I don’t think it’s a question of one side of the question, either-or.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. Just to follow up on that specific issue. I just wonder what conversations have happened with government around recognition of the shifts that have already occurred. I think there was some concern that there would be an artificial 25 percent and a real move away from the generalist programs into specific areas. I think you’ve identified that a large portion of that shift already happens, just based on labour market and based on students’ desires. I’m guessing these are not new spaces. These are spaces that have been shifted from existing university spaces.

I guess two quick questions. One, have you got statistics on where they’ve been shifted from — what programs are actually dropping? Two, have there been good conversations with government about recognizing the shifts that have already been made, so there won’t be an artificial 25 percent cap applied and not recognizing a shift that’s occurred already?

R. Ciceri: Yes, we certainly have identified the shifts that have already occurred and made these presentations. On page 3, it actually shows the arts and humanities. There’s been about an 18 percent decline, so there has been a shift there.

D. Ashton: Thank you for your presentation. Two quick questions. Is there a benefit, where we’ve had exchanges with Washington state and British Columbia for that vast labour pool that’s down there, in university opportunities — i.e., for the cost of enrolment, where they’re granted as non–out-of-state or non–out-of-province students — where we’re tapping into that pool?

Universities used to…. You could go to Washington state or go to university in British Columbia without paying out of state. That doesn’t happen anymore. Is there a benefit to bringing something like that back?
[ Page 1723 ]

R. Ciceri: There are partnerships that exist between universities, reciprocal partnerships, where they have the same tuition that you would…. Say if you went to UBC and then you did a partnership with the London School of Economics or in Paris, you would pay the same tuition. So there are those reciprocal….

R. Ciceri: I don’t know specifically Washington state, but I could certainly find out.

D. Ashton: One thing I would ask you to find out for me. You have mentioned a bunch of universities, the research universities. I’m really curious. I’ve asked this question when the presenters have been in: the ratio of time for tenured professors teaching as opposed to sabbaticals — if they teach for three years and have a year’s sabbatical; they teach for five years and have a year’s sabbatical. I’d be curious, on a name basis for the universities that you represent, what those terms are.

J. Yap: The question of reserves among the research universities. This morning a presenter talked about reserves at a small university — Capilano University. I’m interested in the reserve situation for the research universities. Could you comment on that?

R. Ciceri: Cash reserves at the research universities tend to be put towards capital buildings. The request for approval to self-finance capital means that we would be able to use those cash reserves to finance capital. It’s not quite the same situation, I think, as the colleges, where they would like to use their cash reserves for operating. We are specifically asking for capital debt room — not the actual money but the approval to spend that money and then self-finance it. I think the colleges may want to use their cash reserves for operating. It gets tied up, as you know, in all the accounting.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present. We appreciate it.

Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with about two minutes left so you could wrap up your thoughts, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

R. Waraich: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Ruab Waraich, and I’m the college relations coordinator with the Douglas Students Union. I’m also the women’s liaison with the Canadian Federation of Students–British Columbia. Today I have Tracy Ho with me, who’s also from the Douglas Students Union. I’m honoured to have the opportunity again to address this committee and give feedback on the priorities for next year’s provincial budget.

The Douglas Students Union is a membership organization of more than 12,000 students at Douglas College in New Westminster and Coquitlam. We’re Local 18 of the Canadian Federation of Students, Canada’s largest students’ organization. Together with the Canadian Federation of Students, we provide services to students, while advocating for an accessible, high-quality system of post-secondary education. One of our main goals is to advocate for a system for a high-quality, publicly funded and accessible post-secondary in British Columbia.

My presentation today will focus on adult basic education, an issue that affects students not only at Douglas College but across the province as well. Adult basic education provides courses in colleges and universities, basic literacy skills, credits for completion of high school education and preparation for post-secondary education — in particular, for those that are looking to return to education to get training for better work in the marketplace.

ABE allows for adult learners who have not completed high school to learn, be supported and succeed in an adult environment, not to return to a high school environment. ABE also supports adults who have completed high school to get into colleges and universities by upgrading specific curriculum and skills areas after a period of time away from formal education. These students benefit with a direct pathway back into the education system.

The city of New Westminster recognizes the importance and need of ABE for our community and, on June 1, unanimously endorsed the full restoration of funding to ABE that was cut — announced in December 2014 and implemented this September. Councillors shared their personal stories of educational and professional success because they were able to access ABE after working post–high school for a number of years and then able to re-enter the college and university system.

Adult basic education programs at Douglas College have slowly been cut year after year. With the introduction of tuition fees, we expect the enrolment to drop significantly. Members in the communities of New
[ Page 1724 ]
Westminster and Coquitlam need the access to this education to better their lives for themselves and their families.

There are many adult learners in the community who have lost their jobs or who face a reduction in hours. They need to get skills upgrading to gain employment in a competitive marketplace. The investment into ABE will have significant return in higher contributions and income tax, with more disposable income that will be well spent in the community, once again reinvesting into the local B.C. economy.

Beginning this September, ABE learners will be charged up to $3,200 per year in tuition fees, the same as first-year college and university courses. ABE learners are some of the most marginalized people in society and do not typically have funds to be able to finance this basic education. Some 58 percent are women, 18 percent are indigenous people, 20 percent are parents during their studies, 55 percent are employed while studying, 79 percent have already graduated from high school, and 70 percent continue their studies after ABE.

This government recognized the importance and need of tuition-free ABE in 2007 with the elimination of fees, which opened doors to many students who previously were blocked from accessing the education they need. We urge the committee to recognize that ABE is necessary not only for the individual learners and their families but also for the overall knowledge and skills of B.C. residents and the overall economy.

We recommend that funding be restored and to increase for ABE programs at post-secondary institutions across the province to provide access to education to those that need it the most.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge that the committee and government have to balance the priorities and needs of all citizens across the province and that not everyone’s needs will be met through the budget. I would like to thank the committee for supporting key recommendations of students unions in the past and hope that the committee will again recognize the importance of investment into our public post-secondary system that is accessible to families and communities.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time. My goodness. You didn’t even use up five minutes, so we’ve got extra time for questions if that’s the case. I’ll go to the committee.

S. Chandra Herbert: We’ve been hearing the call for investments in adult basic education all across the province so far. In terms of Douglas College’s experience, I wonder if you have any statistics yet on the actual drop in enrolment. Some have told us it’s 30 percent; some have said higher; some have said lower. As well, just what sorts of stories you are hearing from people who are facing this large hike in fees which, I would argue and agree with you, can prove a disincentive or a complete barrier to getting that education.

R. Waraich: We do not have statistics at this point, but we’re definitely expecting a lower enrolment. Some of the stories that have been coming to us through social media networks, especially, are students telling us how it’s really a barrier for them to access post-secondary, especially most of the students who are from marginalized households.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation and the focus on ABE. The other statistic — again, probably not available right now but might be interesting for colleges to take a look at — is how many students who are in existing college programs did an ABE course before they went into the college program. How many of them actually took an ABE course that gave them the opening to get into the college program?

I think it would be another important way of pointing out that that’s often the door that opens for them to be able to get into future programs. If you are able to gather any statistics around that, I think it might be helpful for this debate as well.

R. Waraich: I also want to share…. One of our city councillors shared his own personal story of having gone through ABE. Now he’s a city councillor, and he’s giving back to the community, which is great. Many people can relate to that story.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation and for adding the voice of the Douglas Students Union to many people who have presented to the committee regarding adult basic education.

I just want to say and add to the record that I attended a very large forum at, I believe, the Croatian Cultural Centre. There were upwards of 15 people who had gone through the program or were in the program and were talking about the beneficial impact on their lives, both in their family lives and economically, and what the difficulties would be with facing fees for the program and how they thought that might impact them or others.

I expect that we will hear more as we continue to have hearings. I think the personal stories are also very beneficial in making the point, and it would be useful to have those on the record.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I will again repeat something that Spencer said on the road last week: don’t take the lack of
[ Page 1725 ]
questions as disinterest. We’ve heard a lot, and it has resonated with us. Many questions have been asked prior to you sitting down in front of us and subsequently answered. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee, and good luck going forward with your student career.

Mr. Gloor, come forward. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with two minutes to go, and you can wrap up your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions.

The less time presenting, the more time for questions, so it’s all relative. I’ll leave that decision up to you. All right? The floor is yours.

R. Gloor: Thank you very much. I appreciate the efforts all of you are making and the chance to be here to present to you. My name is Rob Gloor. I’m executive director of the Alliance for Arts and Culture, which represents artists and arts organizations across B.C. We have a brief for you. I’ll take you quickly through it and give you lots of time for questions, I hope.

The request that we have and the case that we’re making today is similar to that which we’ve presented for the last several years because we have not yet met the real demand to meet the growth in arts and culture sector over the past several years. B.C. lags behind other provinces in the country for its support of arts and culture.

The primary request is that we address the grants budget of the B.C. Arts Council and immediately increase it to $32 million and that we look to a long-term investment, over a couple of years, to $40 million.

All of this really would just start to deal with the growth in demand in the sector and begin to adequately fund those organizations which are making such a huge impact in communities — not just in urban communities but in communities of all sizes and types across the province.

Along with that, a long-term view of funding in arts and culture regarding both B.C. Arts Council and gaming grants would help funders to provide multi-year commitments to organizations for operating, which, of course, increases the stability of the sector.

Beyond operating funding, infrastructure is a key issue in many sectors, I’m sure. Certainly, in the cultural sector, what we enjoy today has mostly been provided to us by previous generations and is very much in need of improvement and enhancement — and many new projects worthy of support of infrastructure programs.

On the flip side of your sheets, I’ve also made some notes that apply not only to the arts, since the arts sector is part of a broader, non-profit sector — a couple of important points around the gaming grants program. It is currently at $135 million, partially restored from its previous cuts but not yet fully restored to where it was.

We’d ask that gaming grants increase to $156 million and then that, according to Skip Triplett’s recommendations from his exhaustive report a couple of years back, we continue to grow the gaming grants program as the revenues for gaming grow.

Finally, dealing with the same broad non-profit sector, the introduction of the new societies act is going to have impact for every registered charity. They currently count over 27,000 across B.C. Many of those are arts and culture. All of them are going to need to dedicate resources to appropriately move through the process of transition and to have the proper compliance under the new act.

This impact on an entire sector needs support of the province through Finance, through resources at B.C. registries and through the funding of service organizations that can assist with the legal advice that may be required for societies going through the period of transition.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Gloor. I’ll go to the committee.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your very concise presentation. I’m interested in the facilities infrastructure program. On that, would you see it as that each organization would be applying for X amount of dollars for X facility, or would it be administered by one of the arts coordinating groups? We’ve heard from a number of them in our hearings.

I was just wondering how you’d see that process working and, also, if you have a dollar figure that you would be looking at that is necessary and is also realistic.

R. Gloor: Currently, there are some minor programs that can help spaces with minor upgrades, and those applications are handled by the B.C. Arts Council. Minor capital applications like that could be handled in that same way but with a whole lot more available. So far, it’s only really been able to benefit a handful of organizations. They’re spread all over, but the resource improvements are everywhere.

When we’re looking at potential large infrastructure programs, the sort of thing that can help to redefine an entire community’s cultural identity, that would probably be through participation with multiple levels of government making investments in new facilities and would likely have significant partnership with a municipality.

The type of program that I’m mentioning here would be able to take advantage of major new infrastructure initiatives that could align with Canada 150 or other federal sorts of programs, maybe, in the future but certainly to take advantage of the desperate need to build now in partnership with municipalities.
[ Page 1726 ]

I’m talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, as was invested in Ontario with a massive improvement to the cultural infrastructure under the SuperBuild program. That made enormous impact in major facilities, primarily in Toronto but across Ontario, several years ago. We’ve never seen that type of investment here in B.C., and I think that it’s due.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Claire touched on the capital money. The other presentations that people have talked about are the kinds of things like the one-third, one-third, one-third — to actually have the province come to the table with a third, to be able to help municipalities with private fundraising. I just wanted to ask whether that was the kind of approach that you were looking at.

The second piece was on the Societies Act, which I just wanted to speak to. It was an area that I spent a fair bit of time, as critic, asking the Finance Minister about. We supported the changes to the Societies Act, but the additional piece, as you point out so well, is the need for education. Many not-for-profits are small organizations and don’t have the ability to be able to take a look at all the work that needs to be done to make changes.

So the Finance Minister had committed that there would be a large focus on education and a large focus on support before there were any kinds of challenges to people not being in compliance. I’d just be curious if you’ve had any of those conversations or outreach yet from the Ministry of Finance. If not, that’s something that we can certainly follow up on as well.

R. Gloor: Nothing concrete that I’m aware of yet. Of course, it’s all just beginning. It’s going to be over several years. If we have the regulations announced soon and, possibly, implementation of the act by a year from now or so, that begins a two-year window for transitioning.

So there’s a lot of time, but actually an incredible amount of preparation that a not-for-profit has to go through to be ready for that. It’s not just basic information. It’s also access to legal advice for those that might have more complicated situations. As a volunteer-driven sector, most just do not have the resources for that.

M. Morris: Just listening to your presentation and the other presentations that we’ve heard from various arts groups, roughly calculated, you’re asking for about a $50 million increase in provincial assistance here. Just further to what Carole was saying, have you lobbied the feds for another $50 million? You’re talking about a third, a third, a third. That’s sort of what we’re hearing. Is the private sector committed to increasing their budget by $50 million as well?

You also reference Ontario and the amount of money that they put in. I have to remind you, and others out there as well, that Ontario is in a significant debt position as well. They’re going to have to look at how they spend public money in relation to what they’re getting in.

I’m just more interested. Have you approached the private sector and the feds for that one-third, one-third, one-third balance?

R. Gloor: If you’re talking about capital investment, I think that’s a basic expectation always — that there’s partnership across the three levels of government when it comes to infrastructure funding.

When we’re looking at arts and culture grants programs, we have an ongoing message in a similar fashion regarding the funding of the Canada Council and Canadian Heritage. I’m part of a network called the Canadian Arts Coalition, which has had, actually, some very significant, positive results over time with the federal government. There is a lot of awareness there and a dialogue ongoing, and we’ll see who we have to talk to following the election.

When it comes to the private sector, the same studies that show us that B.C. is the lowest funder provincially of arts and culture, based on investment per capita and also based on the proportion of arts organizations’ revenues that come from the provincial government compared to all other sources…. Or comparing the provincial government to other government sources, B.C. is the last.

The alliance is engaged in a major research study right now to update those numbers. To exactly show how the comparisons work, we’ll have final data available in November. I have some of that preliminary data right now which confirms that B.C. is still not measuring up.

Now, where it is measuring up is in the private sector. The private sector has stepped in and is actually showing quite a lot of leadership in B.C., having some of the highest levels of support for the cultural sector compared to their peers in other provinces. It’s the provincial government that’s not measuring up. The municipalities in B.C. have stronger support of arts and culture than in any other province, and the corporate sector as well. The provincial government does not.

G. Heyman: Thank you. I’ll repeat a question I asked to your colleagues from PAARC and the Media Arts Alliance. It has to do with…. B.C. is constantly trying to recruit and retain skilled professionals as well as entrepreneurs. I’m wondering if you are aware of or have access to studies from here or elsewhere that demonstrate the role of a vibrant cultural sector in a particular jurisdiction in assisting in or being a significant, quantifiable
[ Page 1727 ]
part of the decision-making process for people when they’re looking for places to move, establish businesses or responding to job opportunities.

R. Gloor: There are actually quite a lot of studies that point to that. I don’t have any of those pieces of data right with me as far as the attraction of workers to communities with a vibrant creative sector, but the evidence is very compelling. I’ll be happy to find some of that and share it with you, along with some of the other data that I’ve been referencing.

The biggest challenge that we’ve had in delivering information on the case for arts and culture over the last few years is that the agencies that we could have counted on in the past to deliver that kind of data for us have been cut. The cultural statistics office at Stats Canada was cut several years ago. We just don’t have access to the kind of answers that would support the case from an economic and a social perspective, so we’re doing some of that research that we can to close the gaps right now.

We’ve done a provincewide survey of arts organizations that include some of the reporting on impacts in their particular communities so that we can start to assemble that narrative — but also the real stats around how organizations are employing people, what kind of HR challenges they are experiencing. We need to invest a lot to strengthen the HR of the sector.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mr. Gloor, if you’d like to follow up and provide statistical information to the committee, you can, and we can elaborate on that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you. A question. You’d mentioned multi-year investments in arts. I know we had those, and then they disappeared. We’ve heard it in other sectors as well. I’m just curious.

For your members, how much time a year do you think it adds to have to go through the process every year, as opposed to doing it for three years? Is it a day? Is it a couple of weeks? I know that some organizations are bigger and some are smaller, so it’s a bit of a generalization. I get it.

R. Gloor: Well, it certainly impacts on the time of your very limited staff, to go back to that process each year. But I’m not as much concerned about that as I am about the ability to plan long-term when each year you really don’t know what that commitment is. When we see organizations that have the stability of a three-year Canada Council grant, we can see how their planning can improve so much on that. Generally, over those three years, it doesn’t even increase. It’s just the same for three years. And then after three years, they have an opportunity to show what they’ve done and make the case for the next three years. It just increases stability in planning.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Once again, if you have more information you’d like to provide to the committee, until October 15, you can elaborate on any statistical information you’d like to share with us and take that opportunity. I encourage you.

Now we have our friends from the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association — Mr. Jeremy Dunn.

Mr. Dunn, welcome. Good to see you. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with about two minutes to go, and if you can wrap up your thoughts, we can go to the committee for questions, if there are any. So if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

J. Dunn: Great. Thank you, Chair and committee, for making time for me today. It’s great to see all of you, especially the MLA for our area in Campbell River where many of our members are located.

First, I’d like to start off by saying I’m not here to ask for money. I know that happens to you guys a lot, so don’t worry about writing any numbers down with respect to asks. We’re here to talk about how we contribute to the economy and how we’re able to help the province earn more money, create more jobs, work with First Nations, develop skills training in much-needed areas.

I presented to this committee last year. Since that time, we’ve done an updated economic impact study. I wanted to share some of the information with this group. It’s important to note the economic impact that salmon farming is having in British Columbia, especially in areas of low unemployment.

I’ll walk quickly through the deck here. There are more graphics than words, but I can elaborate. The first gives you a sense of salmon farming globally. Globally, salmon farming is a $10-billion-a-year industry.

It’s been a growing industry for 40 years in the world. It’s not a long industry, but it’s one that has had great successes in growing. Important to note that in British Columbia, we’re really a small player. We produce about 2½ percent of the global salmon supply in B.C. In Norway, for instance, they produce about 1.2 million tonnes on the same-sized coastline as we do here in British Columbia.

We’re an impactful industry from an economic perspective in small communities but, globally, a small industry which gives us the opportunity to, I think and our members believe, be leading in terms of how we’re
[ Page 1728 ]
farming in the environment and showing the world what, truly, world best practices in salmon farming can look like from both an economic and a social perspective in working with indigenous people.

The second slide here shows you, really, where the farms are located. We’ve got about 120 salmon-farming sites in B.C. About 64 of those are active at any given time. Many or all of you will know that there were recently four new farming sites approved in British Columbia. I think it’s very important for the committee to know and for British Columbians to know that this doesn’t mean that there’s an expansion of salmon farming in B.C. What it actually means is that companies have a greater ability to plan for today and tomorrow in terms of their farming cycle.

People in the agricultural industry in traditional agriculture on land will know very much the fallowing of farms and using one field one year, one field the next year and being able to allow that area to regenerate itself and have a perpetual farming. That’s what new sites allow companies to do. It allows them to plan into the future. It allows them to farm the right place at the right time and keep jobs stable and grow a few jobs as well.

Overall, there are about 4,300 hectares leased for finfish aquaculture in British Columbia. Again, only about half of that is used at any one time.

From an economic impact perspective, $1.1 billion is the number that salmon farming is worth to the provincial economy. Jobs in salmon farming pay on average 30 percent more than the provincial median employment income, which is very important in small communities. These are family-supporting jobs in places like Port Hardy, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Tofino and Ucluelet.

From a share of the economic impacts, of course the north Island has a huge share of the economic impact. But it’s important to note that throughout Vancouver Island, there’s a decent amount of economic impact in salmon farming. Right here in the Lower Mainland, about 30 percent of that economic impact is realized.

Most of the salmon feed is made here, which results in a few hundred direct jobs, as well as indirect jobs. There’s a lot of warehousing and some processing, and this truly is an industry that benefits all of coastal British Columbia.

We did a bit of a comparison to some other industries that people might talk about. You know, people talk about the movie industry a lot. It would be the same as producing an eight- or 16-episode TV series, which certainly doesn’t happen on Vancouver Island. As people know, when a movie or a TV series comes to town, it’s front-page news every day, especially up on the north Island and the west coast, when that doesn’t happen all the time.

From a market perspective, in 2014, aquaculture surpassed wild-caught seafood, and now more than 50 percent of the seafood consumed on the globe is farmed in one way or another. That anticipated growth is 7 to 9 percent per year. That’s growth in Canada, that’s growth in the U.S., and that’s especially growth in emerging markets in Asia and India.

As well, what we’re seeing now is a potential for market development at more rapid rates for the globe, in terms of the seafood tariffs that will be coming off in Korea — a 20 percent seafood tariff. That benefits salmon farmers. That also benefits every other seafood grower and capture fisher as well.

The U.S. is our most developed seafood market. We send about 100 species a year to the U.S., and 60 percent of the value of all 100 species is one fish, the Atlantic salmon. That’s our most developed seafood market.

As we’re looking to develop other seafood markets, it’s important to have a big species with big companies that can afford to open those markets and bring species like sea cucumbers and abalone and geoduck and a lot of these smaller species along. The economic impact, especially for First Nations, who are looking to geoduck and sea cucumber and a lot of these other things that might not be consumed every day on plates in North America but certainly are in Asia, is a great opportunity.

As Vancouver Island has that opportunity to grow and produce more seafood, then you start thinking that maybe the processing or the shipping doesn’t have to happen in Vancouver. Maybe they don’t come on a ferry, but maybe they leave in a plane from Campbell River, and what a huge economic boost that would be for that community if they had a true warehousing opportunity there, if they had the increased supply of all seafood. We advocate for any opportunity to grow more seafood in British Columbia.

From an environmental commitment, our members have committed that by 2020, they’ll have gold standards in terms of third-party certification. What does that mean? That means that if there’s a third-party certification out there for salmon farming on this planet, they’re going to go get it. In 2011, when the best aquaculture practices became available, Cermaq Canada went and got it, first in the world.

A year and a half ago, the ASC certification became available for salmon farms. B.C. has three ASC-certified salmon farms. By the end of the year, we expect to have five. So far, about 5 percent of the globe’s salmon farms have this very challenging third-party certification, which was developed over an eight-year period in a process led by the WWF. It’s a very vigorous certification and one that I think helps to answer a lot of the questions and concerns that many people might have about salmon farming if they haven’t looked into all the information available.

Finally, from a First Nations perspective. Our members have 19 social and economic partnerships with First Nations. All of the new farming licences and tenures that were recently approved are in partnership with First Nations, and they’re working to create jobs and opportunities for those nations now.
[ Page 1729 ]

I’d like to thank the government for the grant that was provided to Excel community college. There will be training programs put in place over the next few months to train people who will be working on those new farms, and that’s important in places like Port Hardy, Port McNeill and Tofino, where those farms will be located.

Our annual general meeting next week will be in Tofino — the first time on the west coast. We will be back in Campbell River next year. We’ve set a record this year, which is pretty neat. About 110 or 115 people will be over in Tofino.

We’re there in Tofino for the first time because the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation came to our meeting last year and said: “We’d like you to come and host your meeting with us. We’d like to share our culture with you, and we’d like to learn more about salmon farming.” Tla-o-qui-aht has a partnership with Creative Salmon, a protocol agreement for farming in their territory. We think it’s a great example of the things that are happening in salmon farming today and have been happening for well over 20 years in B.C.

Thank you very much for having me here today. I thought I’d leave some time for questions. I’m sure there are some from the committee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. I do have questions, and I’m going to start with Claire.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Jeremy. Good to see you again. Thank you very much for your very clear presentation. I’ve got to say, I do like the new branding, the “Coast-fresh salmon raised in B.C.,” with the heart there.

I’ve got a couple of questions, partly reflecting on the constituency. As you say, salmon farming is very integral to our economy these days and has been for a number of years. You’ve got on your graph that 40 percent of the economic impact is in the north Island — very clearly on the map. But you also have the economic impact as being over $1 billion. I would just question what the 40 percent actually reflects. I can’t see that we are seeing those hundreds of millions of dollars actually coming back into…. As you say, $1.1 billion is the impact for the whole provincial economy. I’m just wondering what the actual breakdown would be.

The other very quick questions, which we might want to talk about afterwards…. Is the Salmon Farmers Association working with — particularly the Campbell River Airport Authority — other airport authorities about moving shipments outside from the Lower Mainland? I’ve had discussions myself with the airport authority on some of these questions.

Is the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association working directly with the World Wildlife Federation? You mentioned you’ve got certification with them. How closely are you working with WWF?

J. Dunn: I will start with the first one. We commissioned MNP and their group to do the study for us, working with B.C. Stats and using the B.C. Stats method of calculating economic impact. Those numbers are based on the direct, indirect and induced jobs and the associated impact with those jobs in the region.

C. Trevena: Is it possible to put a figure on it? We’ve got the $1.1 billion, but 40 percent of $1.1 billion clearly isn’t coming back into the north Island.

J. Dunn: That’s what’s being generated by having the companies, the jobs, the farms, processing plants and all the associated service and supply companies. That’s the total economy being driven in that area from those businesses.

C. Trevena: The second question was: are you working with different airport authorities, whether it’s Tofino, Campbell River or others? The third one was the World Wildlife Federation.

J. Dunn: We’ve spoken to local governments about those opportunities. We’ve spoken with our colleagues in shellfish and other seafood processing groups. There’s a recognition amongst all groups that there’s a market for more product. When there is more product, then it would be more appropriate, I think, for us to have that discussion.

If we had a growth curve in terms of all seafood in B.C., if we could see it at a perspective, our members would certainly support more seafood coming from B.C. If there is more seafood coming in B.C., then it makes sense to be having that seafood leaving from a different port. Right now, B.C. does not have the volume to justify not bringing it into Vancouver, where you’ve got the warehousing and the transportation facilities.

J. Yap: Thanks, Jeremy, for the presentation. Your industry certainly has come a long way in the last number of years. The $475 million puts the industry at probably one of the leading, if not the number one, agricultural sector in B.C. Is that right?

J. Dunn: From an export perspective, farm-raised salmon is the number one product of value for the province. From a total value perspective as a crop, it’s B.C.’s number-two-valued crop behind dairy. Admittedly, we’re quite behind dairy. Dairy is a very big industry in B.C. But it’s a very important crop from that economic perspective, yes.

J. Yap: My question is, in regards to…. We’ve had a presentation on this. You may have seen a pilot project with closed-containment Atlantic salmon. They’ve been in operation about two years now and are selling….
[ Page 1730 ]
Whatever they can make, they’re selling. Do you view that technology and that type of farming as an opportunity, as a threat, or do you have no views on that?

J. Dunn: Our association has been involved in all types of farming for 30 years. Our members are the pioneers of land-based farming in British Columbia and have been since the technology was developed. We have members today that are growing fish to market size in tanks because they believe that that’s their business edge, from that perspective. Our members are supplying the smolts to Kuterra — the little fish that they grow in their hatcheries for them to grow out.

We’re supportive and interested in their project. The big companies that our association represents believe that B.C.’s competitive advantage from a real macroeconomic, job-creating perspective is growing fish in the ocean and doing it the right way, in a repeatable way, so that we have a significant amount of jobs in communities. But we wish the folks at Kuterra the best of luck. We know there’s a demand for their product, especially in the Lower Mainland, and I think they’re doing well.

We have the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce — Mr. Dan Baxter and Mr. Jon Garson.

Gentlemen, welcome. I’ll give you the spiel as you’re walking up. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a two minute heads-up when time’s running short so you can complete your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions, if there’s time after that. The floor is yours.

J. Garson: Many thanks, Mr. Chair. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing the B.C. Chamber of Commerce the opportunity to present our views of our over 30,000-member businesses of every size, sector and region of the province. We have provided a written submission, which details our full range of chamber recommendations for Budget 2016, and we will certainly welcome any follow-up in terms of questions you have over that material, once you’ve had a chance to review it.

Our written submission addresses a number of issues of concern to the business community, including issues such as the clean-tech industry, growing the digital media industry, as well as issues such as housing affordability, which is affecting communities across the province.

For the purposes of our comments today, we will focus on B.C.’s fiscal position and on our taxation structure. The foundation of any budget must be fiscal responsibility. The fiscal pressures currently facing the federal government present a chilling reminder of a truth that all governments must take to heart. Governments do not always control their fiscal destiny. It is therefore imperative that governments remain focused on the fundamentals. While fiscal discipline must remain the focus of government, we are in the position to begin to look at new investments, given the fact that we are now in a surplus position.

However, these surpluses are not significant, and as we have seen with the federal government, we remain at the mercy of external impacts. We must, therefore, be cautious in how we invest these surpluses to provide a return to the province.

As an initial measure, the chamber recommends that the government fulfil its commitment with the people by dedicating 50 percent of B.C.’s surplus directly to debt reduction in Budget 2016. While we recognize that this greatly reduces government’s flexibility to make new investments, our members believe it’s important for government to reduce the debt burden we leave to future generations when fiscal conditions allow.

In terms of new measures, the focus of our recommendation is on the need for addressing some taxation issues. Government has recently been singularly focused on developing a tax and regulatory regime to encourage the establishment of an LNG industry. This is an important issue and one strongly supported by the chamber. However, now is the time for government to turn its attention to the tax measures that our fiscal position has not permitted us to address up until now.

The chamber would like to focus on two themes: several specific tax measures that need to be addressed now and a new approach to how we deal with taxation issues going forward. In terms of specific tax measures, there are a few that we will touch on briefly, and further detail is in our written submission.

The first is carbon tax. The chamber was very supportive of the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax when it was introduced. However, we feel this has been eroded over time with the introduction of significant new — what we would perhaps call niche — tax credits that have been introduced into this, rather than the broad-based tax reform, which was the feature of revenue neutrality at the time.

We feel the plethora of these new tax credits is beginning to undermine the carbon tax as a revenue-neutral measure, and we believe it’s time to go back to broad-based personal and corporate income tax rates as the feature of the carbon tax.

As an example, as outlined in our written submission, if we had kept the model as it was originally introduced, we would have had perhaps $400 million in additional
[ Page 1731 ]
revenue available for broad-based tax cuts to the business community, compared to what we have seen up until now.

The change to the tax structure for credit unions is another issue of concern to our members. Government has placed a welcome emphasis on encouraging small business growth. However, the change in the tax status of credit unions is a measure that works against this by reducing credit unions’ ability to invest in communities and small businesses.

A feature of the chamber comments in pretty much every year that we’ve done this is also, again, on local government taxation. We need to begin a dialogue on a more sustainable funding mechanism for local government. This must address local government’s ability to invest in infrastructure but also must provide protection for the business community.

The resolution being presented at UBCM this week that calls for an increase in the corporate tax rate to be given directly to local government highlights the need for a far more rational dialogue around local government finance going forward.

While these issues are important, they pale into insignificance when compared to the return to the PST. As shown in our written submission, the return to the PST is not only impacting B.C. business but is also undermining B.C.’s and, indeed, Canada’s competitiveness. This erosion of competitiveness can largely be attributed to the return to the PST.

While the chamber recognizes that B.C. has one of the lowest tax rates for both personal and business income in Canada — indeed, our government is to be commended for these actions, often taken in the face of significant criticism and opposition — this only tells part of the story. Whatever the politics, it must be stated that the decision to scrap the HST was the wrong choice by British Columbians — full stop.

Our members have sent a clear message. A move to a value-added sales tax system is not only in the best interests of the B.C. economy but is inevitable. A VAT is good for business, good for creating jobs, and ultimately, it is good for consumers, because it will remove tax on tax we all pay, while creating jobs and economic opportunity.

Further to this, the move by virtually all provinces in Canada and the growing shift to value-added taxes globally means we can no longer stand alone. With this in mind, B.C. will have no choice but to reform the PST and move towards a made-in-B.C., value-added sales tax. The only question is: how long do we have to wait, and how much damage will be done to the economy by a lack of political courage to address this issue?

Now is the time for a dialogue with British Columbians around the development of a made-in-B.C., value-added sales tax system. However, in the absence of comprehensive reform, measures must be introduced to address the most damaging aspect of the return to the PST.

The chamber recognizes that the PST system already exempts certain machinery and equipment, but we need to widen this to cover all acquisitions of machinery and equipment, as recommended by the expert panel on tax. This will be a significant boost to our productivity and competitiveness and will facilitate business investment in growing their businesses and creating new jobs.

We do recognize that, given the fiscal conditions we are under, government cannot address this in its entirety in Budget 2016, but now is the time for a clear path going forward to show government is committed to addressing this as soon as fiscal conditions allow.

Beyond these specific tax measures, the chamber believes that we must adopt a new approach to how we make decisions around taxation in B.C. A telling example is the commitment to reduce the small business tax rate. While the chamber would never object to a reduction in the tax load facing business, we must be clear. Small businesses are not calling for this tax reduction.

The growing gap in the tax rates between small and our corporate rates — 2.5 to now 11 percent — is a significant deterrent to small businesses who wish to grow — exactly the opposite of what the tax system should be encouraging. Our members have been clear. Government’s focus must be on tax reform, not further tax reduction at this time.

The chamber believes the revenue that will be lost by a reduction to the small business tax rate would be better invested in addressing the negative impact businesses are facing with the return to the PST. In short, any initiative to reduce tax rates in the absence of sales tax reform is the wrong focus.

The importance of a new dialogue with British Columbians cannot be overstated. Businesses are seeing an increase in cost on a range of fronts. For small business, we are seeing higher payroll taxes, such as EI, WorkSafe or MSP premiums, increases to the minimum wage, uncompetitive property tax rates or increases to utility rates, such as B.C. Hydro.

To address these challenges, we need to reset our tax approach. Government needs to begin a dialogue with the public on the key questions we need to address and regain the public’s confidence and set the stage for tough decisions to come.

How do we maintain a competitive taxation regime in the face of the return to the PST? How does B.C.’s mix of personal and corporate tax levels, combined with the various taxes and levies, compare to other jurisdictions? Should B.C. undertake a shift from direct taxation to a greater reliance on user fees and consumption taxes?

Are the increases in targeted tax measures and credits providing a return to the provincial government? And to what extent are they undermining government’s ability to undertake broad-based tax reform and reduction?

The absence of an informed dialogue is already undermining government’s ability to make tough decisions. We
[ Page 1732 ]
have seen both hostility in Budget 2015 to the increase in MSP premiums while, at the same time, government fulfilled their commitment to reduce the top rate of tax.

More importantly — and we go back to our favourite issue — with both the HST and also the recent transit plebiscite, we have seen that this is instilling a deep level of hostility within the public around the need for changing how we deal with tax and funding government services. Without a new dialogue on how government should raise the revenue it needs, we will not be able to rebuild this trust and make the tough decisions as we go forward.

Given our time constraints, we will leave our comments to this, and we would welcome any questions.

G. Heyman: I’ll start by saying I appreciate your comments about the important role credit unions play in supporting the economy around British Columbia and why that should be important to us, as well as the unintended consequences of a growing gap between the small business and corporate tax rates. I think any time you get a negative result from what’s otherwise a well-intentioned policy, there’s a problem.

I do want to ask you specifically…. I’m not aware of any niche tax credits that are directly attributable to carbon tax revenues. I’m wondering if you can speak to that. I’m also puzzled by your comment about leaving behind the value of revenue neutrality in the carbon tax, because both researchers as well as the Finance Minister himself have stated that the carbon tax is now actually revenue negative.

J. Garson: Okay, there are a couple of points and a good point of clarification. It isn’t our suggestion that the carbon tax is no longer revenue and is generating revenue for the government. That isn’t our position at all.

The concern that we have is when it was introduced, it was all revenue-neutral through broad-based personal and corporate income tax returns. We now have a situation, as highlighted in our written submission, where the children’s fitness tax credit, the home renovation tax credit and a number of other tax credits are packaged under the carbon tax as part of its revenue neutrality. We feel that that is not how you should be achieving revenue neutrality under the carbon tax. You should be keeping it to broad-based personal and business income tax reductions.

We’re not suggesting that some of the tax credits are not ones that add some value. In terms of the scientific research tax credit and the digital tax credit, these are things that many of our members have advocated for, but they should be part of general revenue rather than part of the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax.

One of your first recommendations was in regards to debt reduction. The operating debt of the province actually has been on a consistent decline and, according to the Ministry of Finance, should be retired — the projection is — by 2020. Does the chamber view operating debt — you know, like credit card debt — as a little different from the debt that has to be incurred when we build hospitals, roads and other infrastructure?

J. Garson: Absolutely. We use the analogy of a household, and strangely enough, we use the credit card analogy. That operating debt has been run up for very sound reasons, given the fiscal condition and the recession we’ve gone through. But now we’re at a point where we’re back to balance. As when you run a household or when you run a small business, once you have the opportunity to pay down that debt, it’s time to pay down that debt.

That is very different from infrastructure investment and investing in the need for infrastructure. Operating is treated very differently.

J. Yap: My follow-up to that is: when the operating debt is paid off — say by 2020 — would you still want to see 50 percent of surplus applied to the longer-term infrastructure good debt?

J. Garson: Yes. To pay down debt is to pay down debt. The importance of paying down the operating debt is a fiscal discipline as much as anything else. If you’re in a position where you have a surplus and you incur debt, even though our debt is affordable as a jurisdiction…. When you look at our debt-to-GDP ratio, we’re the envy of almost every jurisdiction in the world. As we state in our written submission, if you don’t pay down debt when you’re running a surplus, when will you pay down debt?

I just wanted to touch on your suggestion around a dialogue or a discussion on taxation — related, as you focused on, the PST to HST or HST to PST. I think you described it well at the very end when you said the “hostility” out there around taxes. I think we all know the public’s view, based on a referendum.

I wondered how you see that dialogue occurring. Do you have any suggestions? Do you have a process that you would imagine occurring to be able to address some of the very clear public views around a move to HST?

J. Garson: That’s a good question. We haven’t actually discussed that in any detail in the office. Certainly, if Dan has a thought on this, I’d appreciate him making it.

It could be anything from a tax tour, in terms of government going out into the communities. I think that’s
[ Page 1733 ]
one of the key sort of parts of this, that there’s a very strong sense we’re taxed to death. Part of that is an information vacuum.

When you look at the key headline tax rates, we’re very, very competitive, but everyone feels that there are a million other ways that government’s hand goes into their pocket to take out more tax.

I think the key part — and one of the things we recommend — is looking at trying to develop a measure of the overall tax burden so that we begin to understand exactly how we tax compared to other jurisdictions. That’s not just the provincial government. That’s obviously how local governments — municipal property taxes — compare to other jurisdictions as well. But I think the basic part has to be an information piece, and from there, it’s basically engaging the public in a dialogue about how they want to raise the revenue.

The budget consultation paper — forgive me, the last year or the year before — had quite a nifty little on-line tool, where you could go in and be the Finance Minister for the day. Those kinds of mechanisms, I think, are important to begin to engage the public, because there’s a very strong concern. It’s something that we hear constantly, and it is undermining our ability to make some really tough decisions.

D. Baxter: The only thing I’d probably add to that is, again, to put a little bit of structure in. There are many, many ways you can do it, but one of the things, I think, that helped precipitate this policy was some of the stuff they did down in Australia.

Again, we’ve done a panel, so I don’t want to say recreate the wheel and do another panel necessarily. Maybe it’s expanding on the scope of the panel, where they looked at all the different taxes that they do. They identified some 28 different baskets, and then they decided to go to work on…. Well, if you’re going to basically reorient or refocus our taxes and streamline them, what are the most efficient taxes that we should be using to raise the revenue? And offset that against the expenses that we have to pay out, whether it’s social security or other types of benefits that the government does.

A panel like that, maybe modelled on the Australian model, would be something to look at. But again, there are many, many ways. Like Jon said, we haven’t really put a lot of thought ourselves into that yet.

Spencer, if you’d like to ask the question quickly, I could ask the gentlemen if they’d like to respond in writing to the committee and follow up.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wondered. I was impressed that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has put forward a solution or a suggestion on how we can start addressing affordability in housing.

I noticed you didn’t get a chance to talk about it, but you also talked about arts in your submission. You’re hearing this, obviously, I guess, from members all across the province. It’s not just a Metro Vancouver issue. You’d say it’s a provincial issue all across the province. Is that right — that you think we should look at it? Or is it just in Metro Vancouver?

J. Garson: No. There are hot spots, but it’s occurring in communities across the province.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate you taking the time. Good luck.

Could I ask Mr. Rick Nickelchok and Dr. Jay Robinson to come forward — the College of Chiropractors of B.C. and the B.C. Chiropractic Association.

Gentlemen, welcome. Good to see you. I’ll give you the same spiel. Ten minutes. I’ll try to get your attention with two minutes to go, and you can wrap up your presentation. Then we can go to the committee for questions, if there’s time.

Rick Nickelchok. I’m the executive director with the B.C. Chiropractic Association, and I’m joined by Dr. Jay Robinson, our president of the association.

I need a clarification here. I’m going to just cross out the College of Chiropractors here, because we don’t represent the college.

J. Robinson: That being said, we’re not asking for anything different than the college would be here for anyway. It’s just they’re not here sitting with us.

R. Nickelchok: Recognizing that the majority of the presentations you’ve received already, to date in this process, have been asking for money, we appreciate what you’re going through. Last year when we were here we didn’t ask for money. We actually offered to help. This year, though, I’d have to say we’re taking a slightly different approach. In conversation with Dr. Robinson, he thought of a concept, and he’ll share that with you.

J. Robinson: I can appreciate what it’s like to sit in your position after having done this for a few years and how tough it is to have to be on committees like this. So thank
[ Page 1734 ]
you for putting up with all of us.

This year we thought we’d switch it up. This year we’re going to bring you the money. We’re not asking for money. We’ve got ways to save some money, so hopefully…. I saw a few smiles. I’ve already succeeded in that. Thanks very much. So we’ll talk about that a little bit here.

We’re the voluntary association responsible for…. Ninety-four percent of the chiropractors here in B.C. are members of our association. That represents…. About 1,000 chiropractors are a part of our organization. We are the advocacy association looking after the chiropractors of B.C. We were established many, many years ago in conjunction with the college and have split off since 1991.

I’ll just share a few stats for those of you who aren’t familiar with us — some information about us. We serve about 900,000 individual patients annually in B.C. as part of our members’ mandate, and 61 percent of all British Columbians have actually gone to a chiropractor for service. We are an integral part of the health care delivery system. We know that British Columbians like our service and will refer us and come back.

That’s all. There’s more information in front of you. You can read that at your leisure. I’m going to pass it on to Dr. Robinson.

J. Robinson: I’m not going to read from my script here. You guys all have the script. We all know the reality of what’s going on in B.C.’s health care. We know what kinds of dollars we spend on this. It’s a lot of pressure.

We know that musculoskeletal care — which is chiropractors, physiotherapists, massage therapists and that kind of thing — accounts for 33 percent of the incidents of daily health care in the province. And we know B.C.’s health care priorities. You have put out a great document — I believe it was about a year ago — on what’s needed. We’re in alignment with that document.

I have to apologize to you. We didn’t get up to speed fast enough to be able to help in some of the areas where we could have helped. We have chiropractors with training and capacity. We could have helped in the north. We have them all over the north. Had we been part of that conversation, I think we could have actually been there to help reduce some of the load that’s being put on our medical colleagues.

In chiropractic and in all the other health care disciplines, we see our patients asking for us to collaborate and work together. That’s what the patients want, and that’s what the patients need. From the point of view of us in health care, we prefer to work together. We like working with our colleagues. It’s better for us, it’s better for the patient, it reduces our risk, and it produces better outcomes and lower costs. This is being done throughout North America and, indeed, throughout the world.

Just some fast thoughts. Did you know we have 1,000 hospitals with chiropractors on staff in Mexico? We have chiropractors on staff all throughout United States hospitals. I just found out this last weekend that Toronto’s five city hospitals have chiropractors on staff, on salary and on fee-for-service.

We’re not doing any of this yet here in B.C., and we’re kind of behind. This isn’t because chiropractors sell themselves better. This is because this is right for the patients, and it saves money to put us all in these positions. There’s actually nothing in it for us as chiropractors. Okay. Maybe someone gets a salaried job, but really, there’s nothing in it for us. This is about the patient, and that’s where we need to go.

There’s a thing in here talking about what we’d like to do. A team approach in chiropractic is long established in all the different sports things. I mean, sports teams have had chiropractors for forever. The Olympics has had chiropractors in them for forever. We’re all working together in the health care world. It’s only some old bumps on the road that are keeping us from all working together under the MSP programs and things like that. And it’s not going to cost money. It’s more about just removing some little barriers. It’s going to cost a phone call or an e-mail and things like that.

The diagnostic imaging one is one that we can do and fix in this province for no cost. Right now, under WorkSafe B.C. and under ICBC, chiropractic is covered. Chiropractors have the right to take X-rays, have the right to interpret X-rays. We send the patient off to get the X-ray. Under the MSP program, we send the patient back to the medical doctor. Well, you know what it’s like to get in to your MD. It’s kind of a wait. That creates a delay. The medical doctor sends them off to the lab — you guys pay for it — and then sends them back to us. That’s a wasted step, and it’s already being paid for.

We already have the right under our scope of practice to send the person directly for X-ray, but because of this somehow administrative little blip, it doesn’t happen. We can save our medical colleagues some backlog. We can get the patient who needs to be in the medical office qualified. They’ve got an X-ray saying they’ve got a cancer, a fracture or whatever. The ones that don’t stay directly in the chiropractic office and are treated quickly.

It’s a win for everyone. It doesn’t do anything for chiropractors. It doesn’t matter to us. We’ll get the patient in the end anyway. This is about the people of B.C., reducing their wait time and reducing the backlog for our medical colleagues. That’s how we can save you some money on this one. It’s a win for everyone.

A better future for B.C.’s patients involves what I alluded to a moment ago, and that was working together
[ Page 1735 ]
on a collaborative basis. So who’s on the chair of family planning in Ontario? A chiropractor and a medical doctor. We have a chiropractor and a medical doctor on that plan here with UBC as well, but we haven’t made the transition from the high level of things to the street level, to the patients. We’re doing it up here, but we’re not delivering it. We need to start delivering this.

It’s in place. We all like to work together. It’s not costing stuff. We just have to start making those decisions to bring health care together to allow everybody to work to their capacity. It’s not happening, and it’s actually simple. It’s not going to cost more money. It actually ends up saving money, and it allows us all to do what’s right for the patient. It’s a win for everyone. It’s a better future for B.C.’s patients.

S. Gibson: A couple of quick questions. I’m not that familiar with the chiropractor we saw — ignorance, I guess. Are you allowed to issue pharmaceutical…? Are you, like a medical doctor, allowed to issue prescriptions?

J. Robinson: In some jurisdictions, yes. This is an emerging trend throughout the world.

S. Gibson: Now my second question. My understanding is, and I don’t know this…. I know that somebody in my community of Abbotsford — actually, a former mayor — was a chiropractor: Bruce Banman. My understanding is that there’s some disconnect between the conventional, the medical community, and chiropractic — somewhat of a lack of acceptance. So the proposal you’re making now sounds uncontroversial, but to the medical community, that may not be the case. Is that my understanding?

J. Robinson: Our history has been filled with that, yes, in the past. However, I’m glad you brought that up. It gives me a chance to talk about the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, who I spoke to a little while ago and who is willing to speak to you to support chiropractic — having this direct referral for X-ray.

They do this in Alberta, Ontario, even Newfoundland, and it works. They’re willing to support us because of how it helps them as well. Yes, it’s part of our history. It’s not part of our future.

M. Morris: Basically, the same question. I think we’ve talked about this before as well. Have you made presentations like this to the Health Ministry? What’s their position on this collaborative approach?

J. Robinson: They are fairly positive towards the collaborative approach. We’ve actually been having some difficulty navigating the landscape and getting through to speak to whom we need to get to speak to. We are a very small fish in a very big pond. There are lots of problems in health care, and there are a lot more things that are more urgent than us sometimes. Recognizing that — yeah.

We’re in line for another conversation — coming up here quite quickly — on some of these kinds of things. Our last meeting was almost two years ago with the Health Minister, who was quite positive and supportive of what we were bringing to the table at the time. Since then, we’ve refined our approach, learned that it’s actually going to save money and found other provinces willing to step up and defend this position — that it helps you and the people.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. I wonder if there are any other specific examples you could give around the partnership. You mentioned the issue of referrals for imaging. Are there other things that you could point to that you would say would help the system or would help the patient, ultimately, that are still in the way around, specifically, working together with other professions?

J. Robinson: Yeah. One of them…. We have chiropractors who often volunteer their services to work in our hospital systems to help with the load. ICORD is Canada’s premier spine research foundation. It’s here in Vancouver. There are a couple of chiropractors on staff that are actually funded by the American government to be there, yet we’re all working together. And yeah, we’re all a part of this stuff.

Currently, MSP is not allowed to fund a chiropractor for any work. But people in situations like that — it would be my contention that we should be opening this up a little bit, not by virtue of what’s on someone’s last name credential but by virtue of what they can offer to the hospital and to the system. That should be considered for funding.

A lot of chiropractors are not just chiropractors working in a field. They’re now throughout the research part of health care. They’re throughout the academic side of health care. They’re a part of every university — all the major universities in the country. We need to start letting them do what they do altogether.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I appreciate you taking the time to present. Good luck. I’m sure we’ll see you again.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Thank you very much. Committee stands in recess until 1:35 p.m.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. I will ask that we reconvene the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

If I could ask Ian Bruce and Kyle Aben of the David Suzuki Foundation to come forward.

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with two minutes to go. That way you can wrap up and conclude your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for about five minutes of questioning. Use the time as you wish. The floor is yours.

I. Bruce: Yes, first of all I wanted to thank the committee for the work that you’re doing touring this great province and getting the input of British Columbians and stakeholders. We strongly appreciate that.

Today, we’d like to speak to you about an opportunity to seize B.C.’s leadership opportunity when it comes to climate change and improving transportation choice in British Columbia. Since the climate action plan was implemented in 2008, obviously, B.C. has done some amazing things. Work has progressed, and certainly, things like the B.C. carbon tax have garnered international attention.

However, over the last few years, greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. have continued to rise. In order to stem this rise in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improve transportation and strengthen the economy, we’d like to speak to you about three specific items today. One is investing in transit and transportation. The second, which my colleague Kyle will speak to, is improvements to the B.C. carbon tax, and third, some investments in the public sector, specifically around energy efficiency.

Certainly, transportation is a really important service for British Columbians. Transportation accounts for the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province, at 37 percent. It also helps…. In order to address this, one of the huge opportunities is improving transportation choice in our cities and communities. B.C. public transit, for example, is a service in over 80 communities provincewide through B.C. Transit and through groups, authorities, such as TransLink.

Specifically, investments in transportation and better transit help reduce congestion. They obviously provide more choice for citizens. They improve health and strengthen the economy.

A recent report by Sir Nicholas Stern, who’s the former chief economist of the World Bank, as well as Felipe Calderón, the former President of Mexico, stated that investments in better transit systems and energy-efficiency infrastructure, for example, help reduce public infrastructure costs by upwards of 30 percent. By making these types of investments, we can save the public purse on transportation infrastructure and other types of infrastructure by up to 30 percent. At the citizen level, citizens can save up to 50 percent on their transportation costs through these types of investments.

One of the things I just wanted to highlight, on page 4 of our submission, is a graph, figure 1. The red bar lines you can see there are the investments in B.C.’s transportation plan since it was first introduced in 2008. That plan was aimed at helping achieve B.C.’s greenhouse gas target of a 33 percent reduction. Those were the investments that government estimated were required in infrastructure to reach that specific target as well as address the demand from our communities.

As of last fiscal year, about $951 million of B.C.’s provincial contribution has gone towards the plan. That’s about 20 percent of the overall $4.75 billion provincial investment that the government estimated would be the provincial contribution at the time. Just to put that in perspective, we need to be making more investments in transit and transportation systems within the province. It’s already having an impact on our economy.

Although I don’t have provincial figures, for the Metro Vancouver region, there have been several studies put out there that the cost on the Metro Vancouver regional economy is upwards of $2 billion every single year. There have been several reports by C.D. Howe, by the B.C. Business Council, as well as others, that have estimated that this could increase to approximately $4.7 billion by 2045 if we fail to take action. Obviously, there’s a huge opportunity here, and we just wanted to highlight that.

I’ll now pass it over to Kyle to speak briefly about the carbon tax and other policies.

K. Aben: As Ian mentioned, our carbon tax has been said to be a model for the world. We’ve had a lot of success with it, but currently, it’s in a freeze. What the freeze does is actually dampen that price signal as we see inflation creep in.

There are three things I’d like to speak about. One is increasing the tax level. Reintroduce those annual increases.
[ Page 1737 ]
We would also suggest that perhaps, as we see things moving forward, a $5 increase might not be enough, so we would entertain either a $10 or a larger increase than that.

Something else we would like to do is see the expanded scope of the carbon tax. Currently, it’s on all combustion in the province, which equates to about 70 percent. We now know the fugitive emissions and the process emissions. They really should be undertaken, as we do have that data now to capture them.

Then the third one is kind of out of the blue. We know it’s a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but the UBCM and others are calling for those increases to now be spent. The David Suzuki Foundation would say that anything over $30 would be redirected into either transportation or municipal infrastructure, like the UBCM has proposed. We really do think that not only will we see the gas reductions from the carbon price, but we’ll see a massive infrastructure pull from that money.

That brings me to my second one as well. It’s about expanding the carbon-neutral capital program. Originally, the PSECA funding was about $25 million a year. I think, currently, this year, it’s budgeted for $14 million. Again, different programs but similar. I would entertain, as well, that we had a lot of the low-lying fruit. The easy emission reductions in the public service go first. In fact, I would argue that we need more than the original funding, going forward.

Public service organizations such as hospitals and schools touch more than just the citizens. They have people interactioning. They see the benefits of the carbon neutrality. I think that their ability to do so through infrastructure changes rather than just writing a cheque for offsets, which we know have not had the most positive press, might be a better thing for us.

Other than that, for the carbon tax, we see that perhaps upwards of $100 a tonne would be needed to meet Canada’s current obligations or current commitments. Again, we would call for those larger iterative increases.

The PSECA funding. There was a gap for a while where there wasn’t any of that funding, and I think schools and hospitals and K through 12 really struggled. I applaud the introduction for the carbon-neutral capital program, but I would like to see that further funded.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Thank you very much. Plenty of time for questions.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I note that the position on devoting any future increases to be derived from the carbon tax to some other measures than simply tax cuts is new for the Suzuki Foundation. I have a couple of questions.

I’m wondering if you’ve done any public opinion polling or are aware of any that reflects the views of the British Columbia public on the appropriate uses of the carbon tax, whether the use as it was originally designed, to lower personal and corporate taxes, was believed to be the best use or if there is support for directing it to transit funding or other carbon-reduction means.

I also note that in the fourth year of the carbon tax introduction, the original measures to offset the impact on lower-income British Columbians kind of reversed and it became more onerous for the bottom 80 percent and, I think, overall beneficial for the top 20, regardless of what action they took or didn’t take to reduce their carbon consumption. I’m wondering if you think that needs to be revisited, either under the current carbon tax structure or a future increase.

Finally, we’ve heard from a couple of chambers of commerce that have suggested that the principle of revenue neutrality has been abandoned and replaced with a number of niche tax credits and that we should return to revenue neutrality. I’ve pointed out to them that I think we’re actually in a revenue-negative position at the moment. Feel free to comment.

I. Bruce: I’ll try and address those questions. First of all, the David Suzuki Foundation’s position on the carbon tax. I just want to clarify. We’ve always articulated the need for investments in infrastructure such as transit and energy efficiency. Our message to government has been that if it’s not coming from general revenues or if there are no other sources of revenue, then the carbon tax is a good source, a good opportunity, to leverage that. If there are future increases in the carbon tax, using a portion of those revenues going toward solutions makes a lot of sense.

As far as what polling and research suggests, at least from British Columbians, the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions has conducted several polls with the Pembina Institute on where British Columbians would like to see those investments go, with the carbon tax. The majority of British Columbians did support investing a portion of those funds into solutions such as public transit. That came out as one of the number one top priorities for British Columbians — taking those revenues and investing in that.

It appears, at least from the research, that their number one concern is transparency. They want to make sure that every single dollar is going to something that is a tangible solution in their communities, and that seemed to be the number one sort of finding that really popped out from that research. Lower on their priority list were corporate taxes. That was among the lowest. British Columbians said that they would keep that at the lower end of the priorities as far as investments back into the economy.
[ Page 1738 ]

G. Heyman: If you have those studies and could submit them to the Clerk, that would be great. They’ll be part of the record and form part of our deliberations.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the presentation. I’m interested in the transit commitments and the need to increase over a number of years. I find very it telling, the graph on the back. I’m wondering. When you’re talking about investment in transit for the improvement of the environment as well, are you just looking at investment in transit, or are you looking also at the infrastructure investment in bike paths and ferries as well — an integrated policy?

I. Bruce: We would support an integrated policy. When we refer to at least the B.C. Transit plan, the majority of that is transit infrastructure. Whether that’s light rail, SkyTrain, buses, SeaBus or other forms of transit, that plan, the majority of it, is dedicated to those services. But through some of B.C.’s investments in active lifestyles, we do believe that that is one area that should continue to be funded and increase funding for active lifestyle improvements. Those investments in active transportation, whether it’s walking or biking or other forms of active transportation, have huge health benefits.

The reality is, today in Canada, this is probably the first time that the young generation, the youngest Canadians…. This will be one of the first times that they will not outlive their parents, as far as their lifespan, because of the epidemic of obesity and other forms of disease associated with a sedentary lifestyle. Kids are spending too much time in front of computers and television and not, in their day-to-day commutes, getting enough exercise, when it comes to going to and from school — or to and from work, for those that are older. That is a huge concern, and it’s a national epidemic at the moment.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I just want to continue on with this conversation around transportation. You mentioned the investment in transportation, but you’ve also talked about a couple of other pieces. In your report, you talk about the car-share programs, but you also talk about local growth. I wondered how those conversations are going with local municipalities around that, since it’s mainly the municipalities. It’s not all their responsibility, but they make the determination around local growth plans. It’s perhaps timely, with UBCM being in town this week.

I. Bruce: Well, obviously, it’s been a priority. I believe many mayors have raised this as a key concern for the last decade. I would say that it’s a vital concern for British Columbians at large.

I think one of the unique things I was involved with this past winter and spring was the Metro Vancouver referendum on public transit and better transportation. Literally, we were working side by side with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the boards of trade, as well as social services groups such as the YM/YWCA, United Way, in calling for more investment in better transit and transportation, because everyone benefits.

Whether it’s the economy and we’re getting goods that are moving quicker, or we’re helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are huge benefits for everybody, and I think everyone can recognize that.

There’s an obvious need, I think. The UBCM has identified a deficit in infrastructure, and it’s having a huge impact on the economy. I think that was one thing that’s really clear. There have been four or five studies in the past six months….

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mr. Bruce, I’m sorry. I’m going to have to cut you off. We’re on a very tight schedule this afternoon, so I do appreciate….

S. Hamilton (Chair): As George was saying, if you have more information you’d like to share with the committee, you have until October 15. You can submit it, and it will be shared with all the committee members to continue with the deliberations. Thank you very much.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Next I have the Vancouver Board of Education, School District 39 — Fraser Ballantyne, Janet Fraser and Patti Bacchus. Welcome.

As I mentioned previously — ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention to give you a heads-up, and then we’ll have some time for questions after that. The floor is yours.

F. Ballantyne: I just wanted to say thank you very much for having us come and give this presentation. This presentation is similar to last year’s presentation, although in this case we’ve drafted it jointly, in the spirit of collaboration, with the NPA division and the Green Party. All the areas are focused where increased funding would support even greater student achievement outcomes.

We think that Vancouver is doing a very good job. I think we rank very high in the world in what we do. We think there is potential and room for improvement, so part of my submission here will be around that and the funding issue.

I’ll start off. The Vancouver School Board is one of the most diverse public school systems in Canada, with an annual enrolment of over 50,000 students from K to 12. In addition, the Vancouver School Board provides educational programs and services to about 600 adult ed students. The Vancouver School Board invests sig-
[ Page 1739 ]
nificant resources in a broad range of programs to meet learning-diverse needs.

Under student achievement, the district continues to focus on the board’s strategic plan, the goals of increasing student engagement and ensuring that all students are included and have the opportunity to succeed. The Vancouver School Board has a broad offering of specialty programs to support learners in a variety of ways, addressing a range of needs.

There is a clear focus on improving the graduation rates for all students — in particular, for our aboriginal learners. We do have some positive results about that, which I’ll talk about a little bit later. This begins with the emphasis on providing supportive learning experiences and interventions as children transition from pre-K into K, through to grade 12 and then on to post-secondary life.

Working in partnership with health and other community agencies, the district has implemented several new initiatives. One is providing early success programming for pre-K children and their families in the summer prior to K entry. The purpose was to promote readiness for pre-school students who have limited or no exposure to pre-school learning opportunities prior to their entry into kindergarten. Another provides family- and child-friendly general health and wellness screening and assessments to children entering K in schools where there may be a higher level of vulnerability among the student population.

Both of these initiatives have resulted in families receiving supports earlier and children receiving needed identification and interventions from health and community agencies. As well, the schools have information to better receive and support students as they enter kindergarten. In some instances, this has included the placement of ELL support and special ed–trained student support assistants in kindergarten classes to assist with the transition from pre-K to K for those vulnerable students.

Although this is a small pilot, we would like to build on this model. We find that there’s a lot of success happening here. If you just look at the graph below there very briefly, you can see our interventions and the percentage of growth that is happening. That’s very positive. We look on every single attribute that’s going on in the program. We’re very pleased about the progress. It’s slow, but we are making progress.

The district early intervention initiative has resulted in gains for most at-risk learners. The data indicates that 53 percent of students identified as at-risk in their K year are meeting or exceeding grade-level reading expectations by the end of grade 3.

School completion is a key success indicator for us. The district continues to make gains in this area for all students, including aboriginal students. The development of the student success plans for aboriginal students is one strategy being used to monitor, plan and deliver interventions on an individual basis.

There continue to be incremental improvements in the results for aboriginal students. If you look below, the graph here does show from the year 2008 to 2014 — we’ve split it out into male and female — all students in our district have had an 87 percent six-year completion rate in 2014 in comparison to an 86.7 percent six-year completion rate back in 2013. Incremental improvements, but we’re moving in the right direction.

The six-year completion rate for aboriginal students increased from 25 to 43 percent, which we think is very significant, between ’09 and ’14. The percentage of aboriginal students graduating with a Dogwood certificate increased from 29 percent to 47 percent. So these interventions are actually on the ground and working for us.

The Vancouver Board of Education relies on provincial funding to provide 91 percent of the annual revenues. This means that the education services and programs are significantly dependant on the level of provincial funding provided to school boards.

In terms of expenditures, over 83 percent of the Vancouver school board expenditures are directly related to providing instruction to students. Building operations and maintenance of our 110 schools is the next largest expenditure. We’ve heard loud and clear that some of our buildings are in dire need of improvements.

The Vancouver school board has faced significant funding shortfalls over the past decade. As a result of these funding shortfalls, school districts have had to make reductions to the level of services provided in order to achieve a balanced budget, which we have been doing all the way along.

If we look at how we’re comparing between British Columbia and the other provinces, B.C. has fallen behind the rest of Canada in terms of spending per student, growth and education expenditures since ’08 and ’09 and student-to-educator ratio.

If you look at that graph here, in the five-year period of ’09 to 2013, the average expenditure per student in Canada increased by 14.1 percent during that four-year period. B.C. lagged at 6.5 percent. The average expenditure per student nationally for 2013 — this is from Stats Canada — was $12,377. B.C. remains at $12,113. If B.C. matched the $12,377 average national expenditure, it would translate into about $143 million more in funding for the province’s 543,000 students.

Just continuing on to that, B.C. has had the lowest growth in both private and public K-to-12 education in Canada. Between ’08 and ’13, operating expenditures in the public K to 12 in Canada grew by 12.8 percent, while private elementary and secondary schools grew by about 12.2 percent.

Operating expenditures for public K-to-12 education in B.C. over this time period grew only 1.2 percent, while private education grew by 4.9 percent. There are
[ Page 1740 ]
disparities that we are noticing, and we think some of that money can be funnelled back into public education, in particular for Vancouver.

Two minutes? Okay, I’m going to go to the recommendations here. You can look at that graph maybe later as you may have some questions.

The Vancouver school board recommends that…. Provide stable, predictable and adequate funding to enable our school district to fulfil their responsibility to provide continued equitable access to public education. The unpredictable funding and unfunded cost increases require school districts to spend significant time and resources on balancing budgets.

The province does not provide funding for net cost increases of employee salary increments as well for teachers and administrators as they move through and for excluded staff as they gain experience.

There are a lot of costs that are just passed right on to the Vancouver school board, and we’re having to actually find that money. That is taking away from what kind of…. We think the money could go to programs for our district.

No provision for basic inflation is made in the funding calculation. Inflation is slowly eating away at the purchasing power of the education grant.

The review and increase of supplemental funding grants for students with special needs is a particular area that we’re very interested in. The grant amounts should be based on the functional assessments of learning needs — in other words, based on what specific supports a student needs to successfully access education.

Funding for increased maintenance and upgrades to address needs of the aging school facilities I hinted at earlier on. Another recommendation is to provide sufficient capital funding to honour the provincial government’s commitment to upgrade or replace high-seismic-risk schools.

The Vancouver school board has over 60 of its 110 schools in seismic upgrading. We are pleased with the progress with working with the project office, but we need to have those schools completed sooner rather than later — as soon as possible. I know that 2020 was the target before. We’re way behind on that. We need to continue to work hard on fast-tracking that program.

We need to have a priority goal to develop and implement a poverty reduction strategy to ensure that all families have access to affordable, quality child care and also to provide adequate provincial funding that fully supports adult education programs. The province should restore the funding for graduated adults to upgrade their high school courses. I heard this also from the senior advisory committee at the city hall just this week. They were very concerned, as well as we were at the school board level.

The recent cancellation of these education guarantees creates a substantial barrier for adult learners and erodes the equity and access to education and career opportunities.

Just below that, finally, these last four are just to remind the committee of the following recommendations last year.

I don’t want to take over my time. If you have some questions, maybe I can pull out some more information for you.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. I just wondered if you have a number, figure, for the downloading of costs. I’ve been asking that of other school districts that have come and presented, whether it’s hydro or MSP or an additional contract.

F. Ballantyne: I’m very familiar with the…. We’ve just worked out the cost of the exempt staff, for example, that’s coming, and that looks like $1 million that is going to be an ongoing cost to us that we’re going to have to find. We’re already heavily into a shortfall. That’s going to be another add-on if we are truly going to be competitive in holding on to these staff in comparison to other districts. We don’t have the reserves at this point like some other districts do have.

S. Gibson: Thank you for coming today. I think we’re all aware of the vibrancy and dynamic nature of your school district and the good work you’re doing.

I just want to clarify one thing, if I might. On page 5, you comment: “Operating expenditures for public K-to-12 education in B.C. over the same time period referred above grew by only 1.2 percent, while private education grew by 4.9 percent.” That’s true, but I want to clarify that the funding formula did not change. The only reason was that enrolment increased. The formula did not change.

The impression there — I don’t want to that leave hanging — is that government put more money arbitrarily into independent schools, and that was not the case. The enrolment, strictly, was the only reason — if I could clarify that.

P. Bacchus: It’s not totally correct, though. You did change the supplemental funding for special ed — increased to private schools.

S. Chandra Herbert: Of course, there’s the operating, the daily, day-to-day. We hear a lot about it, but we also
[ Page 1741 ]
hear the seismic issue. I’m curious about how the province, in your view, deals with capital infrastructure. You hear lobbying: “We need to rebuild this school now because all the other schools are too full.” Every year, that same ask happens. I know VSB has a number of schools that need to go.

Can that be improved? It seems like it’s arbitrary how decisions are made. We’re not really clear how things get prioritized. I’m just curious if you had some thoughts on that.

P. Bacchus: It has been a chronic challenge. We do submit capital plans, often a five-year plan. Periodically, government will put out the word to districts that it’s accepting five-year capital plans. In many cases, we will submit a fairly lengthy plan and prioritizing. For example, as you’ll know, the International Village school was at the top of the capital plan for ten years before it actually got funded.

The real lag we see is that the government tends to want to see the enrolment there in place — the students ready, lined up at the door — before the funding is in place. So we end up in situations like we did in Yaletown with Elsie Roy, where, by the time the school is built, it’s overfull. There are actually more kids. It’s very difficult to plan, as the city tries to become sustainable, to encourage car-free living.

Downtown, for example, is a great example. We know. We’ve been saying it for years. It’s the case of ten years of asking for a school downtown. By the time we get it funded, we actually need a larger school. So there’s a real lag time and a lack of foresight, in our opinion, in waiting for projects to be funded. They’re already there. It can take three years or more to get a school actually built once the funding is in place.

In terms of the seismic, it has been somewhat erratic. There are different rationales about capacity, the number of people in the school, the facility condition. But that has changed. The goalposts change year to year. So each time we think we’ve figured out the criteria, the rules change. It becomes very inefficient in terms of planning and getting economies of scale — of having several projects in a district like ours that has literally dozens of major capital projects. We could do it much more cost-effectively and quickly if we had a whole series of approvals in place as opposed to sort of hill by hill and reinventing the wheel each time.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for presenting. We’re just out of time now. So thank you, again, for taking the time to appear before the committee.

Welcome. As you’re getting yourselves comfortable, I’ll give you the same spiel. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with two minutes to go so you can wrap up. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions for five. So if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

S. Corbeil: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present the recommendations of the Canadian Diabetes Association as you consider the priorities for the 2016 provincial budget.

My name is Serge Corbeil. I’m the director of government relations and advocacy for the CDA. With me today are the volunteer chair of our provincial advocacy committee, Colin Mallet, and our chief science officer, Dr. Jan Hux. Colin will offer a brief overview of the CDA, diabetes in B.C. and the impact of diabetes on the health care budget and also his own experience with diabetes. Then Dr. Hux will speak to our specific recommendations.

I’m here as a volunteer for the CDA but also as someone who has had diabetes for over 50 years and has been taking insulin for over 50 years. I’ve been fortunate enough to have the income to pay for proper care for that diabetes — in my case, for an insulin pump. I’m, thus, one of the lucky few who have minimal complications after 50 years of diabetes.

The CDA is a registered charitable organization founded in 1953. Its mission is both simple and ambitious. It’s to lead the fight against diabetes by preventing the onset and consequences of diabetes, to help those affected by diabetes to live healthy lives and to help in the discovery of a cure. The CDA and its staff work with more than 20,000 volunteers. Here in B.C. we do this through four regional offices offering programs and initiatives in the community.

Among our many activities, we run a well-accepted Food Skills for Families program with the Ministry of Health and work closely with the medical profession to maintain an internationally accepted set of guidelines on the treatment of diabetes. These are produced every five years and are actually used on a worldwide basis. They’re very well accepted in other countries.

The association’s vision, through our charter, is a country where all people with diabetes have equitable access to quality care and get the support to live to their full potential. Poorly managed diabetes can lead to serious and potentially life-threatening complications. It’s not widely realized, even among the medical profession, but diabetes is a major cause of 30 percent of all strokes, 40 percent of all heart attacks, 50 percent of kidney failures requiring dialysis and 70 percent of lower limb non-traumatic amputations.

Today there are an estimated 440,000 people in British Columbia who have been diagnosed with diabetes, representing 8½ percent of the population. There are many
[ Page 1742 ]
more with prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes. In ten years from now, it’s estimated that another 210,000 more people will be diagnosed with diabetes. That’s a 50 percent increase in B.C.

Taking measures to help manage and prevent diabetes is the fiscally prudent thing to do. That’s because it has a massive impact on the health care budget.

The estimated cost of diabetes in B.C. is $1.6 billion, and it’s climbing rapidly. Most of that money is, unfortunately, not spent on preventing and treating diabetes but on the complications of diabetes. These complications and their costs can be considerably reduced by doing more now on prevention and treatment. If we collectively don’t address the rising tide of diabetes, it’ll drive the health care budget over the financial cliff in the coming years.

I’d like to ask Dr. Hux now to speak to what we feel could be the priorities in your Finance Committee deliberations.

J. Hux: Thank you, Colin, and thank you, members of the committee. It’s my pleasure to share with you our recommendations, which were carefully considered with the well-being of the people living with diabetes in mind but also, as Colin mentioned, with the significant impact diabetes has on the provincial budget in mind.

As highlighted in our consultation paper, the province of British Columbia is a leader in Canada in health outcomes such as mortality from heart disease and cancer. It’s important to build on this track record by improving the supports for people living with diabetes so that they can better self-manage their disease and delay or avoid serious complications.

All people living with type 1 diabetes need insulin treatment to survive. Many choose to deliver their insulin by manually injecting it several times a day, while others use an insulin pump to deliver the appropriate amount of insulin both in a continuous low level and with spikes to manage food intake.

There’s compelling evidence of the medical benefit of insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections of insulin. Switching from daily injections to an insulin pump can offer better blood glucose control and reduce the likelihood of developing complications. The greatest impact is seen in the area of chronic renal disease, a condition which in turn leads to a need for dialysis or transplantation.

However, there are high, out-of-pocket costs associated with the use of a pump, and these costs can be a barrier to effective management of diabetes. Insulin pumps cost between $6,000 and $7,000 each and need to be replaced about every five years. On top of that, out-of-pocket costs for pump supplies run at about $4,000 per person per year.

The government of British Columbia recognized the benefit of insulin pumps by authorizing the purchase of insulin pumps and supplies for eligible persons with type 1 diabetes under the age of 25. However, the reality remains. Currently, we estimate more than 19,000 people in British Columbia are living with type 1 diabetes, and among those are 12,500 who are over the age of 26 and are currently not eligible for pump coverage.

The seriousness of the condition and of the consequences to individuals when insulin is not properly injected when needed require that we make it a priority to provide people with type 1 diabetes with the best possible therapies to help them, no matter what their age. It is for this reason that we recommend that the government expand the existing program to include all individuals with diabetes, regardless of age, if they meet medical criteria for pump therapy.

Our next recommendation is designed to increase the revenues of government in an effort to offset the necessary investments in initiatives that promote healthy living but also to discourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.

It’s widely recognized that overweight and obesity are risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes and prediabetes. On this front, the statistics are, to say the least, not encouraging. Currently, 60 percent of adult Canadians are either overweight or obese, and one-third of children and youth aged five to 17 are overweight or obese. What’s more, children who are obese are at increased risk of remaining overweight or obese as they become adults.

While obesity is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes no matter what food you consume to lead to that weight gain, recent studies conclusively demonstrate that excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages directly increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, independent of weight. These beverages contain large amounts of sugar. A typical serving of soft drink may contain ten teaspoons of sugar.

Given the serious impact of diabetes and its complications and the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and the risk of type 2 diabetes, the CDA recommends that the government of British Columbia introduce a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

We also call on the government of British Columbia to use the revenues generated from such a tax to invest in initiatives that promote healthy living in British Columbia. In fact, this would help with the funding of our third recommendation, which is to allocate at least 6 percent of the Health budget in integrated and collaborative approaches to health promotion and chronic disease prevention.

The Canadian Diabetes Association respectfully requests the committee’s consideration of these three recommendations based on evidence and intended to ensure a healthy and sustainable future for all British Columbians. Better diabetes management improves the overall health of people with diabetes, reduces burden on
[ Page 1743 ]
the provincial health care system and directly contributes to building a stronger province.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the committee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Hux. I appreciate you taking the time to present. I have about five minutes and four questions.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks for the presentation. I’m curious about two points. What do you find is happening to, say, somebody who had the benefit of a pump up to the age of 24, and then…? What happens after if they can’t afford to pay out of pocket for that — to them and their lives? I’ve certainly heard from some constituents, but I’d love to hear that.

The other question is just around sugary beverages. It’s something we’ve heard about a bit on this tour so far. I wonder if you have any studies to show that there’s a causal link between putting, say, a tax or whatever you’d call it on the beverage and an actual decline in the amount of use or intake of said beverage. I’d be interested in that.

J. Hux: To your first question — what’s the impact of withdrawal of pump funding at age 25 — I don’t believe that’s been studied in any rigorous way. Most of those individuals, if they don’t have the financial resources, as Colin did, to pay for it out of pocket would revert to multiple daily injections. Many of them would experience poorer blood sugar control, and we know that blood sugar control is causally linked to kidney disease and blindness in particular, as well as amputations.

To your second question. In terms of the evidence of the benefit of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, many jurisdictions have introduced them — Mexico, Hungary, France and Finland among them.

Mexico is the best-studied example. They introduced the tax in January of 2014. By the end of the summer, overall consumption had been reduced by 6 percent, with a choice to drink water instead, which is certainly a much more healthful choice. That decline continued toward the end of the year.

Importantly, at the time when the decline was 6 percent in the overall population, it was 9 percent in low-income communities. That’s important, because we know that in Canada, diabetes is clustered in low-income communities. So a tax seems to be an initiative which has its biggest impact in those who are at greatest risk.

Will that translate into health benefits? Well, we have to look at the literature that shows the direct link between sugar-sweetened beverages and the risk of diabetes. This tax alone is not enough, just as tax alone was not the solution to smoking. But it was an important lever. Certainly, young adults seem to be particularly tax-sensitive in a smoking environment and may also be in a sugar-sweetened-beverage environment.

G. Heyman: I’ll be brief. Thank you for the presentation and the holistic nature of it, including the emphasis on education. Spencer asked one of my questions.

You make reference on page 4 to the research that supports better outcomes and lower, or at least reduced, ultimate expenditures as a result of insulin pumps. If you could send a list of studies that you have to the Clerk, that will form part of our record. We’ll be able to include in our deliberations or reference it in any recommendations we choose to make.

J. Yap: Thank you for your advocacy. A disease that touches all of us, indirectly or directly. I’m curious about your first recommendation regarding the insulin pump. In an era when electronics and technology seem to become more affordable, the cost of these units…. It seems to me that they haven’t really changed much over time, or maybe I stand corrected.

Can you comment on that? It just seems like with technology today, the cost curve goes down, and it still seems like the per-unit cost is on the high side.

J. Hux: The per-unit cost would reflect advances in the technology. For instance, a pump that would deliver both insulin and glucagon, the counterregulatory hormone; pumps that can be programmed and can communicate with sensors and other devices — I think those advances have kept the costs high for the individual units.

If we had the same technology as ten years ago, presumably the cost would be less. But there are more bells and whistles with contemporary pumps that really do benefit the people who use them.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I know we’re running out of time, so feel free to send the information along.

I’ve certainly had constituents come in, as well, and now young people who have known nothing but the pump, who’ve only had the pump and are aghast at having nothing after that.

I wondered if you had what the numbers would be, coming up, looking at demographics — a cost for that — and then what other provinces are doing. Again, feel free to send that information in. We don’t need it now, but it could be interesting to take a look at those.

J. Hux: Yes. I don’t have those numbers at hand. We will send you what we have. I did quote the number of 12,500 who have type 1 diabetes and are over the age of 26. Certainly, not all of those would require a pump. Many people do achieve excellent control with multiple daily
[ Page 1744 ]
injections, and a pump wouldn’t be recommended for them. But we’ll get you some better numbers.

C. Mallet: As far as pump coverage is concerned, Alberta and Ontario both cover pumps for all age groups.

S. Hamilton (Chair): As George mentioned, feel free to submit more information, if you wish, to the committee, and it will form part of the record, part of our deliberations. Thank you very much for taking the time to appear. Appreciate it.

Next, if I could please call on the good folks at Langara College — Dr. Ian Humphreys.

Dr. Humphreys, welcome. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a wave when you’ve got a couple of minutes left, and you can wrap up. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

I. Humphreys: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for providing this opportunity for me to present on behalf of Langara College.

My name is Ian Humphreys. I’m the vice-president of strategic planning and business development at the college. I should begin by saying that we did take the committee’s advice from last year, and we managed to get our application in early enough so that I didn’t have to travel to Whistler or to Nanaimo to make this presentation. Here I am.

Many of you would know that Langara College is centrally located in Vancouver. We provide what we believe to be high-quality university, career and continuing studies education to approximately 10,000 undergraduate full-time students each year, as well as 15,000 lifelong learners.

With over 1,700 courses and 130 programs, our expansive academic breadth and depth allows students of all ages, backgrounds and life stages to choose their own educational path. We are, we believe, one of B.C.’s leading undergraduate institutions, and we provide more successful transfer of students to research-intensive universities than any other institution in the province.

We recognize that British Columbia’s continued prosperity relies in part on the capabilities of its people. Colleges such as Langara play an important role in preparing our workforce with the skills and knowledge for the occupations expected to face the greatest number of worker shortages, many of which will be here in the Lower Mainland.

We help to address that problem by providing accessible post-secondary education to the highest-need occupations: in health; in business; in accounting, finance and administration; in natural and applied sciences, including chemistry, computer science, engineering, Internet and web-based technologies; in arts, culture, recreation and sport; and in social work.

We’re also mindful of the important role that our aboriginal and First Nations people will play in addressing the needs of our growing economy. Meeting the educational needs of the growing population of young aboriginal people in B.C. is critical, and Langara College is responding to this need in a number of ways.

We’re extremely proud that we were one of the first institutions to have an official aboriginal education policy. In 2014-15, we enrolled more than 500 aboriginal students in programs at Langara, which was well in excess of our target.

We have significantly expanded our aboriginal Gathering Space and have included new services for aboriginal students, including academic as well as other student counselling.

Our elder-in-residence program, which has Gail Sparrow, the former Chief of Musqueam First Nation, as our first elder-in-residence, is proving extremely successful, and we continue to grow our significant ties with the Musqueam First Nation.

In 2014, we launched our new academic plan. As one of the five priorities of the plan, we have aboriginal learning as a significant focus.

Langara College is also supportive of the provincial government’s goal of increasing international student enrolment in our province’s educational institutions by 50 percent by 2016. We have a long history of welcoming international students, and I’m very pleased to report that as of the end of the last academic year, we have actually met the provincial government’s target, one year ahead of schedule. We are, in fact, close to being 70 percent ahead in terms of international student enrolment. However, that does come with some risks, as I will mention in a couple of minutes.

As an urban college, our campus footprint is geographically constrained, making it difficult to provide all of the services and amenities students expect in a modern campus. We provide, for example, 50 percent only of the necessary library and study spaces that would be expected. Our administrative and faculty office space meets approximately 60 percent of the provincial guidelines. In fact, our per-square-metre offering, in terms of space, is about 30 percent less than the province would actually require.

Nevertheless, we provide much-needed infrastructure to continue to meet the needs of our students. We have developed a facilities master plan. To that end, between 2007 and 2009, we completed construction of our new library and classroom facility and a new student union building. In the fall of 2016, we will open our new sci-
[ Page 1745 ]
ence and technology building, a building that was totally self-funded. Further phases of the plan include building a new arts and classroom building as well as the renovation of our major classroom building, the A building.

We have prided ourselves on providing students with affordable and accessible education. Through what I can only describe as astute fiscal management, we’ve managed to do that with balanced budgets every year. However, in the upcoming year and for foreseeable years into the future, we are projecting deficit positions.

Part of our problem revolves around the fact that we have a zero-deficit requirement. In fact, we budget incredibly conservatively as a result of that, and that makes life incredibly difficult for us.

Currently the provincial government’s support of the institution, which is approximately $42 million, represents slightly less than 40 percent of our total budget. That makes us the lowest-funded-per-FTE post-secondary education institution in the province by a long mark. Domestic student tuition revenue provides an additional 19 percent of our total revenue. With a per-credit fee of $91.85, we are the second-lowest tuition fee institution.

Taken together, Langara continues to be, by far, the most cost-effective deliverer of post-secondary education in the province.

Unfortunately, while we might applaud the college’s fiscal prudence, our current situation does leave us to generate 40 percent of our revenue from other sources. We do this principally through tuition fees from two sources: our outstanding continuing education programs and tuition revenue from our international student body. Together, these two sources generate more than $38 million in revenue for the college.

Our reliance on entrepreneurial activity does not come without risk, unfortunately. While we have worked hard to diversify our international student population, we are continuously reliant on Asia and Southeast Asia for student recruitment. Anything that interrupts that will be disastrous to the financial picture of the institution.

What can the government do to help us? We are limited, as you know, to 2 percent fee increases each year. Given that only 19 percent of our revenue comes from domestic student tuition, that really means that we increase our revenue by 0.4 percent each year from tuition. That is, even in meagre inflationary times, less than inflation. If we could get a one-time exemption to raise our current very low tuition rates to those of our next-nearest sister institution, Douglas College, that would certainly go a long way to help us meet our financial needs.

Our second major challenge relates to facilities. Our building A, which is our major classroom and laboratory building, was built more than 40 years ago. It was the largest building of its type built at the time. To put it bluntly, it is well past its best-before date. Many seismic reports have indicated that it only matches 30 percent of the city of Vancouver’s seismic requirements, and significant portions of it will collapse in a major quake. We are looking for help in actually making the renovation of that building come about.

I’d like to end by saying that we are proud of the accomplishments of the college but we are concerned about the future and how funding pressures will erode our capacity to deliver the outstanding service to our community that we have in the past.

S. Gibson: Just a quick query. Thank you very much for your presentation. I have some familiarity with Langara over my years of being involved in the university out in Abbotsford. My question, though, is….

Sometimes I think we have to be careful when we’re doing the FTEs. This is not to discredit anything you have said. A lot of universities will be up in young people — the folks who’ve graduated from high school and immediately go to university. Other institutions have a preponderance or much higher level of adult learners, who have additional income to fund their education. Undergraduate students say that the research-oriented universities tend to be younger whereas the more technical programs…. My understanding is Langara has a lot more mature students returning and going part-time. So I wonder if this moderates the meaning of the FTE.

I. Humphreys: I just want to clarify something. We are predominantly a university transfer institution. Eighty percent of our students will go on to another institution to complete post-secondary education. Those students are identical in every respect to students who directly enter university for the first time. We have only a limited number of career programs at the college, so what you were saying doesn’t necessarily apply to us as it would apply to some of the other colleges in the province.

With regards to the demographic of our students, our average age of undergraduate students in the college is only 21.5. Even when we look at our continuing education programs — which admittedly are cost recovery, as I mentioned — the average age of people coming back to the college to take upgrading courses is only 33, which indicates quite clearly that people are finding it necessary to return to post-secondary education to maintain their currency in the workforce.

If I could just say this one thing: people who believe that they are going to acquire all of the necessary skills in their undergraduate education are sadly mistaken. They will have to continuously come back in order to do that. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people say that the jobs of the future have not been invented when students enter university, and that’s five years. So we’re renewing these students on a five-year rotational cycle.
[ Page 1746 ]

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the chart. I take Simon’s point that there may be rationale around why the numbers are different, but you are not the only institution that has come forward to say they have no rationale or there seems to be no rationale. I think explanations and understandings of why formulas are the way they are and why people may need more would be helpful in this.

You didn’t mention ABE. I’m just curious. Maybe your institution doesn’t provide a lot of adult basic education.

I. Humphreys: We have a very small ABE program, I must confess. When the tuition fees were introduced, we were anticipating that we would have a decline. We have not seen a decline. In fact, our enrolment levels for ABE are where they were before tuition was removed.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Humphreys. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee. Good luck, and we’ll look forward to hearing from you again.

If I could call on Mr. Gavin Dirom and Glen Wonders, please — the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. Welcome. I’ll give you the spiel. Ten minutes for your presentation, I’ll give you a heads-up when we get down to about two minutes, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. If that works for you, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon. My name is Gavin Dirom, the present CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. Thank you very much for this opportunity. In addition to the more detailed presentation, I’m providing for you a hard copy today as well.

Hundreds of exploration projects spur regional exploration development throughout 50 communities in B.C., creating local demand for goods and services, developing and building upon local expertise, and supporting thousands of family-sustaining jobs.

B.C. hosts world-class metal, mineral and coal deposits, and further discoveries are likely with continued exploration. Prospecting, exploration and mining are central to B.C.’s export-driven economy, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue for government from title fees, mineral taxes, income taxes and corporate taxes to offset the province’s rising health care, education and infrastructure costs.

Although B.C. is seen as a world centre for mineral exploration and development expertise, this sector’s long-term success is dependent on the provincial government’s continuing leadership in creating an open-for-business culture that supports incentivizing exploration; and a healthy, efficient and effective venture capital market system that encourages risk-taking entrepreneurs and investors who create jobs not just for themselves but for so many others.

British Columbia continues to host 58 percent of the mineral exploration and mining companies listed on the TSX and TSX Venture exchanges, but the ranks are thinning. Over the past 2½ years, from December 2012 to June 2015, the number of mineral exploration and mining companies listed on the TSX and TSX-V has declined by 15 percent, from 1,673 down to 1,421 companies. The number of companies headquartered in B.C. has similarly declined by 14 percent, from 962 to 825 companies.

While the drop in commodity prices is an important factor, it is not the only reason behind these declines. Other contributing factors include costly and excessive securities regulations to keep a public company listed, and increasing costs to explore and develop mineral resources.

Mineral exploration expenditures in B.C. have declined by 50 percent, from a high of $680 million in 2012 to $338 million in 2014. However, based on the 2014 expenditure levels, B.C. still attracted an estimated 21 percent of all the exploration dollars spent in Canada compared to just 6 percent in 2001.

On behalf of the 5,000 members of the association who are based in B.C. and engaged in exploration not just in B.C. but around the world, I offer you the following seven recommendations for B.C. Budget 2016.

One, make the B.C. mining flow-through share credit permanent to encourage companies to explore for more in British Columbia. The MFTS tax credit expires December 31 of 2015.

Two, renew the B.C. mining exploration tax credit, also called the METC, at its regular rate of 20 percent and enhanced rate of 30 percent through to January 1, 2020, to provide a longer-term stability for the planning of mineral exploration programs. The current credit expires December 31 of 2016.
[ Page 1747 ]

Three, work with the federal government and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada — the PDAC — and AME BC to ensure that legislative changes to the Income Tax Act will result in designated environmental studies and consultation expenditures being considered Canadian exploration expenses, also known as CEE.

This would help address the costs of aboriginal engagement in the B.C. context. This is a very important one for our industry, given that the industry is bearing the brunt of consultation engagement costs, even though it’s the duty of the government to consult with aboriginal communities.

Related to this request, much-needed revisions to the Canada Revenue Agency’s 2007 guidelines should be made into regulations under the Income Tax Act.

Four, work with the Canadian Mineral Industry Federation and the federal government to improve industry’s access to venture capital, specifically by adopting a regulatory framework that explicitly acknowledges the role of capital markets in fostering economic growth and prioritizes cost-effective capital-raising by venture issuers.

Five, work with business, venture and industry associations to reform the market regulators, including having the regulators be more representative of the industries they serve and more directly accountable to elected officials.

Six, fund the long-term renewal of provincial mineral development potential mapping.

Seven, before restricting exploration and development on metal, coal and mineral-rich lands in B.C., AME BC recommends that the government assess the mineral and coal development potential and the socio-economic impacts of any proposed land access and use policy changes, and assess the potential negative impacts in unintended consequences to the mineral exploration development sector of legislative or regulatory changes.

On behalf of the AME BC, thank you very much for this opportunity to present these recommendations.

D. Ashton: Again, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the recommendations. I just want to say, as a kid who grew up in a town where a mine was 28 miles away up on a hill, a gold mine, Corona gold mine, and a world-class copper deposit over in Princeton, I can tell you the benefits.

I say this with the utmost of respect, but I wish people in the Lower Mainland would realize how beneficial mining is to British Columbia — and the world, actually. To us, it’s absolutely phenomenal. I mean, an overall picture of flying over these mines, they’re a pimple on a rear end of an animal.

Really, when the reclamation takes place…. I look at Brenda Mines, etc. — phenomenal these days. Government is holding mining companies accountable for that. It does make a big difference, but boy, does it make a big difference to a community when they leave. You notice it right away.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Okay. We’ve got four people who want to ask questions, so a brief question and brief answers.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m curious. Recommendation 6, recommending we fund long-term renewal of provincial mineral development potential mapping — how is that different than what Geoscience B.C. does?

G. Dirom: They’re not actively engaging in this type of work. They are doing some very important and sophisticated work around defining areas that are then prospective to explorers. It’s critical work that they do.

This type of work is more, I would say, in keeping with land use planning at a very high level. Government geologists working with industry, perhaps, would be identifying areas using government data and government information to determine what is high probability to develop — but at quite a macro level, at a regional level. It’s an ongoing effort. Just because it was done 30 years ago doesn’t mean it’s adequate today.

An area that has received a lot of attention recently is the relationship between industry and First Nations. What’s your perspective on this important issue?

G. Dirom: It’s paramount to success in the province. It’s very important. We take it very seriously. As an association, we developed a guidebook known as the Aboriginal Engagement Guidebook. We didn’t just do it a year ago. We’ve been doing it for over ten to 12 years. It’s critical for success.

The presentation just provided is recognizing that industry gets it. We understand that it’s important to engage early and engage often. We’re usually one of the first into a small community. The companies that I represent work very hard at that. They take it very seriously.

A lot of this engagement is pre-permit. This is before you’ve actually acquired the permit, and that’s the important differentiation. How the CRA and others are looking at it is: post-permit, they may give you some relief. But we all know, it’s very expensive to get that buy-in
[ Page 1748 ]
and that support at the front end, prior to getting a permit. Then it’s just the beginning of a multi-year process.

M. Morris: That was part of my question — you know, the amount of work that you do up front before the permit is issued and how much money you have invested in this.

M. Morris: Okay. The other one was just following up on what Spencer was saying — Geoscience B.C. just spending about $2.4 million in the northwest part of the province on some kind of a search program. Is that what you’re talking about? You seem to think that they were doing something different than what your association wants.

G. Dirom: That work is fantastic, but it’s in an area identified by the province as open for exploration. There’s really no contention around that area. It’s my understanding that that area would be, potentially, a park one day.

What I’m talking about are these grey areas which keep showing up in British Columbia between what is a park, what might be a park, what’s a tribal park and so forth. Those areas go into public debate as to what’s the best use and value of that land. Into that discussion, I think it’s appropriate that the B.C. geological survey and government geologists weigh in and supply good information to decision-makers like yourselves, the public and others to consider the actual consequences of a decision on the land base.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much for taking the time to present to the committee. Best of luck, and I’m sure we’ll see you again. Have a good day.

Next, could I have the folks from the Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia division, come forward? Beverley Gutray and Jonny Morris, good afternoon. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a little wave with just a couple of minutes left so that you can wrap up, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions, if there are any. The floor is yours.

B. Gutray: Good afternoon. I’m sure it’s been a long day for you, and you’ve heard lots of presentations. I’m here to talk about the Canadian Mental Health Association and many of the themes that we’ve talked about in previous submissions. We are Canada’s oldest mental health charity. In B.C. we represent 14 branches across this province, which serve 100 communities and, through that, provide services to over 100,000 British Columbians.

We’ve been doing this in B.C. for over 60 years. We are focused in community, and we are also focused around getting people the help they need when they need it. Our expertise comes from that community-based sector. Our expertise also is a growing expertise. Just like many other organizations, it’s only within a little over the last five years that addictions was included within our mandate. Our ability to respond to people who struggle specifically with addictions is currently underway.

I want to talk to you about five overall recommendations. I think you guys really know the health system and the mental health system. I want to talk about how important it is to match, dollar-for-dollar, investments.

What do I mean by that? If we really look at some of the new, state-of-the-art developments, whether that’s the HOpe Centre on the North Shore, whether it’s the new Joseph and Rosalie Segal centre that will be at Vancouver General Hospital, currently under construction, or whether, as we look forward at Riverview lands…. We’re not exactly sure what’s going to be developed, but we’re pretty sure it’s going to be a mix. There’ll be some housing, and there’ll be some treatment services, etc.

We think it’s critical, if you really want to invest in community and people’s wellness, that for every bed that is opened in a hospital, every new bed needs a corresponding investment in community. What we do know for sure is that people don’t live in hospital beds anymore. We don’t want people to live in hospital beds. We don’t want young people to believe that’s their first experience and their way into psychiatric treatment.

What we do want is to intervene long before stage 4. If I was thinking about the treatment of mental illnesses or addictions and I wanted to compare it to cancer care or to heart disease, I would say: “Why would we intervene at stage 4 when we could at stage 1?” That is the community-based message, and I think we’ve got a long way to go on that. Like you, we’ve read through lots of government submissions and reports, and things get sort of mixed up over time: what a hospital bed is versus what a community bed is, what is counted in one sector versus the other.

We’re quite challenged by how that is done over time. I’ve come with some sorts of commonsense approaches to it, as far as what should be counted in community versus hospital. For me, “community” is not a temporary address. A shelter — important shelters right across B.C. — may provide me with temporary housing, but they don’t provide me with a home. If this is a place of treatment and rehabilitation, that’s important, but I need to recover in community. If I was thinking about addictions care, I’d want to recover in community with the best chance to recover.
[ Page 1749 ]

We know in addictions treatment that there are very expensive treatments for those that can afford it, and then there are public services for those that choose to wait. But one of the most profound challenges is that people come home to their community to recover, often to the same community, the same network of friends, that supported them in their addiction.

We need to help people with full recovery in addiction. I know this province has made lots of promises in that area. I know we’ve got a commitment to 500 new addiction spaces. We’re not sure what “addiction spaces” means. We’re not sure whether what that means is really housing versus addictions treatment, rehab and recovery. That does need clarity. But the province is right on the money when the province says we need 500 new spaces. We absolutely agree with the province’s analysis on that. It’s just what happens within those spaces. We absolutely believe that’s the investment: $1 in hospital equals $1 in community.

The other big message that we have — and you know this through all the reports that come back to the government — is we don’t have a really good system of counting. We really don’t. We count differently in the criminal justice system than we do in the health system than we do in the social services system. We need to really track some new things. We need to track when hospital utilization is avoided because there’s good community service or because there’s assertive community treatment. We believe that is the way in.

The transparency is the other issue, as we know that health always filters down to the health authorities. That comparative counting and that transparency are really important. What I said earlier about: what is captured within the hospital or tertiary care system versus what is captured within the community-based system? We can do so much more, and we can do so much more together, but we have to make a really critical, a very critical, decision about vision into the future.

That vision has to be before stage 4. We have to capture people early on. We have to support them. For young people, we want them to complete their education, their careers, to have jobs, to have families and to be taxpayers. If you talk to any youth that has struggled with a mental illness or addiction, that’s what they want too.

I know, for all of you, that you have different experiences about mental illness and addiction in your life and in your community. I don’t believe that we get along and this far in our life without knowing someone whom mental illness has touched or addiction has touched in our tight network. That’s my overall comment.

J. Morris: Just for the remaining couple of minutes we have…. Thank you for the opportunity to present. I’ll just add two additional comments to Bev’s remarks.

One, I think, is one that we’ve made at this committee a number of times. It’s related to disability income assistance here in British Columbia, rates that haven’t changed since 2007. I think in the call for consideration around how to use the surplus, one of the pieces that we’d like to advance again is looking at the possibility of indexing those rates of disability assistance against the increasing costs of living. If it’s not possible to increase it to the rates that we’ve suggested in the past, at least indexing it would be an important step forward.

I think the final step…. I think there’s a real opportunity, given the shifts and the fiscal restraint that we’re under, to really look at parity. I think all of Bev’s remarks that she was making around matching dollar for dollar between the community system and the hospital-based system…. What would it look like if we really looked at parity between physical health expenditures and mental health expenditures?

In last year’s budget, there was a significant investment made in the research of prevention and treatment of cancer care. Of course, we’re seeing some of those capital investments around mental health, but if we really are looking at parity, whether it’s community and hospital, I think there’s an opportunity to at least step toward parity between mental health and physical health spending here in B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert: First, I just want to say thank you for focusing just as much on prevention and on the early stage as at the end stage. We in our offices only hear about it, generally, when it’s at that final stage, when it’s often very difficult to do much. Thank you for that.

I guess, in terms of specifics, what do you think we need to do to get us moving back in the right direction, specifically towards prevention? What would be your top priorities in terms of addressing an early intervention?

B. Gutray: I think there’s a multitude of responses. I would say the big one certainly is early identification — so screening. We also know that there are at-risk groups that we should be reaching out to much more assertively — and youth. It is youth.

J. Morris: I think, knowing that we get a greater return on investment when we reach out to those most vulnerable populations…. People with chronic illness are a key group, and people who are racialized or vulnerable aboriginal populations. Even seeing the language of mental health promotion, early identification and prevention being much more prominent in policy documents and planning would actually be a significant change. We do have a very crisis-oriented system. Shifting that language, I think, would be a win in and of its own right.
[ Page 1750 ]

I just want to speak for a moment about the services that are there. One of the challenges that we all hear in our offices, of course, from families and others is the challenge of being able to find a service. There may be a service out there, but who do you go to, and how do you make contact? The kind of lack of coordination or lack of support, lack of child-centred support that is there in the system — I wonder if you could speak a little bit about that.

B. Gutray: I think part of what you hear is the lack of: “What’s there to respond to my need?” We hear it in our office as well. That takes a degree of excellence and knowledge and skill.

If we look at cancer care, there have been cancer navigators for the health system: how to figure out where you go and what the post-treatments are, etc. That’s just embedded in good cancer care. We have navigators in mental health care and somewhat in addictions care, but it’s hit and miss. It’s not a systems approach to how we actually connect people to the resources they need to recover and stay well in community.

C. Trevena: A couple of quick questions. One is you mentioning youth, and knowing that there is a transition period from young people who are assisted through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and then they are into the greater community.

I wondered if you could comment on how that works in your experience and how to help young people through that. Obviously, young people with mental health problems are really…. If you can help them at that age, you’re going to give them better lives.

My second one is: how do we compare to other provinces in our provision of health? When you say 500 new spaces, whatever that means, how do we relate to other provinces?

B. Gutray: As far as your first question, I think it’s more around the transition years, those tremendous transition years. I really wish I could say we have an answer. We don’t have an answer.

I’ve been working in mental health so long, for so many decades, that I can actually say that I remember when child and youth mental health care was part of the health system. I remember when we didn’t have health authorities, and when part of the argument that was made for the creation of them is: “We’re now going to have staff that work both in hospital and in community, so people will have a seamless experience.”

I don’t believe there’s a simple response. I think what we need is investment, and we need to hold systems accountable, whether that’s in one ministry or three ministries, etc. If one ministry were a solution, I’d be the first to stand up and say it. I think the challenge with any kind of massive organizational change is that you end up spending a year, a year and a half, in that organizational change mode.

J. Morris: Towards your second question, one of the calls that we’re making is for greater transparency and clarity in how we account, and often we hear the 9 percent recommendation for investment proportionately for mental health and addictions from the Mental Health Commission. Unfortunately, when you look across Canada, in many ways you’re kind of comparing apples with oranges in different jurisdictions, because mental health and addictions dollars are categorized in very different ways.

Here in B.C., across all of the health authorities, if you actually compare line-by-line spending in audited financial reports, you have some jurisdictions spending way less than others. I think when they’re called to account on that, they would say: “Well, we’re categorizing mental health and addiction spending differently here compared to elsewhere.”

I think if we actually got to a point where we had clarity on what is a mental health dollar, we can actually start making the comparisons that I think your question was asking.

M. Morris: I’ve worked my whole life with people with mental health and addictions, being a policeman. The frustrating part was that people have the ability, regardless of their mental capacity, to make decisions, and a lot of them make the wrong decisions. That’s where the frustration comes from, from people working in mental health, from people working in the police field. I was hoping to hear that maybe there’s some kind of an answer for that.

The other part of it was…. You know, you’re asking for comparable dollars. We have your physical health issues. We’re spending about $17 billion a year on that, so are you asking for $17 billion a year for mental health as well? Is that what you’re saying?

B. Gutray: No, no. We’re just saying we want it equivalent to how other health issues are treated in both policy and funding. If we look at cancer care, there’s a focus on prevention. There’s a focus on healthy lifestyle. There’s a focus on treatment, early treatment, and there’s also a good focus on what happens after you receive treatment, so coming home.

We want that full system of mental health care that really spans that, regardless of where you live in this province. Does that…?
[ Page 1751 ]

M. Morris: I’m very respectful of the work you guys do, and I appreciate all the work that you’re doing out there and, you know, everything we can do to help. But the dollar figure attached to that is pretty intimidating.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m sorry. I am focused on a clock. I apologize. If you have any further information with regards to those questions or any others that you’d like the committee to have, you can still submit them until October 15, and we can share it amongst the committee members and deliberate. Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time.

Welcome. I will give you the same spiel. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with two minutes to go, and you can wrap up or conclude your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

J. Stewart: My name is Jennifer Stewart. This is Marlene Rodgers on my right, and on my left is Catherine Shaw. In the audience, we also have Heather Legal and Carrie Bercic. We are all founding members of Families Against Cuts to Education, so guess what topic we’re going to talk to you about today.

J. Stewart: Yeah. A little bit of background about us. We had all been troubled by the situation in education, as parents. We are all parents. None of us is a teacher or otherwise working in the school system. We all have experience with seeing what has been happening in the school system and all, individually, began to feel that we needed to do something about it.

We were heartened by this committee’s recommendations last year, which, if I can remind the committee…. I don’t know if you’re all the same members or you might have some new members, but last year, you found that education is clearly a high priority for British Columbians, given the number of people you had come out to talk to you about education and their worries about it. You also found that it was not being funded by the government at a level adequate to meet the needs of students. We completely agree with that.

We agreed with the recommendation to improve education funding in order to provide adequate, stable and predictable funding for operating expenses, as well as for capital funding to permit facility improvements, seismic upgrades and additional schools in rapidly growing communities — also to support proposed new K-to-12 initiatives, such as the new curriculum that we have now, and to provide the necessary resources to identify and assist students with special needs.

We started a letter-writing campaign to the government to implement your wonderful recommendations. They did not. Instead, they cut $54 million more from the education budget last year. As you noted, operating costs have risen, and funding has not risen to meet those increased costs. Those are costs like B.C. Hydro, MSP premiums — things that the government actually does control the cost of but doesn’t fund the increased cost.

As parents, we don’t just know that these costs are happening. We see the results of these costs. You have my presentation, so I’m not going to read it word for word. But just the list of things we see that result from school boards being forced to choose from all bad alternatives…. They’re trying to pick the least worst thing to cut.

We see things like: necessary repairs aren’t being done. There’s a school in Vancouver, Southlands Elementary, that had a leak in the ceiling in the hallway in February. In April, that hole was still covered with a garbage bag.

We see bathrooms that haven’t been updated in decades — I think our grandparents probably used the same bathrooms — and schools that are infested with rats. There are textbooks that still show ancient history like the U.S.S.R., which ended in 1991, and that don’t include Nunavut in Canada. I have seen a map that has Nunavut drawn on with a marker. Nunavut became part of Canada in 1999. So we’ve got a whole generation of kids who have missed out on having up-to-date books and materials.

We also have lots of playgrounds throughout the province that have been condemned. School playgrounds have been condemned and not replaced because they don’t get funded.

Those are sort of the physical plant costs that you see. You can see lots of examples of those on…. There’s a blog that I run, actually. It’s called fixbced.tumblr.com. You can just see pictures of how bad the schools look. If you’re looking for it, the link is in footnote 3.

The human cost is things like children who are waiting years for psychological assessments. Their school might get three psychological assessments allotted to them a year, regardless of the number of kids who are actually waiting for them.

We see schools that are unable to support the English language learners or special needs students to the level that they deserve.

We see schools with part-time or no teacher-librarian. At my son’s school, there’s only a librarian 2½ days a week. There are lots of schools that don’t have a librarian, because that’s one of the costs that school boards have chosen to cut.

Schools with only part-time counsellors due to increased student-counsellor ratios. You have counsellors going from school to school, and they might only be at a school half a day a week. How are they supposed to keep track of the students and help them in that time?
[ Page 1752 ]

There are also schools without music programs and schools without adequate custodial staff. I could go on.

As parents, we say…. What does this say about our society that we are telling our children: “You are such a low priority to us that we can’t fix the hole in your school’s ceiling”? We won’t fix it. It’s not that we can’t. We won’t. We choose not to. “And we won’t support you. We encourage you to go to school, and we won’t support you.”

We also ask: why do schools have to compete for limited and unpredictable bonus funds for routine capital upgrades? I’d refer you to attachment 1. You don’t have to look at it right now, but it’s a press release from the newest Minister of Education, Mike Bernier. It’s fairly nice in that it gives $20 million of new funding for routine capital upgrades that schools have to apply for and they have to meet certain criteria. First of all, they’re competing for these funds, and they’re not all going to get it.

These are things like new roofs. I’ll read some of the list: roofing upgrades, health and safety upgrades like traffic safety and indoor air quality. These are supposedly routine capital upgrades that aren’t being funded routinely. They’re being funded sort of at the minister’s discretion. I have to ask why that isn’t routinely funded, and the reason is that it’s underfunded.

That stuff was all happening before the latest budget cuts. That stuff was all happening before you made your recommendations last year. Then they cut $54 million more in April.

Other people have stood up about this. I think you might have heard from the B.C. School Trustees Association. I certainly hope you have. They were very vocal about these cuts — that there is nothing left to cut. There is no low-hanging fruit. They put out a really tragic list of things that the school boards have been forced to cut most recently.

You’ve got things like eliminating busing, increased class sizes, reduced school supply budgets, school closures, fewer school days, even further reduced maintenance, cancelling technology upgrades — well, that’s not going to help with the new curriculum — and not even replacing textbooks anymore.

We’re concerned because many of these affect access to education. Busing, for example, physically affects access to education. There are thousands of kids now in rural and suburban areas that no longer have bus service because that was seen as something they could cut. But that’s actually cutting off a way for these kids to get to school. The deeper cuts to kids with special needs directly affect their access to education.

The B.C. School Act says that the purpose of public education is to ensure that all members of society “receive an education that enables them to become literate, personally fulfilled and publicly useful” and “to enable all learners to become literate, to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society….”

Well, if the kids aren’t getting the supports that they need, then they aren’t able to access the education that they have a right to.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Yeah, a little less, actually, but a little more than a minute.

J. Stewart: Fundraising is something that we as parents see directly. Parents who are on parent advisory councils no longer give advice. We have become just fundraising machines.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You can take a little longer than two minutes. It just cuts into the question time.

We’re raising money for technology. At our school, we had to go out and get grants for iPads. We’re raising money for library books. At our school, the number of books in the library is entirely dependent on the amount of money that parents spend at the book fair. We’re raising money for classroom supplies. At our school, the PAC gave $125 last year to each teacher for classroom supplies. I could go on and on.

There was an article in the Tyee, which I’ve put at attachment 5, which featured my colleague Heather Legal and others who are absolutely frustrated with the amount of fundraising that is required. And it’s going to fill government holes.

The greater issue is that you’re getting a two-tier system here. I’m telling you that at my school, which is on the west side of Vancouver — just clinging onto the west side but anyways — we can afford to give each teacher $125. But other schools can’t, so the kids who go to those other schools go without. That is not right, and that is not the society that most British Columbians think we live in.

The other thing I want to talk about is seismic upgrades. In Vancouver and the Lower Mainland — and throughout the province, but they’re mainly in the Lower Mainland — there are a lot of schools that need to be seismically upgraded. There are 125 schools that need seismic mitigation but have not even gotten to the planning stage yet. There are 44 other schools that are approved to proceed, but they might be years from construction.

At attachment 6, I put the list of schools and where they’re at. You can see that many, many of the ones that haven’t even gotten to the planning stage are high risk 1, which is defined as the “most vulnerable structure; at highest risk of widespread damage or structural failure; not reparable after event. Structural and non-structural seismic upgrades required.”

I submit to you that this is a public safety issue. This
[ Page 1753 ]
isn’t an education issue. It shouldn’t be dependent on education funding. It should be funded with the urgency that it deserves. Communities rely on spaces like schools. When people’s houses fall down, they’re going to need a place to stay, like a gymnasium. But if the gymnasium has fallen down and crushed their kids, they’re not going to be able to use that either.

So the recommendations that we make to you. You were correct when you made your findings last year, and we urge you to reiterate and reinforce those recommendations. We urge you to recommend rescinding the most recent cuts that were made to education and to prioritize spending on school seismic upgrades as an urgent public safety necessity.

G. Heyman: Thank you, all, for the work that you do for kids and families with respect to education.

We had a presentation from the school board for Vancouver today pointing out that B.C. has lagged significantly behind in both increases and total average per-student funding for kids in Canada. Thank you for pointing out the part of the School Act that speaks to education essentially being the great equalizer and that every child should have equal opportunity.

When I’ve attended parent advisory committee meetings, I’ve heard story after story of, as you point out, parents having to fundraise to provide supplies that are needed in classrooms. I’m wondering if there are two or three examples that you can think of that really clearly demonstrate how families with limited means simply can’t provide opportunities — the funding that’s required for their children to have opportunities that used to be integral to the school system.

H. Legal: Hi. I’m Heather Legal. My first thought is about fundraising or being asked to pay for things like math workbooks. Each parent in my grade 3 class last year was asked to pay $10 for a math book. Our PAC needed to provide $1,300 for a new set of graded readers for the class, for the K-to-3 school. Graded readers are integral to their literacy education. I don’t see how that is not a necessity that should have been provided in the first place.

J. Stewart: I can think of technology too. I mentioned that an enterprising parent in our school went out and got a $6,000 grant from London Drugs, or something like that, to buy iPads, which are now necessary for the curriculum.

But there are lots of other schools that don’t have parents who are capable of doing that or who have the time or maybe will just get rejected for whatever reason they didn’t fill out their grant application right.

Things that are necessary to learn to the standard that’s set by the government but then not enabled by the government is not fair to children.

Claire, you have a question. You could ask it, you can then answer later, and it can form part of the public record.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your very eloquent and passionate presentation. You are obviously Lower Mainland–based, but I’m wondering if you’re getting comments or you are expanding around the province as a non-partisan organization of parents who are clearly very concerned about the quality of education in B.C.

J. Stewart: Yes, very. I’ve mentioned, in my written presentation, that when we organized a rally in April against the cuts, there were five rallies throughout the province: Victoria, Nanaimo, Maple Ridge, Vancouver and Kelowna.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate you taking the time to come forward. Thank you for the work that you do.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Next we have Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia — Dr. Michael Conlon and Dr. Doug Baer.

Gentlemen, welcome. While you’re settling in, I’ll let you know you have ten minutes for your presentation. If you keep an eye on me, I’ll try to give you a wave when there’s a couple of minutes left, and you can wrap up. Then we can go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

D. Baer: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today in person. My name is Dr. Douglas Baer. I’m the president of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia, which represents the five research-intensive universities in B.C. I’m also a professor in the faculty of social science at the University of Victoria. With me is Dr. Michael Conlon, the executive director of CUFABC.

CUFABC represents over 5,400 professors, lecturers, instructors, librarians and other academic staff at UBC, SFU, Royal Roads, the University of Northern British Columbia, and my own institution, UVic.

As CUFABC has repeatedly argued in front of his committee and elsewhere, post-secondary education represents an important investment for the taxpayers of the province. Dollars spent on education don’t just disappear into the air as one-time draws on the province’s budgets. They lead to a more educated population better able to generate wealth in the province and better able to engage in behaviours which save governments money in the future.

New data which we have examined from the 2011 census and from the 2015 Labour Force Survey confirm this view. B.C. residents in the 25-to-64 age group with bachelor’s degrees made about $24,000 a year more than those with only high school education and slightly less than $15,000 more than those with either a college diploma or trades or apprenticeship certifications. Those with graduate degrees made another $7,000 per annum.

University-educated individuals with bachelor’s degrees pay more than double the income tax that those with high school education or less pay and considerably more than those with either community college or trade credentials. Those with graduate degrees pay over double the taxes paid by those with trades or apprenticeship certificates.

The differences that I’ve just identified are not as large, but the pattern remains for those B.C. residents in younger cohorts, most recent graduates. For individuals under 40, those with bachelor’s degrees make about $18,000 more than those with high school or less and $6,000 or $12,000 more than those with skilled trades or community college certificates, respectively. Those with graduate degrees make about $11,000 more than this.

The research we conducted was both with and without statistical adjustments for age, immigration status and geographic location within B.C. I should point out, in passing, that the results both with and without these statistical controls, were very, very similar.

Educated individuals are also less of a drain on the resources of the provincial and federal governments. Most people under the age of 65 do not receive income per se from government sources, but some do, in the form of unemployment, welfare and disability benefits. Those with high school education or trade certification cost the government, on average, about $900 a year, while those with university degrees averaged only $342.

Not only do individuals with university education draw less in the way of resources from the state; they also contribute more. In many cases, these contributions can lead directly to the reduction in state expenditure.

Here, I am thinking of voluntary work in areas related to poverty, care of the elderly, immigrant adaptation, literacy, population health and so on. B.C. university graduates are more likely to volunteer to do unpaid work for charities and community organizations — about 10 percent more likely than community college graduates and about 20 percent more likely than those with less education, according to the most recent volunteering surveys put out by Statistics Canada.

If university education, especially at the graduate level, is important to the province if it is to move forward, this importance has not been represented in the B.C. budget allocation process over the course of the last decade. Indeed, the B.C. government has cut back on its commitment to post-secondary education in both absolute and in relative terms. In 2008, there was a 2.6 percent cut in university operating grants, and in the 2012 budget, there was a further 2.2 percent cut, which is currently rolling through the system.

To our knowledge, the Ministry of Advanced Education is the only core ministry to have sustained a real-dollar cut since the last election. At the same time, there has been a 16.8 percent increase in government revenues since 2008 and debt costs have gone down due to lower interest rates. It is also the case that last year’s B.C. government surplus was, as we understand it, $1.6 billion.

Despite declining funding, the British Columbia government retains what we would call a controlling interest in universities through its appointment of a majority of the members of boards of governors. It also heavily regulates university expenditures through the Public Sector Employers Council and the University Act, treating universities as it would treat other internal departments and agencies. Other provinces do not operate their systems of post-secondary education in this manner. The rationale for such tight control is weak.

According to data from the Canadian Association of University Business Officers, in the fiscal year ended 2014, the B.C. government accounted for less than 50 percent — 49.4 percent, to be exact — of the revenue for university operating budgets. Factoring in the so-called restricted budget lines that aren’t counted as part of operating budgets, where the B.C. government’s contribution is nil or negligible, the percentage of total expenditure from the B.C. government is likely, in our view, to be closer to 40 percent than it is to 50 percent.

Universities exist in a competitive environment, with both provincial and national markets for students who, after all, can choose to change universities or go out of province. This element of regulation by the marketplace itself makes universities quite different from other B.C. government departments.

We would argue that close-up regulation, as is currently the norm in the case, if anything, fosters more bureaucracy, reduces flexibility in a dynamic world environment and hurts the system, as we have recently seen by events at the University of British Columbia.

I’d now like to turn it over to Dr. Conlon to talk about a B.C. graduate scholarship program.

M. Conlon: I just want to note very quickly, before articulating our recommendation for B.C. graduate schol-
[ Page 1755 ]
arships, that the committee took up our recommendation in 2013 and included that recommendation in its report but did not do so last year. We’re hoping that you’ll include it in this year’s report.

Attracting the best graduate students is important for a university and for this province. Increasingly, the knowledge economy is demanding the added credentials and skills associated with graduate education. Attracting the best and brightest graduate students is also an integral part of any competitive and innovative research enterprise.

As a whole, for the youngest cohort, Canada isn’t doing badly when it comes to our proportion of the population with undergraduate degrees. But we lag against our American and European counterparts when it comes to graduate education.

Graduate students themselves are making a teaching contribution to post-secondary education in British Columbia as teaching assistants who, while they undertake their graduate studies, play an important role in educating undergraduates. The teaching contributions of graduate students are becoming increasingly important, given the large class sizes our institutions are increasingly forced to run.

Simply put, British Columbia is not competitive when it comes to attracting and funding the brightest and best graduate students. Unlike British Columbia, Ontario provides $30 million in provincial funding for the Ontario graduate scholarship program, which gives the best and brightest students up to $15,000 per year. The program has been in existence for several decades. Alberta also generously funds the Alberta graduate scholarship program.

To make matters worse, our graduate tuition fees tend to be higher. Graduate programs are more expensive to mount than undergraduate programs. While small classes are usually a good thing, there is a critical mass that is needed to make a graduate program work effectively. We risk losing programs, as our own students increasingly tell us that they are regretfully leaving the province to study in graduate programs elsewhere.

There is, in our respectful view, no excuse for the absence of a competitive, merit-based graduate scholarship program in British Columbia.

D. Baer: As I’ve mentioned, university support from the province has declined in absolute terms, both in the long run and in the last few years. Universities, more than any other institutions or most other institutions, face unique, inflationary cost pressures, especially when major university expenditures, such as library books and journals, are subject to currency exchange rate fluctuations and high levels of inflation. The ability of the system to deliver on the positives, which I’ve just mentioned, from jobs to better health to better civic engagement, is now, in our view, in jeopardy.

The recent drop in fossil fuel energy prices has brought to the fore the need for the B.C. government to take a balanced view towards economic development. In a dynamic, diversified economy, university education is vital and indispensable. In this, the knowledge economy, requiring as it does the skill and creativity of trained software engineers, business graduates, scientists and artistic creators…. This structure itself requires an institutional infrastructure of support so that the workforce can develop in a way that will meet the challenges of the future.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Dr. Baer, just to let you know that you’ve passed the ten minutes now. We’re cutting into question period time, but you’re welcome to finish.

D. Baer: In this, universities are more than simple bit players. They are primary generators. We simply cannot afford to continue to see them wither on the vine.

D. Ashton: Dr. Baer, Dr. Conlon, thank you very much for your comments — greatly appreciated. Thank you for the handout.

Dr. Baer, with the utmost respect, one figure you forgot to mention in the description you were saying is the $5 billion that the province borrowed in the five years previous to ’13 to keep everybody’s status the same. We have to pay that back, sir, just like you have to pay a mortgage back, and that’s where that surplus is going.

S. Gibson: The comments that you make regarding the financial challenges — how has that affected enrolment? My understanding is that…. I graduated UVic. UVic is fully enrolled. Some of our universities up north need more students, but UVic, UBC, SFU, the Lower Mainland, etc., are fully enrolled even though there are the financial challenges, so there seems to be a disconnect there. Or maybe I’m wrong.

S. Gibson: I guess the point is that universities are struggling financially in the Lower Mainland — like UVic, for example, and SFU and UBC, as we’re hearing. But at the same time, they seem to be fully enrolled. Is there a disconnect there or not?

D. Baer: Universities respond to student numbers as best they can with the financial resources available. One
[ Page 1756 ]
response is to run larger classes, which means we are less efficacious in teaching our students ways to deal with the new knowledge economy.

Another response is to defer expenditures such as building maintenance. There’s a variety of responses that are possible. Universities, I think, are doing their best under a trying situation, but there are limits to the capacity to do that, in my view. Enrolments are still healthy in most of the research universities, maybe not so much so in some of the college system institutions further north, which face a particular challenge. I think our colleagues at the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators would be better able to address and talk to you about that.

I was interested in the graduate scholarship program aspect of it. I wondered: when did the graduate scholarships end?

Secondly, do you have any statistics, or is it just discussion, about students actually leaving the province because they can’t afford it? You note that the cost of graduate education is high, and our graduate tuition fees tend to be higher than other provinces anyway. Is that also a result of less money coming into the system that’s putting those fees up, which means that you’re getting more students leaving the province because they’re getting no assistance there?

D. Baer: On the latter question, I can only speak anecdotally because it’s difficult to put surveys into the field to get a good sense of this. I have been in British Columbia since 2001 and teaching at post-secondary institutions here. Prior to that, I taught for over 20 years in Ontario. In both locations, I have sat on graduate committees on the social sciences, not just in my own discipline of sociology but sometimes in other disciplines as well.

The phenomenon I have observed here is that the committee makes its best offer to some of the best and brightest students, even those coming from B.C., only to be turned down, the students saying: “We’re not coming here.” The graduate secretary would follow up, and the graduate committee would get the feedback. “That person is going to the University of Toronto. That person is going to Western.” That feedback included, in some cases, an indication of how much money was being offered — i.e., much more — and suggests to me that there’s some basis for the claim that our people are leaving.

I don’t have systematic data on that. They’re difficult to obtain. I’d like to have, but I can tell you and assure you that, anecdotally, my comparison between this province and Ontario is quite eye-opening and frustrating.

M. Conlon: A very brief comment. To the question, B.C. has never had a competitive, merit-based graduate scholarship program, so it’s not as though the program was cut at some point in time.

M. Conlon: It was attached to the loan program. There was never a comprehensive program.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m going to have to cut you off, but you are very welcome to put that in writing, whatever you were about to say. Collect your thoughts, submit it to the committee, and we can share it. It can form part of the public record. That’s until October 15, which is the cut-off date. But I have to keep on schedule.

Ms. Woodsworth, welcome. Good afternoon. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a wave when you have two minutes left, if you keep your eye on me, and then we’ll cut to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

A. Woodsworth: Well, thank you very much, all, for hearing our priorities today. I’m from Georgia Strait Alliance, and we are a regional marine conservation organization celebrating our 25th birthday this year. We work to protect the waters of the Georgia Strait and the communities and the economies that rely on its continued health.

Over our 25 years, we have, for some time, identified the risk of a major oil spill as one of the top threats that we have consistently identified to our home waters and to coastal communities and economies. We’ve been working on this issue for a number of years and have developed a body of knowledge and expertise on it — and as well, represent 10,000 members and supporters in the region who care about these waters.

The focus of my presentation today is what we would like to see from the province in terms of supporting strengthened community oil spill preparedness and response, and how we’d like to see this reflected in the 2016 budget. A lot of this is based on our expert research that we commissioned as an intervener in the National Energy Board review of the Kinder Morgan proposal.
[ Page 1757 ]

I know probably most of us are all terribly familiar with repeated warnings that we have heard from all corners — from federal corners, from provincial corners and from many others — around our lack of preparedness to deal with a major spill on the west coast. We, obviously, saw some of these in action with the Marathassa grain ship spill in April in English Bay.

I want to just touch briefly on a few of the…. You know, the Coast Guard issued an independent report that identified a number of key concerns around communication breakdowns among the many players and the many agencies that were involved; a lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all the many players and all the many layers of government and levels of government; and untested plans and untested relationships that contributed to a lot of these issues. Obviously, the Coast Guard also identified many improvements for agencies of all levels, a lot of those at the door of the Coast Guard itself.

We were really pleased to see the Premier came out really strongly during that incident, talking about, potentially, the need for a stronger provincial role if the Coast Guard wasn’t up to the task, and pleased to see Minister Polak’s new mandate letter talking about learning lessons from the Marathassa spill and making recommendations to cabinet.

What I’d really like to focus on is that the Marathassa really showed us how quickly a marine spill — technically a federal jurisdiction — becomes one that affects and involves provincial levels, local levels, First Nations levels and communities.

We know that the land-based spill legislation is coming in the spring, and we’ve commented on that separately. Really, what I want to look at is how we should be supporting our local partners. We really learned what important roles they have to play in that incident on the front lines.

Cities and towns have a vitally important role to play in planning for a spill and in responding when the time comes, from protecting public health and safety as the public health authority, to putting up warning signs, to monitoring environmental impacts, to keeping the public informed. There’s a whole host of roles that local governments play in a marine spill — technically, you know, of federal jurisdiction.

We saw all those in play with the Marathassa spill, and we also saw some real challenges with the city’s participation that they experienced. They experienced a 12-hour notification delay. Their audit of their participation talked about a huge resource draw for a very small spill that would be absolutely unsustainable, unsupportable in the case of a major spill.

This confirms what we heard over the course of our research that we’ve been conducting as interveners, where we commissioned an agency to conduct a capability assessment of local government’s spill response capacity on the south coast of B.C.

We were looking at the Georgia Strait region: 44 municipalities with a coastline, and regional districts with a coastline on the south coast. It consisted of interviews with emergency managers — people with responsibility for this kind of accident, should it occur — and a review of publically available oil spill response plans — federal, local and WCMRC, Western Canada Marine Response Corporation — and compared it with what’s in place in Washington and California and Oregon, south of the border, just drawing some lessons from what’s happening there.

Some of the key outcomes of this research were these vitally important roles that local governments have to play both in the planning stages, in terms of identifying sites of concern, of local resources that are available, and in the response stages I mentioned around public communication, participation in the unified command emergency services, logistics and a number of really important roles.

What came out was that these municipalities are woefully underprepared. All but one of the people we spoke to described themselves as either completely unprepared or had limited preparedness for their role in a marine spill. Half of them said that their plans — their local emergency plans that they are required to have — cover marine spills, and the other half didn’t. Bear in mind, these are all municipalities with a coastline.

They all felt very unclear on their roles and responsibilities, and there was a really high degree of inconsistency between the local governments that we spoke to in terms of understanding what role they would have to play and in terms of what they were actually doing to be prepared for this kind of accident.

The barriers that were identified through this research were primarily laid at the door of poor transparency, engagement and communication coming from senior partners, primarily Coast Guard and WCMRC and other senior partners; a lack of transparency about plans and roles; and a fundamental lack of involvement of local governments in planning exercises, such as they are, in drills, in exercises and in the development of oil spill response plans. One person actually said they had to beg to be included as an observer at that, in these kinds of exercises — so a real sense that there is kind of an active exclusion of local partners.

The other piece is that they said they were not resourced to participate in these kinds of exercises. Despite being aware that their communities faced increasing risk, they didn’t have the resources to take part in this kind of thing.

In terms of their own internal plans, this lack of clarity around roles, their lack of experience in terms of testing these plans, in terms of taking part in these exercises and drills and the lack of resources mean that many simply are not planning for this eventuality. They don’t have a plan for how to engage, whether that would be in a sup-
[ Page 1758 ]
port role for the lead agencies or whether it would be in areas where they do have lead authority — evacuation, public health, this kind of thing.

Many identified the fact that the responsible party system for oil spills makes it a really different kind of emergency from the others that they plan for on a daily basis, such as flood, fire, earthquake. It means that they really are looking to the senior partners for clarity, for leadership and for support.

Overall, this leaves local governments feeling unable to contribute their important local knowledge and information to the planning process, inexperienced when it comes to a multi-jurisdiction coordinated response and lacking in their own internal plans when the time comes. Of course, the overall concern around poor communication and lack of transparency undermines the regime as a whole, as we saw with the Marathassa spill.

We have B.C. coastal communities facing increasing risk from increasing shipping traffic in general as well as potential proposals around new oil tanker traffic. We have British Columbians who expect all three levels of government to be working together to strengthen their oil spill preparedness. This includes the fact that an on-water spill is technically federal jurisdiction, but when the time comes, they expect all levels of government to be working together.

Undoubtedly, a lot of the changes that we need to see rest at the door of the federal government. Communities have their part to play, too, with acknowledging their need to make these plans, to make the plans internally for what they’re going to be engaging in. But they definitely need support. They need our help, particularly the smaller municipalities, who just aren’t resourced to do even what the city of Vancouver was able to do, obviously, in that case.

We have two requests of the province on this front. I’ve seen a couple of you browsing through our new report, which is hot off the press and is aimed at all levels of government. You’ll see two requests in there of the province. I should note that a lot of the substance of this is the subject of a UBCM resolution this week which, if passed, will be coming to you through that channel as well.

The first is that an emergency program in partnership with emergency management B.C. develop planning tools and provide expert support to facilitate local governments in planning for marine oil spills. The second is that the provincial and federal governments work together to introduce a new source of funding to facilitate local governments in preparing for and delivering their roles when it comes to a marine spill.

In terms of what this would look like in terms of financial requests, this is in addition to what we’ve seen in the land-based spill intentions paper, where we obviously support the environmental emergency program’s request for an enhanced program there, as well the mechanism of shifting some of the costs from taxpayers to industry.

In addition to this, what we’re looking at is increases to those two program budgets in terms of one full-time staff member over the first two years to train local governments and support them and then a reduced role going forward in order to maintain that new level of knowledge, as well as a professional contract to develop needed tools and to develop these plans and to develop tools to introduce to the local governments.

For the second piece, we’re looking at a joint federal-provincial grant to be disbursed annually according to population size to B.C. municipalities with a coastline to increase their emergency management budgets. That, again, would be a higher percentage increase to that budget over the first three years and then a reduced number over following years in order to maintain their participation in drills and planning initiatives.

In terms of the respective split between federal and provincial contributions, as well as fully costed numbers for both of these, they would need to be developed in conjunction with all three levels of government. We’re here today to talk about priority on these issues, not to provide those fully costed numbers. I’d note they aren’t big numbers. We’re talking about a technical staff person, a professional contract, a modest increase in a fairly modest line item in local authority budgets.

We’re not talking about large-scale capital infrastructure investment in this case. We’re talking about modest investment in local emergency preparedness. That could really make all the difference when the time comes, one that is overdue and one that is expected by British Columbians in order to protect their coastline, their economy and their way of life.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. You cut about a minute in, but you had some important things to say.

S. Gibson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think all of us around this table…. If there’s one thing we have in common in this room, it’s to protect the fragile environment of our coast. We all treasure it. For those that have lived on it or spent time on it, it’s something we have in common.

One of the things, in looking through the documents you disseminated, is your interest in getting local government a bit more involved. You also recommend the setting up of an advisory association. I don’t know whether it’s just me, but I worry about having too many hands touching the decisions.

I think if we ever have a crisis — I hope we never do, and I don’t think we will — it’s my view, at least, as one person here, that we need to have one organization that leads the way, and everybody comes along behind it. I think the more fragmented the decision-making is, the more fragmented the accountability, the less likely we’re
[ Page 1759 ]
going to resolve a crisis, should one ever happen. I’d be interested in your comments.

A. Woodsworth: The advisory committee is modelled on the Prince William Sound regional advisory committee. That’s something that was established in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill. It’s actually part of the U.S. oil spill pollution act. It was mandated in legislation for two high-risk areas on the west coast. It has a 25-year history in that region, in Prince William Sound. They call themselves an anti-complacency organization. They are a citizen watchdog, but they have full-time staff that is paid for through a joint industry and government funding arrangement.

They are not on the water, involved in unified command, when the time comes. They provide citizen oversight, citizen input and an official voice for communities in developing these kinds of plans, as well as, in their case, providing monitoring of oil industry compliance.

There are two pieces to their role. I’m particularly interested in the kind of citizen watchdog piece. They aren’t involved in unified command when an oil spill should happen, but they’ve had a lot of success. There is some really interesting research done on their ability to kind of reduce…. It’s a preventative measure, an anti-complacency measure and a citizen watchdog.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I think that speaks to what Simon was saying. The higher you go up in levels of government, the more diluted and fragmented things tend to become. Grass roots is really…. It was a local citizen that turned in the oil spill initially here in English Bay.

D. Ashton: Just quickly. I’ve been trying to go through your website as you were talking, to have a look at it. I’m not surfing or anything. I see your position on Kinder Morgan, but what about processing these fuels inland and then shipping them out, where the volatility would make a difference?

A. Woodsworth: Obviously, our mandate and our mission is to protect coastal waters, but we are very aware of the impact of climate change in terms of coastal waters and in terms of ocean acidification and other issues. We are concerned about the Kinder Morgan project from at least two angles. One is the oil spill risk, and the other is the climate impact. Obviously, increasing exports and increasing production and extraction is going to have that climate impact. We are concerned from those two fronts.

D. Ashton: Is your position the same as what your position is on Kinder Morgan, which is no, that I’m reading here, then? Or are there opportunities that we might come to a compromise, since we are a port city, etc.?

A. Woodsworth: I think we absolutely support…. We agree with you on the fact that we’re a port city. We’re a maritime city. We aren’t looking to shut down trade overnight. We’re not looking to shut down trade at all.

There are certain products that we feel are not of overall benefit to the environment globally, and our responsibility here, as people looking to protect this local area and our global commons, is that we need a managed retreat from particularly polluting forms of fossil fuels, including unconventional oil, such as the tar sands.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Now, Western Convenience Stores Association — Andrew Klukas. Welcome. Good to see you again.

Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a wave, if you keep an eye on me, with a couple minutes to go, and then conclude your thoughts. Then we’ll go to committee. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, distinguished committee members. My name is Andrew Klukas. I’m the president of Western Convenience Stores Association. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of our retailers.

Our association advocates on behalf of more than 2,700 retail sites in B.C. that employ around 20,000 people. Our retailers serve the equivalent of a third of the population each day and are a significant contributor to the provincial economy. The convenience store sector serves as a vital economic and social hub in many communities, providing services in areas across the province, including rural, suburban and urban centres. Our members pride themselves on upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethics to support public health and safety.

Now, every industry faces challenges, and our sector is no exception. Firstly, I’d like to speak on the issue of overregulation in the convenience store industry. In 2012 and 2013, our national partner — the Canadian Convenience Stores Association — conducted studies on the degree of regulation impacting the industry at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. It included five cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax.
[ Page 1760 ]

The study identified 868 regulations that directly impact convenience store operators. The study went further by estimating the time and value costs to comply with such regulations, which was estimated to be over $10,000 per year, per site. That’s a significant cost to small business owners. It detracts from their ability to run their operations, hire, train and supervise employees or make the time to research and invest in other business improvements.

One example that’s quite current is a new WorkSafe B.C. requirement under Bill 9 to complete and mail to WorkSafe B.C. a full investigation report for each and every near miss or incident involving medical treatment. We haven’t worked out, really, the implications of that for our industry. It’s a low-risk industry, but retailers in general, I think, are going to be concerned. I think that sprang, in part, from the issues around the explosions at the sawmills and that sort of thing.

Another example is a municipal campaign that’s being debated at UBCM this week that could force our retailers to include climate change warning labels on the handle of each gas pump nozzle. It’s a well-meant campaign. An organization from Ontario believes that if you do this, if you put on a picture of a starving animal on the handle of a gas pump, it’ll make citizens rally to bring change.

In any case, we certainly weren’t consulted. B.C. is the only province in Canada with mandatory prepaid real estate around the pump. It’s of tremendous value — ways to get people into the store. There are a lot of implications to that regulation, if that goes through, that we certainly have concerns about. It’s just an example. It doesn’t concern you directly, but these things happen. These types of initiatives — well-intended. But their execution can be extremely challenging, especially for small retailers.

To support further growth in the small retail sector, we recommend, first of all, that the government recognize the effect of compounding regulation on small business and oversee red-tape reduction efforts with provincial and municipal governments. Harmonized legislation should also be sought wherever that is possible.

Another recommendation. Often new government regulations and initiatives are conducted without consulting small business owners and operators, in our sector in particular. We recommend that the government consult with our industry before any new regulation is introduced that impacts our operators to ensure that the regulation is necessary, and if necessary, that it is operationally practicable.

Notwithstanding all of the above, we often talk about having less regulation. Well, on the other hand of that same coin, here’s one area that is long overdue in getting regulation is the increasingly popular e-cigarette and vapour-product market. With the e-cigarette industry booming across the country, convenience stores have had to adapt to a changing landscape.

Our stores have been selling electronic cigarettes for a number of years, and we’ve done so in accordance with Health Canada rules. Nicotine-containing products are not approved, and we’ve refrained from entering that market and, by and large, have not been selling e-cigarettes that contain nicotine.

As well of particular interest, over 5,000 mystery shops, conducted between August and December in 2014 by Health Canada, found that over 90 percent of convenience stores tested did not sell e-cigarette products to youth shoppers. Now, think about that. This is despite the fact that there is no requirement to age-test. In fact, the compliance levels with e-cigarettes were higher than they were, in general, for tobacco products. Quite interesting. It suggests that our members don’t want kids to smoke anything.

In any case, in May, the provincial government passed Bill 14, the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, which prohibited the sale of e-cigarettes to youth, banned their use in buildings across the province and subjected e-cigarettes to the same display bans as regular nicotine-containing cigarettes. We firmly believe that no youth should have access to e-cigarettes. We also believe that the restrictions around consumption, particularly in public places or restaurants, are prudent.

However, we don’t agree that these products should be treated in the same way as regular cigarettes, for a number of reasons. Among them, there is a growing acceptance among health professionals of the potential of nicotine-containing products, such as vapours, to aid smoking reduction and cessation. As such, it would be more beneficial to permit broad freedoms for marketing to adult consumers and users of other nicotine products currently.

In an open letter to the World Health Organization director general, Margaret Chan, scientists from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia stated: “These products could be among the most significant health innovations of the 21st century, perhaps saving hundreds of millions of lives.” They also recommended: “The urge to control and suppress these products as tobacco products should be resisted.”

Just last month, Public Health England reinforced an earlier study it did last year with a finding that “e-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes and, when supported by a smoking cessation service, help most smokers quit tobacco altogether.” So given the reduced harm potential for these products, it would be counterproductive to hide them from smokers who might otherwise be open to switching. They’re not tobacco products and, therefore, should not be subject to display bans. If you hide them, you can’t take full advantage of those opportunities.

If they are a less harmful alternative, then it’s in the public interest for smokers to have easier access to information about them than combustible tobacco products. This can’t be accomplished by restricting their display and
[ Page 1761 ]
promotion in the same way as regular cigarettes. With that, our association recommends that e-cigarettes should not be subject to retail display bans, thus to encourage customers to transition from regular tobacco products.

A. Klukas: I’d like to speak to you about the ongoing issue of contraband or illegal tobacco in B.C. About a year ago, I presented findings from a study that we did in 2014 in B.C. that found an average rate of 17 percent illegal tobacco across 48 test sites, with some of the highest rates around schools.

The distribution of illegal tobacco encourages the sale of cheap cigarettes to youth, undermines provincial health initiatives, reduces provincial tax revenue from the sale of tobacco and supports organized criminal activity. We encourage the B.C. government, therefore, through the leadership of this committee, to table proactive anti-contraband legislation as seen in central Canada, which has been quite effective there. This legislation should target traffickers, specifically focusing on those who are selling to youth.

It should include new enforcement measures and resources to the Ministry of Finance revenue division. There are some very fine people there that I’ve met. There just aren’t enough of them, and they’re not really well resourced.

Provide municipal police officers the authority to seize illegal cigarettes discovered during their duty. Allow municipalities to prosecute offences related to illegal cigarettes and keep the money made from fines. Grant powers to municipal police forces to launch anti–contraband tobacco investigations and provide more funding to municipal police in the fight against illegal tobacco.

By tackling the growth of contraband tobacco in B.C., we can achieve four public policy objectives: reduced access to youth, increased public revenue, reduced organized criminal activity and a fair business climate for honest retailers.

We are conducting another study right now. As we speak, in fact, the things are at the lab in Quebec, and they will reach out to each of you individually to share the results once they’re in. We’re also replicating that study right across western Canada. There are a lot of issues going on elsewhere as well.

In closing, our association would like to work with the provincial government, with you, on these and other initiatives. We hope to be part of a conversation with the provincial government that leads to effective solutions while allowing small businesses to thrive in a healthy and competitive environment.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time. I do have a couple of questions. I’m going to start with Dan.

D. Ashton: Andrew, thanks for the presentation. Just quickly, we’ve had several presenters come to us about taxation and increased taxation on sugared drinks. I know that in your stores that you represent, that is a portion of the ongoing sales. So what effects do you see of increasing or additional taxation on high-sugar-content drinks?

A. Klukas: In particular, youth. We can only speak, really, from the retail perspective.

A. Klukas: But we also are aware of things that have happened in other jurisdictions where they’ve tried various means. Our understanding is that the causes of childhood obesity are complex. They’re cultural. Taxation may be a part of that, but our view is that you need to look at the broader issues. Look at the science as well. Make your determination based on the realities of the products and their impacts, not on….

I mean, it’s easy…. For example, the campaign I mentioned earlier, around the gas-pump warning label thing, was well-intentioned but not really thought through very well. I would certainly recommend consulting with the individuals who have expertise in that area.

From our perspective, of course, we always will comply. We’ll support whatever we can. We have our own initiative promoting healthier choices among youth. Peninsula Co-op on the Island right now has developed a standard to encourage people, for example, to choose healthier products.

We don’t know how to define “healthy.” My goal is to work, ultimately, with the Public Health Agency of Canada. I’ve been working with an association called the Bridge Society, and they’re funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

What we want to see is a standard for our industry where we can determine more objectively what is better for you as opposed to not as good for you so that we can identify individual products and encourage people — through education and through marketing in the store and outside the store — to make those choices that are on this side of that line and move those needles incrementally over.

It’s going to take years to change the culture. I still reach for a bag of Cheezies — right? — whenever I’m stressed. You know, these things are ingrained.
[ Page 1762 ]

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your presentation. My question is about the contraband tobacco. Obviously, if people around schools and universities are buying illegal smokes, they’re not going to your member stores to buy cigarettes. I’m wondering if you have any costing on how much it is actually costing your members in lost revenue by people going and buying illegal cigarettes.

A. Klukas: I haven’t looked at how much it costs our individual members. I think some of the companies don’t divulge profit margins very easily and that sort of thing. But we do know that on your side, on the government side, it’s 17 percent contraband. If in fact that represents a provincial average, that would represent over $100 million in provincial excise tax loss. So it’s pretty significant.

We have an interest in the government receiving that revenue as well. We benefit from what you do with that money.

C. Trevena: Sure, but people who come into the store to buy cigarettes and something else — then they’re not coming into the store, because they’re not buying cigarettes.

A. Klukas: Exactly. It’s the foot traffic, and there’s a whole chain of things. Yeah, we definitely have a business interest in having people buy legal tobacco exclusively. But there are a lot of sides to that issue that we have an interest in, as do people who live in the communities that are impacted by that trade.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just quickly, I appreciate your consultation message. I think that’s a pretty obvious one that should be there on issues that impact you. But as you know, consultation doesn’t always mean you’d be happy with the results in the end.

I just want to touch on the e-cigarette. I appreciate the comment you made about the vigilance of your stores not selling to youth, but as we know, there’s still marketing and still a worry that the “cool” factor with e-cigarettes will in fact attract youth. There is a worry there, because most e-cigarettes still contain nicotine. They don’t contain the other harmful areas — and I’ve got a couple of family members who are using e-cigarettes, so I think there’s some benefit to getting off cigarettes — but I think there is still a concern.

I just wondered how you feel about that — a concern about the marketing to youth and the worry that if there isn’t the same kind of protection with e-cigarettes that there is with cigarettes and with tobacco, you will, in fact, see an increase in youth using e-cigarettes.

A. Klukas: I think there’s a difference between a ban…. I mean, a complete ban, definitely, if you don’t want to do any promotion, is a ban, right? But as I suggested, then you lose the potential for having other benefits. We are concerned. These products should not be marketed to youth. There should be, perhaps, restrictions around if there are going to be displays. I mean, that’s fine. We can talk about that, how that’s supposed to look. But a ban makes it absolutely impossible to even show anyone the product. We’re thinking there’s a tremendous loss of opportunity there.

Another concern we have. You mentioned nicotine-containing products. There are a lot of vape shops around, and they’re selling vapours that contain nicotine, contrary…. Health Canada has not approved these products. They’re selling them. Technically, it’s illegal. We haven’t complained about them, but perhaps we should. That is an area of concern for us. Fortunately, they typically do not allow youth into the store — right? — which is good. But you can get some ideas around how it could be designed to control that kind of thing.

S. Hamilton (Chair): John, would you like to ask a question, and then Mr. Klukas can respond?

J. Yap: Sure. It’s on e-cigarettes. Have your members seen a relative decline in regular cigarettes and then the sharp increase in e-cigarettes? Or are they not correlated?

A. Klukas: Yeah, it’s not a huge one. Some members think it’s going to go away or it’s going to come and go. However, I think that we’re interested in the ability to diversify. There are sunset products out there. I think you know some of them. I think it would be healthy for us to have the opportunity to branch out into other things in a way that is consistent with your objectives.

S. Hamilton (Chair): With that, thank you, Mr. Klukas. I appreciate your taking the time to present to the committee.

Okay, next we have the Emily Carr Students Union — Alia Hijaab, Gloria Han and Lori MacDonald.

Please come forward. Welcome. You’ve got ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left so you can conclude your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

G. Han: Great. Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Han. I’m a fourth-year fine arts student at Emily Carr University of Art and Design. I’m also the chairperson of the Emily Carr Students Union. We represent 1,900 students in undergraduate and graduate levels at Emily Carr in Vancouver.
[ Page 1763 ]

A. Hijaab: Hi. My name is Alia Hijaab. I’m a second-year international student at Emily Carr, going to animation, and I’m a board member for the Emily Carr Students Union.

L. MacDonald: My name is Lori MacDonald. I’m the executive director of the Emily Carr Students Union and here as a resource. We also just want to thank the committee for hearing our presentation today.

L. MacDonald: Our members are represented by the Emily Carr Students Union and are also organized provincially and nationally as Local 33 of the Canadian Federation of Students. We’re here today to propose priorities for post-secondary education for the 2016 B.C. budget. We’re also proud to be one of the world’s top art and design institutions. We’re bringing forward opportunities for investments that will support students and the university to continue to strive towards excellence in the creative industries.

We applaud the B.C. government for the capital investment in our future home at Great Northern Way, and we’re working toward our move for 2017.

Recent investments in the U-Pass B.C. program to renew the program until 2018 have also been applauded by our organization. We’re working with partners, stakeholders, including the government, to define the positive impacts of the program and to develop the program for the long term. Our top priority is to keep the program affordable and accessible for our members.

An adequately funded institution is necessary to provide the resources to support students. Emily Carr University is currently operating 9 percent above the provincially mandated full-time-equivalency, or FTE, target without operational funding from the province.

Creativity is our greatest natural resource, and Emily Carr University is where these skills are developed, refined and amplified in our province and globally.

As a special teaching university, there is no operational funding from the B.C. government to facilitate research and provide the master of applied arts and master of design students. There are now 72 in the master’s program at Emily Carr, which is about double from last year, with three Canada research chairs, and research activity is constantly growing.

Funding challenges can be alleviated by providing per-student funding for those students who are above the enrolment targets and for students in the master of applied arts and master of design programs.

A. Hijaab: Additionally, our members, the students and graduates of Emily Carr University, need support. Graduates of Emily Carr University are finding employment in their field, forming small businesses and leading in the cultural sector.

As elected representatives of the Emily Carr Students Union, we want to ensure that our current members leave Emily Carr in a position to move the creative economy forward and to become entrepreneurs and innovators without the financial pressures of crippling student debt.

We have three recommendations for the 2016 B.C. budget to address the student debt crisis.

One, address the upfront costs of post-secondary and legislate a fully funded tuition fee reduction, with maintenance of a 2 percent cap to future increases.

We want to continue the excellence and the contributions of our members, but this requires the ability for them to balance their part-time jobs and not at the expense of their ability to study. The current reality is that students’ success is hindered by the need to work while juggling full-time classes, and the impact is seen in the average length of time that students take to complete their degrees. It’s not uncommon to see students in their fifth and sixth years of a four-year degree program.

Two, provide a system of needs-based grants. We applaud the direction of Newfoundland and Labrador to turn their provincial loans program into a grants program, seeing spending on post-secondary education as an investment and not a cost.

Three, address the rate of borrowing on provincial student loans and eliminate interest rates on the provincial portion of student loans. The current interest rates of prime plus 2.5 percent means that our members are finishing post-secondary with massive debt loads and encountering financial barriers upon graduation.

Due to these financial barriers, this can discourage potential students from proceeding to get an education, limiting the amount of people who are receiving an education to only those who can afford it.

G. Han: In conclusion, as cultural producers and creative thinkers, Emily Carr students are well positioned to build and contribute to the creative economy in British Columbia. We encourage the committee to follow from Newfoundland and Labrador — to see funding allocations for B.C.’s post-secondary students as an investment, not a cost, to provide an opportunity for B.C. to lead.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You’re done. My goodness. Okay, I wasn’t ready for that. I had a little sidebar going on there. I apologize. Thank you very much for the presentation. I will go to committee members.

M. Morris: You’re talking about students right across the province. We’re considerably bigger than Labrador and Newfoundland. Have you put a cost to your three priorities here — reduction of the 2 percent cap, needs-based grants and eliminate interest on student loans? Have you figured out — multiply that by all the post-
[ Page 1764 ]
secondary students in the province — what we’d be looking at for a budget item in B.C.? Any idea?

L. MacDonald: I’ll jump in, because they probably don’t know the answer. We also work with the Canadian Federation of Students–British Columbia. We at the Emily Carr Students Union haven’t costed it out, but we’ll also be providing a written report, so we’ll see if it’s been costed out at the provincial level.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your presentation. The issue of the cost of getting post-secondary education has come to the committee many times, so thank you for also bringing your views on it.

Getting to Emily Carr — it’s a very unique place in B.C., and it’s a huge achievement to get there. I’m wondering if you’re seeing a dropout rate from people who just simply cannot afford to continue, or whether it is more that people are just so pleased to be at Emily Carr that they are going to do, as you mentioned, a four-year degree in six or seven years — just keep on to get the Emily Carr degree.

C. Trevena: Do you see students, having got to Emily Carr, still dropping out of their programs because they can’t afford to carry on? Or are people, because it is that unique university, trying to make it work, obviously at emotional cost?

G. Han: There’s definitely both. I’ve definitely seen many talented students drop out because they simply cannot afford it due to other life costs.

A. Hijaab: There’s also a large amount of people who do take breaks — year breaks or semester breaks — so they can work and save up more money so they can pay for the next semester. They’ll go on academic leave or take a deferral or something like that. I think there’s a combination of the two kinds of paths that people take.

D. Ashton: Thank you very much for your presentation. Just before you, we had the Confederation of University Faculty Associations present to us also. If I remember correctly, graduating students have an average of about $28,000 of debt. That’s a ballpark figure.

L. MacDonald: There’s an average of $27,000, but then there’s also a Bank of Montreal amount that, I believe, is $35,000.

D. Ashton: It was just interesting to see that new data that we have examined from the 2011 census and from the 2015 Labour Force Survey confirms this view. The view is that B.C. residents in the category — age of 25 to 64 with a bachelor’s degree — made $24,000 a year more than that of high school education and $15,000 more if you had a diploma or a trades or apprentice certification.

I say this with the utmost respect. Staying in school, getting that education pays off in the long run. But there’s a cost to that, and the payback comes very quickly from the faculty….

L. MacDonald: Yeah, I’ll just retort with a couple of points. One is depending on whether you’re able to pay for your education up front or if you’re having to pay for it through loans. Paying for it through loans has a significant impact if you’re paying the interest rates over time, especially if you’re making less money in the longer term. That’s one problem with that.

You are going to be making more money, but it also depends on what fields you choose to go into. We have lower employment and many opportunities in some of the fields like child care or teaching kindergarten, or some of the people coming out of Emily Carr are well suited to do non-profit work in social innovation.

It depends on what your long-term income is. I think it’s not really necessary to look at it that way. Still, you have to look at the whole, comprehensive picture.

D. Ashton: I do. My comment was just that education is worth it. Even though there is a bit of pain at first, and many of us will say that around this table, having gone through the system…. Hang in there, but there is a cost associated to it that we all have to bear at some point in time.

E. Foster: I’d like to commend all the student unions for having the same message. We’ve heard from pretty much everybody, all the different schools, and you’re well organized too. You’re not conflicting with each other at all.

I want to go back to Mike’s comment. We’ve heard from different student groups. We’ve heard from the business community, chambers of commerce. I believe that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is up next. What we hear from them is that in order for businesses to prosper, we have to have a more competitive tax regime. We have to encourage business. We need to come up with the money.

The student unions all across the province that we’ve met with — their ask is hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s a tremendous amount of money, and nobody seems to come up with an answer of where we’re going to get that hundreds of millions of dollars, and we’re not going into debt.

That’s our challenge. We sympathize with all your asks, but our challenge is that we’ve got to report back to the Minister of Finance, and if we tell him that our recommendation will be that we crank the budget up by $400
[ Page 1765 ]
million or $500 million for all the asks we’ve had, he’s not going to bother reading it.

I understand your challenge. I get it. There’s no question. It’s tough. We all…. Well, I can’t speak for everybody. I was certainly there, paid it off, paid my bills, and it worked out well for me. But remember: when you’re asking, it’s a policy not just for one school; it’s a policy for everybody in the province, and it’s extremely expensive.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for your presentation and for speaking out for accessibility, for university, for college education and for the creative economy.

Just to respond quickly, I want to thank and acknowledge my grandparents and my great-grandparents for investing and believing in university, college, post-secondary education and investing considerably more than my parents’ generation do or believe is acceptable. I think it made it so that my parents’ generation could afford to go to university — not graduate with massive debt loads like you have to — and that, when working, they could pay for their entire tuition through working in the summer, in some cases, as their jobs were paying them a lot more than the jobs of today are, proportionally.

When you make the point that we need to invest in education, I can think of a few places we could find money very quickly. We just gave an over $200 million tax break to the richest 2 percent in this province. Meanwhile, your tuition fees go up.

I just want to thank you for continuing to advocate for university, because if we think education is expensive, ignorance is a lot more expensive. Thank you for your presentation.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’d like to thank you as well. I think British Columbia has an incredible and thriving creative economy, and it’s thanks to young people like yourselves and those who came before you and helped build it. You gave us a very thorough, articulate presentation, and for that I appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Next we have the Canadian Federation of Independent Business — Richard Truscott.

Mr. Truscott, welcome. It’s good to see you. As was mentioned before, we have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes to go so you can conclude your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for some questions. So the floor is yours.

R. Truscott: Ten minutes. This will be a small conversation about small business, and I look forward to your questions afterwards. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you on these very important matters, and I wish you well in your deliberations.

I’m not going to spend too much time on CFIB. I did want to do a short commercial about who we are and what we’re all about. Of course, we represent small business. We’re a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy group. Our bread and butter is lobbying and advocating on behalf of our members. We’re 100 percent member funded and very much a member-driven organization. It’s not what I think about the issues of the day; it’s what our members tell us. If there is consensus on an issue, that’s what we carry forward.

We’ve been around for more than 40 years, and we represent 109,000 independent businesses across the country, including 10,000 here in B.C. These are all small, independently run, operated and owned businesses. Essentially, it’s the non–stock market economy. The average size of our member is only about ten to 15 employees. So these are not big businesses by any means.

One of the things that makes us quite strong is that we do have businesses in every single sector of the economy. Any kind of small business you can imagine — we’ve got membership. It’s the strength in numbers and the breadth that we have that really gives us our influence and our authority to speak with government on the issues that affect small business.

I like to say that small business is the backbone of the economy, representing 98 percent of all businesses, about half of the economic output of the country and about 55 percent of the private sector workforce. A lot of people work in small business, and it’s a big part of the economy. It’s also the heart and soul of our communities. I know many of you have relatives or friends or neighbours that run small businesses. I’m sure you hear stories about how difficult it can be. So these are very important individuals in our communities.

I wanted to start with the budget recommendations first so we get those on the floor. Then I’ll see how far down the presentation we get in the ten minutes that I’ve been allowed.

First of all, continuing to balance the budget and reduce debt levels is very much a priority for our members. You’ll see that in some of the survey data later on.

Implementing the tax panel’s recommendation on business inputs is very much a priority for many of our members. You’ll see that, again, in the information attached to the presentation today.

Committing to reviewing the administrative burden of the PST and revamping the taxpayer fairness and service code to include service standard times and the original document. You had to get it in writing, which was very important to our members. Of course, during the transition from the PST to the HST and back to the PST, some of that was watered down.

Legislating B.C.’s one-for-one rule and putting that in law. That’s the one-for-one rule on red tape. So if you introduce a new rule or regulation, you have to find at least one of equal or greater value to retire. We think that’s very important to control the overall burden of red tape on small business.
[ Page 1766 ]

Sharing with municipalities some best practices and setting an example of fairness where the provincial government has control. We certainly know that the Auditor General for Local Government has a role in that as well. Looking forward to hearing their presentation at the UBCM conference this week.

Finally, rejecting calls for mandatory CPP increases — something that the B.C. government is on record doing, and we certainly support that — and opposing any plans to create a mandatory provincial pension plan such as the ORPP in Ontario.

Just quickly about business optimism. Things have started to change a little bit in B.C. This is slide 5. B.C. is the blue line. Canada is the red. You can see that we’ve had some pretty good optimism levels in British Columbia over the last couple of years. Anything on this scale between 65 and 75 is an area of good, strong economic growth. We’re now bordering on the lower range of that, and things have really started to drift nationally, especially in Alberta.

We’re about to release some new numbers this week that show that small business optimism is dropping like a rock in that province. So stay tuned for that.

That slide represents when we ask our members how they feel about the performance of their business within the economy. But when we ask our members more generally about the overall outlook for the B.C. economy, they are still fairly optimistic — two-thirds of them saying that they are optimistic. However, I’d like to note that only six percent of those were very optimistic.

The optimism levels about the future of the economy are still pretty good, but there is a bit of negativity starting to seep in. Things look like they’re starting to turn a corner but, of course, we’ll have to wait and see. I don’t have a crystal ball like all of you.

When we ask our members about how well B.C. is creating a supportive environment for entrepreneurs, for small business, 55 percent of our members say they’re either somewhat or very confident that the B.C. government is doing that. On the flip side though, however, there are 43 percent who have a contrary view. A little bit split on that question.

When we ask which issues are most important to their business, they identify things like the tax burden and the cost of regulation and red tape. But interestingly, over the last 15 years, that cost of local government priority has really jumped up the list. It is now in second spot. It’s something to note.

On the flip side — government debt and deficit. The concern about that has declined considerably over the last 15 years, and that’s certainly of note. You can see some of the other issues on the page there.

Balancing the B.C. budget is definitely a priority for our members. You can see on slide 9 that 93 per cent of our members say that’s an important priority, an important focus for the provincial government, and recommend that they continue to do that.

Priorities for small business in the upcoming budget. The first one on the list is the tax gap. We just released a report today looking at the differences between what a resident pays in property tax versus what a small business will pay. I know that’s mainly a municipal issue, but the province certainly has a role in terms of property tax.

And then on down the list. Reduce the property transfer tax, simplifying PST remittance and so forth.

Provincial government priorities. What should the provincial government commit to in the next upcoming budget? You can see 56 percent of our members saying that the government should implement a PST business input tax credit — lots of members in support of that. Reducing the overall provincial tax burden is in second spot, at 48 percent. Of course, the old standby, reducing regulation and red tape, is favoured by 37 percent of our members.

When we get calls in our office…. Besides our advocacy, we also have people that can help our members dealing with the day-to-day operations of their business and answering questions about workers compensation rules or employment law — that sort of thing.

But we also get a lot of calls about PST administration. In fact, that is the number one call into our office in B.C. — calls about the PST and the difficulties that our members experience in dealing with the administration of that. And 72 percent of our members say that it has a somewhat or a very negative impact on their business.

The tax panel’s recommendation of removing PST from the investments in machinery and equipment, including computers and software. That is definitely a high priority of our members. So 85 of our members agree with that statement that that policy direction is the way to go.

Lastly, the most burdensome B.C. regulations. PST tops the list by a clear, significant…. And 74 percent of our members, of all small businesses in the province, identify that as a major concern. Certainly, the burden of PST regulation is something that is affecting our members in a significant way.

I think I’ll leave it there. I look forward to your questions. Thanks very much for your time, your attention, and fire away.

J. Yap: Thank you. A couple of points. Thanks for your presentation. Maybe, more comment — it surprises me that labour is down at the bottom of the list of priorities — on finding qualified labour. Anecdotally, we hear that it’s always hard to find people. I don’t know if there’s more context to that that you may have.
[ Page 1767 ]

R. Truscott: Yeah. You’re referring to slide 8, I believe. It has declined. I mean, it’s up in terms of concern compared to 2001. But we could certainly provide the committee with information looking at this metric over time because it does ebb and flow with the economy. Right now, a little bit of the pressure is off because the economy has slowed a little bit across the country — maybe less so here in B.C.

But it also depends on the kind of business you’re looking at and also the region of the province. There are certain places — especially more remote communities, more isolated regions, northern regions of the province — where the shortage of qualified labour would be probably at top spot or second spot. It would be up the list for sure. We can also provide those kinds of breakdowns.

But overall, for our members in B.C., it’s down in fourth spot — still a major concern for a lot of members, but it would really depend on the kind of business you’re talking about and also the location in the province.

J. Yap: So the number one priority on PST, a tax credit for machinery and equipment — have you priced that out, what scale that would be?

R. Truscott: I would look to the recommendations of the tax panel, their report. I don’t have the number off the top of my head.

R. Truscott: I believe it was $500 million, but let me add a caveat that we’d have to look at that and make sure you get the right information. There obviously would be a cost to that, but it is a significant headache for our members. The benefit of doing something like that is if, rather than having small business owners on the phone trying to get an answer from government or surfing websites or ticking boxes on forms, they’re back to running their business.

The time saving would be of value to the economy. That would certainly be a boost to the economy, if we can get businesspeople back to doing what they love to do and should be doing, and that’s running their business.

S. Gibson: I just want to say that I really appreciate what you’re doing. As someone who owned a small manufacturing company, I know how tough it is. We had 13 employees. I think, for people that get a regular paycheque from an institution, they have no idea of the challenges of running a small business.

S. Gibson: It’s a different world. I remember this anecdotal…. There were a couple of pay cycles when we didn’t have quite enough money to pay ourselves. We still had to pay our employees. Now, we got it the next pay cycle. It’s a real challenge. So I want to say: good work you’re doing.

My constituents who are small business people are some of my best constituents in terms of keeping me in line and keeping me informed on the issues that are important to the government.

R. Truscott: That’s great. I appreciate that comment. They are hard-working people.

To get back to your shortage of qualified labour question, the reason they often don’t pay themselves is because they want to pay their people, because they’re afraid they’re going to lose them and they won’t be able to find them when the economy picks up or their business improves.

Any further questions? Seeing none, just a quick one from me. Why are our small business folks in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia so happy? I’m just trying to figure it out.

R. Truscott: I don’t know. Well, besides being a beautiful place, a beautiful part of the country….

It hasn’t always been that way. The Atlantic provinces for the longest time were at the bottom end of the scale, in the 50s and 60s. There was the west, where we saw, you know — high 60s and even 70s. B.C. was one of those. Alberta was in the clouds.

But things can obviously change very fast. The outlook for a lot of businesses in the west has changed a lot, and it has stabilized and even improved in the east. It’s interesting. We’d have to dig into that a little bit more.

R. Truscott: But things can change on a dime. We’ve certainly seen that in the last few months in the Canadian economy, more broadly. Let’s hope things improve in the near term and get a lot of the business owners back on their feet, building the economy in our communities.
[ Page 1768 ]

Thank you, Mr. Truscott. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee. Enjoy your day.

Now we have First Call: B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition — Ms. Montani. How are you?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Welcome. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes to go, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

A. Montani: Thanks for the opportunity. Hello to all of you. Some of you I’ve seen around in the community. It’s good to see you again.

As you may know, we’re a non-partisan coalition of about 95 partner organizations from around the province devoted to children’s rights and children’s well-being. That’s what I want to talk to you about today.

Our written brief, I believe, has been circulated to you for your consideration. In it, you will find a lot more detail than I’m able to present in my ten minutes here, including some things I’ll just touch on.

As our name implies, we think we should put children and youth first. That’s where First Call comes from. It’s based on knowing that they are developmentally vulnerable and, therefore, deserve our protection and support. The vulnerabilities of childhood and adolescence, I think, are well known.

Then, we have commitments to them, through the UN convention on the rights of the child, to uphold their rights. So it’s our collective duty to do that well and make sure they have both the social policy environment as well as the community supports and the family supports they need.

Our first set of recommendations that you’ll find in the report is around the importance of investing in early childhood development — in one of what we call the keys to success for children and youth.

The government’s 2006 goal of reducing the early childhood vulnerability rate in B.C. to 15 percent by this year was not reached. The most recent vulnerability data we have shows about 33 percent of children entering kindergarten vulnerable on at least one or more of the domains that are measured by the EDI, early development instrument.

Major influences on vulnerability rates are things like high child poverty rates, a weak and fragmented family support system in the province, wait-lists for early intervention for those children with developmental or other challenges, and crisis for families across the income spectrum in securing quality child care that they can afford.

We appreciate government’s efforts to support early childhood through new funding for early-years centres, for early childhood educator bursaries, sustaining the community-based planning tables that are around, and the new tax benefit, the $55 per month. However, in our new report — which you can find on line, and it’s linked in our report — Make B.C.’s Young Children and Families a Priority, we are calling for government to go beyond the relatively small investments in relatively small programs and make significant policy changes and investments that will address the scale and the scope of the socioeconomic realities facing the majority of families with young children today.

In the 2016 budget, we are calling for public investments to adopt and begin implementing the $10-a-day child care plan; to reduce and eliminate wait-lists for children with developmental challenges who need access to assessments and therapies; to expand access to family support programs and services for parents of young children, especially those who have barriers and disadvantages; and to improve access to early childhood development and care programs for aboriginal children and families both on and off reserve.

We also recommend that government consider raising the maximum amount of the B.C. early childhood tax benefit, index it annually and expand eligibility to include children over six. I recommend you take a look at Ontario’s, if that is of interest to you.

Our second set of recommendations concerns supporting transitions from childhood to youth and adulthood. Around public education, where many children spend large parts of their day, in the K-to-12 system, we are concerned that the recommendations from this committee to increase funding for public schools were ignored in last year’s budget.

Public schools are being starved and eroded while the funding for private schools…. The most recent ministry service plan projects a 25 percent increase in their funding over the three years of the service plan. We again recommend a substantial increase in provincial operating funding for public schools to reduce the growing inequities that are caused when schools are forced to rely on parent and charitable fundraising to supplement inadequate school operating budgets and the restoration, therefore, of supports and services that have been lost over the last dozen years.

Parents, teachers, trustees and students have all been very vocal on this point, illustrating the problems in this past year that underfunding is causing in their schools.

We also recommend additional investments in public school capital budgets to maintain and upgrade aging facilities and to complete the necessary seismic upgrades to keep students and staff safe in the event of an earthquake.

With regard to post-secondary funding, this committee’s recommendations related to reducing financial barriers and student debt were also ignored by government in the last budget. To make matters worse, the educa-
[ Page 1769 ]
tional guarantee for adult basic education was cancelled. We recommend that government restore the education guarantee to reinstate tuition-free education for adults taking adult basic education to upgrade secondary courses so that they can apply to post-secondary training programs and for adults needing to learn English as a second language.

We are also again recommending that government address financial barriers to post-secondary access and soaring student debt levels by phasing in tuition fee reductions, reintroducing a needs-based grant program and providing interest-free student loans.

With regard to one of our most vulnerable populations, youth in care transitioning out of care, who lack the formal support many other children and youth have, B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth has made some excellent recommendations to improve government supports, including extending foster care to some youth up to the age of 25. First Call supports these recommendations.

We also recommend that government authorize and fund the Ministry of Advanced Education to waive fees for all former youth in care who want to pursue post-secondary studies at any government-funded post-secondary institution.

We recognize that advances have been made with some fee waivers by some institutions voluntarily, but the situation is now quite inequitable. If you live in the right community or institution, you might get a fee waiver. It’s depending on the number of seats, in some places, and even on the types of programs that are eligible. So it’s not equitable, and we recommend that we, as the parent, make that available to all youth leaving care.

Youth mental health. I hope some of you have read the recent report from the Children and Youth Committee of the Legislature. That committee has agreed that there is an urgent need for action to improve mental health services and supports for youth.

Two years ago the Representative for Children and Youth also wrote an important report on this topic, and her recommendations have yet to be acted on. First Call supports the representative’s recommendations as outlined in our submission and urges this committee to recommend that youth mental health be made a high budget priority and funded accordingly through the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Health and Education.

Our third set of recommendations concerns increased economic equality, and here’s where we touch upon child poverty as well.

First Call has been tracking child and family poverty rates for a couple of decades in this province. We have made woefully little progress over that time, with one in five children still poor in this province. In our submission, we have listed some of the statistics that our most recent child poverty report card contains.

We were happy to see the recommendation in this committee’s report last year for a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, and we hope this recommendation will be repeated in this year’s report, or your recommendations this year.

We also wanted to acknowledge the positive changes to welfare policy that were brought in, in this last year’s budget, namely the elimination of the clawback of child support from children on income assistance. This single policy change has reduced the depth of poverty for over 5,400 children.

Another recent change to allow widowed income assistance recipients to keep the CPP orphan’s benefit when their disabled partner dies will benefit another 50 to 100 children.

We appreciate, also, further assistance to single parents on income assistance with the new single-parent employment initiative, particularly the provision to pay for their child care while they’re in training for a year and for another 12 months if they transition into work.

However, IA, income assistance, rates have not increased since 2007. These families are living in very deep poverty, and we urge government to raise them significantly and index them.

It’s important to note, additionally, that since most poor children live with parents who work, if we are to address the rate of child poverty in this province, we’re going to have to look at wages. So we support the call for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and we run a campaign called the living wage for families campaign. We urge you to pay attention to that campaign, because government has a role, as an employer and a contractor.

I’d like to touch on housing, but I think I’m going to skip through that for now. There are a number of other recommendations in our child poverty report card, including some reformation of the tax system to make it more equitable.

Our fourth set of recommendations concern safe and caring communities for children. I want to touch on the Ministry for Children and Family Development, their budget. There’s a chart that we’ve put in our submission that shows that the ministry’s budget has been reduced, when you take into account inflation. That ministry needs a significant budget increase to do its job well. There have been a number of cases that have hit the news lately where that’s been a factor.

Then I’ve listed some other things in the report — grandparents raising grandchildren, children of incarcerated parents, child labour standards. We need investments in monitoring where children are working in this province. There’s a range of things we’d ask you to look at.

A. Montani: That’s okay. We just want to see a budget that puts children first and takes into account that they can’t wait. Whatever we do now is the only time they have in their childhoods. I appreciate that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Wonderful. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Ms. Montani. I appreciate you coming forward.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for this, Adrienne. It’s a very comprehensive and thorough presentation. There is so much need. Unquestionably, we still have a huge amount of child poverty, and there are so many things that we could do to provide equity for our children and so create a much better future for them.

A. Montani: A big coalition, a lot of interests coming at it from different ways.

My question, without putting you on the spot…. If you had to choose the top three or four out of all of these, what do you think that we as a committee should be recommending as — let’s say, the top four?

A. Montani: I would say child care, because it’s both good for children when it’s quality care and because it would relieve the crisis of many families across the income spectrum. But it is also an anti-poverty measure. That would be one of my top ones.

Reinvesting in public education would be another one. Again, it’s a right of all children. All of our children are there. Not all children are in public education, but certainly those who are most disadvantaged benefit most from a well-funded public education system when their families can’t give them the start they might need. That would be a second one.

Youth in care. I would say look at youth in care and mental health — those two. Those are all things we could move on. There’s really good research. Other legislative committees have taken a look at them. The representative has been putting out great research. We should act on that research.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Adrienne, for, as Claire said, a comprehensive report. I think it’s a perfect example of the strength of having a comprehensive poverty reduction plan where you could incorporate all of these things, phase them in and make sure they were all covered. They really do make a package when it comes to supporting all of the issues around early childhood.

I just wondered if you have stats. I think it’s important. You emphasized it, and I think people often don’t realize it. As you say, most poor children have parents who are in the workforce. Do you know the percentage in this province?

A. Montani: The last stats we have are that one-third of them in B.C., families with poor children, had parents who work full-time, full-year. That’s one-third of the poor children had a parent who worked full-time, full-year. Certainly, the majority of them…. It’s up in the 85 percent, 90 percent. One way we can work backwards is: how many children are on income assistance? That’s only about 23 percent in last year’s report card.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I think that’s important. It’s important public information.

S. Hamilton (Chair): It looks like there are no further questions. Ms. Montani, thank you very much for a very comprehensive report and presentation. It’s very much appreciated. Thank you for the work that you do.

Here we are. Our last presenters are Central 1 Credit Union — Don Wright and Helmut Pastrick. Gentlemen, good to see you again. Welcome.

Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to wave you down with two minutes to go, if you keep your eye on me here.

D. Wright: I will try to adhere to that. Thanks for having us. It’s good to see everybody again.

My name is Don Wright. I’m in the fortunate position of being president and CEO of Central 1 Credit Union. Central 1 is the primary liquidity manager, payments processor and trade association for credit unions in British Columbia and Ontario. I’m joined by Helmut Pastrick, our chief economist, who I like to joke is way more famous than I am in British Columbia, which is a good thing.

You’ve already heard from four of our member credit unions, and you’ll hear from three more as our committee continues its tour. Each of those credit unions plays a crucial and critical role in the growth of their local economy. Our role today is to give you the provincewide picture of how our 42 credit unions collectively drive an extraordinary amount of growth. First I’d like to ask Helmut to discuss where we see the provincial economy going in the next five years.

In general, we see the B.C. economy growing at a moderate pace this year, around 2½ percent real GDP, around
[ Page 1771 ]
3½ percent nominal GDP, which is more relevant for budget revenue forecasts.

There is considerable divergence, as there has been in the past, among industries and geographies within B.C. The Lower Mainland, Metro-area economy, more service-based, is certainly outperforming most other regional economies. We see strength, generally, in service industries, tourism, TV, film, consumer spending. Housing, of course, is doing well. Also, we’re seeing some signs of pickup on the lumber front as well, tied to U.S. housing activity.

Industries not doing so well, of course, would be base metals, metallurgical, coal. The energy sector, natural gas, is kind of doing so-so. It’s not too negatively impacted by what’s going on in Alberta, but, to some extent, it is. Obviously the labour market is generally reflecting these moderate conditions, so we see modest job growth.

Population growth seems to be edging up a bit. Interprovincial migration, the flows between B.C. and Alberta, have turned positive in favour of B.C. That’s been the case for the past, probably, three quarters or so. We’ll probably see that continue.

The outlook for ’16-17 and a bit beyond: mainly the U.S. is the bright spot in the global scene. We expect to see some firming there over time. That’s the same story I had last year, of course. China, Asian economies — still in the slow growth mode. We haven’t really seen a turnaround in terms of faster growth there. That will take some time. We still see ongoing weakness there.

Obviously, Canada, very low growth, somewhere around 1 percent this year. It’s not in recession at this point, but certainly, 1 percent growth qualifies as a growth recession. No rate hike by the Bank of Canada anytime soon. We don’t see a rate hike until sometime in 2017.

We see a lower Canadian dollar, below 75 cents, into the 73-cent range. Certainly the Alberta economy is in recession. And we do see some sectors within Canada — certainly cap-ex spending, engineering and construction, industries that support the oil and gas industry — are really in recession, so the lower Canadian dollar.

Overall, our forecasts have slightly more or faster growth than the consensus in the first-quarter report, where the private sector averages slightly above for 2015 and then also for ’16 and ’17. We do expect to see B.C. generally hold up reasonably well and continue to grow at a moderate pace and then picking up over the next three to five years.

We’re the stewards of over $58 billion in deposits. Using those deposits, we can help bolster the economy by helping British Columbians invest their money or by helping them access credit to start a business, go to school or buy a home. We are the largest lender in B.C. to small businesses.

Now, none of that is unique to us. Most banks provide those services. Like the banks, we do it profitably, but what we do with those profits is different. Part of those profits is retained to grow our capital base so that we can grow our capacity to support B.C.’s prosperity. Another part of those profits is used to support important non-profit activities in communities across British Columbia. The remainder we distribute into the pockets of 1.9 million British Columbians.

Our shareholders are your constituents. We like to think those profits are better spent by them than by out-of-province investors.

In doing this, we provide quality jobs for people making local lending decisions in 42 head offices and 365 branches, including over 30 communities that have no other financial institution.

From a capital perspective, credit unions are stronger than ever. We’ve built up our capital bases with a solid foundation of retained earnings. Unlike banks, our capital bases are primarily composed of retained earnings because we cannot sell common equity shares. If we pay higher taxes, our retained earnings grow more slowly. If our retained earnings grow more slowly, our capacity to support British Columbia prosperity grows more slowly.

In 2016, credit unions are facing the phase-out of the provincial portion of the preferential tax rate on credit unions that has been in place for over 40 years. This means B.C. will be the only province west of Quebec that does not provide a preferential tax rate for credit unions. It also means that B.C. credit unions will be paying a higher effective tax rate than the big banks when fully phased in.

In 2014, the Minister of Finance temporarily deferred the increase of the provincial portion of the tax on credit unions. We think that decision made good economic sense and that the temporary deferral should be made permanent. I’d like to ask the committee to once again consider supporting our recommendation to make the temporary deferral of the increase in tax on credit unions permanent.

To close, I’d like to tell you a story that illustrates what deferring this tax increase means for your constituents.

Thirty years ago, two young newlyweds in the East Kootenays wanted to buy a small home in rural British Columbia. They were declined by two Toronto-based banks. One of them thought the local economy was too volatile; the other thought the septic system made the investment too risky. Fortunately, the credit union knew more about the economic cycle of the community and was more realistic about what rural living really meant, septic tank and all.

Building on their equity some years later, the young couple was able to buy a printing business. The credit union helped them expand into two other towns, even
[ Page 1772 ]
when the couple was stretched thin, because they knew just how secure their receivables were. This business was in turn able to create more local jobs, and the credit union never lost a dime on a family that Toronto banks didn’t understand.

All of this is made possible because credit unions in B.C. understand and are committed to B.C. in a way no other financial institutions are. I could tell you hundreds of stories like that, but it just gives you a flavour of why we want to see the credit union system grow and why I’m so thrilled to be in the position I am.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Wright. Before I go to questions, I noted that you walked in with a couple of colleagues, sitting in the audience. Maybe, for the record, you’d like to introduce them.

D. Wright: Sure. Anna Hardy is our head of government relations in British Columbia, and Megan McIver is our head of government relations in Ontario. We thought we’d bring her out and show her how it’s done in a good province.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Well, I don’t have a question, because your members have done so well presenting to all of us. I think they’ve done a great job of being clear about the investment in communities.

I think the additional piece — maybe you just want to add a little bit, and I think your story identified it — is the flexibility and the responsiveness that you are able to have as credit unions compared to the larger banks. The ability to meet those community needs, I think, is something that’s unique and certainly has been well identified to all of us during our hearings so far.

D. Wright: Thanks for that. The thing I will add is what makes it work is because of the local knowledge. We don’t begrudge the banks. They have to run things out of Toronto, so they have to develop policies and algorithms and everything. But it just doesn’t allow them to understand what’s really on the ground. We can make loans. We actually have lower loan losses than the banks, but we make loans that they’re not willing to make.

G. Heyman: I think the committee has been convinced in the past of the importance of maintaining the preferential treatment, the unique role that credit unions play in terms of keeping the money in the community and investing in businesses that essentially isn’t played by banks. I’m curious. What rationale, if any, was offered for not extending the preferential tax treatment deferral? It might help us in addressing any recommendation we choose to make.

D. Wright: There wasn’t a specific rationale provided for it. I think at the time that the minister made the decision in 2014, he was trying to be a careful steward of the funds. He thought: “I can see that I’ve got enough room to provide this deferral through 2016, but I’m just not sure what 2016 is going to look like.”

We’re hoping, with the very good results that have been shown both in the summer and then just last week with the first quarterly update, that things are looking better and that he might well feel that, yeah, they can make it permanent.

J. Yap: I certainly appreciate meeting with your member colleagues during the tour.

We’re near the end of the day, so I’ll…. This may be of some interest. You mentioned $58 billion in total deposits. I was curious what the total would be for the big banks. According to my handy-dandy quick look through Google, according to the CBA, as of October 2014, total deposits for the big eight banks: $2.619 trillion. That’s the difference.

My question…. Helmut, you mentioned you don’t expect the interest rates to change till 2017, and I’m sure you’re right. It’s very much a factor with the real estate market, and that’s something on a lot of people’s minds these days. I know it varies across the province, but certainly, in the Lower Mainland, where you guys are based, real estate prices have been an issue, affordability. What are the thoughts that you would have as the Central 1 Credit Union?

H. Pastrick: With respect to housing, we’ll continue to see further price increases, a worsening of affordability both on the part of owners and renters. I expect this housing cycle or expansion to continue until the next economic recession in B.C. A recession in B.C. will typically come due to external factors, so we would look external to B.C. — a global development.

Typically, that is what has driven an economic recession in Canada and B.C. In turn, that would bring down the housing market. Certainly, there’ll be an ongoing squeeze, if you will, on affordability over the next two to three years.

I’m not sure when the next economic recession will occur, but this housing market will continue to generate further gains, both in sales and prices. Certainly, one would expect that by 2017-18, as long-term interest rates
[ Page 1773 ]
rise, longer-term five-year mortgage rates would also rise. That should begin to squeeze some demand. But given the history of housing cycles, we should expect to see further price gains until we see that next, nasty, economic recession.

D. Ashton: Just real quick. Helmut, thank you for the update. Always appreciated.

Don, thank you for not only organizing and having the various credit unions come to this hearing but also for the uptake for the credit union consultations. Greatly appreciated and phenomenal information coming forward.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll just conclude. Yes, we’ve heard the message so far all last week in many different towns. I’m sure we’ll continue to hear it. We do appreciate hearing it, and we do appreciate the work that you do for small businesses in this community. So continue it on.

With that, through incredible stewardship and great chairmanship, I’ve got us five minutes ahead of schedule. The Chair has decided to give that five minutes to Mr. Bohus, who has been sitting very patiently in the audience.

I’ll give you the five minutes. If you haven’t completed your presentation, I’d encourage you to leave it with Stephanie. It will form part of the public record. We’ll see the rest of it. The floor is yours.

My name is Stephen Bohus. I have a degree in landscape architecture. I’m a Vancouver resident. I’ve been really following real estate in Vancouver over the last few years.

I want to make a couple of comments, and these are just specific to the property transfer tax. I know there is at least one member of the committee who has been interviewed by the Vancouver Sun on this very important topic, and $1.1 billion is now being projected in revenue from the property transfer tax. That’s $200 million more than expected.

I will say, as a resident, I support the property transfer tax, and I do not think it should be reduced. It’s 1 percent for the first $200,000 of sale and 2 percent for the remaining value. Instead, I will actually support the imposition of a luxury tax. My suggestion is in two brackets: 3 percent for above $2 million and 4 percent above $5 million. I fully support additional taxes in higher brackets.

I would urge the committee to look at closing the loophole — I’m speaking about the loophole of company ownership of residential properties — where a numbered company owns a property, the ownership of that company changes, and there is no payment of property transfer tax. I think that is a huge loophole. It’s unfair to the public. That should be closed immediately. That could be done via a close integration of the land title office and the corporate registry.

In terms of the property transfer tax, I believe that it dampens speculation. So the committee should not fear saying that we should keep it. I think it’s a very good tax. It’s a very good tax elsewhere in the world. Hungary has a 4 percent maximum bracket. I’ll speak about that a little bit later. I do have an issue that all of the property transfer tax goes to general revenues. It’s not really targeted.

Actually, it’s a good source of revenue, but let me suggest that the province of B.C. also allow municipalities to collect their own property transfer tax. Specifically, I’ll speak about Ontario. The city of Toronto has its own separate property transfer tax. They call it a land transfer tax. It starts at 0.5 percent up to $55,000. It goes to 1 percent, and at 2 percent it’s at $400,000. I think this is a very progressive way of financing local services.

Right now the city of Vancouver collects DCLs. Those are the development cost levies. Other municipalities collect DCCs, development cost charges, and there are the CACs, the community amenity contributions. The weakness of this way of funding is that, first of all, it’s dependent on ongoing development, and secondly, this money is only paid out once. So there’s no ongoing investment from changes in real estate and changes in property.

A local land transfer tax for the city of Vancouver could be a source of significant revenue. There would be a whole way of really looking at changing the CAC collection structure by transitioning over to a local land transfer tax. I would urge the committee to look at that. This would also allow, let’s say, the city of Vancouver, or other municipalities, to put money towards affordable housing, transit and other local priorities, if they are allowed, by bylaw, to create their own land transfer tax.

Finally, in terms of mitigation. There could be a couple of exceptions — let’s say, inheritance up to values of $2 million that could be exempt with “for direct family members only,” and there could be a reduction by tenure. So if someone holds onto a piece of property — let’s say, for 15 years — there would be far less property transfer tax. For very short terms, there could be extra penalty. For less than two years, I’ve mentioned, in Hungary, there’s a 4 percent transfer tax.

In summary, I think closing the loophole for corporations would be a great first step. Keeping the current rates for the low and mid income is a positive step forward. Imposition of a luxury tax with higher rates for
[ Page 1774 ]
higher brackets would be great, and allowing a municipal land transfer tax would be a method to provide more flexibility to phase out some of the CACs or change the DCL structure.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, thank you. And you stayed under five minutes. I appreciate it, and good for you for sticking around like this. You took a real risk. Usually, we don’t have the extra time to spend.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Please submit it. It will form the public record. We’d appreciate that. Thank you very much for your time.

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

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Spencer Chandra Herbert (Vancouver–West End NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
	Claire Trevena (North Island NDP)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Susan Sourial

1) Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C.	Richard Rees
	Dr. Heather Banham
2) Capilano Students’ Union	Taylor Wilson
3) Retail Council of Canada	Greg Wilson
4) Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres (PAARC)	Marianne Bourcheix-Laporte
5) Pulmonary Hypertension Association of Canada	Angie Knott
6) Independent Media Arts Alliance, Pacific Region	Emma Hendrix
7) The Research Universities’ Council of British Columbia	Robin Ciceri
8) Douglas Students’ Union	Ruab Waraich
	Tracy Ho
9) Alliance for Arts and Culture	Rob Gloor
10) BC Salmon Farmers Association	Jeremy Dunn
11) BC Chamber of Commerce	Jon Garson
	Dan Baxter
12) British Columbia Chiropractic Association	Rick Nickelchok
	Dr. Jay Robinson

13) David Suzuki Foundation	Kyle Aben
	Ian Bruce
14) Board of Education, School District No. 39 (Vancouver)	Patti Bacchus
	Janet Fraser
	Fraser Ballantyne
15) Canadian Diabetes Association	Dr. Jan Hux
	Colin Mallet
	Serge Corbeil
16) Langara College	Dr. Ian Humphreys
17) Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia	Gavin Dirom
18) Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia Division	Beverley Gutray
	Jonny Morris
19) Families Against Cuts to Education	Jennifer Stewart
	Marianne Rodgers
	Catherine Shaw
	Heather Legal
20) Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C.	Dr. Michael Conlon
	Dr. Doug Baer
21) Georgia Strait Alliance	Alexandra Woodsworth
22) Western Convenience Stores Association (WCSA)	Andrew Klukas
23) Emily Carr Students’ Union	Gloria Han
	Lori MacDonald
	Alia Hijaab
24) Canadian Federation of Independent Business	Richard Truscott
25) First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition	Adrienne Montani
26) Central 1 Credit Union	Don Wright
	Helmut Pastrick
27) Stephen Bohus

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES