The committee met at 9 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We are pleased to be here in Cranbrook and would like to begin by recognizing that our meeting today is taking place on the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa and Kinbasket and Shuswap peoples.

On behalf of the committee, I’d like to also acknowledge everyone impacted by wildfires and floods this year and extend our gratitude and appreciation to those who came together to support the response.

We are a committee of the Legislative Assembly, and our membership includes MLAs from all parties in the Legislature. Every fall we visit communities from across the province to meet with British Columbians to hear about their priorities and ideas for the next provincial budget. This consultation is based on the budget consultation paper that was recently presented to us by the Minister of Finance. There are copies of this paper available here today if you’d like to refer to it.

In addition to these in-person meetings, British Columbians can also provide their thoughts in writing or fill out an on-line survey. The deadline for input is 5 p.m., Monday, October 15, 2018. More information is available on the website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance.

As a committee, we carefully consider all the input we receive and use it to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be prioritized in the next provincial budget. Our report will be available on November 15, 2018.

For those of you who are here today, thank you for taking the time to participate. Your stories, perspectives and ideas are critical to our work and inform the recommendations that we make for the next budget.

As far as the meeting format, we have a number of registered speakers today. Each will have five minutes to speak, followed by five minutes of questions from the committee. There’s also a first-come, first-served open-mike period near the end of the meeting, with five minutes allotted to each speaker. If you’d like to speak, please see Mariana over here at the information table.

Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed by Hansard. All audio from our meetings is broadcast live via our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

I’d like to now turn it over to our members so that they can introduce themselves. I’d like to introduce our Deputy Chair, Dan Ashton.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Nice to be back in Cranbrook. My name is Dan Ashton. I represent the area of Penticton to Peachland.

S. Cadieux: I’m Stephanie Cadieux. I’m the MLA for Surrey South.

T. Redies: Hi. Good morning. I’m Tracy Redies. I’m the MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

P. Milobar: Peter Milobar, MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson.

R. Leonard: I’m Ronna-Rae Leonard. I’m the MLA for Courtenay-Comox.

N. Simons: I’m Nicholas Simons, MLA for Powell River–​Sunshine Coast.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you.

Assisting the committee today are Jennifer Arril and Mariana Novis, from the Parliamentary Committees Office, who do an extreme amount of work to help us and to keep us on track and do all sorts of wonderful things — keep us flying and in hotels and fed. It’s awesome.

Also, over at Hansard, we have Steve Weisgerber — hi, Steve — and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard. Thank you so much for everything.

That’s it for the introductions.

First up I’d like to call school district 5, Southeast Kootenay — Chris Johns.

Budget Consultation Presentations

SCHOOL DISTRICT 5,
SOUTHEAST KOOTENAY

C. Johns: Thank you, and good morning to you. Welcome to our wonderful part of the world.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great to be here.

C. Johns: Panel, committee, I want to frame the presentation on behalf of school district 5 with respect to the three topics that I have outlined on the cover page for this presentation.

I want to start with a little bit of representation of the work the standing committee has done in the past. I want to go back to 2013, recommendation 25; 2014, recommendation 23; 2015, recommendation No. 1. It said back then: “Provide adequate capital funding to urban and rural school districts for facility improvements, seismic upgrades and additional schools in rapidly growing communities.” That was also part of the consultations for the budget later that year, because these hearings are always happening in the fall.

[9:05 a.m.]

Then last November I again had the privilege of making a presentation here. I’ve done this for a number of years now. Capital funding was recommendation No. 60 as well. That was “to meet demand in geographical areas of current and anticipated population growth and to address issues such as overcapacity and reliance on portables.” Those are the keys that I want to emphasize: overcapacity and reliance on portables. That was recommendation No. 60 in November 2017, going into 2018.

Before you, the first letter I want to highlight is that particular issue. That is overcapacity and the overuse of portables. That is our wonderful school in Fernie, Isabella Dicken. The letter that we have included in the package was written to the hon. minister, Mr. Fleming. It outlined our concerns around the overcapacity and the continued growth of that school.

It was built as a primary school back in 1964. It has low ceilings. It has undersized instructional classrooms. It doesn’t have a gymnasium; it simply has an activity room. With our revised curriculum and focus on daily PE, that’s problematic for those students and those educators that are in that building.

The enrolment, when we put this letter forward, was 437. The actual enrolment now is 475, with StrongStart registration at 256. And Interior Health is talking about 120 births in 2016.

The line that deals with portables…. Right now we have seven portables. The letter says six. In fact, we have seven. Since this letter was put forward in March, we have an additional portable in place with another one, portable No. 8, arriving in November. It’s very problematic for that community with the overcrowding and, again, the use of portables.

If you compare the number of portables at Isabella Dicken to any elementary school in Surrey, for example…. This is the largest elementary school outside of the Surrey area. Surrey doesn’t have as many portables in an elementary school as we have here in Fernie. It is a very real issue for us.

In the latter part of the letter, starting at Nos. 4 through 7, we’ve taken a look at the idea of expanding and looking at what some of the resources are that we can tap into, some of the partnerships we could develop with some of the community players, to look at our issues around capital expenditures. We’ve talked about Teck Resources. We’ve talked about the Ministry of Children and Families. We’ve talked about Canfor and Galloway Lumber. Also, I think, very importantly, it’s the city of Fernie being involved, going forward, with this capital expenditure.

I would ask that the committee think outside the box in terms of what other kinds of partnerships could be arrived at for these capital expenses.

The second letter, which is also the third point in the presentation….

I presume you’re going to give me a minute’s notice when I’m getting close. Am I getting close?

B. D’Eith (Chair): You have a minute’s notice.

C. Johns: Boy, that goes quick.

The second letter is with respect to our request for $382,250 for emergency repairs to Mount Baker’s music and drama room. Respectfully, we have received a letter saying: “We’ll put it on consideration for next year.” This is an issue around, also, safety.

The information in the letter speaks for itself in terms of all the studies that have been done. We have been working for well over ten years as a school district to get Mount Baker replaced, and we’re having to continue to use our annual facilities grants to band-aid together this facility. It needs to be replaced. It’s over 60 years old.

I’ve got some photographs from the family album here I would like to pass around for you to take a look at. I’ll hang around and collect the album at the end.

The building needs to be replaced. It’s past its best-before date. Right now the big priority for us is the drama and music room and $382,000. When you’re looking at capital expenditures, it needs to be addressed outside of the urban area. Yes, we know there are overcrowding issues in the urban areas, and there are seismic upgrade issues, but you can’t just simply ignore the outside area of the province.

[9:10 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Just before I go to questions, I wanted to recognize that Tom Shypitka is here, the MLA.

Thanks for joining us today. We really appreciate it.

T. Redies: Thank you, Mr. Johns, for your presentation. Just a question. With the partnership you’re proposing with Teck, are you asking for some type of additional surcharge on Teck, or are you looking at the redirection of what they’re already paying into general revenues?

C. Johns: I think both. I think what we’re talking about there is that it has to be considered, has to be looked at in an all-encompassing way, especially for the rural areas of the province, because there’s no money tree. We’ve got to find resources to make things happen, so let’s open it up. Let’s take a big-picture look.

N. Simons: I like these old, historic photos.

C. Johns: You like those, eh?

B. D’Eith (Chair): What are those photos?

C. Johns: Those are photos of the actual construction of Mount Baker. That started in 1949 and was opened in 1951. We’re talking about…. I think that puts the context of how old the school is, when you take a look at those photographs.

N. Simons: The pictures make it look so new.

R. Leonard: You’re the first presentation, so I’m still trying to get my focus here. Now, on this Mount Baker, I thought the last thing I heard you say is that you think it needs replacing.

C. Johns: Replacement, yep.

R. Leonard: But the request here is for repair.

C. Johns: There are two parts; in that letter of June 25, there are two aspects. The first is the repairs to the music and drama room, which is $382,000. On page 2, at the bottom, we have lobbied, for the last ten years as a school district, for the full replacement of Mount Baker. We encompass both things in that letter.

R. Leonard: Can I ask if you’ve had any other builds, any other schools built — elementary, middle school, senior secondary — in the past?

C. Johns: In the past? Yes, oh yes.

R. Leonard: Are there any newer schools?

C. Johns: There have been a number of newer schools built, well over ten years ago.

R. Leonard: And your communities continue to grow?

C. Johns: Well, Fernie especially. The issue is Fernie and Isabella Dicken. That building is overcrowded, and putting more portables — eight portables as of November — in my mind, is not educationally sound. It’s the only elementary school in Fernie.

R. Leonard: Oh, it’s the only elementary school. Okay.

C. Johns: That’s in the letter too, right? I was trying not to have to read all the letter back to you.

R. Leonard: I appreciate that. But while we have you here, we might as well ask you questions.

I know both of my children had to spend a lot of years in portables, and it is definitely substandard space. So I appreciate you bringing this up.

C. Johns: This standing committee has done that in the previous recommendations as well, on the use of portables.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Just to make sure it’s clear about our role, as the Finance Committee, we’re not treasury. We’re not the Minister of Finance. We, as an all-party committee, make recommendations. Then, of course, it’s up to the cabinet — and, in this case, the Minister of Education — to make those decisions.

In terms of managing expectations in terms of what the committee does, we make recommendations. We’ll often make recommendations for things like capital for schools and things like that, but then it has to be balanced within the bigger financial considerations, and that’s the Minister of Finance.

Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it.

Next up we have Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce — Jason Fast.

CRANBROOK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

J. Fast: Good morning. My name is Jason Fast, and I’m presenting on behalf of the Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce. I would like to welcome the committee to the beautiful East Kootenays and thank the committee for this opportunity to comment on the 2019 budget.

I would like to start my comments by stating something that might seem obvious to most people: a thriving business community is a good thing for British Columbia. A thriving business community is a community that is characterized by innovation and productivity, higher employment, higher levels of education and an overall higher standard of living.

[9:15 a.m.]

One of the benefits of having a competitive and thriving business environment in British Columbia is that it also produces the necessary revenues to provide social, health and educational services to British Columbians. Over the past decade, we’ve seen the business community in British Col­u­mbia thrive. There are many factors that have contributed to British Columbia’s success — one of those factors being British Columbia’s competitive tax policy.

However, recent government policy and decisions have eroded British Columbia’s tax competitiveness. The 2018 budget demonstrated the extra burden being placed on British Columbia businesses in coming years, with $2 billion in new charges, as health care funding costs shift to employers, the loss of revenue neutrality of the carbon tax and increases to the corporate tax rate. Furthermore, taxes such as the speculation tax have decreased potential investors’ confidence in British Columbia’s tax policy, creating confusion and fear for non-residents, which ultimately affects British Columbia businesses.

As there are only five minutes available for this presentation, I would like to specifically focus on the employer health tax. The new employer health tax is a regressive tax with no regard to a business’s profitability or ability to pay. It will be an undue burden on many small businesses, municipalities and other not-for-profit organizations. The employer health tax will specifically hit those businesses with higher labour volumes and low margins.

There are several issues that have been identified with the implementation of the tax. Firstly, in 2019, employers who already pay for their employees’ MSP premiums will be double-taxed, as they’ll be responsible for paying for both the MSP premiums as well as the employer health tax. Secondly, the threshold levels are too low and will not eliminate the burden on small businesses. Thirdly, the tax creates disincentive for businesses to hire workers or raise wages, as growing a payroll past the threshold may trigger higher taxation on the whole amount, not just the incremental increase. Finally, the thresholds are not indexed to inflation.

We would like to put forth the following recommendations for consideration. Option A is either eliminate or postpone the employer health tax and reengage the MSP Task Force with the purpose of investigating alternative sources for funding health services, taking into consideration tax competitiveness for B.C. businesses. If the government does not go with this option, we would like to propose that the undue negative impacts of the tax be mitigated with the following actions:

(1) postponing the implementation of the employer health tax to 2020 so it coincides with the removal of MSP premiums;

(2) increasing the base payroll exemption threshold from $500,000 to at least $1 million to allow for truer small businesses and small non-profit organizations to be exempted from the tax;

(3) ensuring that the employer health tax rates are applied marginally so that the amount of the base payroll exemption is exempt regardless of the total size of the overall payroll and so that as each threshold is passed, the higher tax rate is applied only to the incremental amount above the cutoff;

(4) indexing the payroll exemption thresholds to inflation by linking annual increases in thresholds to the consumer price index;

(5) that the employer health tax exclude employer RSP matching and pension contributions, as well as profit-sharing programs and health benefit programs, in the calculation of the total payroll.

In summary, policies introduced in the 2018 budget gave rise for concern as to the provincial government’s commitment to tax competitiveness. The employer health tax is just one example of this. We hope that in the 2019 budget the provincial government will fully commit to making British Columbia a competitive place to invest, in order to secure its economic future, while also supporting tax measures and budgetary decisions that will maintain the province’s strong credit rating.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much.

Questions?

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation.

I have a question on your third point. Now, my understanding is that the exemption of $500,000 is an exemption, no matter what the payroll. I’m not clear what you’re saying, then.

J. Fast: Once you hit that $500,000 level, if you are at $500,001, then you’ll be taxed on that $500,001.

R. Leonard: You’re taxed on the $1 above.

[9:20 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): No, you’re taxed on the whole amount.

J. Fast: You’re taxed on the $500,001. If I’m an employer and I’m sitting at $500,000, I am going to have a disincentive to hire another employee because it’s going to cost me the percentage on that whole amount.

N. Simons: I’m just going to make a comment. I find it interesting that you call it a regressive tax. Well, the MSP couldn’t be a better example of the most regressive tax still existing in Canada. And the employer health tax is actually the lowest in Canada. I’m not trying to just defend….

Your point is well-taken.

J. Fast: Our point is that…. You know, the 2017 MSP Task Force had been engaged to look for alternative sources for funding the health services. That MSP Task Force didn’t get an opportunity to provide its final report. They should be re-engaged.

P. Milobar: Thanks for the presentation. I’m just wondering if, working with your members…. It seems that if a member — specifically, any members that would be currently providing MSP as part of the pay packet for staff…. That would seem to be a deductible expense, as a benefit paid out to an employee against your bottom line. You wouldn’t pay tax on that, whereas the EHT seems like it’s a tax, which means you will have to pay it whether you made a profit or not and you won’t get to deduct that.

Have any of your members who are in that situation calculated what the true cost of the EHT will be to them, versus the published rate? Because it’s really after-tax dollars that we’re talking about.

J. Fast: I haven’t spoken to any members exactly on taking into consideration the after-tax impacts of that. But I would imagine that there would be…. Yeah, I can’t answer that specifically.

P. Milobar: Okay.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?

Well, thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have College of the Rockies Faculty Association — Joan Kaun.

Welcome.

COLLEGE OF THE ROCKIES
FACULTY ASSOCIATION

J. Kaun: Good morning. Welcome to Cranbrook. I’m Joan Kaun. I’m president of the College of the Rockies Faculty Association, and I’m also an instructor in the office administration program. COTR faculty are members of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. I believe you already had a presentation from them earlier this week. Locally our association represents about 200 full-time and part-time in­struc­tors at our seven campuses in the East Kootenay. Programs at the college include trades, health, business, arts and science, English language learning, and adult basic education.

The three key challenges facing the post-secondary system right now are sustainable funding, fair employment and decolonizing the post-secondary system. Public post-secondary education in B.C. has been experiencing serious funding challenges for several years. Government operating grants used to be 70 to 80 percent of the institutions’ overall budgets, and that percent is dropping below 50 percent at many institutions. More and more, we’re relying on international students to help balance the budget. Flat funding is not a method for post-secondary sustainability.

The funding formula is not adapted for specific community needs. Rural community colleges and large urban ones are all funded based on estimates of student FTEs. The funding pressures on rural colleges differ from urban centres. The potential student population we draw from is lower and further spread out geographically.

We must provide services at multiple campuses and recognize that many locations still rely on limited Internet services. Increased recruitment of international students and increased tuition fees for those students help balance the budget but bring other serious challenges.

We welcome international students into our campuses and classrooms, but the government must realize that international students have complicated support needs that cost money.

[9:25 a.m.]

The majority of our international students require additional support services, including tutoring, exam invigilation, education advising, counselling, and basic computer, math and English support. Our faculty need support to understand that these students need resources to ensure quality education. Many faculty find themselves offering longer office hours, struggling to ensure integrity of exams and spending extra time supporting what should be prerequisite skills. Domestic students also need support to assist them with understanding and dealing with the cultural differences. It has been a huge impact at our institution.

Affordability is one of the government’s priorities, and sustainable funding links to affordability for students. Each year tuition increases by 2 percent for domestic students. There are no increase limits in place for international students. Two percent does sound minimal, but when compounded over years and added to text books, supplies and cost of living increases that have outpaced wage growth, financial barriers are growing for students. Post-secondary education should be available for everyone, not just high-income families.

We commend the government for the removal of tuition for adult basic education and English language learning and the expansion of the tuition waivers for former youth in care. Broadening the tuition-free policy to all developmental programs needs to be seriously considered. The last serious review of the system took place in the early 2000s. It’s time to review and implement changes.

Decolonization and reconciliation are among the priorities for each institution identified by the Minister of Ad­vanced Education, Skills and Training. Unfortunately, this huge priority does not come with funding for everyone. College of the Rockies is one of the 14 institutions that does not have an Aboriginal service plan. In fact, we currently only have one faculty member with 25 percent of her workload assigned specifically to indigenizing curriculum. Institutions need ongoing funding, not one-time grants to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods, as well as support the Aboriginal students.

In conclusion, I’d like to endorse the recommendations put forward by the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators to address affordability, accessibility and sustainability of post-secondary education and to consider broad consultation and review of the post-secondary funding.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Wow. I think I made you speed up. Very good. Joan, could I just get you to…. It’s early for us. We had 40 meetings yesterday. If you could just briefly summarize the recommendations…. I heard what you were saying in regards to the international students and in terms of reconciliation. If you could just hit the top three key recommendations, that would be very helpful for the committee.

J. Kaun: Okay. Make developmental programs tuition-free. Implement funding for truth and reconciliation recommendations — ongoing funding. And review the funding formula for post-secondary education in the province.

R. Leonard: Can you describe the developmental programs that you’re referring to? Is it for the international students?

J. Kaun: No. Adult special needs training.

R. Leonard: Oh, special needs. Okay.

J. Kaun: So that’s as well as adult basic education and English language learning.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So the idea is anything that’s leading up to entry to post-secondary and that isn’t part of K-to-12. Is that the idea?

J. Kaun: A little broader. Yeah.

T. Redies: Thanks, Joan, for your presentation.

Of course, we’ve heard this theme about the international students, etc., for a number of different localities. In your college, are the international students crowding out domestic students in any way, from your perspective?

J. Kaun: Limited. Somewhat, but it’s not huge. But there are impacts.

T. Redies: So how? Are there domestic students that are not able to go to college because an international student is taking that seat?

J. Kaun: There are some cases. Not a huge number, but there are some.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I understand that student residence is an issue because commuting is sometimes very complicated.

J. Kaun: It’s a huge issue.

N. Simons: I know that we’ve made some changes in terms of what post-secondary institutions can do in terms of borrowing money for that. Have steps been taken? I know that the trades training bill is running, and there are new EC e-seats, but when it comes to getting students to come and to stay, what’s the situation?

J. Kaun: Our vice-president of finance is sitting in the back row. The college has put forward a business case to the ministry about a new residence.

[9:30 a.m.]

We currently have a 96-bed residence with huge waiting lists, more than double our capacity. The vacancy rate in Cranbrook is zero.

B. D’Eith (Chair): One thing that we’ve heard a couple of times, too, is how there are different needs for residents as well, depending on whether you have a family involved or a young student who can just live on campus or in a dorm-type environment versus other students. Is that plan taking into account…? With colleges, you’ll often have different age groups coming in with different challenges and things, in terms of housing.

J. Kaun: I believe it’s quite diversified, yeah.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, great. Wonderful.

Any other questions?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just really quick. Thank you for the presentation.

The difference in price for a student of British Columbia coming to your college and a foreign student or out-of-province student — what is the spread? Do you know? Just off the top of your head.

J. Kaun: I actually just looked that up this morning. A current domestic student, I believe, pays about $3,400 per semester for a full-time load, and an international student would be about $5,000.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): That’s very reasonable compared to other institutions in the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): If they’re foreign students, yeah, definitely.

J. Kaun: It goes up if they take more courses, and different programs are at different rates as well.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): That’s an average, is it — approximate?

J. Kaun: I’m going to assume so.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Joan. We really appreciate the presentation. Wonderful.

Next up we’re going to a teleconference.

John Millar, are you on the phone?

J. Millar: I am.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Fantastic. Welcome. You are presenting to the Select Standing Committee on Finance. What we’re trying to do is stay to about a five-minute initial presentation with five minutes of questions, if that’s all right. If you’d like to go ahead, we’d love to hear what you have to say.

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

J. Millar: Okay. Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you this morning.

The B.C. government is to be congratulated and ap­plauded for its commitment to developing a poverty reduction strategy for the province, with legislated and measurable goals and timelines. Our message from the Public Health Association of B.C. is based on the principles of human rights, social justice, improved health and well-being, the preservation and enhancement of democracy, shared prosperity and fiscal responsibility.

Our recommendation is that this government make a further commitment to a goal of reducing the large and increasing gap in income and wealth between the rich and the poor in the province. This inequality in B.C. and in many other jurisdictions where wealth becomes concentrated — it’s in the upper 1 percent, or 0.1 percent — is causing four major problems.

First, overall worse health and well-being of the citizens, including mental distress, despair, hopelessness, depression, suicide and addictions — in this province particularly, the opioid overdose epidemic — as well as chronic physical illness leading to an increased need for health care services and therefore rising government cost pressures.

Secondly, more crime leading to an increased need for police and courts and corrections services and yet further government cost pressures.

Thirdly, the erosion of democracy, as those with the great­est wealth often have more access and influence on policy-makers, so protecting and increasing both individual and corporate income profits and wealth.

Fourth, a real potential for political unrest and the rise of populism.

[9:35 a.m.]

Reducing inequality must include raising revenue from the wealthiest through fairer taxation — for example, more progressive income taxes and closing tax loopholes and exemptions for the already rich — as well as revenues from royalties on natural resources and additional taxes on businesses and corporations supplying products that negatively impact health or the environment, such as tobacco, cannabis, alcohol, sugar, carbon and other pollutants.

These revenues must then be used for poverty reduction that will raise the bottom part of our society, which, in the longer term, will pay for themselves through reduced demand for increased government services in health care, police, courts and justice.

The major poverty reduction strategies that we recommended…. These are the major ones. There are lots more that could be talked about, but these are the four major things that we’re recommending. First, raise the rates. Both welfare and disability rates must be increased. We cannot allow people in the deepest poverty in this province to continue to live deprived, marginalized lives and keep them in a poverty trap.

The federal government has announced legislation to establish an official national poverty line based on the market basket measure. Both welfare and disability rates must be raised stepwise to the market basket measure, equitably, so that the disabled continue to get an increased rate in consideration of their higher costs of living.

Secondly, raise the minimum wage, again stepwise, to the market basket measure so that those that are working in all sectors — government, private sector, etc. — are brought up, again, to the market basket measure, supporting them in living with dignity and security and avoiding a growing precariat population.

Thirdly, address the terrible problem of homelessness and the further problem of housing affordability. With the homelessness problem, we must apply the housing-first principle, which means providing more social housing for the homeless, many of whom have chronic mental and physical health challenges, with wraparound services which include mental health and addiction services, health care, social supports, income supports, skills training and education and employment preparation.

For low-income families generally, we need to provide more subsidized housing units. For those in social housing of all kinds, rental controls must be brought in and attached to the rental unit, not to the renter. As you know, the slum landlords scooped up most of the past welfare increases that occurred a year or so ago.

Fourthly, continue to pursue increased assistance for the particularly challenged and marginalized groups, such as the Indigenous and refugee populations.

These policies will improve health, reduce crime, protect democracy and, through the coordinated efforts of all levels of government — federal, provincial, municipal and local — they will pay for themselves over time by reducing demands, as I’ve described, from government services. B.C. will become the healthiest province in Canada, leading in social justice, human rights, shared prosperity, fiscal responsibility and democracy.

Thank you very much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, John. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. In your recommendations, you said “raise the minimum wage.” The minimum wage is being raised to $15 an hour. Is that something…? Are you saying great, or are you saying it should be more?

J. Millar: We’re saying it’s great, but it should be more. That’s nowhere near the market basket measure. As I said, for working people to live with both dignity and security, they need to be at a higher level. The market basket measure varies by community — that’s the beauty of it — so it’s going to be higher in cities and lower in more rural areas. It’s a selection of products that people need to purchase to live a reasonable life. So yes, we probably, over time, have to get higher than the $15 level.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I just wanted to clarify, as well, on the homeless side. Obviously, the Minister of Housing has been spending a great deal of time dealing with building modular housing with the housing-first and wraparound services that you talked about. Was there something more than that that you were alluding to? Are you satisfied with what’s happening now? Maybe you could elaborate on that.

J. Millar: We’re satisfied in the sense that we’re glad to see it happening, but we’re going to need a lot more. We’re a long way from solving homelessness. Keep up the good work, I would say, and do more.

N. Simons: Thank you very much. It’s Nicholas Simons. I just wondered. One of the questions we get asked is…. Our taxation system and our resource revenues only go so far. You’re talking about some redirections that are significant. How do you think we need to approach our entire system — the taxation system, I guess? It currently wouldn’t support all of the things that you have put forward. Could you address that, maybe?

[9:40 a.m.]

J. Millar: No, it won’t support all of them, but I think there are a couple of important principles here. First of all, I think the whole taxation system does need to be reviewed. We could have more progressive income tax, for example. I mean, we used to have much higher marginal rates than we do have now, and other jurisdictions certainly have higher marginal rates for the very wealthy. Of course, they’re a smaller number, so it doesn’t raise all that much revenue. But it’s still an important thing to do.

Of course, at the lower end of the scale — something we haven’t included specifically here…. The New York Times had an editorial this morning saying, in the States, the earned-income tax benefit could be raised. That’s something we could be doing here as well.

Then of course, in the corporate world, as I alluded to earlier, there are a lot of things that the corporate world could contribute more on, including royalties from revenue from resources.

As I mentioned, we’ve got a cannabis industry that’s springing up fast here. That could be another major source of revenue. We could do more on taxing alcohol and tobacco and other products like that.

There are many things we could do through taxation and other sources of revenue. But the other principle here is that if we bring these things in and we’ve genuinely reduced both inequities and poverty together, many economists have said that that will pay for itself over time because it will reduce those demands for government services.

Did you want to kick in, Shannon?

S. Turner: Sure, thanks.

Hi. It’s Shannon Turner. I’m the executive director of the Public Health Association. I really appreciate your willingness to hear us this morning. We are really interested in adjustments to infrastructure and systemic change. We understand that changing systems will have significant population-level impacts and, I think, raise the level of living for all British Columbians.

We’re particularly interested in the significant new revenue we anticipate arising from cannabis legislation. We know there are implementation costs, and we know there are public health impacts. Connected to that, we would really like to see investment in public health and public health infrastructure so that the taxation and the new revenue…. I’ve seen it happen with gaming.

I think it’s very possible for us to realize significant social benefits from legalization, as opposed to just social harm. Knowing that that’s going to be a significant fund available for reinvestment in programs and services that actually take care of the vulnerable in our society, that establish more equality within our communities and capture people before they become, as John says, in grave jeopardy and consuming significant resources.

I really appreciate an opportunity to speak with you about that today. We know that the Finance and Government Services Committee will have a significant influence on how those revenues are allocated. We’d like to encourage you to consider examination of underfunded aspects of the health service delivery system — in particular, public health, primary care and community care.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, we’re out of time now. Thank you very much. Could I just get your name for the record?

S. Turner: It’s Shannon Turner, executive director, Public Health Association of B.C. John is our lead spokesperson on the minister’s poverty reduction committee.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Shannon. We really appreciate it. Thank you for your presentation.

J. Millar: Thank you for hearing us this morning.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Bye now.

Next up we have Rocky Mountain Trench ecosystem restoration program — Ian Adams.

Hi, Ian. We’re aiming for five minutes.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN TRENCH
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROGRAM

I. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for coming to Cranbrook. Kiʔsuʔk wiǂnam. That’s Ktunaxa for good morning. Welcome to Ktunaxa territory here in the East Kootenays — the Rocky Mountain Trench, which we’re currently situated in, with the Rocky Mountains to our east. The Purcell Mountains are part of the Columbia Mountains. To the west is historically an open forest ecosystem. It’s maintained by low-intensity, frequent wildfires.

[9:45 a.m.]

Research has shown ten to 15 years fire interval return on the lands here historically. That worked until about when European settlement came in and the Ktunaxa people, who lit most of those fires and maintained those open-forest ecosystems, were moved onto reservations, and that fire ended.

We had some catastrophic fires in the early part of the 1900s, and after World War II, we became very good at suppressing fires. Since then the forests in the area have grown in. We’ve lost grasslands. We’ve lost forage for ungulates, including both wild animals and cattle, and the fuel buildup since then has been significant. The pictures on the handout here — hopefully, you have them — show the difference, the top ones in particular, in the same spot, between 1883 and 2013.

The amount of fuel that’s up there is significant. The last two years we’ve seen some of the repercussions of that. The two highest years on record of wildfire across British Columbia have been hugely devastating. They’ve been costly. I’m here today to talk about a program that we’re working on that helps overcome some of that.

The fire and flood report by George Abbott and Chief Maureen Chapman looked into 2017 in particular. It summarized 108 recommendations into four main categories: partnerships and participation, tools and knowledge, communication and awareness and investment. The Rocky Mountain Trench ecosystem restoration program, which has been in place for 20 years, directly hits on all of those.

We have very active partners with the plan. It’s a partnership of numerous agencies: government, stakeholders, industry, interest groups, First Nations. All support, broadly, our activities.

The current five-year plan addresses almost 100,000 hectares to be treated across the region. These projects are identified by project partners. They’re brought forth by them, not necessarily by us. They look at fuel reductions, wildlife habitat enhancement, invasive plant controls and agricultural benefits.

We know what needs to be done. Ongoing monitoring and adaptive management feeds into our process. We’ve been doing this for 20 years. We’re very good at it. We know that ecosystem restoration can help bring down catastrophic wildfires and helps fight them. We have evidence of that in the past several years of wildfires that have broken out in the trench. They have been controlled, in part, by our restoration activities.

We communicate our message to a wide range of audiences — the public — on websites, social media, school tours and professional tours that come through the area. We’re very proud of what has gone on, and we’re happy to get that message out.

Investment is of course why we’re here today talking about financial aspects. We have a number of partners and programs that are supporting this work. A lot of them come from the government of British Columbia — land-based investment programs; the strategic wildfire prevention initiative through the UBCM; Forest Enhancement Society, which is a non-governmental organization set up by the government. Other non-governmental organizations support us, including Habitat Conservation Fund, fish and wildlife compensation program and private land conservancies.

There’s a lot of money that is going into this. It’s fairly expensive work, but we’ve been very successful at raising that. We’ve had well over $15 million in the last 20 years that has gone into this.

Our quest is that this continues. The benefits of ecosystem restoration are clear. It helps bring down wildfires, it is purely a provincial aspect, and it is the best means that we have for fighting wildfires in a preventative way.

The other aspect that I’d like to put forward is full-time, FTE, positions within the Rocky Mountain forest district or within the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Cuts to that over the past 20, 30 years of successive governments has been quite decimating. The number of people that are available within the public sector to help us out is diminished.

Having a dedicated professional for this, either within the ministry or through the provincial ER program, would be massively beneficial to us and would help put forward our efforts at ecosystem restoration and help avoid a lot of the fires that we’ve seen in the past two years.

[9:50 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Ian. Can I just clarify? In terms of funding, you said that there are a lot of partners — UBCM, non-profits and the province. Is there a specific ask? I mean, you said there’s $15 million over the last 15 years. Is that coming from various sources?

I. Adams: Yes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Is there a specific provincial component that…?

I. Adams: There is a provincial ecosystem recovery program. It’s headed by Allen Neal, who actually works out of Invermere here in the East Kootenays. I don’t know offhand what his annual budget is. It’s significant. I think he works here, in the Cariboo, other parts of the Peace, other parts of the province.

There is, certainly, program funding that is existing. I don’t have those figures, unfortunately, off the top of my head. But it is there. We get other funding mostly through non-governmental organizations that are active in their region.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It would be quite helpful for us if you wouldn’t mind following up, just for us to know, sort of…. If we are putting in a request or a recommendation, it’s nice to know what the provincial component of that is. It would be helpful, if you wouldn’t mind, following up with that.

I. Adams: Absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): You’re also saying that you need one FTE for the region in terms of…?

I. Adams: In the past, there was an ecosystem restoration team leader that worked under the then Ministry of Forests, whose job was running the program. He retired in 2015 and has not been replaced. Since then, we’ve had successive rotating staffing going through that who have had ER as part of either their second, third or fourth priority, and it falls through the holes.

Having a funded position available, either through the region or through the provincial program, would be very helpful.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Have you talked to the parliamentary secretary, Jennifer Rice, about this at all, seeing as she is dealing a lot with wildfires? I’m just curious.

I. Adams: No, we haven’t. Not that I have. I would suspect that Al Neal has.

B. D’Eith (Chair): You might want to encourage that, just in terms of the connection. Sorry, I don’t mean to dominate. I’m just trying to clarify, if that’s all right, for the committee.

Questions?

T. Redies: Thanks very much for your presentation. Really interesting, given that we’ve probably spent almost $1 billion on fighting fires over the last two years. I see that you’re sort of proposing about $8 million over six years to save 250,000 hectares. It seems like a pretty good return on investment.

I’m just curious. Are there other groups like yourselves around the province that you can…?

I. Adams: Yes, there is a group I know in the Cariboo that is looking at the same sort of thing. Ecosystem restoration and fuel reduction are a large part of that. There’s that group. I believe there are some in the Peace as well. There might be other ones around as well. I think it’s fair to say that we’re the first, for whatever that’s worth, and have been used as a model elsewhere.

T. Redies: It seems to me that there would be an opportunity, too, to recommend some type of cooperation, coordination, of these various groups around the province for best practices, because again, this is a problem that’s not going to go away.

I. Adams: Absolutely. There are differences in the forests — types of things that we’re doing. We don’t have the beetle-kill fuels that are generated, that have driven a lot of the Cariboo fires. But certainly, there is that.

Forestry ecology is a fairly small group. We get in discussion with each other. We do have best management practices for ER that were developed here in the East Kootenays. I’m not sure how much that is applicable elsewhere because of our specific terrain considerations.

T. Redies: Are you having conversations with the ministry? Have you had any?

I. Adams: Yes. The ministry is a very active partner. They have been leaders of the ER program and a very active partner.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Just about out of…. Dan, did you have a question?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just really quick.

B. D’Eith (Chair): A quick one. That’s fine.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your good work. Really important. I note with interest, as I drive through their lands on a continual basis, that the Colville bands in Washington state have really expanded their opportunities in making the forests a lot better for individuals — i.e., for companies and for nature.

I would really encourage…. It has to be, as Tracy said, the best management practices on this. Unfortunately, sometimes these things, like with the interface, became work projects instead of saving what they should have been doing. So I really hope that your organization steps ahead. It’s a very good ask, so thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Ian. We really appreciate the time. Wonderful.

Perfect timing. Let’s take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 9:54 a.m. to 10:06 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are back with the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Next up we have B.C. Construction Association, via teleconference — Chris Atchison.

Hello, Chris. What we’re doing is…. If you could try and keep your initial comments to five minutes, and then we will have five minutes of questions — okay? You can go right ahead.

B.C. CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION

C. Atchison: I’m pleased to make this submission on behalf of the B.C. Construction Association, or BCCA. But first, allow me to take a moment to reacquaint you with our organization. The BCCA represents approximately 1,500 construction employers who comprise our integrated membership across the province, specializing in industrial, commercial and institutional projects.

Through the many programs and services we manage for industry, we serve more than 10,000 construction companies. The BCCA works on behalf of the entire industry to facilitate wide access to project opportunities and to support apprenticeship, training and the advancement of equity-seeking groups into construction.

BCCA is uniquely positioned as the only construction association in our province that represents both union and open-shop employers. We are proudly non-partisan. We greatly value the work we’ve done together with every B.C. government to build and maintain B.C.’s infrastructure and built environment.

I would like to provide some perspective for our budget recommendations through a few key statistics to illustrate the impact that a healthy construction sector has on our province. B.C.’s construction sector now employs more than 250,000 workers. There are about 25,000 employers. The majority of construction employers in B.C. are small business, with less than ten employees. Construction is the number one employer in the B.C. goods sector. We contribute 8.6 percent of the provincial GDP, and less than 20 percent of our industry is unionized.

For many years there have been two key challenges to the productivity and resilience of our sector. One is access to a skilled workforce, and two is a fair, open and transparent public procurement process. These challenges remain and are the focus of our advocacy work, but there is also a high volume of related issues that have made unprecedented assault on the productivity of our sector. These include small business taxes, employer health taxes, steel and aluminum tariffs, community benefits agreements, lack of prompt payment legislation, NAFTA negotiations, Trans Mountain pipeline uncertainty and environmental assessment overhauls of Bill C-69.

The positive role the government can play in supporting industry to successfully meet these challenges cannot be underestimated; nor can the impact these issues are already having on the B.C. economy.

Mindful of the time constraints today, I will focus on three key topics and recommendations which can directly impact the workforce and procurement challenges our industry continues to face. These are community benefit agreements, prompt payment and CAMF as policy.

[10:10 a.m.]

Community benefit agreements. Community benefit agree­ments are social requirements attached to public projects at the tendering stage. They seek to ensure local jobs, provide access to equity-seeking groups, training and apprenticeship, and benefits that are defined by the community in which a project is occurring.

B.C.’s construction industry supports apprenticeship training, local hires, the advancement of equity-seeking groups and the completion of public sector construction projects on time and in budget. We do this because it’s good business.

Union and open-shop employers equally support training and apprenticeship and provide competitive wages and benefits. The marketplace demands it. We understand that corporate social responsibility is an emerging cultural imperative, and as an industry, we seek to meet these broader market expectations in ways that align with the complex business and training processes that define our industry.

We want to work with governments to ensure that CBAs don’t unintentionally hinder public infrastructure tendering or delivery, driving up the cost to taxpayers.

The made-in-B.C. CBA announced in July 2018 is unique in that it requires all workers on a public sector project to be members of a designated union. This is, by definition, a project labour agreement rather than a community benefit agreement.

We are concerned that government has overestimated the willingness of the sector to bid on public sector projects that have a CBA attachment. There is growing feedback from all employers that the CBA presents an onerous condition that will cause contractors, both open-shop and union, to consider CBA projects as high risk and either avoid them entirely or submit bids at a premium that will drive up the project price to taxpayers.

The employers recognize that CBA puts their most valuable assets at risk — their own skilled workforce. The unintended consequences of B.C.’s CBA is that it will serve to further undermine the B.C. government as an owner of choice and therefore risks a public owner’s ability to attract a viable number of compliant bids.

This will result in the increased likelihood of cost overruns and project delays. Therefore, BCCA recommends that the Ministry of Finance ensure that all infrastructure ministries remove the B.C. building trades union requirement from the community benefits agreement and instead introduce a CBA policy based on the accepted definition, in which the social benefits are not defined by labour affiliation.

We further recommend that the Minister of Finance engage industry experts to ensure that the outcomes of the CBA are as intended and to develop a sound basis for implementing the desired outcomes without jeopardizing the procurement process or the interest and the ability of industry members to compete for the work.

The second item is prompt payment.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Chris, just a heads-up that we’re at six minutes now. So if you wouldn’t mind wrapping up, that would be wonderful.

C. Atchison: Prompt payment. Just prior to the CBA announcement, all sectors and representatives of B.C.’s construction industry were united in agreeing on the following statement regarding prompt payment: “Therefore, BCCA recommends that the Ministry of Finance fund and manage a comprehensive review of the Ontario report and subsequent legislation for the purpose of making informed recommendations to B.C.’s provincial government and construction sector at large.”

We would encourage the provincial government to contract the team of Reynolds and Vogel, who have been at the centre of the Ontario process, so that we can come up with a B.C.-made report on prompt payment legislation.

We hope that our government will recognize the urgency of resolving this long-standing issue and proceed with enabling the legislation during the spring 2019 legislative session.

Finally, on the capital asset management framework, BCCA recommends that the government adopt the capital asset management framework as public procurement policy, not just as a suggested guideline. This step would require governments at all levels to comply with good tendering practices that ensure fair, open and transparent processes and that they’re embedded in operations.

There is precedent set for this. The federal government and the provincial governments in Canada’s western provinces have already successfully implemented similar CAMF policies, and the value is demonstrated in their budgets and project outcomes. BCCA has further detailed recommendations related to CAMF, which we’ll include in our paper submission.

I wish to thank you and the committee for your time and consideration.

[10:15 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Chris.

We’re at about eight minutes. We only have time for a couple of short questions. Any questions from the…?

T. Redies: Chris, can you elaborate a little bit more on the prompt payment issue? It’s not something that I’m familiar with.

C. Atchison: Yes. Prompt payment. BCCA had put forward a letter to the Attorney General in July that coincided at the same time, ironically, as the community benefits agreement was announced.

Essentially, one of the concerns in the construction in­dus­try is that when payments are released to a general contractor, or owners hold onto payments, it’s the people who produce the work, at the end of the construction food chain, who are often the ones not getting paid. Sometimes there are paid-when-paid clauses, and sometimes there is no payment at all issued.

It’s those end-of-line contractors, subcontractors, sub-trades, who are often taking second mortgages, extending lines of credit in order to pay their staff and in order to keep their businesses afloat. So we’ve aligned all representatives across this province, 26 or 28 representatives of different associations, to agree that prompt payment is good for a healthy economy. It’s good for a vibrant construction industry. Most importantly, it is a clear demonstration of a community benefit that will have positive impact on small businesses and British Columbians throughout this province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re at ten minutes now, so thank you very much for your presentation, Chris. We appreciate it.

C. Atchison: I’ll be submitting the paper version as well. There is a bit more detail in there.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks very much.

Next up we have East Kootenay Invasive Species Council — B.J. Randall Harris.

EAST KOOTENAY
INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL

B. Harris: Thank you for this opportunity to sit down and talk to you as part of your deliberations. I represent the East Kootenay Invasive Species Council. What we are is a non-government organization that acts as the delivery agent for education about invasive species, as well as the operations in reducing the prevalence on the land space. We actually do the spraying out there on the land base. There are 13 of us across the province, and we’re linked together through the Invasive Species Council of B.C.

Actually, if you look at some of the handouts we have here, the importance of invasive species is that they’re the leading cause of extinction of species and ecosystems around the world. If you actually catch the invasive species early…. You have some numbers here on the written submission I’ve got that suggest that you get a 9-to-1 benefit if you attack the species when they’re small — not very many of them. It saves you…. It’s a ninefold increase, which you’ll save later trying to treat it. The ounce of prevention is worth about a ton of cure in this case.

What we’re actually wanting to come here to talk about…. We have about five messages. One of them, of course…. I’m sure you haven’t heard this yet, but we’d like an increase in funding. I’m sure no one else has brought that up. We’re somewhere around $9 million to $12 million, depending on the year. We’d like about $15 million just to meet…. This is provincewide, between all of our organizations.

Locally, we actually raise about $900,000 for treating invasive species, just in this one district, but only half of that comes from government. We actually go out to 20 other agencies, and we do a lot of writing. We’ll have 20 funding sources every year that we hit up for funding. That takes a lot of our operational dollars to raise the extra funding that we need.

The other issue about us is the timeliness of the funding. Quite often the way the budget process goes, we don’t receive a cheque in our account until July, and every year we’re down to the last few thousand dollars in our account. We have to get lines of credit. We’re facing payroll, and we’re facing a lot of contractors.

Our spraying is in June, July and August, and this year we didn’t get our funding until August. This happens every year. So what we’d ask: could we get this as a line item? Give us the money in the beginning, so we can actually start attacking the plants while they’re still small and we can easily kill them. We even have some helpful suggestions on maybe a levy on various resource tenures, of various resource stumpages.

The other thing that we’re asking is that government provide some leadership in invasive species. We’re a non-government organization. We can’t compel people to attend a planning operation. It’s easier if government does that.

[10:20 a.m.]

We are asking them to have the expertise because quite often we can’t afford to send 13 people to a meeting. Why not send one, and they tell us who to do it? That’s more easily done through government. This is basically a stewardship role over the 94 percent of British Columbia that actually belongs to the Crown.

We’d also like to streamline regulations, and we need an invasive species act. Right now we’re acting under the Weed Act, which is 40 years old. What we’re finding is it’s not just weeds anymore, but it’s also plants…. Fire ants down on the coast, wall lizards in Victoria and bullfrogs coming up from America that are actually eating leopard frogs, which are an endangered species over in Creston.

Under that legislation, we’d also like…. The easiest thing to do is to prevent a problem from happening. We’d like to close off pathways of how infections get in there. The example I’d use is horticulture. It’s quite easy to buy yellow flag iris. But yellow flag iris is just a terrible aquatic invasive species. If you go by Creston, you’ll find out that it’s everywhere throughout the Creston wildlife management area. It’s crowding out the cattails and the bulrushes that provide wildlife habitat. It’s actually sold commercially in horticultural stores. So we just say: “Could you just not sell that anymore?” It’d be so much easier than trying to chase after and trying to kill those plants.

Those are my points.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

B. Harris: Hopefully, there are no questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you for coming in. You folks do a great job, and I know how hard many of you work, not only in this area but especially the Okanagan.

You mentioned fire ants. Well, they’re in Naramata already. So that’s an issue.

B. Harris: I was going to go on about the bullfrogs, but I don’t think anyone knows about them.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I do, yeah.

N. Simons: I’m just wondering. When you get your money late, who is that coming from directly?

B. Harris: Well, the two ministries that we work with are the ministry for highways and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Just from those two.

N. Simons: Is there a point person in government that deals with the various chapters or organizations that…?

B. Harris: For FLNRO, it would be through range branch, and that’s Val Miller; and Crystal Chadburn, I believe, from the ministry for highways.

N. Simons: Okay, thanks. That helps.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Anybody else?

Well, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate the work you do, very important work.

Next up we have Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce, via teleconference — Susan Clovechok.

COLUMBIA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

S. Clovechok: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am speaking to you as the executive director of the Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce, and on behalf of our members and board of directors, I thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the opportunity to make this presentation today.

The Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce is an organization within the business community promoting and supporting responsible commerce through effective advocacy, communication networking and education on behalf of its membership.

Our chamber represents over 275 member businesses from the 11 communities that we serve. In addition to typical chamber activities, we assist in facilitating conversations and providing meeting spaces for individuals, member businesses and not-for-profit organizations.

We’re very proud to be the first point of contact for business owners wishing to sell their business and investors seeking to invest in local business in our rural communities.

We support our communities by supporting our business members to succeed. The social fabric of our communities strengthens when our businesses thrive, which is why I’m presenting to you today. My presentation will address issues as they relate to and affect the economic well-being of our region here in the Columbia Valley.

Firstly, we ask the government to continue the rural divi­dend program, a program developed to promote and build capacity in rural communities for continued economic diver­sity, resilience and growth. Our communities have received over $1.6 million is funding from the rural dividend fund during the first four intakes, funding of projects that are visible and impactful in our communities, including a recreation centre, world-class trails, and our community economic development officer and commission.

All the projects funded have enabled the collaboration of local government, our First Nations communities and not-for-profits in our communities, resulting in increased capacity, resilience and growth in ways that are reflective of the citizens here in the valley. The rural dividend is a successful program, and we urge the government to continue the program.

[10:25 a.m.]

Public transportation is another issue. In our presentation to this committee last year, I mentioned that Greyhound is eliminating routes in rural communities, impacting our ability to retain citizens who are unable to drive themselves but require access to larger centres — in our case, out of province — for medical and social purposes. As you know, Greyhound has completely eliminated their routes, as we anticipated they would do, in British Columbia, with the exception of one.

Last year I told you about a program that our organization was providing seed funding for. Unfortunately, after a year of service and the slowness in which you’ve billed ridership, we had insufficient funding to continue the service for another year. Our community is now only serviced by B.C. Transit from Monday to Friday within the communities and, as of November, no options for travel outside of the community.

There are two issues that we ask the government to consider on this issue. The speed in which the Passenger Transportation Board responds to applications and requests. A member of our chamber, an existing taxi licence holder in another community just north of Columbia Valley, purchased our local taxi service. It took her approximately six months to be approved to operate the taxi service here in the Columbia Valley, timing that could have had the existing owner give up and just shut the business down completely.

Six months, in my opinion, is unacceptable when our taxi service is so limited already. We’re talking about environmental and public safety issues related to public transit. The PTB needs to be far more responsive and quicker in responding to the needs of rural communities.

Our local governments would consider expanding our B.C. Transit service as well if the regulations were not so cost-prohibitive. For example, to provide service that would allow citizens who live north of Invermere to take the bus to work and/or access community service, the RDEK would have to have a 24-passenger vehicle on standby, which would be in addition to the 24-passenger vehicle they need to increase the service. A region like ours with 9,500 full-time residents can’t afford the redundancy of a vehicle on standby, but this is a regulation of B.C. Transit.

We suggest that the government consider providing supplemental funding to local government to create their own transit service in a way that serves their communities without the regulations and the red tape imposed upon us by B.C. Transit so that rural community services can better reflect the needs of those unique and specific communities. An improved transit service in our valley would enable access to affordable housing, reduce carbon emissions, enable youth engagement and provide safe, reliable transportation for seniors who wish to age in place.

Lastly, our organization has worked with the chair of the Community Impact Investment Coalition, Eden Yesh, on two initiatives that I spoke to at last year’s presentation to this committee: mobilizing rural investment capital and improving capital-raising exemptions for B.C. cooperatives. Over the past year, the Community Impact Investment Coalition has been working with the Ministries of Finance, Jobs and Rural Development to create enabling policies and programs that will keep money recirculating in B.C. and benefiting small businesses by providing them with new forms of access to capital.

The popularity and interest of investment co-ops from communities around the province is increasing as a preferred model for British Columbians to invest in their communities, but the regulations restrict the capacity and the accessibility to those investment dollars. Other provinces are moving fast to adopt policies that will enable people to invest directly in their communities, with Alberta being the most recent province to incorporate changes. The B.C. Economic Development Association has identified that access to capital is a significant barrier to business growth and succession.

I ask that this committee enable ways for the Securities Commission and the ministries responsible to accelerate the work currently underway to improve access to capital and increase local investment opportunities to keep our province competitive.

I know, Dr. Weaver, that you had the opportunity to speak directly on this issue to Rupert — I can’t recall his last name — about this specific initiative, and I would ask that that be pursued.

In conclusion, the Columbia Valley Chamber of Commerce and rural areas of similar profile in the province need to be considered as the government creates the 2019 budget. It is imperative that we are able to attract sustainable businesses and promote business growth in ways that reflect our communities so that our economy is diverse, resilient and strong.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. We have time for a few questions.

[10:30 a.m.]

In regards to the Greyhound situation, certainly I think we all recognize that is a big issue. I know the minister, Claire Trevena, has been working very hard on this and also dealing…. It’s not just B.C.; it’s also involving western Canada. I appreciate your thoughts and ideas in regards to other solutions, and that’s on the record now. So thank you for that.

I did notice that there’s a continued intake for the rural dividend program, so what you’re suggesting is that we just continue to fund that. Is that correct?

S. Clovechok: Yeah, we haven’t heard…. The fifth intake has taken place, and we haven’t had the response on the fifth intake yet. There have been rumours started by who knows who that the fifth intake may, in fact, be the last intake. I sincerely hope that’s not true.

T. Redies: Hi, Susan. Nice to hear from you.

I just wanted to ask for a little bit more clarification. I think what you were talking about was sort of some type of venture capital funding for out in the Columbia River region. Could you just speak to that a little bit more in terms of adding some colour?

S. Clovechok: Yeah. I think Eden Yesh and probably Dr. Weaver are there. I know he’s had some conversations regarding….

T. Redies: Dr. Weaver is actually not on the committee anymore.

S. Clovechok: Oh, he isn’t? Okay. Sorry, my mistake.

T. Redies: No worries.

S. Clovechok: There are two policies on the B.C. chamber books, and we’ve worked with the Community Impact Investment Coalition. The challenge is that small business has a very difficult time getting access to capital. Banking institutions, even local credit unions, struggle with that relationship lend, if you will. Also, bigger banks want to see bigger loans. That’s just the way that it is.

Our own organization was looking for $70,000 as a line of credit, and we were turned down because it wasn’t enough money. We weren’t asking for enough.

Often small businesses don’t need a lot of money. They just need some seed money for a particular project or a growth opportunity, and where the shift has been taking place is that investment co-ops are forming. However, under the current regulations, the lifetime investment in a co-op — the maximum investment — is $5,000. That’s the cap for a lifetime to invest in a co-op. In addition, the membership is capped at 150 people. You don’t have to be really good at math to figure out that that’s not going to get you very far. It’s $5,000 times 150.

What we’re asking the government to do, through the Securities Commission, is increase the cap to $5,000 per investor per year or even a higher maximum. Remove the 12-month membership requirement for purchasing investment shares — you have to be a member for more than 12 months before you can purchase investment shares — and significantly increase the number of investors allowed in a community investment co-op.

Other jurisdictions have already done this, and they’re doing well in supporting their small businesses. Frankly, it’s not just rural small businesses that would benefit from these changes; it’s urban centres as well.

And establish a total investment portfolio level where B.C. co-ops would be required to use the offering memorandum exemption under the B.C. Securities Act. I can provide the committee with more detail on that if you like.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes, please.

T. Redies: That’s great, Susan — a very interesting idea. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We very much appreciate you coming up with ideas to make things better. We really appreciate that — very interesting thoughts. So yeah, please give us as much detail as you can.

We’re out of time. Thank you very much for your presentation.

S. Clovechok: Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the time to listen to me today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have College of the Rockies — Dianne Teslak and David Walls.

[10:35 a.m.]

COLLEGE OF THE ROCKIES

D. Walls: Good morning. I’m David Walls, president, College of the Rockies.

D. Teslak: I’m Dianne Teslak, vice-president, finance and corporate services.

D. Walls: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s prebudget consultation process. We appreciate the province taking the time to better understand College of the Rockies’ priorities and the important role that we play in the educational, social and economic life of our region.

College of the Rockies operates seven campuses through­out the East Kootenay, with our main campus here in Cranbrook. All of our campuses are located in the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa and the Kinbasket people. We’re grateful to have strong relationships with the Indigenous communities we operate in.

Providing post-secondary education is significantly more complex than it was even a few years ago, and the pace of change is increasing. Like many other post-secondary institutions, College of the Rockies is faced with increased demand for student services and supports. Understanding and responding to the increasing need for student supports remains the top priority of the college. This is reflected in our recent submission of a business case for a 96-bed student housing complex to provide much-needed student housing. It’s evidenced by our ongoing efforts to provide increased supports around student mental health, safety and disability services. It’s especially true of our efforts to improve supports for Indigenous learners.

College of the Rockies takes very seriously our commitment to implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action. While we’ve made some headway in our efforts to indigenize student supports, there’s still much work to be done.

For example, providing Indigenous counsellors for students struggling with mental health issues, ensuring access to Indigenous student advisers familiar with Indigenous fund­ing practices and policies, and developing more courses and programs that highlight Indigenous issues are just some of the initiatives we believe will further support improvement in Indigenous learning outcomes.

Unlike some other post-secondary institutions, College of the Rockies does not currently receive ongoing government support for Indigenous education. While we greatly appreciate one-time funding we’ve received, it doesn’t provide sustainability for the activities initiated nor allow for us to plan strategically. In order to develop and implement an education strategy that truly supports Indigenous learners’ levels of participation and success, we believe that committed, ongoing government funding is necessary.

While consistent funding is an important part of the solution, increasing financial flexibility for post-secondary institutions like College of the Rockies can also play an important role. Currently we’re not able to have an annual deficit, the definition of which includes all non-cash expenditures such as capital asset amortization.

We’re not able to support normal ebbs and flows in business cycles in our non-government-supported streams of operation such as international education or contract training. We cannot save up to invest in long-term projects like student housing. And we cannot draw on prior years’ surpluses to provide continuity when one-time funding expires. Providing us with the ability to access our retained, earned savings accounts would help us sustain our operations through the years when alternative streams of revenue may be negatively impacted, and it would allow us to invest in priority areas when ongoing funding is unavailable.

College of the Rockies is most interested in opening a dialogue with the government to explore how we can move forward with these proposed solutions. Thanks for your time. We welcome any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, David.

Questions?

P. Milobar: We’ve heard from a couple of other institutions around Indigenous learning opportunities. Are you proposing that you need…? You’re looking for targeted Indigenous studies moneys? Or is it that you’re just looking for a lift to, for lack of a better term, your general revenues so that you can, potentially, enhance Indigenous learning? Or is there a specific programming target that you’re trying to develop?

[10:40 a.m.]

D. Walls: Thanks for the question. The answer is that currently there’s nothing that’s part of our grant that would indicate it’s specifically for support to Indigenous students, and that includes the development of specifically culturally friendly types of curriculum as well as the supports.

We currently have a student-navigated position that helps connect Indigenous students up to the support services that are there and also helps them through the transition from whatever they’ve been experiencing, to make sure that we do retain the students. Also, on our academic side, in particular around helping our faculty understand what they need to do in the classroom….

There are all those pieces to the Indigenous part of it. But we continuously have to find some money. We’ve been getting some one-time funding recently from the government in the last two years. It was $75,000 for two years, and this last year it was $125,000, but that’s currently under review. There’s Aboriginal service plan money that about half the post-secondary institutions were able to access. For some reason, not all colleges or universities were able to access that money. That’s currently under review. We’re not sure what will happen in the ongoing part.

In answer to your question, we’re looking at some specific targeted money that will help us really implement what’s there in the Truth and Reconciliation recommendations and help us to move forward on those.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a question about student housing. You had a plan for student housing. Have the changes in policy helped you move forward? Where are you in terms of development of that student housing?

D. Teslak: As John mentioned earlier, we submitted a formal business case to the ministry in about March of this year. Our understanding is that that will be moving forward sometime in the fall for consideration. The loan program to which you’re referring is certainly a new development that might provide another opening for us, possibly.

D. Walls: Yeah, our business plan is around…. A component of it is grant money, but the rest we’re basically looking to raise ourselves through either our own revenue or through donations.

D. Teslak: And through our frozen net assets.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.

Next up we have F.J. Hurtak. Just for the record, and for Hansard and for the committee, Tom Shypitka will be joining us to ask questions as a member. He’s handing some things out now.

At the end of the presentation, Tom, you can ask questions with everybody else. That’s fine.

Welcome. The floor is yours. Go ahead, FJ.

F.J. HURTAK

F. Hurtak: Thanks very much for having us here today.

Everybody is talking about funding, and I’m here today to talk about funding for wildlife management in British Columbia.

Wildlife management over the past number of years has been very badly neglected in the province of B.C. Without proper funding, our ungulate numbers will continue to dwindle. I’m sure all of you people know what’s happening in the Kootenays and in other parts of the province in terms of wildlife numbers. They’re spiralling downwards very, very quickly.

[10:45 a.m.]

There are a lot of reasons for that occurring, but what it all comes back to is that biologists are being asked to manage wildlife in this area and many others with analytics that are four and five years old.

I know a lot of you are probably not hunters, but let me say this. When you have wide-open seasons on the female components of the herd — particularly cow and calf elk, whitetail deer and several other species — and you don’t do accurate analytics for years after you initiate those seasons, that’s what happens to the populations, because you have no idea whatsoever how many are being harvested each and every year.

The biologists in this area and other areas have told me that without proper funding, it’s almost near-impossible to do a good job of managing wildlife. We need a funding model, without question, in the province of B.C. The East Kootenay can certainly be a role model for that because we have the most diverse wildlife here in the East Kootenay than anywhere in the province of British Columbia. The funding model needs to happen in the province of B.C., without question.

If you have any questions, I’m certainly happy to answer them.

T. Shypitka: You talk about the funding model. We’ve got a funding model in place right now with the Freshwater Fisheries Society. Are you suggesting a model similar to that where 100 percent of the licences go back into wildlife, in this example?

F. Hurtak: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. At one point, that’s the way it was. I believe it was in the ’80s and early ’90s that most of the surcharges on hunting licences and that sort of thing went right back into the resource, like it does with fisheries. But over the years, that’s been eroded. Less than 20 percent of those surcharges now, from what I’ve been told, are going directly into wildlife. That’s certainly not sufficient to be able to manage wildlife properly for the managers themselves.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Would you feel that if the hunting licence revenue was allocated, that would be sufficient to deal with what you’re asking for right now? I know it’s never sufficient, but if the licensing money was used, would that make a significant impact on wildlife resources?

F. Hurtak: I think it would definitely be of great assistance. Let’s put it that way. I don’t think it would be sufficient to put just $15 million or $18 million into the wildlife resource from hunting surcharges. But there may be other ways to raise funds as well, like an additional tax on anything for the outdoors — like a very small tax, maybe ten cents, on a pair of hiking boots or ten cents on this, whatever — which could add up to what we’re eventually going to need, probably $40 million, $45 million a year.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. How should that money be distributed around British Columbia?

F. Hurtak: I think, Dan, the money should be distributed on a regional basis. That’s the way the management should actually be, as well, in this province. Right now everything is done from Victoria. All the decisions are made in Victoria, and some of the decisions are very, very poor and very, very wrong. The local people, the local biologists, need to have a say in what’s going on and how that funding is being divvied up, because every area, as you know, is different.

It’s a blanket approach in the province of British Columbia right now: what’s good for one is good for all. Every region has different problems to deal with. That money has to be allocated to each of the regions, and the regional people need to have the authority to divvy that money up.

[10:50 a.m.]

As you know, you’ve heard about the $50 million on caribou. There’s a great example of what to take a look at. Get the people involved in each region where they do have caribou to see if they can try and save the herds. In this one, the herds we have here may be beyond saving now because we’re just down to three females, but there are other ones that definitely could be assisted.

The bottom line to your question is that it has to be done regionally by the people who live in the regions to address the regional problems, because everybody’s different.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I want to thank you and the people that you work with here. It’s people like yourself and Jesse Zieman where I come from in Westbank — he’s from Westbank; I’m from the south end — that have really, really stepped up to the plate with this and are making a big difference.

F. Hurtak: Thank you for having us.

P. Milobar: Is there a target? I know other wildlife groups I’ve met with in the past…. I know you have a slide near the back of this presentation that references this as well.

In spite of what we may think about some things that American states do around some pockets of the environment, when it comes to wildlife management, they tend to fund per person to a much higher level in Washington, Oregon, Idaho — the relevant states that would be similar to our terrain and wildlife makeup.

Is there a target per person that you would think B.C. should try to be aspiring to versus what we’re currently at? I know we’re much lower than most of the neighbouring jurisdictions around us.

F. Hurtak: That would be difficult, to come up with an actual number. All I know is the people who live in the East Kootenay are prepared to buck up.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No pun intended, right?

T. Shypitka: Thanks, FJ. You’ve talked about three different things here. You’ve talked about an independent funding model. You’ve talked about needing that science-driven data that’s required to analyze or put analytics into place so that we know what the numbers are. We know our cow-calf ratios, and we know what type of predation is out there — all those kinds of good things.

The third thing you mentioned was regional representation. It’s a big diverse province. B.C. is home to very many biodiversities throughout the province, and it should be treated as such. It’s shouldn’t be one blanket, one-size-fits-all-type of measure. Would you agree that regional representation is probably key to isolating our wildlife management to each specific area?

F. Hurtak: Oh, absolutely. In most cases, biologists in each area are given a mandate from Victoria as to how they should operate. I can honestly tell all you folks that they don’t necessarily agree with what they’re getting from Victoria. There are other things that seem to be influencing the powers that be in Victoria, and they don’t necessarily agree with it. They bite their lip, and they go through the process of doing it because they know if they don’t, they’re probably going to be managing wolves somewhere north of Aklavik within two months, but they don’t necessarily agree with it.

It’s tremendously important to put the authority back into each region, because right now all of the committees in every sector of the province of B.C. are basically being told by a handpicked group of individuals in Victoria what they should have and what they should do.

The people who live in the region know what they should do. People like me and other committees in other areas are sitting around thinking: “Well, you know what? This is so frustrating because what they’re doing is not correct. It’s wrong. They don’t recognize the various differences in the regions, and we’re dealing with faceless people we never get to talk to.”

If the regions have control of what’s going on with wildlife management and we screw it up in this region, we know exactly where to go and how to try and fix the problem. Right now we don’t. We’re banging our heads against the wall.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re actually over time, but if you could…. One quick question.

T. Redies: Mine is a bit of a broader question, FJ. I appreciate your presentation, your knowledge on this area. We hear increasingly from various, I guess, environmental organizations that resource development and wildlife management cannot be done together. Do you believe that?

[10:55 a.m.]

F. Hurtak: No, not at all. The various committees I’m on work together with groups such as Wildsight, who are well known for their environmental work. We don’t necessarily agree with them on a lot of the things they do, but we have to work with all the groups to be able to get this thing back on the rails and make the province somehow understand that wildlife management needs to be a priority in British Columbia.

It’s a really important resource that brings millions and millions of dollars into the province. For people who live in the rural areas, it’s a way of life, and it’s being jeopardized by horribly inept management and lack of funding. That’s not always the manager’s fault.

It comes back to government itself. I’m glad to see there are Liberal MLAs here and NDP MLAs. It doesn’t matter which government is in power. This thing has been going on for over 40 years now. The situation we have here…. I’m the outdoor columnist for the local papers here. I just did an article on elk populations that said: “Dwindling Elk Populations.”

Is history repeating itself? Yes, it is. We went through this, where we are today, back in the ’90s. Elk populations at historic lows. Everybody had their hands up in the air. “What are we going to do? God, we need this. We need that.” We went through it. We didn’t learn from it.

Now we’re back in exactly the same situation, only now there are so many other components that come into it. We fixed it in the ’90s. We can’t fix it now the way we fixed it in the ’90s just with hunting regulations and adjusting them. There are too many other factors now. There are more people, there’s more highway traffic, there’s more railway traffic, and there are more predators than ever before. You can’t fix it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): FJ., we’re well over time now.

F. Hurtak: Oh, I’m sorry. When you get me going on this stuff, it’s hard to get me to stop.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No, no problem at all. I’m sorry to interrupt. It’s great work that you’re doing, and we really appreciate the presentation. Thanks for your passion for our wildlife.

Tom, thanks for joining us. It was nice having you. Asked some questions. It’s great.

Next up we have Robert Holmes. Just so you know, Robert, what we normally do is five minutes to say some­thing, and then if there’s questions, so please….

ROBERT HOLMES

R. Holmes: I’ll be brief. I’m retired, engineering, so my interest is basically building infrastructure. I’m not familiar with this process necessarily or where the money is for the next five years.

Recently arrived, it’s apparent you need refurbishment, upgrading of your Baker School. I would sense that that’s part of the education budget, but I would be curious to know what provisions have been made in the current budget, going forward, for the necessary refurbishment, expansion, rebuild — essentially on modern design principles. Specifically, you have a great opportunity there for a district energy concept. In other words, updating boilers, utilizing solar energy, in-ground thermal storage. There’s lots of sunshine.

[11:00 a.m.]

Essentially, you can knock down your gas bill by at least 75 percent, but is there scope in the budgeting process, I guess as a question, to essentially put moneys into action? Because that building really needs a rebuild.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s interesting, because school district 5 presented to us first and actually brought that up.

We had the opportunity, as a committee, to go to Haida Gwaii, and it was really interesting to see there, at their high school, that they’re actually adding solar, because on their grid, they have a lot of times when they lose electricity. Instead of having a backup gas generator, they’re actually going with solar.

They also have integrated many things within the community, such as hunting and growing food and a number of different things. It’s really interesting to hear about the idea of creating this sustainable school. If we build a new school, let’s make it sustainable.

R. Holmes: Well, it’s a larger question, from my view. I’m not an urbanist, necessarily, but I’ve lived in urban areas. Sustainable neighbourhoods are really where the first priorities should go into cities like Cranbrook. Combine, for instance, the housing moneys that are available, where 50 percent financing is available…. School boards, essentially, sort of run an independent need, but you can combine schools with residential. You know — build up. Put the residential over. Use the same structure. Use the same energy plant.

There are a lot of ideas that have been tested and proven around that that would lend themselves to a city like Cranbrook. I don’t know if anybody has spoken about urban renewal and the need for urban renewal infrastructure capital. I would assume it comes out of the budget that you’re addressing. That’s basically my interest in talking.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, sir.

T. Redies: We were talking about this yesterday.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Robert. Actually, we talked about…. MLA Tracy Redies brought that up, the idea of building up, especially when you have land issues or ownership of land. You don’t necessarily have to build out, building up. Anyway, did you want to ask about that, Tracy?

T. Redies: I guess it’s interesting for me that you raise that for a community like Cranbrook. I was really thinking about it in the context of very crowded, very expensive land-issue areas like Vancouver. For me, it’s quite interesting that you raise it as a possibility for communities like Cranbrook.

R. Holmes: To me, demographics are all telling about the future of Cranbrook.

T. Redies: I agree.

R. Holmes: Cranbrook can double its population in the next 50 years quite easily. It’s so attractive, and people are going to be streaming out of the cities with all the problems they have.

On CBC this morning, for instance, they’re doing a show in Hamilton to discover why young people can’t live in Toronto anymore. They’re all moving down the 401 and living in Hamilton because life is more affordable.

That’s been my theme, shall we say, for a number of years — that helping the building of sustainable neighbourhoods can be applied here, as well as built-up areas like Vancouver. And you need to get it done sooner rather than later. I think the population will follow. The growth will follow.

T. Redies: We don’t want to repeat the same problems that we have in Vancouver in places like Cranbrook.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, because you end up with the sprawl, and then you have the infrastructure issues that go with that as well. Very interesting.

Any other thoughts, comments? Fantastic.

Well, thanks, Robert. We appreciate your thoughts on all this. It was really, really great.

R. Holmes: Okay. It’s by accident.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No. Wonderful.

Could I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:04 a.m.