Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 99 — Tuesday, September 20, 2016 (HTML)

Vista Room, Coast Kamloops Hotel and Conference Centre
1250 Rogers Way, Kamloops, B.C.

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Robin Austin, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

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

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	2289
N. Lane
C. Hickson
A. Storvold
L. Douglass
T. Smith
P. Dagg
A. Shaver
B. Delaney
M. Benton
D. Johnson
T. Friedman
T. Stone
M. LeBourdais
B. Hasanen
J. Knaak
M. Chrumka
K. Humphreys
L. Marchand
D. Tretheway
G. Bacon
K. Boon
C. Boomer
L. Stride
C. Daniell
A. Schellenberg
M. Mehta

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Scott Hamilton. I’m the MLA for Delta North, and I’m 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 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 must issue a report by November 15, 2016, with its recommendations for the 2017 provincial budget.

The committee is holding a number of public hearings in communities across the province, and British Columbians can participate via teleconference, video conference or Skype. There are numerous ways to submit your ideas to the committee. British Columbians can complete an on-line survey or send in written, audio or video submissions through our website that can be found at www.leg.bc.ca/committee/finance.

We invite all British Columbians to contribute to this important process, and for those of you in attendance today, we would like to thank you for coming out and participating. All public input will be carefully considered by this committee as it prepares its final report for the Legislative Assembly. Just a reminder that the deadline for submissions is midnight on Friday, October 14, 2016.

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. If time permits, we will also have an open-mike period at the end of the meeting. Five minutes are allotted for each presenter. If you wish to speak, please register with Stephanie at the information table.

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.

I’d now like to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. I’ll start with Eric, please.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Also assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial and Stephanie Raymond from the Parliamentary Committees Office, and we have Michael Baer and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services here to record the proceedings.

Without further ado, let’s go to the first presenter. It is Thompson Rivers University Students Union — Leif Douglass, Cole Hickson and Amber Storvold.

Welcome, and good afternoon. As I mentioned before, we have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes winding down so that you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions after that. If you’re all ready, the floor is yours.

N. Lane: Wonderful. Hopefully, all of you on the committee have two documents, which we’ve submitted. My name is Nathan Lane. I’m the executive director for the Thompson Rivers University Students Union. I’m joined by my colleagues here today to talk to you about two issues that we think are an important priority in the upcoming budget.

We’re pretty excited to say that neither of these issues is going to require new funding in this budget — rather, a prioritization of existing funding. We want to talk to you a little bit about the model for post-secondary education funding as well as student financial aid and how it can be most effectively deployed in British Columbia. I’m going to talk a little bit about the funding model.

The current funding model in British Columbia for post-secondary education is at least 12 years old, and it reflects a model from when many community colleges were operating in the provinces that are now operating as universities. Particularly in British Columbia and at Thompson Rivers University, the existing model has resulted in some pretty significant underfunding in terms of what we’re trying to deliver on in our mandate.

The document you have in front of you includes a graph. Essentially, what that chart shows…. Everywhere there’s a check mark is a program or an area of program-
[ Page 2290 ]
ming that an institution is delivering on. You can note in the Thompson Rivers University column that we have a number of check marks. We do a number of things at Thompson Rivers University. The current funding model just simply does not accommodate that.

What it has meant is that over the last number of years, even if compared to only average funding in British Columbia, Thompson Rivers University has been underfunded by about $50 million, which obviously has a pretty significant impact on the programs you can offer and the services you can provide to students. That’s why our first recommendation for this committee is to re-evaluate the funding formula in British Columbia and index that funding to inflation.

I will pass the mike over to my colleague Cole to talk about our second recommendation.

C. Hickson: Our second recommendation comes on the basis of financial aid. We are requesting the elimination of public investment into provincial RESP grants, loan remission programs and education tax credits — and to reinvest this funding into a comprehensive system of need-based grants. We are recommending this as the full social, economic and fiscal benefits of post-secondary education are not automatically generated and can only be realized if the system and spending is directed to the outcomes that underlie those benefits. We have identified three of the following outcomes that will highlight this.

First, participation rates. They should meet labour market demands and should be roughly equitable across income levels.

Second, completion rates. They should be timely, approaching 90 percent and not financially determined.

Third, transition from study into the workforce should have graduates approaching 100 percent to employment with no debt bias on their career decisions.

This submission will thus look at the effectiveness of RESPs, loan remissions, tax credits and need-based grants for the purpose of meeting these outcomes.

Starting with RESPs, B.C. has a newly launched RESP program named the B.C. training and education savings grant which has recently been expanded by $39 million in 2016 alone. This likely brings the total budget to around $50 million a year. How does this compare with our outcomes stated earlier?

Looking at increasing participation, which is about providing financial aid for those unable to otherwise afford the costs of post-secondary education, it’s generally individuals from low-income families who cannot afford to do that. And RESPs are problematic because those who can afford to save in an RESP account likely don’t need the assistance to be able to afford post-secondary education. Those with much lower incomes are less likely to be able to afford an RESP account and, conversely, receive less funding for that assistance.

Similar to participation, RESP grants do not maximize completion rates, because those at risk of dropping out for financial reasons likely do not have an RESP account. Even those who do have an RESP account tend to have much lower amounts saved, which will not last through their education.

Finally, for looking at transition from studies to the workforce, RESPs do help reduce debt levels for those who graduate. However, they do not help significantly more students participate or complete their education through. Thus, the effect on improving transition rates is reduced.

Overall, the basic problem with RESPs is that they’re income-targeted at the wrong income level, meaning that those who take advantage of RESPs are overwhelmingly higher-income earners who do not need the financial assistance to afford post-secondary education.

A. Storvold: Now let’s look at loan remission. Just to give some background, the B.C. completion grant is the largest provincial loan remission program in British Columbia, and in 2015, it represented $32 million in loan forgiveness. How this program works is it forgives loans on a yearly basis, and the number of students receiving the completion grant and the size of each grant given out depends on the number of applicants and the size of budget for that year.

When we’re looking at loan remission in terms of outcomes, the benefit of participation due to loan remission is limited because it’s not provided up front. So any student unable to afford the up-front costs of post-secondary education are still unable to participate.

In terms of completion rates, loan remission offers some benefit, as it’s offered over a year-to-year basis as opposed to after graduation. Students are receiving some financial relief throughout their degree, but it’s still limited. Students cannot create a financial plan for their education because there’s no certainty of the size of the loan remission offered or information on the range of loan remission given out.

As far as transition to the workforce, loan remission works similar in outcomes to RESPs in that it helps students who complete their education by reducing debt. But because it doesn’t result in significantly more students participating in or completing post-secondary education, the total number of those transitioning into the workforce is not increased.

Let’s move on to education tax credits. To give some context, in B.C., the education tax credits are available in an amount equivalent to the amount paid in tuition fees plus $200 for each month of study. When we look at the outcomes of education tax credits in terms of participation, they’re not helpful for increasing rates because, primarily, it’s difficult for students to understand and difficult to calculate the benefit that they will receive, which means that students who are unable to attend for
[ Page 2291 ]
financial reasons are no more likely to participate in post-secondary education.

As far as completion rates, the education tax credits are one of the least efficient forms of student financial aid. This is for two reasons. The first, as we stated before, is the benefits from tax credits are difficult to calculate. Second, they provide the greatest benefit in a year when a student has earned the greatest amount of money, which leaves behind students with the greatest need, because those with the lowest income receive the least assistance.

As far as transition to the workforce, tax credits function in a very similar way to loan remission because most students don’t earn enough income to use tax credits, and they’re largely transferred until after graduation, providing loan remission for graduates but not helping additional students access or complete their education.

As a final note, the federal government recently announced that they will be phasing out all federal education tax credits. As stated in their 2016 budget: “These credits are not targeted based on income and often provide little direct support to students at the time they need it most.”

L. Douglass: Perfect. The last section we want to look at is need-based grants. To give some background, here in British Columbia, we have no comprehensive system of need-based grants. We do have some specific grants available through things like the skills-for-jobs blueprint or for things like students with disabilities. But B.C. is one of the only remaining provinces that does not offer a comprehensive system of need-based grants.

Looking to our outcomes, first, in terms of participation, as Cole mentioned earlier, one of the primary determining factors for students being able to participate in the post-secondary education system is their ability to afford the upfront costs of that education. This is where need-based grants have a major advantage over other forms of student financial aid, because they provide financial assistance up front, when the actual costs of tuition and other costs of being a student are due. This helps students who are debt-averse, who tend to be from lower-income backgrounds or who don’t have access to capital to actually participate in post-secondary education.

Second, looking to completion rates, need-based grants are also more effective than other options for improving completion rates because they allow for and encourage transparent financial planning. They allow students to know their financial position before incurring the costs of their university education and also know what they’re going to be eligible for in future years, based on their income, in terms of need-based grants.

Third, looking to transition into the workforce. In terms of students who manage to graduate from post-secondary education, I would say that need-based grants are no more or less effective in terms of helping with debt relief. They do have a distinct advantage, though, because need-based grants help more students participate in post-secondary education as well as encourage students to complete their post-secondary education. So in terms of total number of students actually transitioning into the workforce and into the economy, that number is much higher.

As a final note for this section, last month we polled over 600 residents of Kamloops through a national polling firm and asked them questions about a range of post-secondary education issues. Specifically, we asked two questions about need-based grants. First, we asked if people thought that B.C. should have a system of need-based grants for students who can show that they need help paying for tuition fees. Nine out of ten people said yes, that we should.

Secondly, we asked what people thought the most effective way was that government can help students and their families afford post-secondary education. Need-based grants were the top choice out of six options.

Just as a conclusion, once again, our recommendation around financial aid today is to repurpose the complete value of provincial investment in RESP grants, student loan remission programs and education tax credits and create a new need-based grants program.

While you were talking, I was just scanning some news that I had a first chance…. I see that Thompson Rivers got $30 million federal-provincial funding today for infrastructure, which is nice, to help out. Starts to bring that average up that you were talking about in here.

One of the issues where I would concur with you is getting students like yourself into the working path quicker, easier. So I would ask you — it’s just a theoretical question: if a government supports you going through university, do you think there should be support given back to the taxpayers, that you would stay in the province and work in something specific for a period of time?

L. Douglass: I would say people already, when they complete their education, pay taxes. There’s lots of really good data around how much more people contribute, in terms of people who get a post-secondary education. That is worth it for the province — just in terms of pure financial benefit, not in terms of even looking at things like social benefit — even without any strict stipulations saying: “You must stay in the province and work.” Without those, it’s still, I would say, of great benefit.
[ Page 2292 ]

N. Lane: I guess the other thing that I would add, too, in terms of people’s mobility, is my experience in the British Columbia system over the last ten years is that very few people graduate and intend to leave British Columbia. It’s actually the opposite. Many, many people we know want to stay in British Columbia, but student debt is the reason that they take whatever job it is they can where they think they can make the most money.

I think a system that would require people to stay is probably not necessary. I think the actual inverse is the problem, that we have a number of people who want to stay in their home communities — whether that’s Kamloops, Kelowna, Williams Lake, etc. — but don’t, and student debt is the reason why they don’t.

G. Heyman: I think you’ve probably answered my question. In a number of discussions I’ve had with employers, particularly in the tech sector, they repeatedly point to the desirability of offering accessible programs in tech-related skills in B.C. because one of the greatest predictors of where people will choose to live and work is where they graduate from post-secondary education — certainly provincially and, quite often, a very specific community.

It sounds like that is your anecdotal experience, at least, but if you have studies to back that up, I think forwarding them to the committee to go on the record would be very useful.

I appreciate your presentation. I fundamentally agree with your premises. I’m wondering if you have experienced opposition, or have a sense of where there might be opposition, to repurposing the money as you suggest.

N. Lane: I think that sometimes there is a lack of understanding amongst the general population about what it is we’re trying to do in terms of student financial aid. I think the general population tends to believe we should be supporting students. But often when you start to question what the framework is — why do we actually have financial aid, how does it work, and are we spending money effectively? — there’s not really that fundamental understanding.

I think some of the opposition comes from people not necessarily being aware about how effectively the dollars we’re actually spending are being used. What is the outcome? Are more people participating? Are more people graduating? Are more people transitioning? I think because of that, they’re sort of emotionally attached to the current model. Not because it’s working better, but because it’s the one they understand or think they understand.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present. We appreciate you sharing your interests with us. This is going to be a topic of conversation, I’m sure, as we continue our discussions.

Mr. Trevor Smith, the Allied Golf Association of British Columbia. Come on down.

You know the shtick. You know how this works. I think I’ve seen you before. Welcome. You know — ten minutes and five minutes. Whenever you’re settled in and you’re ready to rock, it’s all yours.

T. Smith: I’ll keep it pretty short. I’m more or less going to go through a lot of the presentation from last year because, really, we just want to get ourselves in front of you and make sure that every arm of government knows exactly what it is that we’re doing. So I’ll go through it slightly.

Our association is a group of all the golf associations in British Columbia who’ve managed to come together to deal with governmental issues and issues involving the golf industry in British Columbia and in Canada as one voice. It’s much easier to deal with one entity than it is to deal with six or seven different entities. That was the rationale behind us getting together. Realistically, our mission is to provide leadership.

Over the past year — I’d like to start this off — we’ve had a great relationship with a number of the different areas within government: Tourism, Health and the real concept of how we bring the golf industry to the forefront in terms of Finance. Last year and in the past years, we’ve put together, basically, a golf industry scorecard so that government understands really what it is that we’re attempting to do.

Those things really fall along the lines of economic issues that are facing the golf industry right now; environmental issues, which are continuously changing as we go forward; and the health and wellness component — the health and wellness component in terms of how golf is of benefit to the individual that plays and the community that they play in and, as well, the environment, from green space to environmental education and environmental stewardship.

In the last, probably, 18 months…. I’d like, again, to thank the government for assisting us in allowing us to do research and development on IPM programs that work specifically for golf courses and turf and recreation. That was a program that we received funding from that helped us, in partnership with the Ministry of Environment, put together IPM programs that were strictly related to the health and welfare of the existing environment and how these applications are utilized.

This program is ongoing. It should be finished probably by the first part of February. We’re quite happy being able to get assistance for those programs. The Minister of Environment was very helpful in allowing us to do partnership work with them. I think the value of that is
[ Page 2293 ]
going to come out in a very good document that will be beneficial for both the government and the industry itself.

Within British Columbia, there are presently 300 to 335 golf courses that contribute a considerable amount of revenue for the province when put together. All of these golf courses typically are involved in smaller or medium- or large-sized communities that provide community outlets for individuals to be involved and places to go. The charitable benefits through golf tournaments and those other types of opportunities are fairly major in terms of millions raised through the use of golf and its ability to host these functions.

Golf is also the number one sport participation in the country of Canada. Certainly, it is in British Columbia, far outweighing hockey and even soccer at this stage of the game. Our goal with that, as is mentioned in the third pillar, which is participation and health and wellness, is that golf is a sport for life. It’s something you can play when you’re young, and it’s something you can play by yourself when you’re 85 or 95 years old. It has that benefit of being a program that will last forever.

It also does tend to create great opportunities for younger people to look at some of the people entering the golf business, some of the great players that have come from British Columbia. This all, in turn, starts to help get people to participate and to be involved in golf.

We also work with Destination B.C. right now. I’d like, once again, to thank Destination B.C. and Marsha Walden for an amazing amount of work that’s been done in terms of bringing golf in British Columbia to the world scene. We went from about $80,000 in matched funding up to $250,000 in matched funding last year, so we ended up being able to market British Columbia to the tune of about $547,000. With the work of the B.C. Golf Marketing Alliance — which, once again, is a key component of our association — we’ve managed to really take advantage of the increase in tourism over the past year.

We’ve seen a growth in the industry from 10 to 45 percent, depending on the areas that you’re in. That’s something that hasn’t happened, probably, for the last ten or 15 years. So it’s very positive from a tourism component, and we really think that we’ll be looking again to Destination B.C. for increased funding, which will then follow along the lines of the growth that we can show has happened over the last year. It’s been a huge economic impact for us just in that one year short term.

Environmental stewardship. As I mentioned before, IPM programs. Right now one of the issues that we have — I don’t have it in my presentation, as it’s only occurred in the last day and a half — is that we’ve been approached as an industry within the province of British Columbia to do work both municipally and provincially in terms of reused biosolids in wastewater.

A lot of the golf courses at this stage of the game have probably 20 to 30 years of utilizing experience with wastewater programs that isn’t necessarily being utilized in the Lower Mainland. We’ve spread these golf courses out throughout the province. So there’s some great value in working together with both the provincial government and the municipalities on biosolids and wastewater. One of the things that we’ll be looking at for sure is how to deal with that.

The other thing is working on a template for how we can put together carbon tax issues in the future. Those will be templates that we’d like to be able to work with, as an industry, government on in the future.

I’m going to be quick. I’m over. Basically, our ask is to continue to be able to work together with government on all levels so that we can share our knowledge with other needs from the province and the municipalities. Golf is good for British Columbians and good for your health.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Smith. As much as I’m interested in the subject, I don’t want to talk about my game this year.

J. Yap: Thank you, Trevor, for your presentation. As you were talking, I was checking on social media, and it looks like there’s a growing presence of your members — on Twitter at least.

I think this slide that you have with economic impact is a very powerful one. You mention that, in the country, golf is the number one participation sport. Of course, we just had the Rio Olympics, where golf was featured. I still feel, though, that if we ask the average person, “What’s the impact of golf and the reach of golf?” and “Did you know golf is the number one participation sport in the country?” we might not get the answer that we expect. What are some of the steps that your industry is taking to change that perception?

T. Smith: Well, as I mentioned before, basically it’s a marketing process. That’s why we broke down the three key areas that we want to do. One of them is in participation and wellness.

We need to be able to look at the demographic, from the young five-year-old implementation to the 15s to the 50s and to the 80s. A lot of times now, it’s going to be that middle-age group, the 55- to 60-year-olds that may have never played golf, but there’s a number of them out there. That’s the one area, the demographic, that we’re really starting to work on in terms of participation. That, coupled with our marketing program…. You’re going to see some things happening over the next couple of years.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Could I ask if that is in contrast to…? At a point in time, you were marketing quite a bit towards youth and engaging youth in the game. So now there is a bit of a shift in your targets?
[ Page 2294 ]

T. Smith: No, we’ll still continue on with youth. What we’re trying to do is get it into the school system as much as we can. We have a couple of programs going. One’s an environmental program that utilizes the golf swing and the impact of what green spaces are and how they’re being managed in a positive manner. That’s sort of a two-pronged approach for the younger people.

But one of the things that we are really realizing is that the 45- to 60-year-old who just didn’t have time to be able to play needs the time to get out there and walk and do those things. So golf is a pretty good entry sport for them.

Seeing none, Mr. Smith, thank you very much for taking the time. We appreciate it as always, and I’m sure we will be seeing you around.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Next we have Thompson Rivers University again. We have Dr. Paul Dagg and Dr. Alan Shaver. Gentlemen, come on up. Settle yourself in. You probably heard my spiel about ten minutes for the presentation. Then I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left, and then we’ll go to the questions from the panel.

P. Dagg: Good afternoon. I’m sure you’ve heard multiple welcomes to Kamloops, but once again, welcome to Kamloops. I’ve been a resident here for 11 years now and have no intention of leaving any time soon, so I appreciate your stay here.

I’m Paul Dagg. I’m the chair of the board at TRU. I’ve been the chair for about a year now, on the board for approaching six years now. I’m going to just make three fairly quick points and then hand it over to Dr. Shaver for a discussion.

The first point is to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the government and the ministry to some funding initiatives, including the announcement today of the contribution of the provincial government to the industrial training and technology centre at TRU and also, relatively recently, funding through the economic stability mandate to our collective agreement that’s allowed us to provide some salary increases to our staff that are much needed.

The second point I want to talk about is our engineering program — where we are with this and where we hope to go. We have a two-year transfer program in engineering and are in the process of developing an IT engineering program that will be a full four-year program, building on existing strengths and taking advantage of the things both within our university and our community to build that program to fill a much-needed need for our provincial economy.

What we need for that program is funding for the third and fourth years so that we can complete this through so that people can get the certification they need in this critical area.

The third point is to talk about health, an area of close interest to mine, and that is to talk about the need for expanded space for teaching nursing and other health care professions at our university. We need a new space to meet our current demands and meet the future demands for nursing and health care professionals that we train, and to do that, we need a new nursing and population health care building that will allow us to meet the need for health care professionals — recognizing that the demand is expected to outstrip supply by 2019 — and we can do a lot to meet that need.

Those are the three points I wanted to raise, and I’ll ask Dr. Shaver to jump in now.

A. Shaver: On the second page of the submission, I talk about new models for universities in terms of a change in the considerations that go into the block ranks. We really do appreciate the funding we got for this new building. It’s capital money, and we will be buying and building bricks and mortar, but it cannot be used to pay salaries.

We have a funding model that’s about 15 years old, and when you start thinking about the changes in the last 15 years in British Columbia, an enormous number of changes have occurred, not the least of which is the creation of universities like TRU — universities in the Interior, like we are — that are access universities, providing access to students who normally would not have the opportunity to go to university.

It’s a little bit like back in the ’60s when universities like Carleton University were created so that the students who normally wouldn’t go — first-generation students — would have a chance to go to university. That’s the essence of what TRU is all about.

It’s well known that those kinds of universities need more support, more dollars per FTE, to support the students that are coming in to the open-access programs. That funding predates the existence of TRU.

The other thing that has changed is the concept of student support. There are many supports for students today that are assumed to be normal and are sometimes even requested by the government. I’ve given, on the back page, some examples of that: internships, mentor programs, work study career services, service learning, accommodation of disabilities.

Recently we have been requested to provide policy and service to our students for sexual violence issues, and we actually started to do that before the government passed the law. Those require highly trained people. We need to be able to hire them. Right now, with a static budget, we
[ Page 2295 ]
have to hollow out and take from one area to meet the needs in others.

We also want to invest in mental health and wellness services in the university and the recommendations of the truth and reconciliation report.

Pedagogy has changed. It’s a lot different than it used to be 15 years ago, which was more what they call “sage on stage.” Now it’s a lot of interactive kinds of problem-solving, case studies, getting out into the community. We are also talking about work-integrated learning. And the teaching technologies have changed enormously. Again, when we want to modernize our programs, we have to do it with the same money that we got before.

Enterprise management. Environmental issues. Safety issues. Freedom-of-information laws. Personal privacy information. Copyright issues. All these things are really, really important, and we really want to be able to provide and meet those expectations. They postdate the origins of the present funding formula.

Finally, I want to just simply conclude by saying that we think the present funding model is out of date. It doesn’t answer or address all of the things that have changed in the last 15 years. We think it would be time for the government to re-evaluate its funding formula — in other words, generate one that actually takes into account the new kinds of universities we’ve got and the new kinds of university education that are required to meet the modern needs of our students in their communities.

D. Ashton: Sir, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure and nice to see you again. I’ve been dying to ask this question. You’re not the only one. We’ve just come out of the Kootenays. What’s your student-to-instructor ratio — ballpark?

A. Shaver: It’s relatively high. I don’t know the exact number because we’ll have a lot of sessionals coming in and out at any time. But this is part of what we have to do in order to serve our students. When we hire an expert on sexual violence, it really means that we hire one less person to teach our students.

D. Ashton: Okay. So if at some point in time I’d like to know what that is, maybe next year…. Just plant it in the back of your mind.

A. Shaver: A professor is working for two semesters out of the three in terms of teaching. The other semester they’re doing their research.

That also includes people who are mostly teachers. They’re expected to do scholarly work to develop their teaching abilities, because things are changing. How you teach, the technology of teaching, the technology of being in touch with your students — all this is changing all the time.

D. Ashton: My last question would be on sabbaticals. Is that on a six-year, seven-year or eight-year rotation? How does that work?

A. Shaver: The faculty work for six years, and then they work on their sabbatic leave. They have to submit an academic plan for the sabbatic leave. You just don’t wander away.

D. Ashton: I realize that. This is for the record. I’m not…. Please don’t be defensive. I’m just asking questions for my knowledge.

A. Shaver: Many people don’t understand that. It’s important to realize that it’s actually intended to make them better instructors.

S. Gibson: It’s interesting. You mentioned Carleton. That’s my alma mater, so I know the experience, the model that Ontario uses.

A couple of questions. With technology, wouldn’t it mean that the cost per student actually goes down because you don’t have to have as many instructors in the classroom? With technology, you can get more people experiencing the benefit.

My other question is…. I think we’ve talked about this in previous times. The U.S. private universities are going very much into flexible learning, so people don’t have to drop out of their job. They can still take an MBA or whatever degree without having to abandon their life. It seems that we haven’t fully adopted that model in this province.

A. Shaver: Technology is one of these panaceas. When you actually start thinking about it, it transfers costs into other areas. One of those is your IT department. You have to have way more technology. The other thing is that the faculty members have not grown up with this technology. So you have to do a lot of professional development
[ Page 2296 ]
and investment in your faculty in such things like sabbatic leaves.

In terms of where we are, we’re probably the leader in British Columbia with our flexible learning design. We have, for example, open learning. We have around 12,000 or 13,000 students taking courses at open learning. This is fine, but they’re not taking five courses a term. They’re taking one or two courses a term. So it isn’t the same kind of impact that you’d think. It extends the length of time enormously for students to go through and get their degree.

We believe in technology, and we’re investing heavily in it. We’re also believing in electronic books, and we’re the leader in British Columbia in that. But technology isn’t the only thing. It does require investments in order to make it effective.

A. Shaver: No. We reallocate as we need in order to meet the changing choices that students make when they come in.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for outlining the excitement and the challenges that are there in post-secondary right now.

I think there’s probably something consistent that we’ve heard the last number of years in post-secondary. That’s the issue of the funding model, both from colleges and universities — the confusion and, as you say, a model that isn’t a model. No one seems to be able to understand why certain places get certain amounts of money and others don’t.

I wondered if…. Is there any jurisdiction that you would look at where you say a funding model is worth taking a look at and is worth examining as a better option, as a better model for post-secondary?

There are models out there. I would not presume to venture what is the best model for British Columbia. That’s really for British Columbia to determine. But there are various models — in Quebec, in Ontario, in Nova Scotia. No model is perfect, but there are more modern models than we’ve got here.

Government has emphasized trades training in the last few years. How have the enrolment and student population shifted in this period of time?

A. Shaver: There’s been quite a renaissance in the last five years in trades training. We’ve seen a great demand increase from industry. We’ve seen, thanks to the government’s popularization of trades careers, more parents being open to trades careers for their children. We’ve seen a great increase in applications from the students themselves.

We really were tapped out. We’ve got waiting lists. This was the basis upon which we made the proposal for the new building, which will add 550 new seats for trades training. Of course, it aligns with the long-held priority of the B.C. government, but it also aligns with the federal government, which is why the federal government contributed over $13 million from its strategic initiative fund. The B.C. government contributed $7 million, and TRU came up with $7 million, to make the $30 million for the trades building.

So yes, the answer is in this announcement we had this morning. We’ve got so much demand that we needed a new building.

P. Dagg: If I may, I’d like to speak, too, to nursing. We don’t traditionally think of nursing as a trade. It’s a profession. But it’s very much a skilled practice that meets an important need for workers in our area. So all of the health trades, if you will, or professions, are critical to that. Even our proposal around IT engineering relates to yet another kind of very skilled trade in terms of supporting the computer software and engineering needs of society as well.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time. We do appreciate it. Enjoy the rest of your day. It was good to hear from you again.

Next, all the way from Salmon Arm Savings and Credit Union, we have Barry Delaney.

Mr. Delaney, welcome. As you’re working your way up to the front, I’ll let you know it’s ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention just before that time’s up, and you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions after that. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

B. Delaney: Thank you so much. I know you’re all very supportive of credit unions. I just come with one ask. You’ve probably heard it already. It’s about small business lending. I’ll just share with you my thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee. That’s right. My name is Barry Delaney, as it says on the card there. I’m the CEO of this local credit union just down the road.
[ Page 2297 ]

We’re one of six credit unions here in the Okanagan. Together we employ 620 people. For some of our credit unions, we are the only financial institution in the local community.

For example, for Salmon Arm Savings and Credit Union…. We recently changed our name to SASCU. With the on-line world, our members were typing in sascu.com and they were referring to us as SASCU, so now we’re known as — and all our buildings say — SASCU. So I’m CEO of SASCU credit union.

In my credit union of four branches — we have two in Salmon Arm…. We’re the only credit union in the community of Sicamous, and we’re the only financial institution in the town of Sorrento. That’s not unusual here in the Okanagan.

I want to thank you for your support of credit unions over the years — your three-time recommendation to the Minister of Finance to make the temporary deferral of the increased provincial tax rate on credit unions permanent. It was really noticed and was a powerful message to all the credit unions in B.C. While I would sometimes say the third time is the charm, that’s not the case with this issue. Again, I really do appreciate that support.

Before I go into my ask, SASCU, like all credit unions in the province…. It was all about not being able to borrow money in the 1940s and 1950s from the banks. The orchard growers in the Okanagan were no different. Once the B.C. cooperative act was passed in the ’40s, our area, like others, came together. We had 14 farmers come together, and at the end of 1946, they had — a classic credit union story — $205 in the account, and they began lending money to each other. Today SASCU has 140 employees. We’re a medium-sized credit union, 19,000 members and over $600 million in assets.

I also know that you know and are aware of the credit union’s community contribution. I’ll just trumpet our own horn for a second.

We donate 4 percent of our profit to the community in donations and community support. We give out $130,000 each year to the community, plus scholarships. The Imagine Canada definition of minimum corporate philanthropy is 1 percent of profit. The credit unions try to hit the 4 percent. It’s one of the many things that make us different.

One of the reasons I did the drive out was to talk about small business. Small business is all about not only helping small business, but it’s about job creation.

Just a quick story. We have a small grocery store in Salmon Arm that’s been banking at our credit union for 40 years. We’re 70 years old this year. That grocery store had six employees. The owner of it wanted to grow and expand. We’ve been there every step of the way over that 40 years.

Without going through all the challenges in terms of buying and renovating buildings and buying inventory and helping with the financing and helping with estate planning so that the kids could take over the business and grow it — they’re now in their third generation as a business, which is very unusual — they’ve gone from six people to 300 employees. They have four locations — two grocery stores in Salmon Arm, one in Armstrong and one in Sicamous.

They’re called Askew’s. Dave Askew is the son who’s now running it, and he’s such a fan of SASCU, he said: “Barry, I want to come with you. I want to sit right next to you.” See, he’s in my entourage. “I wanted to come with you, and I wanted to speak about the credit union difference.” I said: “Dave, that’s okay. You’ve got a business to run. But I want to use you as a story. Can I use you as a story? Can I use your name?” Dave answered: “Yes, of course.”

When you have these local businesses, there’s a multiplier effect, because it helps promoting the shop-local philosophy and all that good stuff.

As you probably know already, credit unions are restricted to how much lending we can give to small businesses. We’re told by our regulator that we can have no more than 30 percent of our assets in the credit union to help small business. Now, the banks don’t have that limit, and no other province in Canada has that requirement. Our credit union is at 26 percent of the 30, so next year is the first year that we will have to start scaling back from our small business lending.

B. Delaney: Yeah, that’s right. Ah, we have a sophisticated audience here. That’s right. We could sell the loan and syndicate it. But that’s working around the problem as opposed to addressing the problem.

This regulation was written 25 years ago. It’s part of the FICOM structure. FICOM also has the CUDIC, which is a deposit guarantee structure. It’s a regulation in that world where it’s written. Our ask at the credit union level, which is at no cost to the government but has a big benefit to, I’ll call it, job creation, is the removal of this requirement. It does not come at a higher risk.

I do think it was appropriate perhaps 25 years ago when credit unions were less sophisticated in their lending practices. They were really sort of getting into commercial lending for the first time. They were adding….

Their traditional bread and butter was just mortgages — very safe — but they were entering the commercial world. So they said: “Let’s just limit your portfolio to 30 percent on the commercial.”

The times have changed, and the sophistication is certainly very high. The training wheels can be taken off. It’s safe. It’s mostly very conservative and traditional lending. Our delinquency across all credit unions in the province is less than 1 percent, which just shows how conserva-
[ Page 2298 ]
tive we are. We have to be conservative, because we are small regional players. It’s difficult to diversify our geographic risk.

To conclude, I just want to reiterate that as a credit union, we’re here to help. We’re here to help our members, our constituents, our communities and, certainly, the small business constituency. They enjoy dealing with us, and we deal with them. We target a very small, small business segment.

I mean, the banks…. If you’re a Tim Horton’s franchise, go to the Royal Bank. If you’re a McDonald’s franchise, go to…. If you’re a dentist or a doctor, go to the banks, right? But if you’re a machinist who wants to open up a new shop or you’re a small accountant and you want to get going…. Those are the small businesses that we look to that we finance or that we help. It’s a real segment that is of concern to me and my credit union just because we’re so close to the limit.

Two questions. I think you’ve sort of answered one. Why the restrictions on the small business loans? The second question is: is your ask to have them removed altogether or maybe raise the threshold?

The first question on why. I think it’s because we were just entering the small business market, the commercial lending market, 25 years ago. It was a way to show a mitigation of risk, and it was appropriate back then. But as I’ve said, the banks in no other province have it, so it’s not needed anymore — without adding any risk to the system.

Perhaps because of the 100 percent guarantee, there’s a bit of concern. A 100 percent guarantee of the credit union’s deposits was brought in, in 2008, which was much needed to help with consumer confidence at that time. I mean, I hope we never go through a crisis like that again in our careers. But that was not even contemplated back 25 years ago, so the ask is a complete removal.

B. Delaney: Complete, yeah. It’s nowhere in Canada except in British Columbia.

J. Yap: On that designation of commercial, does it relate to commercial classified loans regardless of the security? I mean, if you have a commercial loan and it’s secured by a very good real estate mortgage security, is that also captured by this? Or is that 30 percent pure commercial risk with no hard security?

B. Delaney: It’s a complete blanket, so whether it’s fully secured or whether it’s unsecured, it’s just captured as a small business loan.

The penalty is the allocation, the capital, which becomes so onerous that we just can’t go…. Well, one, we’re prohibited from going over 30, but then it’s a very arduous capital requirement that we’re faced with. Again, that’s a cost to us, not a loss to the coffers of the government.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation and thank you for the work you do. I think I’ll echo, as others have, the support for credit unions and the role you play, particularly in small communities and particularly in rural communities. I think your request is a natural follow-up to the work that you do around supporting small businesses and supporting entrepreneurs. I think there’s a real expansion there.

While we didn’t have luck on the tax issue — and I’ll express my disappointment as well — I think this is certainly something where you’ve presented a very strong case.

S. Gibson: Good to see you again. I recall you from the Lower Mainland before. Coast Capital, was it?

The second question. You’ve got five credit unions in this area, as you mentioned in your remarks. Is consolidation a part of a long-term strategy for credit unions in this area to provide more stability and perhaps more security for the members? That’s my main question, I guess.

B. Delaney: I think so, yeah. I know over the last…. I’ve been in the credit union system for 20 years. When I joined, there were 110 in the province, and today there are 43. It’s not that anyone went bankrupt. It’s that there was a consolidation, a merger, which is a natural.
[ Page 2299 ]

I certainly see that continuing, at a slower pace. Over that 20 years there’s been a lot of strengthening as a result of that consolidation. It’s not over, but the pace of it has certainly slowed.

B. Delaney: Oh yes. Askew’s quite happy to take over some of our larger colleagues in the area.

E. Foster: Back to the removal of the restrictions. As you alluded, we’ve been very supportive of the whole credit union movement. If we choose to support this in our deliberations, can you give us an idea of what the push-back’s going to be, if we get one? We’ve got to answer questions from…. What would the push-back be, so we’ll be prepared for it?

B. Delaney: I think the only push-back question might be: does this not cause more risk in the credit union system and, given that we have a 100 percent deposit guarantee, could that potentially make the government have to step in? Could it harm or destabilize the financial system as we know it, as credit unions?

The answer to that is the comparative to the rest of Canada, the comparative to the banks. The other answer is the scaling-up of sophistication of the management teams across the credit unions.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for taking the time to be here. Personally, I think you glazed over the philanthropy which credit unions indulge in their local communities. You humbly said 4 percent, but in small rural communities, that 4 percent can go a very, very long way, so I do appreciate that very much. Thank you very much.

M. Benton: It’s a pleasure to be here again. Usually I show up and tell you I’m not asking for money. That’s not what I’m going to tell you this time. I do want to start, as I often do, with saying I really value the opportunity to be in the audience in this room when you do this. I only do this a half-day a year. I know that you spend quite a bit more time.

When I talk to my colleagues in other legal aid plans about what they’re doing to talk to their legislature about the priority of access to justice and legal aid, none of them has this kind of avenue to speak more broadly about issues of consequence to people in their provinces as I do and we do here in British Columbia.

I appreciate it’s a rigorous exercise for you, in terms of both travel and time. I have to tell you I marvel at your ability to listen to these presentations one after another and to be so engaged while you’re doing it. Thank you so much on behalf of all the rest of us on this side of the room.

There’s a package that I’ve distributed that basically goes over some key issues in legal aid. I’m going to tell you about the proposal that we’re asking for and talk about some structural issues in legal aid. I’m going talk to you about some structural issues in access to justice that aren’t necessarily about legal aid but are about how British Columbians experience the justice system and how it can be better. And I’m going to talk about three larger and systemic issues going forward. I’ve got some background detail here that’s in the package that should cover most of the pieces. I’m happy to take questions about services in this area.

I started working for legal aid in this area. It is a very innovative community when it comes to how the justice system works, and one of the things I’m doing here today, apart from meeting with you, is sitting down with some of our stakeholders to talk about what’s happening there.

I will refer specifically to one of the initiatives when we talk about aboriginal justice issues and how I think this community has discovered a way forward that makes a real difference and costs very little — which, when you run a legal aid plan, is music.

Thank you for your support over the years in terms of more funding for legal aid. That problem hasn’t gone away. There tends to be a consensus that there ought to be more funding for legal aid. Surveys tell us that that continues to be the case.

Similarly, our surveying tells us that the place people feel that it’s most important to have the assistance of a lawyer is when they’re in family court. It’s not when they’re in criminal court when they’re facing jail. It’s when they’re in family court, facing all the problems that can arise there.

When I was speaking to you last year at this time, I was telling you about a number of pilot projects that we were able to start as a result of project funding that the Ministry of Attorney General has provided to us. Since then, we’ve had those evaluated by a third-party evaluator. Four of the five of them came back as rock-solid opportunities for further investment in the justice system. I’m going to tell you a little bit about those four successful programs.

One’s a legal clinic model that intervenes early on, on behalf of parents who are involved in the child protection system before their children are apprehended. The reason this program works is the social workers send the parents to us so that we can explain to them what’s happening, so that when they make an agreement with the
[ Page 2300 ]
Ministry of Children and Families, they understand its purport and they understand what their obligations are.

The remarkable outcomes here are more kids are staying with their families safely. The results tend to be more supports come to the families. We keep the families together. It meets a long-term objective of the Ministry of Children and Families, which is the same as ours: keeps kids safe; keep families together. It’s a relatively inexpensive program. We target it towards aboriginal communities in particular, and it’s where we’ve had the most significant success.

We’ve got another one — I talked to you a little bit about this last year too — where we intervene early on criminal matters. These are things that normally aren’t services that we provide. These aren’t people who are going to go to jail, but they are people who tend to have an average of 15 court appearances before their case is determined, and what we’ve done is we’ve been able to get that down to three. We’re not saving any money on this, but what’s happening is it’s got systemic savings so that systemic resources are being targeted where they’re needed more.

And we’ve got a couple of different services that are designed to help people deal with family problems on their own. One of them is a provincewide telephone service where people get up to six hours of service from the same lawyer. We retain lawyers around the province. They help people with their problem. They will have the client send a picture of their documents on their cell phone. It’s like a cheap and cheerful model. The client phones up. If I am the lawyer, Mr. Hamilton, I will say to you: “Send me a photo of your documents.” It comes by email.

A quick commentary. You might have that interaction with me ten times if I’m the lawyer. You get a maximum of six hours for that on the plan. It’s got very, very high satisfaction ratings from both the lawyers involved and from the clients, because it helps them move their system forward with some degree of confidence.

The last one is an in-person services like that, only in Victoria. The in-person services cost a lot more than the on-line services.

We were talking a little earlier today about the application of technology. We find sometimes those older technologies are actually some of the best ones, because we know how to use them. We just haven’t been using them.

The ask we’ve got in to government is for a five-year funding package to take those four projects to scale across the province. They’re all scalable. We know how it will happen. It’s going to be a significant ask. It’s around $15 million a year for each of those years, including the operating costs moving forward. In the absence of funding, all those projects end March 31, because it’s a three-year project fund that ends at that time.

Other key pieces. B.C. has the lowest rate of family legal aid coverage in the country, apart from New Brunswick. New Brunswick actually has worse coverage than we do. I’ll talk in a bit about what per-capita spending is like, but the difficulty we have is that basically, we provide an emergency service on an interim basis, and that’s the core of the service. It doesn’t carry cases through to completion, unless we happen to have enough money in that fiscal year to take that case through.

What that means is if a woman comes to us and needs a restraining order, we will only take it as far as the restraining order. We won’t help put the family on a stable and secure foundation so that everybody can get on with their lives in a safe and productive way.

What we had before that was a case-managed system where we only supported services that a reasonable person of modest means would pursue. That tends to be the Canadian standard, but to give you a scale of the cost of that, we tend to be $15 million to $20 million short of that level of service.

The other piece that goes with that is there’s a structural deficiency right now in that the amount that we pay lawyers is…. Another way to put this is Ontario and Newfoundland pay their legal aid lawyers about 50 percent more than we pay ours. Now, you might congratulate me on being able to run a legal aid plan that pays so much less, and those congratulations might be an order, but it’s not sustainable over time.

We do not believe that we can continue to do this very much longer. We’ve had wildcat strikes most years over the last decade by the lawyers. We’re currently working with the Law Society on trying to cost out what a reasonable tariff would look like by looking at what the cost of providing services are. This is important for the Law Society and for us, because lawyers tend to be the principle access-to-justice point for an awful lot of people in British Columbia.

I want to talk briefly about system reform. The costs that we experienced running the legal aid plan are just written larger than they are for individuals, but they’re the same issues. Delay, cost of lawyers, complexity of the system — all drive both delay and cost in the system. To the extent that those can be addressed effectively, they will reduce cost, and that will benefit everybody in the province.

What we think is that there are three key things that need to be attended to. One is aboriginal justice. The Truth and Reconciliation calls to action had 18 that were specifically about the justice system. We haven’t seen a lot happen around that. There are some things going on. Lots of players are doing it. There’s no concerted, consolidated effort to address those. There’s no coordination that’s happening around the system.

We do think there’s lots of room. We do think, too, at Legal Services Society that this is best done at the community level. The example that I’m going to give you is one that comes out of Kamloops, where the Kamloops band has shown leadership in structuring a First Nations court, with the support of the chief judge and with the
[ Page 2301 ]
support of LSS, where they have a judge go sit in a special court that’s committed to engaging the community in the sentencing process.

In fact, they don’t call the person an “accused”; they call them a “participant.” The aboriginal elders are involved directly with the judge in the process. It’s had, from our perspective, some remarkable results in reducing recidivism. When we talked to the lawyers who have had long-term, regular clients, they say: “I don’t have this client anymore. Their circumstances have turned around.”

This isn’t anything that judges and lawyers invented. This is something that the community has brought to the court process. It is, I think, a real hallmark of where the justice system can go and should go. We’re strongly supportive of it, including training elders in other communities to follow this model.

I think the real joy of it is that this community group organized off the Kamloops band has actually got funding from Kamloops city to support its work. It’s built the model from the ground up to make justice work in this community. I think it’s something I’d pay a lot of attention to. I believe that we need to pay a lot more attention to it, and we need to spend a lot more time talking to aboriginal communities about how our justice system can work for them better.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mr. Benton, just to let you know, we’re into the question period time, but it’s your time. You use it however you want to.

M. Benton: Okay, good. Let me just say, quickly that on criminal justice, cases take too long. They cost too much. It’s fixable. There was a Senate report this summer that addressed a number of ways to go about that.

I’ve given you a couple of charts that indicate where legal aid funding is relative to other provinces and relative to other parts of the justice system in British Columbia.

Our mandate is to provide a legal aid program, but it’s also to assist people to resolve their legal problems and to advise the Attorney General on access to justice.

S. Gibson: My understanding is that restorative justice is attractive to the aboriginal folks, and, as you state, that they’re overrepresented. In my community, restorative justice is doing very well, but I don’t see it identified anywhere here. If it is here, I didn’t notice it. Did you want to speak to that? I have one other brief question afterwards.

M. Benton: The notions of restorative justice had a real surge about 15 to 20 years ago, and a lot of the ideas crystalized then. They’re resurfacing now, particularly in the context of how the justice system is working right now.

From my experience with talking to aboriginal communities, there is mixed responses to how some of those restorative justice programs have been implemented. At the same time, much of the framework that I hear about is really built on restorative justice principles, but it brings them more into this decade, rather than the ’80s and ’90s when they first appeared.

S. Gibson: Another quick question. You advanced the view that we should have courts outside the regular daytime hours. As a matter of fact, my colleague here MLA Ashton has spoken to that previously, about night courts and courts on the weekend.

Did you want to make a few more comments about that, because it’s certainly used in the U.S. quite a bit?

M. Benton: I’m old enough, Mr. Gibson, and I suspect you are too, to remember when banks were only open from ten till three. When we think and talk about how we do our banking now, it frames, I think, a lot of how we expect most services to be available. Justice services are different, but there’s no reason, in principle, why they ought not to be available at times and in places that suit people, rather than suit the institutions that provide them.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for your work.

You’ve answered one of the areas that I wanted to raise, which was the issue of family court and parents. We hear a lot, particularly in the child welfare system, of people going themselves to court without any supports and not able to get any supports and all kinds of court delays, never mind the challenge to the family and the pressures they’re facing.

There are some reforms that have been tried. You’ve talked about a few of those, I think, really terrific examples. I wondered if you want to talk just for a minute about mediation processes and where that fits and then community courts and whether you have any thoughts around the community courts that are in place now.

M. Benton: Around mediation, we’ve been supporters of mediation in the child protection process, in particular, for more than a decade. The reason we do is because our clients tell us they prefer it. Now, it actually costs us more, okay?

M. Benton: Well, yes, because we pay lawyers by the hour. We pay the mediators. The time adds up. That doesn’t matter, as long as it’s getting better results. Unfortunately, it’s not clear that that’s happening at this
[ Page 2302 ]
stage around mediation and child protection. We think that other interventions are maybe more effective.

In terms of community court, legal problems that happen to low income people happen in a social setting. They tend to be driven by non-legal issues like you lose your job; you can’t pay your mortgage; you get foreclosed on. Those financial problems create domestic stress. You get a matrimonial breakdown. The notion that we ought to be addressing the legal problem in its social setting is something that we embrace and that many legal aid plans do. The challenge is the coordination of the resources.

Community courts do that. They coordinate the resources. It would be better if it was front end rather than back end.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We are completely out of time, but George, do you have a question that you want to put on notice? Maybe, Mr. Benton, you can respond back at a later date through the committee.

G. Heyman: You’ve been CEO since 2002, and I know you were certainly at Legal Services Society for many years before that, at a time when the structure was quite different. The services offered were quite different.

You’ve clearly identified family law as a big gap. I understand that in some ways, you are going to focus your ask of us as you have, as well as giving us background. Are there any other, in your opinion, areas where there have been very significant gaps created for access to justice for people in general or specific groups of people?

M. Benton: Yes, substantial. These three areas are the ones that are of the greatest consequence to people’s lives. But there are many other areas where, if legal services were available, people would be able to resolve their problems and get on with their lives and be productive sooner.

G. Heyman: If you have the time to submit that by email, that would be useful and will form part of the record.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Benton. I do appreciate you taking the time.

Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple minutes left. Then we can go to the committee for five minutes worth of questions. The floor is yours.

D. Johnson: Thank you very much for this opportunity to present. As stated, my name is Dave Johnson. I am the executive director for the Kamloops Brain Injury Association.

Our association has been in place here in the Kamloops region since 1986. To give you an idea of the region we cover, last week I was out near Chase, visiting the Neskonlith band. We get down to Merritt. So we really cover the territory as well as the city here.

If I can give you a little bit of background on brain injuries, they’re not new. They’re something that we’ve had essentially as long as we’ve had brains. But society’s awareness and understanding of them has changed a lot.

Now, my generation…. I’m 45. When I learned to ride a bike, I didn’t wear a helmet. Harold Snepsts was playing with the Canucks. He certainly didn’t wear a helmet. When I took a hit playing rugby, well, I was told to get up and walk it off. And a helmet on the ski hill — totally unheard of. When we look around today and we see kids with helmets and stuff, there’s been a big change, even within recent generations.

Brain injury awareness is something that’s new. Part of it comes from the American NFL football and what they’ve seen happening with concussions there. There’s a big movie about that. Closer to home, we’ve got Sidney Crosby and hockey. A bigger part of it, though, is that medical science has advanced. MRIs have allowed us to see what’s happening inside the brain. These problems aren’t invisible anymore. We’ve also had real advances in emergency services.

A lot of this comes more notably from the American situation with the Iraq wars. The MASH units that provide the emergency support are saving people who previously would have died. Those people are now surviving with traumatic brain injuries, so we’re seeing larger numbers of these injuries.

But they’ve always been part of society. It’s just our awareness has changed. In the old days, families took care of these folks, often keeping them at home and hidden away. This placed an extra burden on the family. Sometimes that burden was too much for the family.

So where else were they in society. If you talk to the homeless, you’ll find that about 50 percent of that population has suffered brain injuries before they became homeless. In the criminal justice system, those who have been incarcerated…. It depends on the prison, but between 60 and 80 percent of people in the correctional system have suffered brain injuries before they went to jail.

Brain injuries affect our behaviour. They affect our ability to function in society. Now, every brain injury is a little different. It’s not like a broken arm. That’s why it’s taken so long for us to understand them. Typically, they’ll affect things like your impulse control, your motor control, your vulnerability to addictions, mental health issues.
[ Page 2303 ]

Now, you’re the Finance and Government Services Committee. Why do you care about all of this? Well, long term these folks are less able to function in society. They’re more likely to need government services.

Kamloops Brain Injury Association — that’s what we do. It’s long-term care in the community for these folks. This is partly funded through the province, so I very much want to acknowledge and appreciate the money we get from you. In Kamloops, we get it through Interior Health.

What do we do with the funding? Well, we often help inform the families and the survivors and get them some specialized care. For folks who don’t have family, or whose family has abandoned them, we assist them in different ways.

While I was getting ready to come here this morning, one of my team was working with a survivor. She helped her get her groceries because she could no longer get her own groceries. She had to go down to the RCMP with her to help her navigate through the results of an assault that happened to her on the weekend. She also had to take her to the walk-in clinic to help her get through our medical system.

Now, you’ll note that I say she can’t do it anymore. The survivor went to SFU at the same time I did, in the early ’90s. This is a woman with a degree. She used to be an employee, actually, of the provincial government, but she can’t do that anymore. That’s what we’re there for. We assist those who have no one else to help them.

Now, the provincial funding doesn’t cover everything. I don’t mind raising my own private funds. If any of you want tickets to a golf tournament, come see me afterwards, okay? But more seriously, the funding is handled differently. If you’re under 65, the funding comes through Interior Health. But if you’re over 65, it’s handled by a different agency.

Victoria essentially handles the funds and sets some strict rules on how it’s handled, and that’s important. We understand that. But it doesn’t make sense in all places across the province.

What I’d like to do is bring your attention to a submission I think you’ll be getting later on from the Brain Injury Alliance. These folks are based in local communities, and they’re looking at how communities are different, what supports are there, and they know what makes sense in each location.

I’ll give you a good example. Rural areas, which are most of the province, have higher rates of car accidents than the urban areas. Brain injuries — the largest single cause is motor vehicle accidents.

Towns like Kamloops…. As much as we like to think we’re urban, we’re really rural. A lot of people working here in things like logging and farming — they have higher risks of brain injury than the baristas of Robson Street, shall we say.

Different parts of the province are different. The Brain Injury Alliance knows that and is able to take care of getting funding out to the different groups and different communities to provide different supports.

Right now health funding is determined by many things, and it’s not usually the incidence of illness that determines how the money gets divided. Often it’s people like me talking to people like you.

Let me give you a very specific example from B.C. HIV and AIDS prevention over the last seven years has gotten $69 million. Now, HIV prevention is very important. I lost my sister-in-law to HIV, so this is close to my heart. But at the same time, brain injury non-profits through that period got $3 million. Let’s take a look at that. How many new cases of HIV do we typically get? In the last couple of years, it’s been about 240 new cases. Now, that’s serious. That’s for life. We don’t have a cure for HIV. Fine.

B.C. will probably have 22,000 incidents of brain injury per year. That’s over 100 times as many cases as we have of HIV. Yet HIV got $69 million, and brain injury support for the non-profits was about $3 million. That’s a compelling difference. Similarly, in this area, different causes attract different levels of funding.

I had a fight with my mom about this. Now, it’s not the provincial government’s job to fix up me bickering with my mother. I understand that. But Mom walks for the cure. She had a friend who had breast cancer, and I respect that. The thing is, if you take all of the new cases of breast cancer and you add those people to all of the new cases of MS, multiple sclerosis, and you add in our 240 people who get HIV and all of our spinal injuries, all four of those categories, which do attract a lot of funding, are still lower in number than the total number of brain injuries we’re going to have in the coming years.

Our society is becoming more aware of brain injuries, traumatic brain injuries in particular, but the funding is not yet matching the need, the number of cases that are out there. We know that we’ve got a growing life expectancy in the province. We know that our ambulances and our emergency care are getting better. We can expect to be seeing more survivors of brain injury in the future.

Coming to the point of all this, as you’re reviewing things, I would request that you please consider continuing the funding that’s going to the Brain Injury Alliance. Even better would be to increase it. This is something that is specific to local communities. It’s very good at knowing what the local communities have and what they need some help with.

That’s what I’d like to submit to you. If I can answer any questions, I’d be happy to try.

D. Ashton: Just quickly, there’s a campaign being run in Penticton right now — I think it’s on the radio, and it may be provincially — about kids with helmets, where the police are giving out tickets if they’re wearing a helmet, saying: “Thank you very much.”

D. Johnson: Right. That’s exactly part of it. Some of the agencies are very heavily involved with education, because brain injuries are for life, just as HIV is. The only real solution we have is prevention. So we also, here in Kamloops, have a kids bike helmet program. We go out to all the schools in the district every year with the grade 4s. That is a really important part. The South Okanagan Brain Injury Association is very active and does a great job.

D. Ashton: It’s just something…. It’s lifting that visibility of the organization helps…?

G. Heyman: Thank you for the presentation. The comparators are very interesting in terms of comparing the number of incidents of brain injury versus other diseases or conditions that attract significant funding. Do you have any opinion on why the discrepancy of funding with respect to both numbers and consequence?

D. Johnson: I think a big part of the discrepancy is that brain injuries weren’t well understood to even be injuries in the past. For a lot of folks who previously suffered brain injuries, because it was not a visible injury, it was just like, “Oh, he’s a bit thick,” if he’s not responding terribly well — which isn’t fair, but that’s the way it was.

Again, going back to the bike helmets, I doubt many of us grew up with that sort of protection, because we didn’t understand it. Things like breast cancer have been well understood, at least as a direct disease problem, for quite some time.

As I say, how well people like me speak to people like you really does determine where the funding goes. Even within the cancer community there are debates. I remember that several years ago there was a group that brought up prostate cancer, and it was seen as a sexist issue, as opposed to an incidence-of-cancer issue. So many things complicate the funding.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for your work.

I know there are a whole number of issues you could have touched on around the issue of brain injury, but I just wanted to mention one that we certainly see in my community and, I’m sure, across the province. It’s the issue of housing and the challenges for people with brain injuries.

I know in our community we’ve had a couple of instances of people being put in long-term-care homes and long-term-care beds because there’s been nothing else available for young people who’ve had brain injuries — completely inappropriate, for everybody. So I just wondered if you wanted to touch on the issue of housing for a moment.

D. Johnson: I think you’ve summed it up very well. It is a major concern. Often these folks face challenges earning a living, or they’re on disability payments of some kind or none at all.

Different associations around the province approach it differently. You had mentioned the group down in Penticton. I also know the group up in Prince George. They actually have housing which they run, dedicated low-income housing for survivors.

We don’t have housing ourselves, but we do work with some of the partner agencies. It is very much an issue of concern, and again, the studies that have looked at the homeless often find that these folks are….

The homeless definitely do tend to have higher rates of brain injury than the general population, so it’s a contributing factor.

Thank you for the presentation, David. You’ve done some comparisons. Certainly, we’ve done great strides in British Columbia around AIDS research. I’m interested to know — research versus service delivery. What are the numbers like? What’s the history like?

Also, I think that we’re becoming much more aware over the discussion on elite sports and concussions. It’s unfortunate that that’s where we have to go in order to have awareness. But I think that most everybody has talked about the challenge of any kind of contact sport and concussions in our young people.

If you can give me just a little conversation around research versus service delivery.

D. Johnson: I don’t have very much in the way of hard numbers for you. I do know that in British Columbia, most of the research efforts have been down at the coast — you’ve got G.F. Strong and some of the groups there — whereas in the other parts of the province, it’s been more focused on service delivery. I can’t give you anything more specific on that.

You’re absolutely right about the sports side of things drawing more attention. It is not the major, or even close to the major, cause of most brain injuries. But when you get Will Smith starring in a movie, it draws a lot of atten-
[ Page 2305 ]
tion. To be fair, I put it in early in my presentation because it does attract attention. You know, you mention the Canucks. I think you guys are bound to, you have to pay attention, right? Yes, see, he just looked up. It is something we use as part of getting interest and trying to raise funds, but it’s not the main issue.

S. Gibson: Where does prevention fit into all this? Most of us have seen that Will Smith movie, but you haven’t talked too much about prevention today.

D. Johnson: Right. Prevention is very important. We have done some work around helmets. I think that it would be ICBC and some of the ones who were working on car safety — the Ministry of Transportation making the roads a safer place. Again, the health department generally, when they’re dealing with the ambulances arriving at the hospitals, improving the medical care — that side’s all very, very important.

That’s not where we’re primarily focused though. We’re dealing with the survivors. When somebody has that brain injury, we’ve got to deal with them for 20, 30 or 40 years, following up, so that’s what I’ve focused on. But you’re absolutely right. Prevention is the only effective way we have of reducing the caseload.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate you taking the time. It’s a very important subject.

Next we have Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association — Dr. Thomas Friedman.

Welcome. You probably heard me say it — ten minutes, two minutes, five minutes. I’ll turn the floor over to you.

T. Friedman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. It’s a great pleasure. This is my seventh time submitting a verbal and written submission to your committee. I’ll give you a little bit of background. I’ve provided a written submission. I’ll highlight some areas and then leave plenty of time for questions.

I’m president of the Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association. We represent approximately 800 members at our two campuses in Kamloops and Williams Lake. Our membership includes instructors, counsellors, librarians, researchers, educational coordinators.

We are a unique institution. We are unique by provincial legislation. In 2005, the TRU Act was passed and gave us particular obligations in regard to what we have to provide here in our region.

First of all, we are required to support the educational and learning needs of our region. Our region extends from Clearwater to Merritt, from Kamloops to Lytton to Lillooet and up to Williams Lake. We offer a comprehensive range of programs, including degree, diploma, certificate programs; trades programs, particularly those that are apprenticeable; and we also allow adult learners to upgrade their skills through our university preparation and adult basic education.

Under the TRU Act — and in my submission, I include some specific language from the act — we have a legislative obligation to present all of these programs. This inclusive mandate makes us quite different from other institutions in the province. However, like all other post-secondary educational institutions, TRU struggles with the issue of funding — no surprise.

The largest single investment that the provincial government makes is through the provincial operating grant. That operating grant and the formula that underpins it has not been revised in 15 years, long before TRU became a university.

What it’s led to is a struggle by administrators and faculty to meet our multifaceted educational obligations. One example I give is the fact that the funding formula does not reflect our requirement to offer graduate degrees. While we face similar challenges to other universities and colleges across the province, we have the added challenge of providing education to a very large geographic area and to support the research mandate under the act that underpins those programs.

All of these costs have moved well ahead of the operating grant that we receive from the province. When measured on a per-student funding basis, which is the basis of the grant, and adjusted for inflation, the operating grants have been in steady decline. Since 2001, they’ve dropped by about 20 percent. That creates some funding pressures, most of which have been met by huge increases in tuition — 400 percent increases at TRU in student tuition.

What it’s led to are institutions relying less on public money and more on students and their families through tuition and private resources. Only 42 percent of our revenue comes from the provincial operating grant, and that’s a huge reduction over the last ten years. Tuition represents 41 percent of our complete revenue.

As educators, we’re concerned with this. What we’re seeing in our classrooms is the result of high tuition. We’re seeing students struggling to complete their programs on time. Many of them have to have multiple jobs in order to afford not only the tuition and the ancillary fees that are required but the cost of living in a community such as Kamloops, particularly for those in rural parts of our region. Shifting the financial burden away from government and onto students and the private sector, we believe, is the wrong direction.

We’ve talked about the skills-for-jobs blueprint over the last couple of years, the attempt to “re-engineer” the
[ Page 2306 ]
post-secondary system. We feel the focus on trades training is very important. Trades training is essential if we’re to replace the workforce appropriately.

However, it doesn’t take into account the fact that we need students graduating with strong communication, critical thinking and problem-solving and analytical skills. Those skills are not necessarily gained in a trades classroom. They are more likely to be gained through science, humanities, business studies. We feel, too, that students need choices — not only choices of which courses to take but of which programs and of which potential jobs they should be seeking.

Before I move to the specific recommendations, I want to briefly identify two other areas. You’ll hear about these areas from other faculty associations across the province.

One is preparatory programs. We provide adult basic education and university preparation education that is absolutely essential for our region. We have a growing need for not only students coming out of high school but those mature students who are returning to post-secondary to get the kind of preparatory courses they need to go into our academic programs. There have been cuts in those areas, and that’s partly due to the funding crisis that we see. Also, the imposition of tuition on those adult basic education courses has really provided a barrier to access.

Like adult basic education, adult special education is very important. These are developmental programs for those who face physical and mental challenges. We provide courses that give them work skills so that they can enter the economy and have pride in the kind of contribution they’re making in our communities. Funding pressures have made it increasingly difficult for TRU and other colleges and universities to provide these essential programs.

Our greatest concern is our students, as educators, and we want students to succeed. We feel that if your committee can make a strong recommendation that the 2017 budget include these three recommendations, I think we’ll see students have access to our institutions but also succeed in their education.

First, reinstatement of the tuition-free adult basic education and adult special education programs. Second, improve funding support for students, both in terms of a revitalized student grant program and for student services to ensure that students can complete their programs and degrees in a timely way without adding a huge burden of debt.

Finally, an overall funding formula that better responds to the cost pressures faced by B.C.’s post-secondary institutions. Specifically, we would recommend a comprehensive, consultative review to address core funding needs. In particular, I want to draw your attention to the fact that these funding levels have to reflect the specific mandates of our institutions. I’ve pointed out the specific mandate that we have here at Thompson Rivers University.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Those are exactly the words that were about to come out of my mouth. It is a common theme. We’ve heard issues around ABE — funding issues, the grants issue, etc. It’s very topical.

Don’t take any lack of questions with respect to your presentation in any disrespectful way. It’s certainly not meant that way. It’s just that a lot of questions have been asked. A lot of issues have been vetted over the last…. Well, since we started yesterday morning, we’ve heard it a few times.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We are going to hear it a few more. I’m quite confident of that.

Thank you very much, Dr. Friedman. I do appreciate you taking the time. Take care.

Ms. Stone, good afternoon. Welcome. You’ve heard me say ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes to go, and then we can spend five minutes talking to the committee.

T. Stone: I just want to say that you heard David Johnson’s speech just a little while ago. Until ten days ago, I had his job, and I’ve just retired. I just wanted…. Actually, MLA Gibson isn’t here, but KBIA does run a helmet reward program, whereby they go out and reward young people in the best way you can with things like Macdonald’s fries and milkshakes. If they’re wearing their helmet, they get certificates to go and do things like that.

The first thing I’m going to do today is to thank the committee for their support in the past. When the alliance made its submission to the committee two years ago, there’s no doubt that the committee’s recommendations of funding to brain injury services went a long way to securing that brain injury funding.

When the provincial government showed remarkable leadership by providing $3 million over three years for brain injury services across the province in 2015,
[ Page 2307 ]
it changed lives. Individuals and brain injury associations alike are so grateful for the difference this funding has made.

The Brain Injury Alliance recently provided an interim report on the positive benefits of the funding, and it was sent to every MLA in the province. I’ve also sent a link to the committee coordinator in case you didn’t get a copy. However, if any of you would like a hard copy, if you let me know, I’d be more than happy to send you one.

The funding the Brain Injury Alliance received last year was for three years and will be depleted in 2018. So where must we go from here? Funding is amazing always, but stable funding is so much more. The Brain Injury Alliance respectfully and optimistically requests your recommendation to government to establish an annual brain injury fund of $4 million a year.

There is a significant opportunity to further meet the needs of the large and underserved brain injury population, and your recommendation may well be a deciding factor in the future of long-term community brain injury service and program funding. With sustainable and secure funding, community non-profit brain injury associations can increase their support services, community rehabilitation and provide assistance managing chronic conditions; and, most importantly, help prevent further injuries.

You’ve already heard from the executive director of the Kamloops Brain Injury Association regarding the disparity in funding when it comes to brain injuries, both from the perspective of the number of people affected and the level of funding. But why does this really matter? Well, because the number of brain injuries has remained pretty stable over the last few years, but new medical interventions and treatment mean more people are surviving their brain injury to live long lives with the devastating effect that brain injuries can cause.

You also heard earlier today that a significant number of homeless people, 69 percent, had suffered a brain injury prior to becoming homeless. You heard that between 60 to 80 percent of all inmates have suffered at least one brain injury and most have never received any help to rehabilitate or cope with their injuries.

There’s so much work to be done, and in all these areas, the non-profit brain injury associations in B.C. are so well placed to do this work and do the work in an incredibly fiscally prudent manner.

What is the cost to the provincial government to provide services for brain-injured survivors in the province? In 1998, preventable injuries cost the people of B.C. $2.1 billion — or to put it another way, $513 for every man, woman and child in the province. That amount has since increased by a minimum of 20 percent.

If we could reduce preventable injuries by just 1 percent, hundreds of families would be spared the tragedy of a brain injury, and more than $20 million could be saved. That’s one heck of a big saving when you think that the alliance is only asking for $4 million a year.

Properly funded brain injury services include education and prevention and will result not in just an enormous reduction in government expense, but it will also improve the life for thousands of British Columbians. In addition, the estimated lifetime cost for each survivor of a severe brain injury exceeds $4 million.

You’ll find the source of all my numbers and quotes in the little presentation that you have. I’m not doing the whole of it, but it’s all there. I’d hate you to think I was just making it up.

The cost per lifetime exceeds $4 million, and current estimates put the annual cost of acute brain injury care in Canada at over $3.1 billion. These are scary injuries and scary numbers.

Less severe brain injuries may not be as expensive initially, but when the injured person receives little or no post-acute assistance, the cost to taxpayers of brain injury — in health care, lost wages, increased reliance on social welfare, justice costs as well as the devastating impact on families and communities — is nearly incalculable.

Why are brain injury associations so important in the care of people with a brain injury? Living with a brain injury is often extremely complex and difficult for both the injured and their loved ones.

To compound matters, traditional service strategies based on motivational behavioural management are ineffective for people living with cognitive disabilities from an acquired brain injury. Their needs, which are frequently lifelong, cannot adequately be met by the limited resources and lack of brain injury training offered by generic programs and case management services. For optimal recovery, trained brain injury staff are needed.

This is where the Brain Injury Alliance comes in. In 2015, when the government charged the Brain Injury Alliance with distributing the funding, we assured the government that the money would be distributed across the province in a fair and equitable manner, keeping costs to an absolute minimum. You’ll see that we’ve kept our word, as evidenced in the interim report I spoke of earlier.

Who exactly is the Brain Injury Alliance, and how can it do such a successful job of this distribution? The Brain Injury Alliance is provincewide and is composed of organizations working together to improve the quality of life for people living with a brain injury. The number of organizations involved is all of the organizations across the province now. Established in 2014, the alliance has only two functions: to help acquire funds and then to distribute them in a transparent and equitable manner. It has fulfilled its mandate well.

The motto of the alliance is: “Brain injury is a personal challenge and a community response.” Our vision is all brain-injured persons in B.C. living within their
[ Page 2308 ]
community, and our mission is to advocate for help, healing, lifelong growth and rehabilitation for British Columbians.

What exactly are we asking for? We’re asking for the opportunity to allow the British Columbia government to save money by providing services directly to people in their communities, where they will grow and where they will prosper. Without a doubt, the recommendation of this committee plays a huge role in that.

You have, I believe, a copy of the report. I haven’t, obviously, done it word for word, or I’d have been here for a week, and I wasn’t allowed. You also have an interim report that has gone out.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Ms. Stone. I will definitely go to the committee for questions. Anything?

Well done. Much of the issue was covered off by a previous speaker, and obviously, we acknowledge the importance of it. But I guess maybe everybody questioned themselves out earlier. Anything else you’d like to add?

T. Stone: I just wanted to reiterate to Mr. Gibson that the Kamloops Brain Injury Association does indeed do a helmet rewards program.

Mr. Ashton, I think you, too, were discussing how much prevention is done, weren’t you? There’s a huge prevention program.

I don’t know whether you’re aware, but Interior Health no longer funds any prevention at all, which was a huge loss to organizations because the only way you can get that kind of funding is volunteer.

D. Ashton: Just quickly. More of a statement than a question. One of the things that irks me is that a lot of places have helmet laws in place and community policing doesn’t do anything to enforce them. In my opinion, sometimes a stick — coming into the situation and enforcing a rule that’s in place — would help, in the long run, an associated issue that goes along with not wearing a helmet.

D. Ashton: So in your future, if at all possible, speaking to the chief superintendent here or something…. There is community policing in place in many of our communities. It’s long overdue. If they just start being a little bit hard on a few people.

T. Stone: I do think that in Kamloops they are particularly good. They do stop people and so on. You have to be really careful, though, I’ve found. If you wind your window down and yell at somebody, “Where’s your helmet?” at the top of your voice, they can sometimes fall off their bike, and it’s counterproductive.

I’d ask the committee’s indulgence. We are a little bit ahead of schedule right now, and we have a gentleman by the name of Mr. Michael LeBourdais, representing the First Nations Tax Commission. This is actually an open mike. Rather than make this gentleman stay right to the very end, we’re going to give you the five minutes. There are actually no questions, but if you could encapsulate in five minutes what you came here to say, I’d appreciate it.

Mike LeBourdais. I used to be the chief of Whispering Pines–Clinton Indian band. Currently I’m the chairman of the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics, and I also work for the First Nations Tax Commission.

My staff has some papers for you guys. You will receive them electronically, but it is long-winded and terribly boring, and I’m pretty sure that’s what bankers do from ten to three — read crap like this.

What I wanted to do was to articulate what it is I’m trying to do in a short story, right? Actually, I was thinking: what’s a movie about taxes? And I’m like: there aren’t any good ones. The Firm and Shawshank Redemption. That’s it.

A few years ago, when Doug Eyford was whipping around talking about his west coast infrastructure, I was really hard on him at a Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs meeting, because I was really hard on Ian Anderson and his lack of consultation. You know, we have title here in British Columbia. It’s a little bit unique here in British Columbia than it is in the rest of Canada. So I was hard on Ian. Ian reaches out for help, and then they send Doug over.

I had a good sit-down meeting with Doug Eyford on how to do this pipeline stuff — how to get to consent, how to make investors comfortable, how to make First Nations comfortable when it comes to pipelines.

The first thing that happened was I got into a big fight with Ian Anderson. We met about a dozen times, and then finally, we were meeting in Vancouver, and he says: “What do you want?” I said: “I want you to kick your lawyer out of the room, and I’ll kick mine out.” So we did, against their judgment, right? They were saying: “No, no. Don’t.”
[ Page 2309 ]

He says, “What do you want?” and I said: “I want you to respect my culture, my heritage, my land and especially our waterways.” He says: “So how do we do that?” I said: “Through agreement.”

We invited the lawyers back in and said: “This is how we want to do our agreements.” So from that day, Kinder Morgan has done 41 agreements, using that as the template. That’s the example I used with Doug Eyford. I want the respect of the land, the culture, certainly our waterways and our environment, and I also want that revenue that everybody else is enjoying. By everybody else, I mean the province, the feds and corporations.

He asked: “Well, how do we get there?” I said: “Why don’t you just turn the whole pipeline into one big Indian reserve and let us tax the hell out of it?” And that’s exactly what he did, right? But after a while, he thought about it, and he said: “Why not?”

Through Whispering Pines, I get to tax about two kilometres of the pipe, yet as a tribe, one-third of that pipe goes through Shuswap Nation. Another 90 kilometres goes through Nlaka’pamux territory. A little bit goes through Okanagan, and then it drops down into the Fraser Valley, and those guys have the pipe going through their lands.

So we were thinking about it. How can we adapt an aboriginal resource tax to something like a pipeline? I continued talking to Ian, and he said: “Yeah. If it’s applied to everybody and everything, then it’s fine.” So we have MOUs with CEPA, Canadian energy producers; with CAPP, Canadian Association of Pipeline Producers — those kinds of guys — looking at and addressing this. They just want to get their product to tidewater. I just want them to get it there safely and then to share in the benefits of the resource.

That’s essentially what we’re trying to do. We’re looking for support from the province to go together with the feds and do an aboriginal resource tax.

I mention the feds last because the further they’re out of our lives and yours, the better, right? I mean, we’ve had 150 years of Indian Affairs, and it’s not good. If you look out the window here, you’ll see Kamloops Indian band. They’re very progressive and pragmatic on how they do the property taxes, and they have a higher standard of living than a lot of other First Nations. We follow them by example because they have a very good example on their taxation and how they do things.

It’s with them in mind and with that example that we think: “If you can do the property taxes, we can do the aboriginal resource tax as well.” We have the capabilities — First Nations Tax Commission. We have the First Nations Tax Administrators Association. We have the cooperation with TRU and the Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics. We have it all. We just need that extra little space in the aboriginal resource tax. Then we can continue doing the good work that KIB, Westbank and all these other bands seem to enjoy.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. That’s the five minutes, but this is a very interesting subject. You have a submission to the committee, and it will then come to our attention. That’s going to go in as a written submission. I’ll be very interested in reading more about that.

M. LeBourdais: He was unable to make it. I was riding horses three hours ago, and I’m like: “Really? Okay.” The things I do for my people.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good for you. Well, I’m glad we were able to get you in here before having to wait until the end of the day. I appreciate you coming forward, very much so. Thank you very much.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We have now got Deb McClelland, Kamloops Chamber of Commerce.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Oh, a different presenter. I’m sorry. I don’t have that on my list yet.

B. Hasanen: Yeah, Deb’s name is still on there. I’m Brant Hasanen, the policy chair, and Joshua Knaak is the second vice for the Kamloops chamber.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. Welcome. Ten minutes for a presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left, and then we’ll go to the committee for five for questions, if that works.

B. Hasanen: Thank you. Again, full disclosure, so we’re clear. I’ve met a lot of you before, and I’m happy to be here and spend some time in sharing some ideas and thoughts. My role with the chamber is the policy development chair as well as government relations. I’m the immediate past president of the B.C. chamber and on the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, so very connected board-wise with the impulse of business across not just the community or the province but even the nation. So I’m fortunate to be able to share some ideas and thoughts on where we’re at in Kamloops and how some of that will relate to that.
[ Page 2310 ]

We’ve basically got three key points that we want to share. I’ll start with the first one, with reference to duty to consult, which I think is timely, considering the prior presenter. Josh is going to talk to you, also, about the property transfer tax. Then we want to go onto a small but very difficult situation for our real property contractors, which I want to bring your attention to in hopes that we can come to a fairly quick resolve.

To begin with, and on the notion of the duty to consult — again, very much like the previous presenter — what I’d like to do is present you with a little bit of a spin on that. It has been the intent of the province to consult and engage with indigenous people in coming with some sort of constant template in what you can work with and how you can work with it.

There is a call — on a national level and provincial level, including your government, from my understanding — on what we’re referring to as a consistent framework. That consistent framework is the duty to consult and engage. This is as a result of very slow, inefficient and expensive proceedings to date, thus far. The notion of a consistent framework will work.

Now, the chamber would suggest a similar strategy on duty to consult with the business community and the community as a whole, related to issues that would be, by indigenous standards, a trigger on a duty to consult. Things like triggers that we would see in the business community on duty to consult and engage would be, perhaps, a 15 percent regional property transfer tax that has a significant short-, medium- and long-term issue on a regional part of the province. The business community feels that we could have been very valuable in participating in the discussions on how to create that environment for something that’s in the best interests of all.

In another request, in the notion of requesting to consult with the business community and the community as a whole, there would be a measure, similarly, with indigenous, as to the type of consultation that the duty to consult should trigger, whether it be a minimal or a deep consultation. That is something I believe that is very worthy of discussion to assist you folks in moving your policies forward with the support, knowing that we’ve had discussions at all levels.

I’ve got here a recent paper from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce regarding more clarity in the duty to consult. This is strictly with indigenous people. We’re working on one for the business community and the community as a whole. In your package, we do have a policy that is being presented to you that you can look through with reference to the notion of engaging and the importance of it. That is a result of a position paper that is recognized locally, as well as provincially and nationally — provincially by 34,000 businesses that feel that the notion is a good idea and that it would be very supportive of business and the economy, going forward.

On that note, I will now turn it over to Josh, with reference to a recommendation or a proposal with reference to the property transfer tax.

J. Knaak: Thank you for the opportunity of being here. My resume is not nearly as impressive as Brant’s, so I won’t get into too many of the details. My background is in commercial financing and dealing with investors and developers on the real estate side of things.

As Brant mentioned, we’re presenting a policy that has been passed at the Kamloops level and also by the B.C. Chamber regarding property transfer tax, which has certainly made the news recently, or some taxation issues around property, as you’re all very well aware.

We would contend…. I’m not going to read the paper for you, but I guess the premise of it is that the property transfer tax was implemented in a very different real estate environment than what we have now. It was interesting to note that when it was implemented, only approximately 5 percent of the residences in the province of B.C. would have been impacted by the 2 percent threshold.

The 2 percent was intended to be a luxury tax. We certainly appreciate what has been done as far as grants go for first-time homeowners, and we also respect the moves made by the province with the increased taxation on foreign investors. Personally, I’d suggest that there may have been an alternate way to implement that, but nonetheless, the concept is certainly sound in seeking to reduce the overall pricing of homes to make home ownership more attainable.

However, the B.C. Chamber’s stand on this is that any increases in property transfer tax for foreign ownership would be coupled with a decrease in property transfer tax for domestic ownership. We would suggest that this tax, ultimately, be done away with, although I would note that the B.C. Chamber’s stance is always, when we make a suggestion on policy, that it be revenue-neutral, so we’re not just constantly saying: “Tax us less. Tax us less.”

The concept is that if we ask for a reduction in one, there be an increase on the other. We would suggest that as there has been an increase on the foreign ownership that this would be a great time to revisit the property transfer tax on domestic purchasers.

Again, the adjustments to the property transfer tax — we’re speaking more on a provincial basis, as opposed to regional. Therefore, it will be to the benefit of the entire province. There are two different reasons for two different tools being given. Obviously, one is for market-driven, and the other — what we’re looking at — is to create a better economic environment.

B. Hasanen: Okay. The reason I asked that question is: this next one is somewhat complicated, and it’s to do with tax law. Mr. Ashton, you and I did have conversations with reference to the real property tax and issues around that.

How many of you are familiar with the issues on the real property tax that our members are experiencing? Okay, not many. I’ll tell you what. Rather than wasting valuable time on explaining the details, in summary, the policy is presented to you, but basically, what’s happening is that this is the result of the re-introduction of the provincial sales tax after the failing of the HST.

There was a lot of confusion with the contractors across the province on how to collect and how to pay for PST. So what’s happened is that the real property contractors unknowingly collected the tax incorrectly and submitted it. They were assessed by the provincial tax auditors — because they did it incorrectly — and were forced to have to pay it again. So we have members that have sent you $20,000 to $30,000 more than they had to because of the assessments from your tax auditors.

The request today is for us to have a discussion on how we can return that money to our contractors, who are hard-working, blue-collar guys.

The second thing is that I would like to request an opportunity to collaborate with you, through the chamber of commerce and the home builders association, to come up with a way of fixing this problem and a way that we can create a tax on the real property — and I recognize there are issues with it — in more detail when we have more time. But we’re happy to join you in coming to a solution on that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Terrific. Thank you very much. I’m going to go to the committee for any questions they might have.

C. James (Deputy Chair): You mentioned that you wanted to collaborate on addressing the issue. Is the issue continuing then?

B. Hasanen: It is still continuing, yeah. Through our discussions, through the provincial chamber and with the Ministry of Finance, it’s our understanding that the auditors — when they come across this particular situation — have been advised to back off a little bit until we come up with a resolve before garnisheeing bank accounts. It’s still very, very much unresolved.

G. Heyman: Could you just give one clear, illustrative example of how this happens and why it happens from the tax auditor point of view?

B. Hasanen: Thank you. Very happy to — I didn’t want to burn up my submission time to do that. Just real quickly, if I’m a real property contractor, and you come in and buy a fireplace from me and I was to sell you that fireplace over the counter because you choose to install it yourself, I would collect $1,000 plus 7 percent from you. Okay. Then I would submit the 7 percent as a sale through my PST number to the Ministry of Finance, and that would be fine.

Now, if I came to your house and installed that same fireplace, I would — in theory — have paid the sales tax on the fireplace and not used my tax number to buy it. So I would have paid — assuming there’s no markup — the $1,070 for it and then charged you $1,070 but not addressed it as a provincial sales tax collection from you, because I would have paid it already when I picked it up.

What happened is that when the auditors came in, they would see that I installed a fireplace in your new home, and they would say: “Well, this isn’t done right. You’ve got to pay us those sales taxes again.” Then there were no discussions at all about that, because it was done incorrectly.

It was about: if they’re installed, you’re supposed to pay the sales tax when you buy it. When they’re sold retail, you’re supposed to collect the sales tax when you sell it. But the trouble is that when I’m buying 50 fireplaces, I don’t know how many I’m going to install and how many I’m going to sell over the counter. Therefore, there is a great deal of confusion for our contractors on how to account for this and how to manage it — remembering they’re not accountants.

I did get input from BDO about ways that it should be done and personal assessments — which is far beyond the scope and capacity of a simple contractor who just wants to make some money.

J. Tegart: Certainly, I’ve heard in my office in regards to plumbing and the challenges around that. We’ve been in contact with the Ministry of Finance also. There is a great deal of confusion — and with the best of intentions. Glad to hear you bring it up and glad to know that we’re working on it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you for coming forward. Very topical and interesting — something we haven’t heard up till now.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Next we have three people coming up: Lori Marchand of Western Canada Theatre, Kathy Humphreys of the Kamloops Symphony and Margaret Chrumka of the Kamloops Art Gallery.
[ Page 2312 ]

Good afternoon, ladies. Welcome. You’ve probably been here long enough to hear me say about the ten minutes. Then I’ll give you a little warning with two minutes to go, and then we’ll go to the committee for five minutes’ worth of questions. So if you’re ready, certainly the floor is yours.

M. Chrumka: Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the Kamloops arts community, a community which supports over 100 professional and community arts organizations. My name is Margaret Chrumka. I’ve been with the Kamloops Art Gallery for the past four years, taking over as interim director a year ago, after the sudden passing of our executive director, Jann L.M. Bailey. I share the passion and force Jann demonstrated in her work and, for many years, in presentations before this committee.

In joining the gallery, I’ve been able to bring a renewed commitment to increasing our annual attendance and memberships in a cost-effective manner. I’m happy to say we’ve seen great success on these fronts.

Funding from the B.C. Arts Council continues to ensure we support artists in our province to achieve levels of excellence that reflect our contributions to this sector, socially and economically.

Our community gaming grant ensures that our education programs, including spring and summer art camps for children and youth, remain accessible. We continue to work with groups like the Aboriginal Arts Collective to offer monthly workshops for indigenous and non-indigenous youth and adults in our studios. These studios were recently renovated, thanks to a creative cluster grant available through the creative economy strategy.

Furthermore, once again this fall, we’ll be engaging the community, throughout the downtown core and into our well-loved Riverside Park, with new media artworks presented after dark. This festival, called Luminocity, will feature the work of over a dozen B.C. artists appearing in unexpected places for a week-long celebration of creativity. In 2014, over 20,000 people experienced this unique opportunity to connect with the visual arts and enjoy downtown Kamloops.

Ultimately, we work to demonstrate the importance of art in our lives, for our health and our well-being, and to ensure we nurture thoughtful citizens and livable places.

K. Humphreys: I’m Kathy Humphreys. Thank you very much for allowing us this opportunity to speak to you today. I’ve been executive director of the Kamloops Symphony Society for more than 26 years.

This year the Kamloops Symphony celebrates its 40th anniversary of live symphonic music in the Kamloops region. Also this year, we’re seeking a music director to assume the artistic leadership of the organization when our long-serving music director, Bruce Dunn, retires in the spring of 2017. We’ll be showcasing shortlisted candidates throughout our performance season and seeking input from the community on what they think of the candidates, who come from across the country.

As the only professional orchestra in the Thompson-Nicola-Cariboo-Shuswap, we serve a broad regional audience. The Kamloops Symphony is well known for its achievement in developing and maintaining a professional orchestra in a city with a population under 100,000. This was made possible through the consistent support of audiences, volunteers, donors, businesses and grantors, which of course include the B.C. Arts Council, the B.C. gaming branch and the Canada Council, in addition to our municipal government.

The Kamloops Symphony performs the music of the world’s great composers of the past and present, often including the work of both established and emerging Canadian composers, and features Canadian guest soloists from within the orchestra, the province of B.C. and every corner of Canada. This year, a 17-year-old pianist from Salmon Arm is appearing as a soloist just before he goes off to university to pursue his passion for music.

A new program, in partnership with our local boys and girls club, will provide a weekly music program for club members who may not otherwise have access.

An endowment fund created in memory of one of our music faculty is awarding its first bursary this fall.

Performances are the foundation of our artistic practice, but it is the additional benefits to the community that truly illustrates the importance of professional music. Musicians in a community form new collaborative artistic endeavours, entertain and inspire, volunteer, enhance public and private events and celebrations, and help create a quality of life that is the envy of many other communities.

L. Marchand: My name is Lori Marchand. I’m the executive director of Western Canada Theatre and have just commenced my 17th season with the company.

WCT celebrated its 40th anniversary last season with a record-breaking attendance and productions from coast to coast. The funding from the British Columbia Arts Council helps us to ensure our work is recognized nationally for its artistic excellence. The community gaming grant enables us to ensure price is never a barrier to attend one of our productions. Reduced pricing for children, students and seniors along with our pay-what-you-can matinees ensure that every person in our regional community who wishes to attend can attend.

We feature talented B.C. artists on our stage. Thanks to co-productions with companies across the country, the work of our B.C. artists goes on to have greater impact even beyond our provincial borders. Of special note, WCT, in partnership with Raven Theatre and Urban Ink from Vancouver, produced a workshop production of Children of God. The National Arts Centre attended the
[ Page 2313 ]
workshop. This has led to the inclusion of this brand-new musical, based on the residential schools experience, in the NAC’s current season, and an international tour is in the work.

Provincial funding assists us in keeping our commitment to producing First Nations work and to contributing to the critical national dialogue on reconciliation.

These efforts are in line with the B.C. Arts Council’s strategic plan and with the province of B.C.’s creative economy strategy.

M. Chrumka: We are here before you today, in conjunction with our counterparts from across the province, to respectfully request an immediate increase to the B.C. Arts Council’s granting budget to $32 million in 2016-2017 from the current $24 million, with further increases to $48 million over the next two years.

Additionally, and of equal importance, we are requesting the increase in community gaming grants to $156 million from the current $134 million, with further increases in subsequent years reflecting ongoing growth in gaming revenues.

To address infrastructure needs, we are requesting the reinstatement of the capital grants program at the gaming branch and the continuation and growth of the collaborative spaces program through the creative economy strategy.

K. Humphreys: Regional organizations like ours face ever-increasing demands on our resources. We work extremely hard to make up the difference, as in many cases, we are working with funding and grants that have not increased or have not kept up with the growth in expenses.

In smaller communities such as ours, our access to large corporate support is limited. While our local community is recognized for its generosity, we are facing donor fatigue and, frankly, losing ground.

L. Marchand: There are also new and exciting young artists who have limited access to funding. To address this issue, it is not simply a matter of dividing the funding pie into smaller pieces. Often the core organizations, like the three we represent here today, provide and maintain the infrastructure and training necessary to support not only their own but the work of the smaller and emerging artists and companies as well. By reallocating the funding from the larger and more established organizations, we’ve run the risk of destabilizing the entire sector.

In many cases, arts organizations are receiving gaming grants that exceed the funding they currently receive from the B.C. Arts Council. As such, the community gaming grants have also become a critical component of a vibrant cultural scene in British Columbia — hence, our request for increased access for the arts community to funding from the gaming branch.

M. Chrumka: As you may be well aware, there is a growing concern over aging infrastructure. This past year many local arts organizations, including the Kamloops Art Gallery, have benefited from the capital investment grants available through the new collaborative spaces program under the new creative economy strategy. I commend the province for introducing this program. However, we hope to see it grow from $1.5 million.

Every dollar we received through this program was reinvested locally and has worked to create a dynamic and engaging collaborative space where our work inspiring creative thought and nourishing the value of art in our lives continues.

There are funds available through Canadian Heritage, but matching funds are a critical component for success when applying for these federal funds. Continuation and enhancement of programs that provide funding to capital projects are every bit as important as ongoing operating funds.

K. Humphreys: Statistics Canada’s provincial and territorial culture indicators 2010 to 2014, released May 11, 2016, reported that cultural growth’s domestic product in British Columbia grew 3.6 percent in 2014, following similar increases in 2012 and 2013. During this same time period, culture jobs declined 1.7 percent, after edging up slightly in 2013. You can see we are contributing more with less, and this is not sustainable.

The B.C. cultural sector contributes over $6.6 billion to the B.C. economy. Nationally, the B.C. culture sector contributes more than any other province after Ontario and Quebec. We ask that you consider the investment these governments are making in their cultural sector and work to bolster support from the B.C. Arts Council, B.C. gaming grants and infrastructure support through the creative economy strategy.

L. Marchand: Our request to double the budget of the B.C. Arts Council, to increase the community gaming grant to $156 million and to increase the availability of funds to address aging and insufficient infrastructure are all necessary in order to enable the vibrant arts and culture community to work successfully with the province of British Columbia to achieve the outcomes articulated in the B.C. Arts Council’s strategic plan and in the province’s creative economy strategy, strategies that will ensure an economically and culturally rich province.

Respectfully submitted by, Margaret Chrumka, Kathy Humphreys and myself, Lori Marchand.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for that collaborative submission. It’s very much appreciated, very well stated.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the work that you do, and thank you for making the community alive, which I think is so important when it comes to the arts. I appreciate you mentioning the importance of large and small, of beginning artists and established organizations, because I think it’s often missed how important it is to make sure that the funding is there across the band, to be able to support artists as they move.

I think the other piece that you didn’t mention, which I certainly have seen in my own arts organizations in my community, is the ability to stretch a dollar. I think it’s important to also note that as dollars go into your organizations, those fold out into the community, and you use those to leverage other dollars that come into the organization and therefore into the community.

I think it’s just an important piece to emphasize and to remind people that the investment by government also gets spread because of the ability for you to be able to get those grants and bring other resources in.

L. Marchand: Thank you, Ms. James. Yes, we’ve attached a couple of pages of boring statistics, but they do emphasize what you are saying — just every dollar that we invest is usually doubled, at least, in the community. While we do bring in those matching dollars from the feds and the municipal supporters, it is very much about stretching the dollar.

J. Tegart: I had the pleasure of being entertained on Friday evening at the Sagebrush Theatre, and the work you do is incredible in the community.

I’m a little curious about where the numbers came from, like the actual numbers. What was it based on? It would be helpful to get a little bit of that background information, even maybe as a submission later on, because it’s significant dollars. Being very supportive of arts in our community, we need to be able to say, “It’s not out of the sky. There is a plan.”

L. Marchand: The $32 million, the first number that we’ve noted in here, is sort of based on the numbers from the Hill Strategies report. It’s a percentage analysis of what other provinces commit to arts and culture. It suggested that if we apply that same percentage to the funding structure here in British Columbia, $32.1 million would be the resulting number.

Yes, we’ve been trying to coordinate with our colleagues at the Alliance for Arts and Culture and with ProArt, making sure that we all are reporting the same numbers and coming up with the same rationale. So yes, I’m sure that you will hear these numbers as you travel across the province.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. I have one minute left, and I have two questioners, so I’m going to take both questions on notice. What they’ll do is ask you the question, and then you can respond later to the committee, and we’ll all get the answers to that.

G. Heyman: Just briefly. I know that in Vancouver, there are resources available that a number of small theatre and arts companies avail themselves of, both for governance as well as help with artistic and managing directors for grant writing. Are those kinds of supports and training available in Kamloops as well — another small area?

M. Chrumka: We don’t need any more training. We need more time. All of us write grants every weekend in the evenings. It’s a matter of sustaining what’s currently existing, as opposed to providing us with more opportunities to provide for more funding.

G. Heyman: I understand that. I was thinking also, though, in terms…. And feel free to respond another time if there are…. You mentioned new, younger artists and, potentially, small theatre companies, additional ones that might want to start up or think about starting up. I’m thinking more of people with the arts background but not necessarily the administrative or interface-with-granting-agencies background.

L. Marchand: I was quite serious in my response. We very much are the ones providing that kind of infrastructure, if you will.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate your taking the time to present to the committee. Enjoy the rest of a wonderful day.

Next we have the Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association — Dr. W. Gord Bacon and Don Tretheway.

Gentlemen, you’ve been patient, sitting through this all afternoon. You’ve probably heard this about 15 times — ten minutes for your presentation. You’re all good with that? A little hands-up? All right. As soon as you’re ready, the floor is yours.

D. Tretheway: I drew the short straw, so I’m going to be doing the presentation. I’d just like to welcome you, as you have been welcomed a number of other times today, to River City, right here at the confluence of some of the best salmonid migration habitat in the world. We’d like to bring to your attention what we call a resource in peril.
[ Page 2315 ]

Gord and I — a bit of background — are both avid anglers. We’ve both fished the Thompson River in years gone by when there were thousands of steelhead in the river, and we have subsequently put away our steelhead gear, as far as the Thompson is concerned, because we don’t want to harass the few fish that are left.

Our club, Kamloops and District Fish and Game, is a club of about 300 members, anglers and hunters in the Kamloops area. We’re affiliated with the 50,000-plus-member B.C. Wildlife Federation. The B.C. Wildlife Fed either has addressed or will be addressing you at a later date, perhaps, with topics that are of more provincial importance, but we want to bring to your attention pressing regional issues out of the very disappointing disappearance of the Thompson River steelhead.

Our club will be 100 years old in 2018 and will host the B.C. Wildlife Federation’s annual convention that year as a centennial event. We make no apologies for being users of the fish and wildlife resource, because we are conservationists first and foremost, and we believe in conservation as being a wise use of resources.

A bit of background for those of you who don’t know what a steelhead is. Steelhead is a seagoing rainbow trout. It inhabits the west coast of North America from California to Alaska. It often will spawn, return to the ocean and then come back several times. So they can get to be quite large.

There’s a picture, on the front of your package, of a steelhead from the Thompson, which is probably typical of that river’s fish. It’s probably in the neighbourhood of 15 to 20 pounds.

The issue is that as of this year, the Thompson and Chilcotin Rivers’ steelhead numbers have declined precipitously. This year they were classed as extreme conservation concern by our provincial fisheries biologists.

If you want to turn to appendix 1, there are some figures there. On pages 8 and 9, it shows a couple of graphs that show the numbers, based on provincial data. If we don’t do something about the situation before too long, they’re going to go right off the graph.

G. Bacon: Can I just say that there are only about 215 spawning pairs left on the Thompson and many less on the Chilcotin. If you consider when I was young and fished those 10,000 fish, we had an expectation of success when we went fishing. That is in the mandate of the provincial fisheries — that there should be an expectation when you go fishing. That is not true anymore. Nobody fishes the Thompson, really.

D. Tretheway: One of the impacts is not only just the losing of the fish, but there’s been a considerable economic impact on the community from Lytton all the way up through Spences Bridge, Cache Creek, Ashcroft, Merritt. We’ve put some of the figures in here. I don’t know if we need to go into it here in terms of time right now.

The amount of revenue generated to the provincial economy was severely reduced by a lot of the…. Once the years that the steelhead were…. Sometimes they were closed by the provincial managers, so there was 100 percent loss of revenue. In other years, people just didn’t come because, as Gordon says, the expectation of catching or hooking a steelhead…. It’s catch and release only now, but people would like to have an expectation of at least hooking one of these fantastic fish.

Also, the economics of sport fishing in B.C., which we’ve put into what we call appendix 2 on pages 11 and 12, is for most of the province.

In 2009, the local group — and some members from Kamloops along with Spences Bridge people — proposed a hatchery at Spences Bridge. It was estimated at that time it would cost about $100,000, with annual operating expenses of about $20,000. Costs would be kept to a minimum by using volunteer labour, and there were plenty of anglers willing to volunteer their time.

However, that proposal was dismissed out of hand by the regional fisheries biologist because of being potentially detrimental to the genetic components of the wild fish. Taking the eggs and milt out of the river and rearing the little fish in a hatchery was going to somehow impact the genetic component of those fish.

Now, I’m a biologist. I’m not a fisheries biologist, but I’m a wildlife biologist, and fishing is my avocation. On our Spences Bridge committee, we had several retired fisheries biologists who certainly did not agree with that point of view. But those people have the ear of their minister and so forth, so we didn’t get a hatchery at that time.

D. Tretheway: Well, there is a hatchery there on Spias Creek. It’s a federal hatchery. It’s a salmon hatchery. At this time, they don’t raise any steelhead.

There was a hatchery there from 1979 to 1991. Stocking the progeny of that hatchery into the Thompson was discontinued because the biologists felt that the young fish were residualizing. That means that they were staying in the river as native rainbow trout, rather than going to sea as migratory fish.

D. Tretheway: They did stock, and there are anecdotal records from some of the anglers that some of those marked fish were caught in the river.

G. Bacon: There was stock when the study was done. They didn’t have the variables covered. So when the fish came back, they couldn’t tell if the fish that were coming back were the steelhead that they put in the river versus wild steelhead. They just assumed that all the steelhead in
[ Page 2316 ]
the hatchery ended up in the river as trout. That’s a very, very simple thing to say when you’ve got no research and no data. That’s as simple as that. I would say that for 50 years, I’ve been head of research labs in Canada. I just don’t buy it.

The other thing, Don, as you’re probably going to go into, is that there is no chance of survival of these fish in any way. It’s gone 20 years in a row on that graph you saw. The graph isn’t going to stop. It just isn’t going to.

D. Tretheway: We might also just add here that since 1997, to 2012, our local fisheries managers in region 3 have received Habitat Conservation Trust Fund grants totalling $2½ million. That’s up to 2012. Since that time, it’s probably gone up over $3 million. That money came from our angling licence surcharges, mostly.

It’s like they’ve been studying the steelhead to death. You can see the trend in the graph. It’s like Nero fiddled while Rome burned. We’re collecting data, but there’s nothing happening to it. We don’t like to badmouth our managers, but that’s the fact of the matter. As you can see from the graphs, it’s getting to the point where something has got to be done.

We’re recommending a solution: hatchery augmentation on the Thompson once again. There are plenty of research results in the fisheries literature these days that show that fish can be successfully reared by using progeny from adults that were raised in that system. A good example is the sockeye salmon return to the south Okanagan, Skaha and Osoyoos lakes.

The northern tributaries of the Columbia River system in the states of Washington and Idaho have…. The Clearwater River in Idaho has now — for the last ten years, as of 2015 — a ten-year average of returns of hatchery steelhead of 300,000 fish.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Gentlemen, just so you know, we’re carving into the question period time. But this is your time. You use it however you want.

Those fish have gone through 900 miles from the ocean. We’re about 250 or 260 miles from the ocean here. They’ve gone through seven or eight dams. But they’re getting those fish back. Another one is the Methow River just south of the Canada-U.S. border on the Okanogan system. Now we have anglers going from B.C. there to fish.

In conclusion, once upon a time, the U.S. anglers flocked to the Thompson River for its fisheries. That trend is now reversed. We believe now that it’s time for B.C.’s provincial fisheries managers to get with the times, take positive measures to preserve the last of the Thompson River steelhead before they go the way of the dodo and the passenger pigeon.

We implore your group to impress upon Forests Minister Thomson the gravity of this issue surrounding the Thompson River steelhead and that he must dedicate appropriate resources, preferably in the form of hatchery augmentation, before those fish become extinct.

G. Heyman: Thank you for the presentation and the background and the history, as well as the graphs. My question is very simple. You ask us to dedicate appropriate resources, preferably in the form of hatchery augmentation. Are there any other resources?

D. Tretheway: Well, that would be a start. In our estimation, that would be the best beginning. There are other means.

Do something about the chum salmon fishery at the mouth of the Fraser River when the steelhead are running in the fall, because the steelhead run with the chums. And if they’re fished with a gill-net, they’re fished indiscriminately. That’s another thing.

J. Tegart: Thank you for your presentation. Certainly, I am very aware of the issue. I’ve received correspondence. Also, we have a steelhead caucus working on steelhead, talking about the importance of the fisheries — Spences Bridge, I know, is critically interested — and also partnerships with First Nations.

I want to assure you that we also believe that there have been studies and studies and studies. There needs to be action. So thank you for your presentation. We, as a group, are lobbying for dollars to be put in this in particular. Thompson River steelhead are a real priority, certainly to me and to people in my riding.

D. Tretheway: We realize that there is a committee called a government to government to government. It’s provincial, federal and First Nations. We are privy to sitting in on some of the meetings with those people. But once again, they’re looking and studying, and there’s not a lot happening. You’ve got a hatchery right there at Spius Creek that, once upon a time, did put steelhead into the system and could do so again.

G. Bacon: I just wanted to mention one thing to you. The Thompson River is a special river in that we Canadians actually get a bit of an advantage fishing there — quickly.

The other thing is that under that, it’s possible to have a COSEWIC SARA species at risk. And if we had a species-at-risk ruling — and I don’t suggest that it’s good, but
[ Page 2317 ]
other people have already applied — it is necessary that you know that’ll shut down the fishery for salmon and anything else in the bottom of the Fraser and into the ocean even. It’s hundreds of millions of dollars if the river gets a SARA application, which is just that you can’t fish it because the fish are not there to fish anymore.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I understand. Thank you very much for the presentation. Just so you know, I, too, have put away my steelhead gear, and it’s really a tragedy.

We did have a presentation yesterday with the Pacific Salmon Foundation, and steelhead did come up as part of their presentation. It’s a very, very important issue.

I do understand why we put so much emphasis on the Fraser River salmon run, sockeye particularly, and why we shut it down. But it seems that so much emphasis goes that direction, and there’s not quite enough on the steelhead problem. So let’s keep talking about it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Of course it is. It all is. It’s very, very important. Thank you for bringing it to light and for taking the time to come out. I appreciate it.

Next we have the British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association — Mr. Kevin Bacon.

K. Boon: It’s Kevin Boon. I don’t make quite the salary that Kevin Bacon does.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Oh, Kevin Boon. I’m sorry. That’s the second time I stuck my foot in my mouth this afternoon. I must be tired.

K. Boon: It’s okay. I completely understand. I get my own name wrong some days as well.

Ten minutes to talk all you want about whatever you want, and then we’ll go to the committee for five minutes worth of questions. The floor is yours, sir.

K. Boon: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you. It’s actually really nice to have you guys come to Kamloops instead of…. As much as I enjoyed Victoria, it’s really nice to see you come here for a change to talk to us.

I would like to talk to you on three issues today. We tend to like to pride ourselves in the Cattlemen’s Association on bringing forward the problem and the solution, and this is what we are trying to do. We’ve chosen three key areas to concentrate on that give a benefit not only to us in the ranching industry but, we feel, to society as well.

The three issues are water security and climate adaptation, invasive plant control and highway fencing. The first one that I’m going to talk about is investment in water security and climate adaptation. One of the huge things that we have….

We hear a lot of talk about climate change. Climate change is nothing new. It’s been happening since the Earth was created. Our challenge is: how do we adapt to that climate change, and how do we do it in a manner that is responsible to the environment and to the province and to those living in it? All we have to do is look at last year’s drought and the shortages we saw in the Lower Mainland and looking south into California, the problems they have with water, to understand that the key to a lot of what we do is in water and water storage.

If we go to this spring and we look at what happened with the early spring — April hot weather — 70 to 80 percent of our snowmelt happened in April. That water ran down the rivers without any ability for us to utilize or to manage it. We feel that an investment in the infrastructure in the form of dams and the maintenance of the dams that are already there is key to this. With the mountain pine beetle taking out so much of our forest, it’s changed the way that runoff happens.

It’s key for us to be able to store that water, to be able to manage it throughout the year in a responsible manner — not just for agriculture and for our use of irrigation. If we stop and think…. The two gentlemen that just presented would understand this very well.

When we talk about fish and spawning of fish, we almost got shut down this year on the cold water again, in one of the wetter years that we’ve seen, simply because the flow was not there. If we can manage that so that we can sustain them all, we have made a major dent and a major milestone in moving forward in adapting to the climate and adapting to it in a way that we are being responsible about it.

We just recently did a cost-benefit analysis that will be coming out very shortly. It’s waiting for approval from Ottawa, as it was part of Growing Forward and a partnership with government to do.

Our objective was to identify what areas water storage helped and where the benefits were. Some of the places that were identified in that, other than agriculture, were recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, fish migration, wildfire suppression and flood mitigation. We worry about floods in the Lower Mainland. Storing water and watching that freshet and storing it and managing it helps us manage that flood mitigation.

Our request would be to actually establish a fund. This is a long-term problem and needs a long-term solution. We feel that if we established a climate adaptation fund that was always there as a core and we worked off the interest of it, we would have long-term investment in the future. We’re suggesting that a $30 million trust fund be held by the government, from which the interest is each
[ Page 2318 ]
year generated and goes towards the infrastructure and the maintenance of dams and such.

We would also request that a $250,000-a-year allocation be made to hire two engineers that would do the assessment for maintenance and for the structure of that infrastructure that’s in place. That way we could get consistent results that would move this forward and be beneficial. We feel that in this way, it not only benefits us, but it does benefit society on many levels.

The second area that we’re looking at is invasive plant control. We know that the province does invest money right now in invasive species. However, we have a huge problem happening on Crown range and on Crown land, and 85 percent of our agricultural land in British Columbia is Crown land. The weeds, the invasive plants, are not being managed, and as a result, this is affecting not only the livelihood of those of us in the livestock industry who depend on that forage but also our wildlife.

If we’re competing for that with wildlife, we have no opportunity to enhance and bring that forward. So it’s a matter of not just us in the cattle industry and the sheep industry needing that forage; we need it to keep the aesthetics and the wildlife and everything else that’s going on out there.

This year, with the wet weather, every seed that was out there germinated, and we see an awful influx of a lot of the weeds. They take over, choke out the forage and are of no value to us out there or to the wildlife. Nothing eats it. It just takes it out. It creates problems of erosion and everything else.

The other thing. As we see the increased use of our Crown lands for things like recreation, we see extra spreading of this through bikers, through sportsmen. We don’t want to or we don’t necessarily see that as having to be curtailed. It’s that we have to manage it so that we can be responsible and keep it in check.

With that, what we are suggesting is a very aggressive three-year program on Crown land in addition to what is already being spent on invasives on the other land. We’re suggesting it for Crown land because private land owners have the ability to and are controlling the weeds. If it’s not being done on Crown land, though, everything they’re doing gets negated when it moves in from Crown land. So what we’re suggesting is three-years, $30 million — so $10 million a year that’s split out in districts.

There are roughly 22 districts within the Crown infrastructure in the range infrastructure. That would allot about $500,000 per region to be utilized for a very aggressive campaign to eradicate as many as possible. Once we’re there, then we can go back to utilizing biocontrols and a lot more of the normal practices that we would use once we get it under control. But until we get it under control, we’re going to be faced with this ongoing, and it’s going to get worse.

The third one. This is one that we’ve had a great response and great work by the government in supporting our highway fencing program. In 2010, there was a $9.3 million, five-year program that was announced. We finished it in 2015. An additional $2 million over the next two years — $4 million — was invested to carry it on. That ends next year.

The applications continue to come in. While we’re able to do, out of the $2 million a year, roughly 150 to 180 kilometres a year depending on the terrain, with the added applications, we are still up to 1,486 kilometres of fence applications in front of us right now.

Our recommendation is to continue and to actually allocate a standard $2 million per year to this. At that rate, we’re still 20 years away from getting all the fence applications done that we have.

This, I want to point out, is not necessarily for the benefit of the ranchers. Yes, it does keep our cattle within the fences. This is really a public safety issue. If we do not have good fences on those highways, our motoring public is at risk all the time, so we feel that it is good, prudent investment of the dollars to make an annual allocation of $2 million.

With that, I will leave those three things for you. There are many more things we could ask for, but we want to be fair,. That’s where I will leave it today, and I thank you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Boon. I appreciate it. I will go to the committee for questions.

J. Tegart: Thank you very much, Kevin. These, certainly in rural B.C., are common issues. We’ve been talking about water sustainability, about how we keep our ability to grow food and to provide food when we can’t control water at this point, so it’s a reinforcement of the kinds of things we’re hearing.

It’s great that the cattlemen come forward with the issues but also with a solution. Thanks for the work you do. It’s great to hear the presentation.

G. Heyman: Two questions. I’m interested in the recommendation about a climate adaptation fund. I’m assuming you mean by that one that’s very specific to your own sector’s water needs and not a broader, more general one.

K. Boon: We look at water storage in any manner to be a benefit not only to us but to a lot of others. I mean, that could be part of building more reservoirs for the Lower Mainland, because if we’ve got the security of water in one area, it’s not drawing from another and depending on the other.

If you look at our ranchers that utilize it for irrigation, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the infra-
[ Page 2319 ]
structure for the irrigation as a bit of an insurance policy. When that gets shut down, as it did in the Coldwater last year because fish didn’t have the opportunity to have the flows that they needed, that affects us and that insurance. We then depend on top-ups by insurance programs such as our forage insurance to pay for it.

In the big scheme of things, Mr. Hamilton, we have to look at: what’s the health of British Columbia and our environment? No matter whether it be for agriculture, for fishing, for the fish, for the wildlife, it all comes down to: we need water to do it all. We just think it’s prudent, and we see the value to us as well.

G. Heyman: If I might just follow up. It would be, specifically, a water climate adaptation fund, but if there was a broader climate adaptation fund with a portion of it specifically earmarked for water, that would also meet your needs.

My other question, very briefly. I’m just wondering if you’ve talked to the Minister of Transportation about the fencing issues.

K. Boon: Yes, Minister Stone is actually my MLA, so he hears from me very regularly. He’s beginning to wonder if we have any other issues out there, which we do. In fact, on the Coquihalla, if you want to figure out…. The value of barn boards has gone so high that they’re now stealing the boards on the side of the highway and marketing it in the Lower Mainland at a profit. That opens up a fence to our cattle to get out and endangers the cattle. So yes, Minister Stone has definitely heard.

Back to the water and the adaptation. You know, this is a suggestion of how it’s put forward. We really like the idea of a fund that we know is there and that we can draw on and administer and put priorities on.

But the other aspect around this that might be of interest to you…. I also sit on the Minister of Agriculture’s advisory committee. One of the key things — in fact, the top key thing for climate adaptation — that was brought forward by that committee was water storage. I think that we have to look around the world to see the value of it. A lot of the reason that we see foreign investment and people coming to British Columbia and wanting to be here is because we do have an abundance of good, clean, fresh water. It’s very important that we preserve that and manage it properly.

D. Ashton: Just quickly, sir. Thank you, again, for what you do for all of us, especially when you do come to Victoria.

Protecting your animals against highway carnage — that’s a two-way street. I mean, we should be protecting the populace on the driving part of it, but you should be protecting your animals. Have you gone to the ministry, hand in hand, and said: “Look, we’re prepared to put this much in if you’re prepared to”?

K. Boon: Certainly, for the most part, it is already a two-way street. When most of this infrastructure that was put in place was put in place…. We’ll use the Coquihalla for an example. There was no fence there before the highway went through. The highway went through; we had to build a fence to protect the public.

K. Boon: Exactly. Now, an average fence built right to the right standards, will last 35 to 40 years. In that 35 to 40 years, it doesn’t just stand there on its own. Our commitment is to maintain, repair and upkeep that fence in that 35 years in between. That entails working and riding, two or three, maybe four times a year, making sure that fence is up there. So it is a joint deal.

The highway fencing program only works on schedule 1 and 2 highways. All the other highways out there we are responsible for building, as well as on the private land.

D. Ashton: Okay. You know, two-legged or three-legged is still a lot better than a one-legged one.

When I look at things like the climate adaptation fund — you know, $30 million at 5 percent, you get a million and a half bucks a year. Maybe that’s leveraged dollars. So maybe it’s got to be a 50-50 or a 25-75. You can work out ways of how we stretch that and who benefits and who puts into it. Maybe there’s opportunity for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There’s certainly opportunity to leverage that dollar with the federal government under the green initiative, for infrastructure development. These are all things that, if we have that capital and that base there and we know what we can work with, we know what we have to strive for.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time, Mr. Boon. Always a pleasure.

Let’s hear from PacificSport Interior B.C. — Carolynn Boomer and Linda Stride. Ladies, welcome. Good afternoon. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left. Then we’ll go to the committee for five minutes or so of questions. As soon as you’re ready, the floor is yours.

C. Boomer: We were going to have you have a little stretch because you’ve come from Cranbrook this morning and you’ve been sitting and sitting. And this is just the beginning, isn’t it? Anyway, thank you for the oppor-
[ Page 2320 ]
tunity to speak with you today on the value of sport and physical activity and the importance of continued investment in the province of British Columbia.

My name is Carolynn Boomer. I’m the executive director for PacificSport Interior B.C. I’m here with Linda Stride, who is the supervisor, for the city of Kamloops, of recreation, health and fitness. She’s our appointed board director on our board.

PacificSport and the regional delivery system was a provincial government initiative, and our centre was the first named centre in November 1994. We are now part of 11 associations that form the ViaSport Regional Alliance in the province of B.C. ViaSport is the lead agency for the sports sector and under the leadership of CEO Sheila Bouman.

Our purpose of the regional alliance is about enriching lives and engaging communities via sport. I used the little asterisk on sport because we’re looking at the broader sense. We’re looking at physical activity. We’re looking at sport development. We’re looking at physical literacy.

We believe in the purpose of the regional alliance as it complements PacificSport Interior B.C. and our vision, which is healthy communities inspired and enabled to participate, play and perform through sport. Our vision: through investment, leveraging and collaboration with community partners, the regional delivery system will serve as resource hubs that educate, inspire and engage British Columbians to excel and be active for life. I’ve provided the 2015-16 year in review for just our specific centre.

In 2015, a direct contribution of $1.065 million was made across nine different regions in the province to help advance the goals in the areas of participation, coach development and performance. These funds were used to leverage additional funding sources to the regional alliance partners, including 105 new partnerships, of which 33 percent were associations, corporations and businesses and 17 percent were with community organizations.

We believe leveraging government investment has a significant impact in B.C. One example for our centre was expanding the regional delivery coach system. With an investment of $80,000, we were able to go and secure, with the Kamloops Blazers Sports Society, matching dollars again with the local and provincial sport organization for a paid coach. These coaches would develop their sport and increase physical activity in the Kamloops region. Quite simply, without a coach, you don’t have a program. Therefore, it is critical to invest in coaching in the province. PacificSport would love to see increased dollars for the regional coach delivery program, as many community sports want to be involved and have the matching, but the funding is currently limited.

Under the performance portfolio, British Columbia has a strong tradition of excellence, which is underpinned by the consistent and innovative performance pathway delivered by ViaSport Regional Alliance partners, formerly known as the PacificSport network of centres, servicing over 2,000 high-performance athletes and 300 coaches.

As one example in our region, PacificSport Interior B.C., we have partnered with Canadian Sport Institute Pacific. We deliver a program called GymWorks, where we have 22 different local, in our region, fitness facilities that provide free or discounted access for training for the athletes and coaches.

We are thrilled to play a small part in the 12 athletes from B.C. who brought home eight medals from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. The provincially affiliated athletes earned 50 percent of Team Canada’s 22 medals. This was a record-tying 22 medals at a non-boycotted Summer Games and more gold medals than those in Atlanta 20 years ago. Almost half of Team Canada had a connection to B.C., which was the largest percentage of national team athletes with an affiliation to B.C. in recent history.

One notable performance, for those of you who watched, like many Canadians, bursting with maple leaf pride, was Kamloops’ very own Catharine Pendrel. We played a small part in her journey. She turns 36 at the end of this month. She went out there in her race for mountain bike. This is her third Olympic Games. She had a fourth in Beijing and then ninth in London.

Just to see her have this crash in the beginning, when people basically discounted her out for even coming close to the podium. She had a secondary crash as well. Then for her to make a bronze medal at the end of it…. It was just with her guts and determination. She really inspired a community, a province and a nation on the world stage.

One week later, I might add, she actually won the World Cup championships for her third time in her career.

It’s a privilege to serve our nation’s best as they inspire the next generation of young Canadians to imagine the possibilities and dream big. It was interesting. When we had her welcome home at the airport, we had a variety of…. There was about 120 people welcoming Catharine home. This little boy was quite loud with his mom saying: “I want a mountain bike, Mom. I want a mountain bike.” I think he was only five or six years old. But it’s just that ripple effect that happens.

Equally as important is the Paralympic Games and the change in attitude for people with a disability. What seems like the impossible becomes the possible. You might also note your MLA colleague, Michelle Stilwell, winning two gold medals in wheelchair racing just recently at the Paralympic Games.

Also, we as a nation were 20th in the last games in London, and we are now 14th for the Paralympic Games. That’s quite substantial.

These worldwide games and our country’s rankings depend on the building blocks of having a large base of physical activity, physical literacy, sport development — playground to podium is often what we refer to. We
[ Page 2321 ]
know that sport can play a powerful force for the positive change and inspire us all to live better lives.

L. Stride: Good evening. I’m just going to talk a little bit about physical literacy, which is a term that is gaining recognition in the health and in the sport fields. In an Olympic year, the focus of amateur sport is often on the medals, and although we’re proud of Canada’s athletes and coaches, we know that sport is much more than that.

Sport is a means to healthy lives and healthy communities. In 2014, the World Health Organization determined that 42 million children under the age of five years were overweight or obese due to physical inactivity and unhealthy food choices. We all know the consequences of obesity in our health care system from cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance, musculoskeletal disorders, some cancers and mental health issues.

The current generation has a life expectancy less than their parents, and we all need to play a role with actionable, cross-sectoral investment for change. A Physical and Health Education Canada study conducted in 2014 entitled Get Active: Perspectives of Canadians on the Importance of Physical Education, Health Education, and Physical Activity showed that 85 percent of Canadians agree that federal, provincial and territorial governments should devote a great percentage of health care budget to preventative measures.

One crucial area of attention that starts with a strong foundation is the journey of physical literacy, which has no end. It’s the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life. That’s from the International Physical Literacy Association. It was established in May 2014.

There are three areas in which we need to educate people about physical literacy: in the household — so parents, families; in the school system; and in society, in our community. For the past four years, PacificSport Interior B.C. has partnered with school district 73 and the government to provide a physical literacy mentorship project.

Matching funds supported a physical education specialist to work with K-to-grade-3 students to develop fundamental movement skills and to mentor the generalist teacher. So not a phys ed teacher. As we know, most elementary schools now do not have a phys ed specialist, and the generalist teachers really struggle to be able to provide environments in which they learn basic, fundamental movement skills.

This has been a success, with almost 3,300 students and teachers directly impacted with this program — over 12 dedicated weeks in our region alone — but other school districts are desperately wanting this education or, shall I say, intervention. However, the funding hasn’t allowed for an expansion.

Just a really quick story to give you an idea of physical literacy. I am a parent volunteer coach. I am a professional. We just started, last year in Kamloops, BOKS. It’s called Building Our Kids’ Success. It’s a program this is designed to provide children with moderate to vigorous physical activity 30 to 40 minutes before school starts or at the start of school, first block.

Many of the teachers aren’t skilled enough to be able to provide even those fundamental skills — games, activities, relays. So when I heard that this was coming to Kamloops, because I partner a lot with the school district or through PacificSport, I volunteered.

I go into the school system twice a week, eight to 8:30, providing moderate to vigorous physical activity. In one of the schools that does have a gentleman who has been in this area for quite a while, he has three classes going in first block, and he has seen a dramatic increase in the children’s ability to sit and be academically successful for at least the first hour following BOKS training in the gymnasium or outside, depending on the day.

I went in. Children couldn’t even run one minute around the gymnasium. They were so fatigued within a minute. Furthermore, they could barely perform the basic skills. These are K to 3 — so five-year-olds to nine-, ten-year-olds. It was really unfortunate. I saw that and just realized we really need to be doing more. We really, really do. And we can’t do it alone. We need the help of the province or the federal government.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Just so you know, ladies, we’re into the question period time. I’m going to let you use it however you want, but it’s just burning up questions.

C. Boomer: Okay. Basically, under the participation model, then, we have seen an increase within our own PacificSport Centre, a 6.78 percent increase, and that was in registrations alone. Then provincially, amateur sport membership has increased by 8.3 percent. Although that’s positive, it’s not even 20 percent of B.C.’s population, just to give you a little bit of an idea there.

L. Stride: Then just one thing that we thought was really important is partnerships, and we’ve heard that even with the previous presentation. Kamloops PacificSport, the city — our community really thrives on partnerships, whether that’s locally or whether that’s provincially and federally. Again, those matching funds, that’s another really big area that PacificSport prides ourselves on — matching funds from the province or from other agencies.

C. Boomer: Just other partnership on that. A lot of times, we are looking at partnering with the Aboriginal sport and recreation council; the CAAWS, which is the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women
[ Page 2322 ]
and Girls in Sport. These are, a lot of times, the under-represented populations. So it’s been fantastic to expand our Xplore SportZ camps to First Nations for ages seven to 12, getting them active and, hopefully, turned on to different sports that they might not have an opportunity to be a part of.

As well, for CAAWS, which was the acronym for the Canadian advancement association, we participated in the first provincewide campaign to draw attention to gender equity in sport in November 2015, and there was a significant impact over that, with over 35,000 views of the #levelthefield video that was presented, the 16 media mentions and over 60,000 social media followers.

It’s fantastic. For our region, we’ve been able to branch out into Salmon Arm, of course Merritt and Kamloops, of course, with that message and delivering a workshop. We’ve got an Empower You day for vulnerable girls aged ten to 14 coming this fall.

I guess, in closing, basically we really do depend — as Linda said as well — on partnerships, on investment leveraging, collaborating with a lot of different folks around the table. We’re often seen as front-line delivery agents, offering educational and activity-based types of programs to facilitators. We’re looking at the optimal, looking at capacity-building and engagement. It takes a community to build a champion, and we believe everyone can feel like a champion, whether they’re on the playground or a podium.

I want to thank you for your investment in sport, and we hope to have it increased or at least maintained, moving on. We are really thrilled to be part of B.C.’s alliance, the regional alliance, because we all are very passionate about moving the platform of physical literacy activity and sport development and performance, moving forward.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Terrific. We have one minute left, so we probably have time for one question, if anybody wants to ask it. But don’t be discouraged, because it’s also important for us to hear your unique message.

We do hear from your other groups throughout the province and your umbrella groups through ViaSport, so we ask them a lot of questions too — probably the same questions you might get asked by us as well.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I’ll just ask really quickly. We had a presentation in Cranbrook from one of your newest members, and it was exciting to hear.

C. James (Deputy Chair): The question I asked you’ve answered already, which is what kind of partnerships they’re looking at with the school district. It’s early for them, so I just wondered what kind of sharing of information…. You’ve obviously been in place for a number of years, so that’s made a difference. You’ve got those partnerships, and it would be great…. I’m sure you share that information with other associations around the province.

C. Boomer: Absolutely. I’ve often said in my 21 years that it’s partnerships and relationships, and those go hand in hand. Municipalities obviously own facilities and things like that, but the school district has the access to the children where…. There are no barriers in schools, right? That’s the thing. They might not be able to pay or have limited resources outside the school, and that’s why the embedded curriculum was so important when we partnered. But it’s just…. We’re talking $15,000. That’s really trying to just work the back door.

L. Stride: We’re always trying to share with others, if that was part of your question as well. Even in my role with the city, we get a lot of the smaller communities asking us: how do you do what you do, and how do you form these partnerships? We’re always sharing what we do here, perhaps even helping them to modify or adjust what they’re doing, knowing it may not be the same in a smaller community as what we have here. But here are some suggestions, for a start, to looking at some partnerships that work in smaller communities.

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

Next we have BCSPCA — Mr. Craig Daniell. As you’re working your way up…. I think you know the routine, Mr. Daniell. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a couple of minutes’ worth of wave-down time, and then five minutes to the committee.

C. Daniell: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone — Mr. Chairman, members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I think you know me. My name is Craig Daniell. I’m the chief executive officer of the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the BCSPA.

With me today is Jennifer Gore, a Kamloops resident and also the chair of our volunteer board of directors. We’ve also got some other staff members in the audience: Geoff Urton, our senior manager of stakeholder relations, just to give you a bit of swag this afternoon; we’ve also got
[ Page 2323 ]
Kevin Watt, a Kamloops resident as well and manager of community development; and then Ken Kokoska, who’s a senior animal protection officer for the Kamloops region.

Committee members will probably recall that for the past two years, I have presented on the BCSPCA’s facilities development and services plan, which is an eight-year plan to replace or renovate 12 of the 41 facilities operated by the BCSPCA right across British Columbia. The cost to replace and/or improve these 12 facilities is projected at $53.9 million.

This is actually in addition to the $33 million that the BCSPCA relies on each year from animal lovers across British Columbia to support its ongoing operations, including the investigation of more than 10,000 complaints of animal cruelty by our organization’s 31 special provincial constables and the direct provision of services to more than 43,000 animals each year.

When I first presented to the committee in 2014, we noted that the BCSPCA was committed to raising half of the capital funding for these particular projects. At the time, we were seeking financial support from the government of British Columbia for the balance of this particular funding that would be needed to complete this very ambitious and urgent capital project.

Recognizing that our plan would take place over an eight-year period, we proposed that the provincial government provide funding for the plan in three distinct phases. As you’re aware, Finance Minister Mike de Jong announced $5 million in funding for our facilities development and services plan on February 17, 2015.

This capital funding, which I have to tell you we’re extremely thankful for, was the catalyst for the launch of the first phase of our FDSP, covering the period 2015 to March 2017 and targeting facility replacement or redevelopment in six communities across the province at a total projected cost of $15.9 million. With the support of local governments, foundations and private donors, the BCSPCA has secured the remaining $10.9 million, or two-thirds of the funding required to make these six projects a reality.

Phase 1 projects that have been completed or are underway are as follows. Construction of a new Nanaimo and district community animal centre, built at a cost of $3.56 million, opened to the public on June 17 this year. This project was completed with an allocation of $1.3 million in provincial government funding.

Secondly, construction of a large animal recovery and adoption centre in Kelowna, at a total cost of $259,000, was completed with $100,000 of provincial government funding and officially opened on October 14 of 2015. Then construction of a large animal recovery and adoption barn, a cat seizure facility, an education and adoption centre in Surrey, at a total cost of $2.6 million, with $400,000 in provincial government funding allocated to this particular project.

Some of the other projects. Construction, beginning in early 2017, of a new Kamloops and district community animal centre and spay and neuter clinic to replace our existing facilities, at a projected cost of $4.75 million, with $1.5 million of provincial government funding allocated to this project.

Construction is slated for the spring 2017 of a new West Kootenay community animal centre in Castlegar to replace our Trail facility, at a projected cost of $1.95 million, with $900,000 of provincial government funding allocated to this project. I will say that just yesterday afternoon we had confirmation from the Columbia Basin Trust of their support for this particular project in Castlegar as well. Certainly, it helped, us having the government funding.

Then the last of the six projects, construction is slated for the spring of 2017 of a new South Peace community animal centre in Dawson Creek to replace our existing animal shelter, at a total projected cost of $2.85 million, with $800,000 in provincial government funding allocated to that particular project.

As you can see, we’ve made great progress over the last two years. This has allowed us to actually begin detailed preparations for the second and what will be the most critical phase of this facilities development program. Covering a four-year period from 2017 to 2020, it will involve replacement of the three largest and busiest SPCA facilities — namely, Vancouver, Prince George and the Fraser Valley — at a total cost of $30 million.

For phase 2, we envisage the following: construction of a new 40,000-square-foot flagship BCSPCA campus in Vancouver, comprising a new community animal centre for seized and abused animals, such as the Langley 66 puppy mill dogs; a new full-service veterinary hospital that can meet the existing demand for low-income veterinary services in East Vancouver; and a new provincial office to allow for the expansion of youth programming, wildlife services, animal cruelty investigations and animal welfare programming, built on our existing BCSPCA site in Vancouver at a projected cost of $20.5 million.

Secondly, construction of a 7,500-square-foot Prince George community animal centre and a 2,500-square-foot large animal recovery barn to replace the existing animal shelter, at a projected cost of $4.2 million. Then construction of an 8,000-square-foot Fraser Valley community animal centre and a 2,500-square-foot spay and neuter clinic to replace the existing facilities, at a total projected cost of $5.25 million.

As I’ve noted, over the past two years the BCSPCA has been able to leverage the $5 million in provincial government funding support with the assistance of local governments and its own donors. Based on the success of phase 1, we are really confident that over the course of the next four years, we can raise two-thirds of the cost, or $20 million, of these phase 2 projects through a combination of additional financial support from other levels of govern-
[ Page 2324 ]
ment, existing reserves, capital campaign fundraising and mortgage financing if necessary.

As such, the BCSPCA respectfully requests that the government of British Columbia fund one-third of the cost, or $10 million, as part of the 2017 provincial budget to support completion of these critical phase 2 projects.

A second round of capital funding from the province for the FDSP will not only provide lasting benefit for the welfare of animals but also to the province of British Columbia as a whole. Benefits would include job creation through construction projects and additional permanent employment positions at these new facilities; safer communities; violence prevention programs for youth; expansion of our compassionate boarding programs for the pets of individuals fleeing domestic violence; and an improved ability to assist animal owners in emergency situations such as fires, earthquakes and floods.

Before I close, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee for its previous recommendation in 2014 in support of capital funding for the BCSPCA plan. We know that you receive many requests for funding from many worthwhile organizations across the province and that the task of deciding which of these requests to recommend must be a very difficult one, given the need to ensure fiscal responsibility and discipline. So we truly appreciate the work that you’ve undertaken, and we hope that you’ll once again consider recommending support for our capital plan.

Thank you very much, and of course, I’d be happy to answer any questions from the committee.

E. Foster: Thanks, Craig. In the $10 million ask, you’re looking at projecting this project over a four-year period. If that commitment was made over that four years, that would satisfy your need as well, would it?

C. Daniell: Absolutely, Eric. Yeah, we’re very flexible in terms of how we could partner with the government to make sure that we could get this funding. For us, if we know we can get a commitment of $10 million over that four-year period, it allows us to actually move these various projects along over that time period.

S. Gibson: You mentioned something really laudable about being able to assist folks that are disadvantaged or going through some crises, taking their pets for a certain period to assist them. Are you also looking at further fee-for-service models for those people who can afford it, as a way to offset some of your costs, and also working with municipalities to provide services for them that they could not provide for themselves because of their geographic size or limitations? Those are my two questions.

In the first area, one of the things our organization believes in very strongly is the need for charitable organizations to engage in social enterprise, and we know that we have to diversify our revenue streams. So wherever we can, whether it’s through our veterinary hospitals or some other ventures we run, we actually try and generate revenue to support those particular programs.

In the case of our Vancouver hospital, we do have, basically, a means test so we can provide a full range of services to clients who can afford those particular services. But in the case of our Vancouver hospital, we are also treating and have a number of clients that have animals…. These animals are wonderfully taken care of, but these individuals simply do not have the resources to be able to provide a full range of services. That’s why we want to make sure that our 57-year-old hospital is actually able to provide those particular services.

In terms of your question around local government — providing services for those — yes, we do provide those services. A really good example of our partnerships would be with the city of Dawson Creek. We provide a full range of animal services to the city of Dawson Creek. Part of this particular project included a donation of land from the city of Dawson Creek, which has allowed us to actually move forward and move that project up the scale so that we could actually complete it.

One of the things we really try and ensure in all of these facilities is to make sure we have a really great partnership with local government.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your work, and thank you for coming and presenting where the resources were used. We don’t often hear back, necessarily, when recommendations are approved. For somebody to come back and be accountable and talk about the areas that the resources were used in…. Thank you for doing that.

I’m sure the need is much greater. I appreciate that you have come forward with the priorities once again, the first priorities. I just wondered, because I’m sure there are many more requests than the $10 million would fill: does this give you coverage in facilities across the province? Do you look at geographic as well as high need when you determine which projects will be next on the list?

When we originally put the plan together, we really focused our facility replacement on three issues: the age and condition of the facility in question, the number of animals coming through the particular facility, and the third was the size of the population. So we ended up with a bit of a ranking.
[ Page 2325 ]

As it turned out, Vancouver ended up being number one on our list. But because it’s our most difficult project, we ended up bumping it down — by the way, the most expensive as well. We bumped it down the list of priorities and were able to advance some of the smaller projects that we’ve been able to fund completely.

After phase 2, we still will have a few projects that we will need to complete. We have a facility in Salmon Arm that we need to replace, one in Campbell River that we need to replace. Then we also have not complete replacements, but we’ve got additional work to do in communities like Cowichan, like Cranbrook. None of those are full projects, but we’ll still need to be able to provide for those as well.

C. Daniell: Eric, great question. At this stage, we’re looking at a replacement on our existing site, which is basically at the corner of Great Northern Way and 7th. It’s a fantastic location, right next to Vancouver Community College.

As you know, Vancouver property prices are insane at the moment. We know we can sell our property for in the region of $16 million to $20 million. The problem is, if we end up buying something else, it won’t be as good — a good location — and we might make $3 million or $4 million. So we are judging what makes the most sense for us.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Daniell. I appreciate it. I know you’ve been trying to contact my office for a meeting, and as you can see, we’re just everywhere.

Well, you’ve been patient, sitting through all of these. Good for you. Welcome. Good evening, almost. You’ve probably heard it — about the ten minutes, five minutes and the two-minute warnings, that sort of thing. So I’ll just turn the floor over to you and let you go.

A. Schellenberg: Sounds great. We’re going to try and throw a lot of information in ten minutes. We have a lot to say, and we’ll…. I know you guys have been sitting here since about three o’clock this afternoon, so we’ll try to be entertaining and do our best.

Thank you, Jackie, for inviting me to this meeting — for making me aware of it. I just posed a simple question, and she said, “You’ve got to come to my meeting,” and then the work started. So thank you.

My name is Amie Schellenberg. I’m an electrical instructor at Thompson Rivers University. I have been teaching, primarily, foundation programs, but I’m getting into the apprenticeship track programs now.

M. Mehta: I’m Michael Mehta. I’m a professor of geography and environmental studies at TRU.

A. Schellenberg: What we’re here to present today…. We’re asking you to consider providing better access to renewable energy options — specifically solar energy — to homeowners, business owners and community projects across B.C.

The demand is quite high. As far as dreams go, people really want to install solar on their homes, on their businesses. I’m getting a lot of inquiries from my students, asking: “Can I learn this? This is an industry I want to be in.” But right now, the prices, because they’re not subsidized in very many ways…. I should say they’re not subsidized enough at this point to make it an affordable, viable option for most people.

M. Mehta: Solar is the low-hanging fruit. Although a lot of people tend to think that we live in a cloudy and rainy climate in British Columbia, the solar radiation or insolance levels in this province are about 25 to 30 percent higher than in Germany.

As somebody who has started a solar non-profit called GabEnergy — which is B.C.’s largest provider of solar equipment — and recently my own solar company, Sweet Spot Solar, we have been doing assessments all over the province and installing solar photovoltaic systems. It’s incredibly predictable. The projects are all scalable. And the clients are invariably happy, because they have found a way to reduce the operating costs of their homes and businesses.

A. Schellenberg: Yeah, it’s not just for people who have to live off-grid. It can be extremely beneficial and viable for people who are connected to the utility grid and are trying to look for ways to offset their utility bills.

M. Mehta: Now, the interesting thing about solar in B.C. — with B.C. Hydro’s investment in hydroelectric projects — is that it’s a perfect complement. Solar works extremely well with hydro. When hydro is productive,
[ Page 2326 ]
it’s making lots of power, say in the spring and winter months. Solar starts to pick up that slack when it starts to drop off in summer. They’re beautiful, because with a sophisticated grid control system, like what we have here in British Columbia, you’re able to dispatch and move energy and electrons around in a system like this and to really take advantage of the multiple kinds of renewable energy that we have access to.

A. Schellenberg: Yeah, one of the points that I was hoping to make, and Dr. Mehta really helped me formulate it, was how nicely solar works in conjunction with the dams, really helping with that peak shaving period, the time of day when energy demand is at its highest and, coincidentally, when solar production is also at its highest — the peak shaving time of the day, the midday time when industry is running at its full capacity and the sun is shining down in its full capacity. Now we’re taking that really heavy strain off the dam systems. It allows you to scale the dams to what your normal operation levels will be at, as opposed to the peak levels.

M. Mehta: What we want to also share with you is the importance of thinking about solar as a driver of local economic development. Lots of jobs have been created around the world in the solar sector. In the U.S., they estimate that the solar sector has contributed about $140 billion of economic activity to the U.S. economy in recent years. In Canada, for instance, we know that as of 2014 more people are employed in the clean energy sector — approximately 23,300 — than in, say, the oil sands, at 22,340. So it is a growth industry.

Ontario has done extremely well with solar, and of course British Columbia is substantially behind. If we look at the number of net-metered accounts that B.C. Hydro has through distributed generation, it’s only 750 of 1.7 million clients in this province, which is about 0.04 percent.

A. Schellenberg: One thing I haven’t mentioned and that I’m sure at some point in your travels you have been made aware of is that there are numerous off-grid communities that don’t have access to our utility grid and that are living off diesel gen sets right now. Providing these community project accessibility subsidies would make it a lot more feasible for them to be able to operate at a First World level if they could offset their diesel gen set costs with solar.

M. Mehta: The other side of subsidies that a lot of people don’t think about is that by subsidizing solar and encouraging homeowners and businesses to put infrastructure on their own properties, we’re essentially taking some of the risk of investment away from the province, through B.C. Hydro, by encouraging people to invest their own capital and to take their own risk.

The consequence of this, of course — in a province where we have billions of dollars of projects that need to be dealt with in the future, and many decisions to be made on which ones to spend money on — is that the credit rating of the province then doesn’t get affected, because it’s individual property owners and commercial outfits that are buying equipment, installing it and putting power into the grid. So we see it as a win-win in many respects.

A. Schellenberg: I just want to make sure that we’ve covered all the points on the first page of our handout here. One thing we haven’t talked too much about is the proven reliability and the scalability. Actually, we did mention the scalability.

The proven reliability of solar — one of the great benefits is that there are no moving parts. There’s nothing, really, to break. Once it’s installed, it’s in a location that most people don’t have access to, so it can just sit there and collect energy for years. Most systems have a minimum warranty of 20 to 25 years, and they’ll be operational for many, many more after that.

M. Mehta: The kind of subsidies that have been provided, just to give you an example of what we’re going to be asking you for…. We’ll look at the U.S. first. In the U.S., they’ve been very aggressive since about 2004 with something called the solar investment tax credit program. This is a federal policy. It’s a mechanism that has, by itself, increased solar installations by 1,600 percent since 2006, which works out to a compound annual growth rate of 76 percent.

In states, there are lots of different approaches. In the state of Oregon, for example, incentives are there for capital upgrades for solar at homes, between 50 and 65 cents per watt. These reduce the upfront costs of putting in solar. Oregon residents can also deduct $1,500 per year over four years as a tax credit, plus use this federal grant.

In Canada, we don’t do very much. In British Columbia, solar equipment is PST-exempt, and we have a very nice, simplified net-metering application process. That’s it. In Saskatchewan, they’ve introduced net metering quite recently, and they have also put in a 20 percent rebate on equipment and installation up to $20,000 per household.

In Ontario, of course, they’ve had the feed-in tariff program, which we don’t recommend because it’s cost the province a lot of money, and the income that people get from selling power back to the grid is taxable. We think that the better approach in British Columbia is to actually provide rebates and some tax relief.

A. Schellenberg: We put together a little case study just as an example of where this could be taken.

M. Mehta: Yes, this will be our last point, and then we’d love to hear some questions.

If we assume that we could create a rebate program alone and not look at tax credits at this point in time, that works out to about 25 percent of the installed cost of a solar array. If we use the 5 kilowatt solar array as a base case and assume 500 installations a year, which is already two-thirds of our current installations per year, that kind of subsidy would cost the province $2.25 million and would, in less than two years, more than double the number of solar arrays we have in this province.

For the homeowner and the business owner, it would actually reduce the cost of that installation, on average, from $18,000, which is high per watt, to about $13,500 per watt. Moreover, when you look at something called the levelized cost of energy, the cost of energy over the 25-to-30-year life of that system, the homeowner or business owner can then buy power back for themselves at 9.8 cents per kilowatt hour, which is competitive with step 1 pricing currently, rather than 13 cents per kilowatt-hour at the unsubsidized level.

We think that there’s an opportunity here to create some drivers to create jobs in our province, to encourage people to use more renewable energy, to take some pressure off the existing grid and the cost of maintaining that grid and the infrastructure for that grid, and at the same time, to lead and potentially — if things really work out well and the demand grows — to maybe even consider having our own solar module manufacturing facility in this province.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much. I know I have one question so far.

G. Heyman: I actually have three questions. We know the cost of solar has been dropping fairly rapidly and will continue to drop even more rapidly the more it’s installed. Incentives and tax credits are one thing if people have the means to additionally capitalize their own installation, but I’m wondering if you’ve given thought to another form of…. It’s not really a subsidy, but it’s support.

If installation of solar was combined with other forms of demand-side management and financed through on-bill financing, where you pay back through the savings, have you given thought to how that could actually be a more expansive kind of program?

Second question. I’m sure you’re familiar with Nelson solar and their solar garden. They took all the people in Nelson who really wanted to do solar but didn’t necessarily have great sites and would cost the utility a significant amount through hook up and said: “Buy shares in the form of panels at our really good site, and we will reflect that on your bill. You’ll be investing in solar, but you’ll be doing it very efficiently.”

I think you’ve sort of answered the third question by saying we could consider a solar panel manufacturing. If you have information that you could submit at a later date to the committee about how you think the ability of a B.C. manufacturing plant to compete with low-cost solar panel manufacturing in China might look, that would be quite interesting to us. Obviously, building manufacturing is another incentive to spur solar development in B.C.

M. Mehta: Thank you, George. If I can answer part of that question, with respect to Nelson. My non-profit GabEnergy, which I started, actually supplied the equipment for the Nelson solar garden, so I’m quite familiar with it.

I think there is tremendous potential for community-scale solar. If you look at what’s happening right now with solar development in B.C., it is primarily First Nations, First Nations collaboratives, co-ops, non-profits and small companies like my own that are driving the solar revolution in this province, almost always at very low profit or no profit.

We are losing a lot of the multiplier effect of having a scaled-up, more vibrant, more robust and resilient solar energy sector in British Columbia, one that could actually survive a downturn in the market, could survive changes in commodity prices and exchange values. Tariffs, like what we saw come through with Chinese modules, created a significant challenge for solar companies in British Columbia in this last year.

I think that we can’t put all of our eggs in that basket. We have to actually spur on innovation through the free market and allow these companies to also prosper and do well.

A. Schellenberg: As far as the community project goes, I think one of my hyperlinks…. I’ll be dispersing a PDF of this, and all the blue sections on here are a hyperlink to an article or a website with further information on the topic. One of the hyperlinks I did include was an article about how a community solar project can work, and it sounds exactly like the Nelson project. It’s something I’ve been hoping to take further here in B.C.

R. Austin: I know very little about this, and you gave us a lot of information. So my question may come across as being extremely naive.

Let me get this straight. If people install this, while they’re at work during the day and they’re not using electricity at home, they are selling the electricity from their solar panels back onto the grid. And then, when they are
[ Page 2328 ]
home in the evenings, they’re buying it back at a cheaper rate than they would be if they were buying it normally from Hydro. Is that right?

M. Mehta: No, the cheaper rate isn’t correct. What happens when you’re not using excess solar production — say, during the day, like you’ve given the example — is that it immediately goes into the grid to the closest source of consumption, maybe your neighbours. That cuts down on the amount of energy that has to go across the grid. It cuts down the amount of energy that has to be produced, as well, by B.C. Hydro.

That’s where some of the savings occur. It’s cheaper to save an electron than it is to make one. In this case, somebody else is making it for you. When you produce that credit through net metering, in the evenings — if you’re drawing it down — it’s on a one-to-one basis, so there’s no extra profit from that.

What about the alternative, which is that instead of connecting it and selling it or putting it onto the grid, you were to take advantage of the Tesla home batteries and store your own electricity in your house and then just use it as you need it?

A. Schellenberg: That’s totally a good option as well. Batteries do add a lot of maintenance and cost to a system. So to keep it simpler, to keep it more affordable, I think if you are attached to the grid, you should take advantage of it.

J. Yap: Thanks for your presentation. I’ve read that the cost of solar cell, the photovoltaic cells, has dropped dramatically in the last ten years — I’d say in the order of 80 percent. I’m curious. Maybe you have a perspective. Why is it we haven’t seen more adoption of solar as a renewable source of power?

Actually, John, the price of solar equipment has dropped about 700 percent in the last decade. That’s how much the equipment has dropped. What hasn’t changed is the cost of installation. A lot of that is changing now with new modular approaches, including microinverters and other technologies.

I think the reason why it hasn’t quite caught on is that the upfront costs are fairly substantial. This is why we think that it’s important to have some kind of rebate or subsidy in place and an ongoing tax incentive for people to install solar.

J. Tegart: Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously, you’ve sparked a lot of interest.

I was very pleased to see that Lower Nicola elementary school installed solar and had a grand opening in the last couple of weeks. I think they’re the largest building in British Columbia to have the solar opportunity. So they’re very, very pleased and quite excited about it.

My conversation with Amie was over dinner, and here you are. That’s where good ideas come from. We’re the group you need to talk to. If you have further information, feel free to send it along.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m going to exercise a little discretion here and go straight to Jennifer.

J. Rice: I’m just reflecting on your earlier comments when you were talking about people having this notion that we’re in this cloudy environment.

R. Austin: She’s from Prince Rupert, by the way. Just in case you’re wondering where this is coming from.

J. Rice: Yes, I live in a community that has some of the highest cloud cover in North America and some of the highest precipitation rates…

J. Rice: …primarily in the form of rain. We do get the odd bit of snow and sleet.

M. Mehta: I actually had a potential client from Prince Rupert contact me over the summer months with that very question. They didn’t think that it was feasible, so I went to some of the on-line tools that we use from the U.S. national research energy laboratory, called PVWatts. It’s a calculator that looks at solar radiation based on longitude and latitude and the kinds of modules and the angles and everything else that you put them at.

We found that the difference between, say, Nanaimo — which is actually only about 10 percent less sunny than Kamloops on an annual basis — and Prince Rupert was just another 10 percent reduction.

Because most of the sun that creates this credit — if you design a system large enough — creates credit between, say, April and October, that would mean you would just have to add a couple of extra modules on the roofs there to make up that difference.
[ Page 2329 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Interesting. Well, thank you. Having just built a new house, and with the new building code, you’ve inspired me now. I think I may just put a solar array on that section of roof that’s sitting there waiting for it.

M. Mehta: Sweetspotsolar.com — that’s my company. It’s a western Canadian company, all across Manitoba to B.C.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I will remember that. I think you’ve made a sale. [Laughter.] Thank you very much for coming and presenting today.

Until we meet up again in — where are we going next? — Kelowna, the committee stands adjourned.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is 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)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Susan Sourial

1) Thompson Rivers University Students’ Union	Cole Hickson
	Amber Storvold
	Leif Douglass
	Nathan Lane
2) Allied Golf Association of British Columbia	Trevor Smith
3) Thompson Rivers University	Dr. Paul Dagg
	Dr. Alan Shaver
4) Salmon Arm Savings and Credit Union	Barry Delaney
5) Legal Services Society	Mark Benton
6) Kamloops Brain Injury Association	David Johnson
7) Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association	Dr. Thomas Friedman
8) Brain Injury Alliance	Terry-Lynn Stone
9) First Nations Tax Commission	Michael LeBourdais
10) Kamloops Chamber of Commerce	Joshua Knaak
	Brant Hasanen
11) Western Canada Theatre; Kamloops Art Gallery; Kamloops Symphony Society	Lori Marchand
	Kathy Humphreys
	Margaret Chrumka
12) Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association	Don Tretheway
	Dr. W. Gord Bacon
13) British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association	Kevin Boon
14) PacificSport Interior BC	Carolynn Boomer
	Linda Stride
15) BC SPCA	Craig Daniell
	Jennifer Gore
16) Dr. Michael Mehta, Amie Schellenberg

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES