Finance and Government Services -- Issue No. 57-- Wednesday, October 1, 2003



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		1527
	M. Wish G. Tissington S. Dumontet D. Rainey P. Gambell G. Lucas J. Omland P. Deakin J. Murphy G. Litke T. Battaglio T. Kemp T. Solary D. Perry B. Horne K. Frisque D. Herman A. Hayes P. Hochstein B. Given M. Jefferson B. Lee

Chair:	* Brenda Locke (Surrey–Green Timbers L)
Deputy Chair:	* Brian Kerr (Malahat–Juan de Fuca L)
Members:	* Bill Belsey (North Coast L) * Jeff Bray (Victoria–Beacon Hill L) * Ida Chong (Oak Bay–Gordon Head L) * Arnie Hamilton (Esquimalt-Metchosin L) * Dave Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead L) * Mike Hunter (Nanaimo L) * Wendy McMahon (Columbia River–Revelstoke L) * Lorne Mayencourt (Vancouver-Burrard L) * John Nuraney (Burnaby-Willingdon L) * Patty Sahota (Burnaby-Edmonds L) * Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * denotes member present

Witnesses:

Trudy Battaglio (Arthritis Society, B.C. and Yukon Division)
Patrick Deakin (Oliver and District Community Economic Development Society)
Susan Dumontet (Penticton and Area Women's Centre)
Karina Frisque (Okanagan University College Students Association)
Penny Gambell (British Columbia Fruit Growers Association)
Brian Given (Canadian National Institute for the Blind)
Ann Hayes (President, South Okanagan Real Estate Board)
David Herman (President, B.C. Real Estate Association)
Philip Hochstein (Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia)
Bill Horne (Naramata Centre)
Michelle Jefferson (Destination Osoyoos)
Tom Kemp (Arthritis Society, B.C. and Yukon Division)
Bob Lee
Garry Litke (President, Okanagan-Skaha Teachers Union)
Glen Lucas (British Columbia Fruit Growers Association)
Jessica Murphy (Oliver and District Community Economic Development Society)
Jeff Omland (KPMG)
David Perry (Mayor, City of Penticton)
Deanna Rainey (Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association)
Tina Sager (Penticton and Area Women's Centre)
Tina Solary (South Okanagan–Similkameen Brain Injury Society)
Gayle Tissington (B.C. Schizophrenia Society)
Mark Wish (B.C. Schizophrenia Society)

B. Locke (Chair): Welcome, everyone. If I could ask members to take their seats, please, we'll get started. I would like to call our meeting to order.

My name is Brenda Locke, and I'm the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers. I have the pleasure of being the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It is a privilege for us to be here today in Penticton. We will continue on with our budget consultation process.

Before I ask the other members of the committee to briefly introduce themselves, I'd like to go over the committee's mandate. Our specific mandate is to consult with British Columbians with respect to the prebudget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Gary Collins, and released on September 10 of this year. There are copies of the paper at the information table.

Our consultation process has 11 stops throughout the province. We have been in Courtenay, Prince Rupert, Dawson Creek, Prince George and Cranbrook. We'll continue on to Kamloops and Vancouver this week, then Surrey and Burnaby.

All British Columbians are invited to participate by presenting their concerns, considerations and ideas to the committee either orally at one of our meetings or in writing by fax, e-mail or regular surface mail. The deadline for written submissions is October 17. All submissions, whether they are submitted in writing or presented orally, will receive equal consideration in the development of our report, which we will submit to the Legislative Assembly and make public by November 15. The Minister of Finance is expected to take our report into consideration in the development of the next budget.

I would like to thank those who have come to participate in this very important process. I am looking forward to hearing the presentations that will be made here today. We will also be having a 30-minute open mike at the end of this session. If anyone is interested in that, which we will get to later, there will be that availability. I should also note that due to time constraints we will try to keep our questions from the committee to a minimum, unless clarification about statements is required.

I think every British Columbian realizes there are some challenges ahead of us. We are here to listen to your priorities in order to put together a report that will reflect both the insights and the visions of British Columbians right across the province. Our Hansard staff is recording everything that will be said. There will be a complete transcript available on our website within a few days. Marilyn Pollard and Jane Berry are here with us today to record what you have to say. Also with us is Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the Clerk to the committee, and our committee assistant, Jacqueline Quesnel, who is at the back at the information desk.

With that, I will ask the members to introduce themselves. Wendy, if we can start with you.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): Brian Kerr from Malahat–Juan de Fuca on Vancouver Island.

I. Chong: Good afternoon. I'm Ida Chong, representing Oak Bay–Gordon Head, which is in greater Victoria.

B. Locke (Chair): I will call our first presenters: B.C. Schizophrenia Society, Mark Wish and Gayle Tissington. Would you like to come up to the front, please.

M. Wish: I served for three years as a regional director with the RDOS, representing Naramata. You may have seen me or heard of me.

B. Locke (Chair): You look familiar. Thank you. You can start whenever you're ready.

M. Wish: First of all, I want to say good afternoon to our most distinguished panel. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to speak and represent the organization which we support and are a part of — the B.C. Schizophrenia Society. My name is Mark Wish, as you already know. I'm an active member on the board of

directors of the Penticton chapter of the British Columbia Schizophrenia Society and a parent of a young man who suffers with schizophrenia.

I know my time is limited here today — I don't see anybody else back here, but in any case — so I have kept my comments brief and, hopefully, to the point. I hope that you will recognize the importance of mental health, our commitment to helping those in need and our dedication to the cause. In light of that, if some comment seems to offend — I know in my time on the RDOS I was sometimes accused of being brutally honest — I hope you'll take it with a grain of sugar.

I was stunned recently when I heard that the provincial office of BCSS was to have its funding drastically cut, especially in light of the fact that Premier Campbell promised he would not cut spending in the areas of mental health.

In meeting with Health Services Minister Colin Hansen at UBCM meetings in 2001, I again put that question to Mr. Hansen. He yet again affirmed to me that mental health would not be cut. It so happened that both Mr. Thorpe and Mr. Barisoff were in the room at the same time and witnessed those comments.

Well, here we are, and the cuts appear to be coming. I know we all like to save money, whether it be in our households, in business and/or in government. Having both a household and a business and having served in local government, I know that you have to save money in places. Yet, I think one has to calculate the cost of those savings. What does it cost if you save a dollar here when it costs you $2 over there? Plus the loss of a valuable service — if that's the case, then the savings are probably ill-conceived.

I hope today, if not to convince you to restore funding to mental health, to at least make you think about that concept and maybe recommend to your government that you restore any cuts contemplated or made to the mental health services.

Our organization has announced that the anticipated cuts in funding have made it necessary to put a halt to our Family-to-Family program and the training of family members to conduct that same program. Briefly, our family-to-family program — Gayle will go into it in more depth — is an extensive course of study for family members, not only for those afflicted with schizophrenia but for those whose loved ones suffer from all forms of mental illness. We teach families how to recognize symptoms, how to get help, how to deal with their mentally ill family member and, most of all, how to cope with all this happening in their lives.

Back to the cost of cutting. People suffering with a mental illness most often do not recognize they are mentally ill. Even if they suspect it, who in their right mind wants to admit they have a mental illness?

A huge percentage of homeless people — it's estimated to be as high as 75 to 80 percent — suffer from some kind of mental illness. Now, having a mental illness is not like breaking your leg. You break your leg; it hurts like hell. You go to the hospital; they fix it. You go home, and you recover.

When you have a mental illness, you alienate your friends, colleagues, co-workers, employer and, worst of all, your family. You act more and more strangely. You lose your job, your home, your family. You lose everything and all because no one knows what's wrong with you and/or they're afraid to help. In fact, some families abandon their mentally ill sibling because they do not understand what is happening to their loved one.

Can mental health services help? No. The person with the mental illness believes the whole world is crazy. He or she will not seek help there. Can the police help? No. Maybe if this person commits a crime, they can arrest them and put them in jail — nothing else.

Does government help? Well, no. Apparently it costs too much money. Can families help? Yes they can, but the vast majority of families have no idea what to do. Most are horrified at the actions their mentally ill sibling takes, and often disown them.

In so many cases these formerly good citizens end up in a world of drugs to help them cope with what's happening to their minds — petty crime, and end up living on the streets. Calculate the cost of the extra policing, the crime costs, court time, cost of jailing these people and then dealing with them. It's horrendous, and you know that.

So what does every business and every government agency do when faced with a problem that will require mass amounts of cash infusion to solve? Most often they turn to public education hoping that by educating the public or their employees better, they can correct the problems and save huge amounts of cash. And you know what? It works.

Time and again simply educating through public education helps people do the right things. That is where our organization, the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, comes in. We educate and educate and educate. We conduct seminars in schools, government agencies, workplaces and at service clubs — anywhere we can get to — to tell people about mental illness, to convince them it's treatable and to help them understand and recognize symptoms in a loved one. We are the public education arm of mental health. We educate families. We educate everyone we can through our Family-to-Family program.

We also provide support for the families of those who suffer with a mental illness. Recognizing or finding out their loved one has a mental illness is one of the most heart-wrenching things a person can go through. You have nowhere to turn; you don't know what to do. I still thank God to this day that the BCSS was there for our family and others like ours, because no one else was.

Your government gets excellent value for the small amount it gives to the BCSS, as we provide these services on a shoestring. I would ask that you give us back that shoestring before we all trip over our own cost-cutting and fall into a mess that takes a huge toll, not only on the public purse but an incalculable cost when one considers the human cost — the cost of lost families, lost futures and lost dreams.

G. Tissington: My name is Gayle Tissington, and I, also, have been associated with the British Columbia Schizophrenia Society for about 15 years now, first as a volunteer. First of all, I was there, like Mark, to learn about schizophrenia. My daughter has schizoaffective disorder, which is a combination of schizophrenia and a mood disorder. I guess I would have to say that our family went to hell and back a few times, trying to figure out what was going on, because 22 or 23 years ago there was very little help for families.

Things have improved, in large part due to the BCSS. Services have improved; education has improved. There have been some strides forward in terms of the services available to the person who has a mental illness. New medications are working better. The EPI — the early psychosis intervention program, which is sponsored by your government — is making headway that is helping a huge amount. Now younger people are able to get diagnosed earlier, to get treated earlier and to have more success in their lives. Their lives will never be the same, but they can achieve almost to their potential if they are treated early enough.

There are some things that are looking better, but really, the government mental health services focus on the individual with a mental illness. There are no government services yet for families other than what some of the non-profits provide, including BCSS. BCSS is the major provider of support and education for families. There really is very little else available. This has been so important to so many people.

The course, Family-to-Family. This is a 12-week course taught by volunteers. In our region alone, the IHA, we probably educate 150 families a year through this program, and that's not counting the other things we do. We have from 600 to 800 volunteer hours invested in that program alone. There are so many dedicated people out there working their hearts out for this organization and for people who are struggling with mental illness in their families. This is an extremely important program, and we need the administrative support of the provincial BCSS in order to carry on with this program. We have to train volunteers, we need some standards and accountability, and we cannot flounder around on our own out in the regions without some direction from the provincial organization. I, also, would entreat that you not continue to cut from BCSS. This is an organization that more than earns its way. There are other programs we sponsor, but I would say Family-to-Family is one of the most important.

The other thing I guess I would ask is that in order to maintain some standards of care across the province, we need protection of funds. In the past, mental health dollars were in a protected envelope. They aren't any longer. The cuts that come to health now cut through mental illness services as well. The reason we need protection — and I know lots of people feel they need their funding protected — is that we're coming from a way behind, and I think you all know that. There has been so much stigma and so many difficulties with getting services to people with mental illness that we are a long way behind, so we cannot afford to lose funding. I would hope you might consider going back to protecting mental health funding and not put it in the same pot as the rest of health and let the cuts go across the board. We are already understaffed and underfunded for the numbers of people. Mental illness creates more cost to our health care system than any other diagnostic group.

The other thing attached to that is that core services need to be available across the province. With so many responsibilities devolved to the regions, there is no kind of standard accountability for core services. The services may be different in one part of the region from the other, from one region to another. We need some basic core services that are consistent throughout the province. That still leaves room for some differences too, and I know it's important to some people that they have the ability to suit their own needs.

The other thing I would say is that I hope the government will not ever again investigate the disability benefits received by those people who have these tragic mental illnesses. All of the investigation that went on in the past created so much chaos, so much illness, so much stress for these people who have a huge challenge every single day of their lives. Even though they are getting more well earlier — medications and treatments are improving — having schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, clinical depression and OCD are major life events. To have your basic income, which isn't very high…. Many of these people are living on $1,000 a month. I wonder how many of us can do that. To have that small income threatened is a huge difficulty for people. It creates so much stress and illness that I just can't begin to tell you how difficult that was. I'm hoping that you will again protect those people and not question their need for this money.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Gayle and Mark, for your presentation.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm wondering if you can tell me…. You may need to send this to us. First off, have you been told by an official in the Health ministry or IHA that you're going to receive a cut?

G. Tissington: The cut has been given. The provincial BCSS says our cut starts today. I'm not sure of the exact amounts — $320,000 down to $120,000.

L. Mayencourt: What has been the funding history with the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, say, in the last two or three years?

G. Tissington: Government funding has been a part of what they have counted on. They have other funding events. They have the Emerald Ball. That is one — that kind of thing. They do some of their own fundraising.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you very much. What I meant was the provincial contribution — say from the health authority or the Ministry of Health. Do you know that?

J. Nuraney: I think my question has been answered. It was just a question about the funding. I am surprised you are saying it has been cut.

B. Belsey: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm still a little confused. Do you get your funding from the interior health authority, or do you get your funding from the province of British Columbia?

G. Tissington: Both. The funding that provides the leadership and administration at the provincial level comes directly from the ministry.

G. Tissington: Yes, I guess so. I'm not sure about that, but provincially it comes directly to the provincial organization. That is only part of their funding. They do fundraising as well.

There are positions out in the region, such as the one I hold. That position is funded by IHA through the provincial organizations.

B. Belsey: Do you have any idea as to what comes from the Minister of State for Mental Health and what comes through the interior health authority? Could you tell me that? Could you get that for us?

M. Wish: Well, serving on the local board here, I can tell you that we get $17,000 a year for the Penticton chapter from the interior health authority. Where they get that money from, I don't know. That basically helps us to maintain an office and provide very, very core services. We have an employee that works four hours a day, three days a week, to help with all the administrative services and what not. It just pays for that, really — like rent, salary and benefits, those types of things. Over and above that, we looked to our provincial arm of the BCSS to provide us help with the programs we provide — to provide us the books, funding and the materials and things we need to provide the Family-to-Family courses.

G. Tissington: And the training. We need to train volunteers to do some of the work they do.

The position I have is a regional one within IHA. I wear a lot of hats. I help the boards, such as Mark's. I'm kind of the glue that sticks things together in this region — not all by myself, by any means. As I said, there are 600 to 800 volunteer hours in just this one program, and we have volunteers doing all kinds of other things. I'm one of the people that helps initiate programs, helps monitor things and helps boards with their work. I talk to individual family members and do education in the schools. I just do a lot of things throughout the whole region.

My funding comes from IHA to the provincial organization and back to me. That gives me arm's length, so it enables me to have some independence in terms of advocating.

B. Belsey: I just want to explain why I'm asking this question. It's because there are two separate entities here, and we have to know who we approach to deal with your problem. The province is set up as stewards of a health care system, but delivery of that system is a contract that comes through the health authorities. That's why I'm trying to decide: do we go to the province and talk about this issue, or do we go to the health authority and talk about the issue? That's why I'm asking.

M. Wish: Actually, you can go to both of them. I've been trying to get a raise from the local IHA for years, so you could talk to them, and then go to the province to help the provincial arm.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time out of your day to present to us. We appreciate it.

Our next witness is the Penticton and Area Women's Centre's Sue Dumontet and Tina Sager. Welcome. You can start when you're ready.

S. Dumontet: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Dumontet. I'm the acting executive director for the Penticton and Area Women's Centre. Our centre is part of the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, and we share the same concerns. However, I'm not speaking on behalf of that coalition. In my presentation I will discuss

the purpose of women's centres, services that are provided, some stats about women's centres, and finish up with the effects of governmental cuts.

Women's centres were founded by women in many towns and cities across B.C. and around the world as early as the 1970s in order to fill two key purposes: to provide direct services to women locally and to improve the status of women at the local, regional, provincial and national levels. Today 37 non-profit women's centres exist in 33 rural and urban communities in B.C., serving women from all backgrounds.

Services provided by women's centres differ from community to community. Women's centres respond directly to the needs of women at a grass-roots level, tailoring services and programs around the specific current and real demand for help within our communities.

According to the government of B.C.'s own website, women's centres are the first place to go in your community when you need help in times of crisis. Women's centres provide a variety of services including information and referrals, support groups, crisis counselling, job entry programs, child care services and housing registries.

Some facts about B.C.'s women's centres. Two main focuses of women's centres' work in general are (1) improving the status of women through political, social, economic and legal actions on a local, provincial, national and global scale; and (2) providing direct services to women in the community as determined by local needs.

In 2001 women's centres answered requests for help from 139,000 women by telephone and 161,099 women in person, equalling a total of 300,569 women accessing community women's centres. The 2001 statistics represent one out of every six women and girls in the province accessing women's centres for services. The majority of these requests were from women experiencing violence and/or poverty.

Women's centres receive $47,184.72 per year in operational funding from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, or $1.7 million for the entire province. This totals a cost to the province of $5.65 for each woman helped by women's centres in B.C., or 91 cents for every woman and girl in the province.

According to the province of B.C.'s own statistics, in their lifetimes approximately one in two B.C. women are victims of sexual assault, one in three of wife assault and one in five of other types of physical assault. Violence against women in B.C., as estimated by the former Ministry of Women's Equality, costs taxpayers approximately $385 million per year, including direct policing costs, transition houses, etc. This does not include the cost of items such as health costs, legal costs or the cost of the intergenerational effects of violence. Funding to all women's centres in B.C., which provide the advocacy necessary to prevent and end violence against women, in addition to providing intervention in individual cases, represents less than 0.05 percent, or 1/20 of 1 percent, of $385 million.

This report concludes that there are very few options available to women's centres and, more importantly, that it is government's obligation to fund equality-seeking organizations. Women's centres are looking ahead to when their provincial funding will be cut by 100 percent on March 31, 2004. This will devastate B.C.'s women's centres, which in some cases may be providing the only services available to women in some of B.C.'s rural and northern communities.

Some centres depend entirely on the $47,174 they receive annually from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, an amount that barely covers such basic expenses as a single staff person, rent and a telephone. At the same time women's centres in this province are seeing a large increase in demand for services. Massive provincial cutbacks are disproportionately hurting B.C.'s women, as indicated by the United Nations.

As more and more women in B.C. are adversely affected, demand increases for women's centres to provide services which fill the gaps created by the cuts. What does this mean for B.C.'s women's centres? No other form of operational funding exists for women's centres, and many centres will find that their community is already economically devastated by cuts. There are 19 centres at risk of closing their doors altogether after provincial funding ends.

What are the options for B.C. women's centres? In The Herstory, Risk and Survival of B.C. Women's Centres, eight options are discussed and analyzed by the steering committee. As the discussion paper shows, these options "range from finding new sources of funding to changing priorities of women's centres to shutting the doors of centres. Each option was examined in terms of how it would affect the quality of services offered by women's centres, the range of activities that could be done by a women's centre, the demand on staff and board members, the ability to connect with women in the community and the capacity to advocate for women. Of all the options examined, there were none that did not require a significant loss of services to women."

In January 2003 the B.C. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women group, a coalition of women's non-governmental organizations committed to advancing the equality interests of women and girls, came together to prepare a submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the occasion of the committee's review of Canada's fifth report. The BCCEDAW group's report, which is included in The Herstory, Risk and Survival of B.C. Women's Centres, says that "funding that is being removed from women's centres has been critical in making it possible for women in the province to associate and organize in order to have a voice in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. The withdrawal of the core funding to women's centres will silence British Columbian women."

After reviewing Canada's compliance with the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women, the U.N. committee singled out British Columbia for special criticism. The committee's recom-

mendations, which are appended to The Herstory, Risk and Survival of B.C. Women's Centres, urges the government of British Columbia "to analyze its recent legal and other measures as to their negative impact on women and to amend the measures where necessary."

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Sue. I will ask the members of the committee if they have any questions.

J. MacPhail: I was told by the Minister of State for Women's Equality that she would work with the women's centres to find ways to assure funding through the private sector. Is any of that happening?

S. Dumontet: At this point I'm uncertain of that, but I can look into it and get back to you on that.

J. MacPhail: Do you know about your own personal centre — what the future of it is?

S. Dumontet: At this point I understand that we will lose our core funding as of March 31, 2004. That's with MCAWS.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Sue and Tina, for your presentation today. We appreciate you taking the time.

Our next presenter, if I could call them forward, please: Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association, Deanna Rainey.

D. Rainey: Good evening, and welcome to Penticton. My name is Deanna Rainey, and I'm the CEO of Thompson-Okanagan Tourism. I'm here representing about 400 private sector tourism businesses in this region. I would, first of all, like to thank you very much for the opportunity to make this presentation to you very busy folks. Although we represent just one region of the province, it is a large and vibrant one. From Osoyoos up to Valemount, Christina Lake over to Cache Creek, our job is to create joint investments in tourism marketing for the private sector and communities in the area.

Ten minutes isn't a lot of time to talk about a complex, challenging and exciting industry, but I think we can do it by focusing on the future. There's enormous potential for a sustainable growth industry, and that's tourism. I have met with a number of my board directors in anticipation of today's presentation and with a lot of the private sector people in tourism in the valley as well.

I think one message that was consistent from everybody is: we first want to acknowledge that the government of British Columbia faces a challenge in which we must all be part of the solution. Every business and every individual in the province must be part of the effort to create a healthy economy and address provincial finance and budget concerns, and we acknowledge that fully. Ours is an industry filled with thousands of small businesses and resilient individuals who are prepared to do their part to ensure growth in the tourism sector.

In 2002-03 — our fiscal year is the same as you folks — the tourism industry generated over $1.3 billion in the Thompson-Okanagan alone. That's out of about a total of $9 billion and change for the province. Much of the marketing of the tourism industry in this area is done with Thompson-Okanagan Tourism — and I'm going to say TOTA, because that will make the speech faster — with our involvement. The region receives now about $900,000 annually through Tourism British Columbia. Their budget, of course, comes from 1.65 of the 8 percent hotel tax in B.C.

Until this summer, the Thompson-Okanagan was actually expected to lead the province in terms of increased revenues for tourism. By July we were already above target. Our revenues were up 4.5 percent over last year, but now the projections to the end of October reflect a 2.8 percent decrease in tourism revenues over our projections, so that's a spread of about 7.3 percent. With the assistance of Tourism British Columbia and the Ministry of Science, Competition and Enterprise, we've been able to initiate an accelerated marketing program to recapture business, and at this point we have some really good news.

Some local examples for you that you may be able to relate to…. For the Okanagan Wine Festival, which is now one of the top 100 events in North America, advance sales were down 50 percent just shortly after the fires in the Okanagan Valley this summer. Now, with a lot of extra marketing, they're improving. Sales are still down, but by less than 20 percent, and we figure that by the time the wine festival starts this weekend, that situation will improve even more. Sales are brisk. It's looking really good.

Ski resorts that are open year-round were devastated this summer by the interior's many fires. Sun Peaks Resort, for example, evacuated a convention of a thousand people and a wedding party in full regalia. Their business was down in many of the hotels and so on, up to 80 percent. However, pre–winter season bookings have now climbed beyond last year's bookings to date, and it's projected that by the end of this coming ski season, the destination visitors to the ski resorts will be up over 10 percent.

Golf tourism was shaping up to be an excellent year until the fires midsummer. The crucial period, of course, for golf — the peak season — is actually in late August to September. You can see why. I hated driving by that golf course on the way here.

This year in mid-August the fires hit. The golfers, of course, had to quit golfing, and then the phones just

didn't start ringing for that September peak period. However, talking to the golf operators, looking ahead to next year, they think they're going to have a record year in 2004. All indications point to that being stronger than this year and as strong or stronger than last year, which was a record itself.

There are many more examples, but the message I'd like to bring to you folks is really clear: increased investment in the tourism industry results in immediate and measurable increases in revenues. I live in an area where big is considered the Lakeside in Penticton or Apex Mountain or Big White. We're little guys on the global scale. The tourism industry, though, is willing to invest. Some of our tourism members have literally lost their product due to the fires. We have outdoor adventure operators who brought people from around the world to cycle on the Kettle Valley Railway. They don't have a railway to cycle on anymore, and they're actually potentially facing closing down their operations. There are a number of those operators.

Even in light of this, they're already out there packaging new product, and with our financial partnerships, they're actually investing more in tourism marketing — these guys are at the end of their rope — than they ever have before. Without our partnership, though — I'm not overstating it — these businesses simply could not afford to invest enough to turn their business around. They would close their doors, especially now, as time is of the essence. Most of these guys are trying to put in product they could sell for next spring, and they need to be selling it now obviously.

Through our internal tracking that we do — and there's a great deal of that going on — TOTA has proven that for each dollar we and our members invest in tourism marketing, we see an average return of just over $14. For every dollar we spend, that's what we're going to get back. Our goal for 2004 is to increase that from $14 to $15. Actually, I've rounded it off, but it's $13.91 or what have you. We do that tracking through actual packages sold, so these are concrete numbers.

One of the biggest opportunities that we believe is coming up for British Columbia and certainly the tourism industry in the Thompson-Okanagan is the 2010 Olympics. Already we, just in this little area, have had a number of travel writers from the U.S., Europe and Asia. They're here in the Thompson-Okanagan scouting locations and getting story ideas to write for the years leading up to the Olympics. We know that earned media — those are the stories and articles that appear around the world in print — is one of our most valued assets. Last year in the Thompson-Okanagan region alone we were able to generate over $14 million in press coverage around the world. The increase in awareness in the region is unprecedented, and no amount of paid advertising could give us what that has brought to us.

It is crucial that Tourism B.C…. We don't work for Tourism B.C., but we work with Tourism B.C. and liaise with the private sector. We would like to see Tourism B.C. receive the support and finances needed to maximize the opportunities in the years leading up to the Olympics — that is a lot of media opportunities, a lot of press coverage — during the Olympics and then in that post-Olympic period, when the eyes of the world have been on Vancouver and Whistler and British Columbia. We believe the opportunities to sell our product all over the world are going to be huge. When that support and financial commitment to Tourism B.C. is in place, the hundreds of tourism businesses in the Thompson-Okanagan will not only benefit but make the very best of these once-in-a-lifetime opportunities.

Our industry is faced with extremely tough but not insurmountable competition. If you take a look at the budgets of some of our major competitors, such as the province of Quebec or even Queensland in Australia, most tourism destinations invest well over double what we in British Columbia have to compete on a world scale.

Keep in mind at all times that the heart of my message is this: return on investment. We're not asking for something that we cannot show will increase the revenues to the province. It's what makes tourism unique, sustainable and prime for growth. It's what makes investing in tourism a wise decision.

Jobs, increased investment, a sustainable industry. We believe we have a vibrant future, and that's what the tourism industry is aiming for. This industry in British Columbia will be a key contributing factor in the province's economic health in the future.

The bottom line, though, is that the job can't be done alone. As I mentioned, there are thousands of small businesses and individual operators who put their financial existence on the line every day, involved in tourism. Many of them are found right here in the Thompson-Okanagan. Financial investment through partnerships is unquestionably the way to maximize potential in the tourism industry in the future. Thompson-Okanagan Tourism has seen now, even short term, that we can overcome the devastating effects of the summer of 2003 with additional investment by private sector and government coupled with sound marketing initiatives.

Since the inception of the cooperative tourism marketing program in 1985 — and I hate to admit it, but I was there then, fresh out of kindergarten — over $45 million has been invested in tourism marketing partnerships in this region alone. This is with Tourism British Columbia, the province of British Columbia. Look at the results. We've got Sun Peaks, which is a world-class ski resort. Big White now sleeps over 12,000 people. I was there one night — had beds for 400. The amazing story of the wine industry and the Okanagan wine festivals, the millions of dollars in golf course development, and some of the best outdoor and adventure product in the entire nation — all of this development has happened since industry and government began to work together.

In the future we cannot afford to lose more presence on the international tourism stage. Our competitors really are making strong advances. I'm out there at the trade shows. I meet with these people, and I see

what's going on every day. That means that British Columbia and the Thompson-Okanagan are falling further behind in an area that is a driving force in the economy of this province. The tourism industry is not here asking for handouts. This industry is looking for marketing investment partners, and we have a proven track record to guarantee the long-term returns on that investment.

Tourism British Columbia provides the leadership, the marketing intelligence and the opportunities for regional and private industry to grow the tourism industry. Consultation and communication is consistent, direct and ongoing. We have a great relationship with the people of Tourism British Columbia. Thompson-Okanagan Tourism works closely with Tourism British Columbia and ensures that private sector opportunities are developed to the maximum potential. Again, we're looking at new revenues as that measurement.

We can no longer look at Alberta or Washington State or even Mexico as our competitors. The natural beauty and superior products found in B.C. have already put us on the world stage. Our competitors have larger budgets and more resources, and we must level that playing field. In terms of product, we can compete with any destination anywhere. Financial partnerships are needed to let the world know about British Columbia.

The tourism industry has provided many entry-level jobs. I'm sure most of you know that. But as the industry itself has become more sophisticated, so do its employees. We see a lot of higher-paying jobs now, attracting qualified professionals, and employers who are searching for the very best people in the field. Just as an example, at Predator Ridge Golf Resort near Vernon, the company that makes the little crystal figurines that are popular is developing.

The other business that they're well known for in Europe is very high-end spas. They're developing a 40-room spa that will be a world-class, second-to-none resort up at Predator Ridge. How nicely does that marry up with the golf there and all the other activities? It's world-class, and they'll be looking for world-class employees.

If Expo 86 was the dawn of a new era for tourism in the province, the 2010 Olympics are the culmination of that era and the launch of the twenty-first century, with all the potential that it holds. Tourism can be a leader in the generation of a healthy economy in British Columbia and in the creation of exciting jobs. Industry is rising to the challenge. We ask that the province do the same — become our partner. Help ensure that the funds, resources and commitment are there. Together we will accomplish all we have set out to do.

I didn't want to leave you with a whole bunch of bedtime reading, but here we've got a tour planner that we take to the tour operators all around the world for when they're putting together their packages in whatever country they live in. We also have here the CD-ROM version of it. It's multi-language. We have actually been told by many of the top tour operators in the world that this is one of the best CD-ROMs. This is a working piece, so they can physically put together packages and so on. We've had great compliments about it. Finally, I'm not soliciting membership; I merely give you this information so you know what it is we do and what we offer to our members in terms of tourism marketing.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Deanna. Your presentation package is very, very colourful and beautiful. Many of us have spent some time in the Okanagan; we know it's a wonderful place to visit and to live in.

We have no time left, unfortunately, for questions, so I will have to thank you very much for taking the time out of your day. We appreciate your presentation very much.

D. Rainey: My card is there, so if anyone does have any questions, I'd be more than happy to hear from you.

B. Locke (Chair): I'll call our next presenters, please: Penny Gambell and Glen Lucas, the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association. Welcome.

P. Gambell: Thank you very much. Glen is just over here. We thought we'd bring you some apples. We were originally supposed to be here after supper; we thought it would be an after-supper treat. Since you were kind enough to put us earlier, that was very thoughtful.

I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to meet with you. We did meet with you last year, so I just want to bring you up to speed.

We've had a good year. That's two good years in a row with the apple industry. This year we had a wonderful cherry crop — excellent news there too. We are expecting a good year this year, so we're really pleased to come with that kind of news.

Some of things I'd like to comment on briefly…. We do appreciate the government's commitment to changes this government has made to the labour environment — that has been very helpful — and also, of course, the commitment to the replant program. Those things are very, very important to us, and I will be talking a little about that in the next little bit. We'll try to be fairly quick so that there's some time for questions, if possible.

The areas I would like to focus on…. The first one is transition. By transition, I'm talking about this change we're making in our industry to high-density plantings. You see those little trees out there. Approximately 44 percent of the acreage is now under new plantings, either high-density or certainly much denser soft fruit. That is exciting, because what it means is we get an

economic return much quicker than we used to. It used to take ten to 15 years; now it's taking three to five years. It's just amazing. Because I am the recipient of some good returns on Galas, I'm really excited about that. We've got Galas here tonight. I'm really excited about it, and we've now got some Ambrosia, which is the new variety out there. It's just wonderful. It's so exciting to have this sort of thing happening in our industry.

I do thank this government for the commitment they're making to the replant program. We are concerned, because the replant program is expected to finish in March 2006. That is a concern because we know that with 44 percent of the acreage we've planted, that isn't enough. We need to see much more replanted. We would like to see 95 percent of the acreage replanted. We have to put at least $2 to one into replant for that to happen. We are really encouraging government to look at that in the future.

Also, I think we wanted to draw to your attention…. We do have a graph on page 3 there. If you have a look at it, that graph really is intended to show what's happening in B.C. with the cutbacks to agriculture. They've been hard on agriculture in B.C. over the past years. In fact, we probably have had more cuts than almost anywhere else, other than possibly New Zealand.

What we're doing by bringing this to your attention is to help you realize that we are quite vulnerable. When you look at the kind of subsidies that the U.S. farm bill will be providing our competitors — the Americans are our number one competitors, by the way — and also in Europe…. You've probably been following the trade talks and what's going on there. That has an impact on us. What we're saying is: please keep an eye on this, because we know that we're vulnerable, and we are doing a major reinvestment in our industry. But we also think it's important that government recognizes we need to be competitive, and there are programs that will be important for us.

I bring this up because the federal government has a new agriculture policy framework that they are involved in, which is focusing on things like food safety, the environment, renewal and research. These are all going to require that farmers make a great investment in improving their farms. This is an area where we're going to be looking for at least the 40 percent, which is what the province has required for us to access federal dollars. They'll put up 60 percent, but the province is going to have to put up the 40 percent; otherwise we will not be able to compete even with the rest of Canada. That's something we felt you should know.

What I'm really interested in bringing to your attention today is the issue of water. I'm sure when you come to the Okanagan you notice that where it's irrigated, it's green; where it's not, it certainly is yellow to brown and black where there was the fire. That's a big issue for us. We could not have an industry without water. It's something that we've been very concerned about in a number of municipalities. You may have heard from some constituents about this problem.

In particular, we've run into a snag with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What they have said is that they are laying claim to the reservoirs for the fisheries here. We're very concerned about that because, as a result, there has been a bit of friction between agriculture and fisheries — to the detriment of agriculture. In my own community this year our water was turned off on September 24. You may say: "Well, why is that a problem?" Well, it's a problem because we're replanting to high-density, shallow-rooted trees. If those trees don't get adequate irrigation water, particularly as we get into winter, they could suffer a severe frost. When you think we've had approximately $37 million of government money invested in the tree fruit industry through the replant program…. We as growers have put in $90 million just in this new initiative. It's a big concern to us.

We're asking the provincial government to take over the fisheries responsibility for creeks and streams in particular. We don't want to see this kind of friction happening, and we do believe there needs to be regional planning for water. We need to work together on this issue. It's not going to go away. We have approximately 350,000 people in this valley right now. There are more people who want to live here. We really have to figure out how this is going to work, because we need business to sustain that kind of population. Our industry brings in money year in, year out. That's something I'd like you to think about.

The other thing that I wanted to really focus on is…. I've talked about the need for revitalization, and we do have some suggestions as to where we can see there would be some funding for this. We believe there is…. We know that the apple growers across the country are working very hard with the federal government to get a federal replant program in place. I've not mentioned this in the brief, but this is something we are working on. We believe that provincially, to come up with provincial matching dollars, there is an opportunity through the Columbia Basin Trust.

What we have been looking at and doing lately is meeting. We are in fact meeting tomorrow and Friday with various agricultural groups in the Kootenays. We have had a number of calls and discussions with these people, the agricultural groups in the Kootenays, and we have a united approach on finding resources through the Columbia Basin Trust. That would be looking at focusing more on economics of agriculture and not just looking at social programs, which a lot of those dollars have tended to be spent on in recent years from the information we have had, from the reports we've looked at.

What we're suggesting is that an investment into the areas of agriculture where there was significant effect, a significant impact, by the whole Columbia River downstream benefits…. Focusing it back on agriculture is something that would be very beneficial to the economy in the heartland in particular, and we believe this is an area that needs focus.

We are going to be approaching the Columbia Basin Trust after we go through these meetings. We want

to talk, as I say, to the farmers and discuss more of these issues with them, but we would ask for your support in principle to put more of a focus on the agricultural economy using the Columbia Basin Trust funds. That's something that is extremely important to us.

I've answered your questions — or Glen, our general manager, has. He was over there when I made the introduction.

To summarize, the B.C. tree fruit industry is performing very well right now. We're very pleased to come to you with good news. We also strongly support the government's economic revitalization strategy. We would ask that you ensure access to a secure supply of water through effective regional management. We are asking for government support of the principle that the Columbia Basin Trust be directed towards economic development of agriculture and ranch industries that were most affected by the Columbia basin treaty.

Then the last point: the BCFGA strongly supports the focus on reduced regulations, support for farm practices protection and the preservation of the agricultural land resource. Thanks very much.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Penny. I'll now ask members of the committee if they have any questions of clarification of the information given to us.

M. Hunter: Thanks, Penny. My background is fish, so I understand what you're saying about DFO. Are they ordering water releases to protect kokanee or sockeye salmon in the lake?

P. Gambell: I believe it's kokanee. That's my understanding. Most of the fish in the interior tend to be the kokanee.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for the presentation. Are you facing any increased protectionist measures from the United States recently?

P. Gambell: Well, we are very concerned, particularly in terms of some of our export practices. Yes, they are requiring now…. I can't remember the name of it, but it's a report.

G. Lucas: Under the terrorism act there's a requirement for country-of-origin labelling.

P. Gambell: This is not country-of-origin labelling, actually. This is a different thing. There is that country-of-origin labelling, which is one trade issue. The other issue is the Bioterrorism Act. That's the one that's really a concern to us. We've been negotiating on it. Not us, but B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd. and anybody exporting have been doing a lot to try to reduce the requirement. You have to have at least 24 hours' notice, and you have to file. It's not that the exporter has to file, but the recipient of the product has to file a bunch of information forms, etc., in order for this product that's coming in to enter. A lot of times the sales are made kind of at the last minute. So yes, it is a real issue, and it's something we have been working on. We have certainly discussed that with the minister through our trade committee on which I sit. It is an issue, and we are concerned because we do see that as being a protectionist position.

B. Locke (Chair): If we can keep the questions and the answers real short, we have less than two minutes.

P. Sahota: Thanks, Penny. I don't know if it's in your submission, but in terms of the market to the U.S., it's probably quite high.

P. Gambell: First of all, we are the largest exporter of apples of any province in Canada. We export approximately 20 percent of our total crop to the United States.

P. Gambell: The rest? About 10 to 15 percent goes offshore, largely Mexico now — we're getting a lot more into Mexico — Indonesia, Philippines and a number of smaller markets, and then the rest goes mostly to the Prairie provinces, some to Ontario. About 10 percent of B.C. tree fruit product goes into the lower mainland.

W. McMahon: I just wanted to clarify for you that the Columbia Basin Trust is actually arm's length from government. I encourage you to work with the board of directors. I am one of the four MLAs in the trust area, so I'm happy to speak to them on your behalf to encourage that.

D. Hayer: My question is regarding what you talked about in the introduction — an improved labour environment. I remember there were some problems

with the shortage of workers on farms. Is that okay now, or are you still having some challenges there?

P. Gambell: This year we've had a fairly short crop in terms of apples, and we have not had any problems. In fact, even for the cherry crop — which was not a short crop; it was almost an average-sized crop — we had a fairly good supply of labour. I do believe that the change in the regulations has made some impact.

We would like to, of course, still see some other changes made. The one that we feel is a bit of a nuisance thing is that any workers under 15 years old have to apply to the Ministry of Labour, and they have to get permission from their principal — not from their parents — in order to work on a farm. That is something that we feel is not reasonable. So we would like to see that one changed for sure.

D. Hayer: I can relate to that. When I was younger, my sisters and I used to work on a farm. I was around 16 or younger than that. I thought we had changed that, but I guess that hasn't been changed.

P. Gambell: It didn't get through the paper. It fell off the paper apparently at the last minute — so we heard. So we would encourage you to have another look at that one.

B. Locke (Chair): Penny and Glen, thank you very much for your presentation and for taking the time. It's very impressive to see Member MacPhail being an apple polisher for the rest of us. [Laughter.] We appreciate it a lot.

B. Locke (Chair): I'll call our next presenter, please: Jeff Omland from KPMG.

J. Omland: As long as you don't throw them — all right? You're the only ones with ammunition.

B. Locke (Chair): If you guys crunch into the mike, we won't get a lot of the…. The poor Hansard folks will have a tough time.

J. Omland: You're sitting with the ammunition. It reminds me when I lived in Calgary I watched about 2,500 people throw buns at Pierre Trudeau when he was out there. Don't throw the apples.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. My presentation is reasonably brief, and it looks like you've probably had a reasonably long day.

I had the opportunity to come last time. The previous government, just prior to the election, started a process like this, and I spoke. I've included in my presentation that I was very happy to see that some of the things we talked about there ended up somewhat in the present government's platform and in the budget that was implemented shortly after the election. I truly believe they were steps in the right direction.

My voice comes from speaking on behalf of my clients and myself. There are no other interests represented. I just feel obligated to be here. I have a great love for the province, and I want to see the Okanagan prosper, so any questions you might ask me about how my clients are dealing with the world as it is now, I'd be happy to answer.

I do believe the policies you implemented are on the right road and heading towards balancing the budget. Putting the finances in order has got to be a high priority of the government, and I think you've done some of it and are well on the way. I want to encourage it to continue, because I think it gives business the confidence to make investment and do their thing here. I appreciate what has happened, and I'd just encourage the steps that have been in your longer-term plans to continue on that path.

There were basically three recommendations I'd like to encourage, the first being education. I have three children; two graduated from UBC, and one is partway through. As I get a little older, I know they're the answer. I'm encouraging them to stay here, and it's not easy. It's not easy for them to find work and keep going, but I keep saying that the doors are opening. I'm a voice to push them in the back to stay here, because I think they're our answer.

I think we as a government need to find dollars and encourage the investment in education and support the increase in higher-paying jobs. I think they're hard to come by in the Okanagan. We maybe don't have the base for it. We've seen some growth in lower-paying jobs, and that all helps, but what we really want to see is the growth in jobs that come out of educated people and the things they can provide to our economy. I think they are the answer. I think there is a lot still to be done there, and I know dollars are precious.

I have always felt, whenever we go up against the Americans, whether one of my clients does — or even within our firm we have American offices…. Whenever we compare statistics with them, sometimes I'm just blown away by what they can do compared to us. We're not trying to become America, but they're a measuring post for us. I think we are well behind, and I think we've got to do things to encourage productivity in this province. Again, it's a source of profits that are reinvested in business, and I think we are falling behind.

I didn't want to throw tons of numbers at you, but we have slipped in the last five, six, seven years as a province in comparison to our American counterparts. That's in a manufacturing or larger workplace, and it's in very broad averages. But it's an indicator, and it tells us that we've got to get going and we've got to invest in that area. The items I've outlined are: investment in research and development; the high-tech sector, where there's very good leverage in that respect; education, again; and plant expansions and that kind of thing, where we can get some size in the economies of scale. You constantly see it as you move throughout the United States. They know how to get bigger and better faster.

I think we have to apply some of that in our area. One example here is what Vincor has done with their winery. I think they've got a state-of-the-art winery down there, and that's the kind of thing we need to see more of throughout this valley.

Lastly, it's regional inequities. It's not in the sense of asking for anything, but I think government's got to bear in mind…. I go to the lower mainland often, and I do business down there. You see a lot of investment there. I always say: I guess it's up to the government to maintain some equity in that and make sure that everybody in B.C. prospers from where this province goes.

In the Okanagan, examples I can probably give…. I think I've watched this valley turn more and more to tourism and agriculture for answers. A lot of my clients in the logging and mining industries have sort of slipped away on me. But the investments going back into tourism…. I would encourage you to look at something like the ALR, where maybe on an exception basis you could find a way to see a bit of investment in the tourism industry that might be as friendly as possible to that industry.

I happen to be a golfer, but I happen to know the economic impact of golf. I've seen it in places like North Carolina, Palm Springs and areas like that. It's truly what we are going to become, whether we want to or not.

Demographics are that the baby boom is pushing people our way, and they're going to come. Unless we build a big wall between us and Manitoba, they're going to find their way out here. I think we can capture that if we control it. The government has something to say about that, and without spending dollars, I think it could help in that area. I'm not talking about abolishing the ALR; I'm talking about possible exceptions where properties aren't equitable or aren't going to be a good producer of agricultural results.

Basically, that's all I had to say. I will tell you that my clients have appreciated some of the initiatives. If you want to know what happens with the money when things like the B.C. capital tax are removed from one of my clients who owned a small mobile home park and a shopping centre…. He built a restaurant in the mobile home park, and he built new roads and a sewer system in his trailer park. He must have told me for seven years how much he hated that tax and how much he felt it held him back. It was more the principle of it, but once it was gone, I think, again he just felt compelled to do something.

My client in the manufacturing business who fell just beneath the threshold is building quite a large warehouse facility, if he could get the city to cooperate with building permits and just get it done. That's difficult to do around here, but basically he's reinvesting. Neither one of them has taken a cent out of their business in this two- or three-year period, but I think that kind of encouragement is what makes those kinds of people put their money back into their business.

I think it might have felt like a risky stand for the government to take last year when we weren't growing, but I feel growth slowly coming back into the valley. Again, it's not the perfect kind; it's not high-paying jobs. It's not that. It's more on the retirement side — a few guys getting tired of the lower mainland and coming out here and trying to start up something. Still, that's how this valley will grow.

B. Locke (Chair): Jeff, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now ask members of the committee if they have any questions for you.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much, Jeff. You touched on some of the things the government has done to encourage expansion of business and upgrading of plants, such as elimination of corporate capital tax and also PST for new equipment, reduction of red tape, and other things. You also say what can be done, under section 2(d): encourage plant expansion to develop economies of scale.

J. Omland: There have been past incentives in the way of investment tax credits and things like that, introduced more by the federal government. I guess that's something in policy that's got to be threaded in, probably with the federal system. I have not put thought to it because I've never been given the opportunity to suggest legislation, but anything that can be done that encourages reinvestment, I think, is what we want to see and what I want to see for my clients.

D. Hayer: Are you suggesting that we should have subsidies and tax credits or something else to encourage the expansion of plants?

J. Omland: I'm a proponent of something like where your property taxes should go down…. This is the thing they do in Germany. Your property taxes go down when you reinvest, rather than up. I don't know if there's a method within that. I realize there's always a balancing of revenues. You can't take away from the revenue side, but if there were some way to…. If the federal government won't encourage it, I guess we've got to find a way or do it ourselves if we believe in it —

whether it could be through property tax or reduction of provincial income tax — somehow. I think it leads to jobs, and I think it leads to more dollars if expansion happens.

M. Hunter: Jeff, I was assuming that the threefold reference to education in each of your recommendations to education is not accidental. In your first one you talk about fostering increased training of the B.C. workforce, but you seem to be talking purely about public expenditure on post-secondary. Is that what you're looking at, or are there other things we should be looking at to get at this training and skills shortfall that we have?

J. Omland: I think there is an investment requirement, because I can tell you there are B.C. kids not getting into school. Our rates of kids entering post-secondary education are dropping. I think what happens if we don't train people for the jobs that are coming is that they'll move in from somewhere else, and probably our kids will go somewhere else. I think there's an opportunity there, but I'm really referring more to investment there in the first case, yes.

B. Locke (Chair): Mr. Omland, thank you very much for taking the time out of your day to present to us. We appreciate it very much.

Thanks very much for allowing us to enjoy these great Okanagan apples. There was lots of crunching. I don't know if Hansard could catch everything from all the crunching. Thank you.

B. Locke (Chair): I'll call the next presenters, if I could, please: the Oliver and District Community Economic Development Society, Patrick Deakin and Jessica Murphy.

P. Deakin: Good afternoon. One of your previous presenters left you with a case of apples. We had considered, as the wine capital of Canada, bringing some wine, but then we thought that we might be accused of bribery.

B. Locke (Chair): No, no. It would be okay by us. [Laughter.] We'd learn to live with it somehow.

J. MacPhail: I think the wine we selected for the Legislature wine is from the Oliver area.

You are receiving two documents. One is our submission, and one is today's copy of our local newspaper. I said to Jessica on the way here that, really, what we would be delivering to you, then, was the agony and the ecstasy. The agony is that there are about 9,800 people living in Oliver, and many of us are collecting transfer payments. Oliver is the community with the highest economic dependency ratio in British Columbia, which means that most of our income comes in the form of either basic social assistance, employment insurance, workers compensation benefits or old age pensions. In fact, in 2001 we received more than $40 million worth of transfer payments. That works out to more than $4,000 a person in the community.

The transfer payments allow our community and our residents to survive but not to prosper. We know and understand that our community and the province are about prosperity. I mean, we're looking for ways to raise revenues. We believe that we can transform our community from one that is so dependent on transfer payments into one that is a producer of revenues — one that adds to the provincial till, as it were.

Our submission is going to ask you to take on the most dependent community in British Columbia as your poster child. Ironically, in doing that, we are asking you to take on a community with one of the oldest populations in British Columbia as a poster child. However, we believe that what you and we and every other community in British Columbia stand to learn by addressing the economic issues arising from our aging and dependent population will make you a proud parent.

Our submission asks you to invest a percentage of the transfer payments to Oliver residents in work that we believe will, in the near term, reduce our dependency and increase local and provincial revenues. Our submission asks you to partner with us on every front that needs attention.

We believe that taking us on as a poster child will test your mettle and our resolve. Only one government before you has had the courage to do something so bold for Oliver. From 1919 to 1927 Premier John Oliver's government built an irrigation ditch to transform arid lands into productive farmland. This provided employment and a place to live for returning World War I vets and soon put Oliver on the map as the cantaloupe capital of Canada. At that time Oliver also produced zucca melons, which were between three and four feet long — quite an astonishing product.

That investment of some $5 million resulted in 80 years of productivity. We are convinced that an equivalent investment today will pay equivalent returns in sustainability, productivity and revenue. If you take one small town — Oliver, the wine capital of Canada — and through leadership, mentoring and assistance create a vibrant community while maintaining the natural beauty of a healthy, happy rural community, we will have a showpiece that pays back significantly more than it cost and a model for others to follow.

The rest of our submission details the statistics that portray us as the community with the highest economic dependency ratio. It talks about a number of other challenges we are facing as a small rural community. Then it suggests to you that in challenge there's

also opportunity. It does ask you to take us on as a poster child. We then provide a whole number of suggestions or recommendations for how we believe we can turn ourselves around.

We also tell you how we're pulling up our own socks in the process of doing that. In other words, we're not just coming here and holding out our hand and saying: "Would you please make us your poster child; we're poor." We're saying that we recognize the situation we find ourselves in, and we are working to overcome it. One of the ways the community is doing that is by tripling the budget of the economic development society in this fiscal year alone.

I said that the two documents represented the agony and the ecstasy. Today's issue of the paper talks about a proposed wine and food village for Oliver, a development that in its first phase is expected to cost somewhere between $77 million and $100 million. The proponents of the village believe — in the same way that 25 or 30 years ago there was a time to create a ski village or a ski resort that became Whistler — that the time for a food and wine village is right. The economy, the interests of our aging population, the interests of the world at large, really, would support the development of a food and wine village in the community. I guess, in that place, what we're saying to you is that with the small amount of money we are working with and investing and using to pull up our socks, we could do so much more with assistance — whether it be partnership or any other form of assistance. In fact, we ask for a percentage of the funds that are going to basic social assistance at the moment.

One last plug. The paper includes the brochure for our seventh annual Festival of the Grape, which takes place this weekend with 39 wineries — the largest collection of wineries of all of the fall wine festival events — food vendors, trade shows and a terrific band from Vancouver and lots of children's activities — just something about the diversity of the community.

J. Nuraney: Thank you, Patrick, for your presentation. A couple of things entered my mind as you were making the presentation. Wine production has become fairly common in Oliver — and melon and fruits, I believe. Why is it still a depressed area? How come there is no private investment coming into this area?

P. Deakin: In fact, we believe this represents the beginning of the turnaround, and we have been working for three years to achieve that. What we've noted about the agricultural community is that the individuals, for the most part, have had the farm in the family for a long period of time. Their interest and their knowledge seem to be focused on production of fruit and vegetables as a commodity. As you'll see in the presentation, there has not been the kind of embracing of value-added projects or processing plants that we know is taking place in other communities, even in British Columbia and in other communities throughout the world.

We believe the interest is there primarily, so one of the things we're asking is that you would consider establishing a business attraction team for our community that would go after the value-added and the producers that would complement the fruit and vegetable production in the community.

P. Deakin: We've got almost 30 percent of Canada's total acreage under wine grape and more than 50 percent of British Columbia's. We have two sources: one of them saying it's somewhere in excess of 3,000 acres; another saying it's close to 4,000, so we're working to resolve the differences. We do know that every year there has been more and more orchard and desert land going into wine grape production.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Patrick and Jessica. I will now ask the committee members if they have any questions of clarification.

J. Murphy: I think the most famous wine grown in Oliver is Merlot. Big, heavy reds are being created there; in fact, two of our wineries have recently won the best reds in Canada. So there's Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir.

P. Deakin: And there are also some interesting specialty wines being produced in the area, which a lot of people in the food industry are being attracted to. One of the wineries has focused on…. For example, they've added a pepper into one of their whites, and they've produced several dessert wines that they've created by actually naturally freezing fruit and then producing the dessert wine from that. It's not an icewine but a dessert wine, and they're winning themselves a cult following in that.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): So we don't have to go Tuscany, then, in the future. We'll just come here for….

P. Deakin: Absolutely. As Jessica mentioned, two of the wineries have won best reds in Canada, and that has been in successive years. Jackson Triggs, who are based in Oliver, just won best winery of the year and took eight national awards. Tinhorn Creek took best red in the previous year.

We'd also like to point out that there are several wineries north of us, including Mission Hill, which have a very well-known reputation, and 480 of Mission Hill's 500 acres of grapes are in the Oliver area. That was true up until this summer, when they took on another property near Naramata.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time out of your day. Have a wonderful wine festival this weekend.

P. Deakin: Thank you. If I might ask: is there somebody that we can follow up with in terms of the presentation, the submission itself — the agony, as it were, and the challenges we have?

B. Locke (Chair): The purpose of this committee is to listen to presentations to compile a report that goes forward to the House November 15. That's what we will be doing. If you want to take your report to a different place, you can take it to your own member. That's for sure. I think I would suggest that you may want to do that.

P. Deakin: Thank you. There are a number of recommendations in the document itself that we do believe would assist revenue generation in the province. We can appreciate that you're going to work through a lot of material.

B. Locke (Chair): Certainly, it will be on our plate. We thank you for making your presentation.

G. Litke: Welcome to Penticton. My name is Garry Litke. I'm the president of the Okanagan-Skaha Teachers Union. I represent about 500 teachers and teachers on call in an area that stretches from Naramata down to Kaleden and up to the West Bench.

I'd like to make some oral comments. I have a written brief to present to you when I've finished my oral comments, and I'll welcome some questions at the end. Basically, I want to focus on four major themes. The first has to do with universal access to public education as a key to economic prosperity. The second theme has to do with the provincial government's funding freeze on public education and its crippling effects on the system. The third theme has to do with the funding formula's creation of inequities, especially in the interior of British Columbia and smaller rural communities. Finally, I'm not sure if it's in the jurisdiction or the mandate of this committee, but I have included in my brief something about the need for the Ministry of Education to re-examine its spending priorities.

To begin with universal access, during the year 2002-03 there was a panel that toured the province and took public submissions on priorities and principles for education. They produced what is called a charter for public education. You may be aware of it. The charter affirms that public education is a sacred trust. As a community, we must promise to prepare learners for a socially responsible life in a free and democratic society. That's in the charter for education. We must prepare students to participate in a world which each generation will shape and build. I'm here today to encourage you to agree with me that investment in children is the best investment a society can make. If the government is truly interested in boosting long-term rates of economic growth, there is no better place than education. Investment in education is vital to attracting business investment and certainly is a more sound investment, and with longer-term benefits, than Olympic events.

Education must be equally available to all in order to ensure economic well-being and the success of every student, including special needs and first nations students. Any restriction threatens to entrench existing class boundaries by undermining opportunities for upward mobility. Special needs students have the right to an inclusive education and additional support as well.

Education does more than benefit individuals; nor is accessibility simply a social argument. A well-educated workforce is vital for the economy as a whole, and this is a point I want to stress, because educated people tend to earn more than those with less education. Government expenditures on education are more than recouped by the higher level of income tax that these graduates eventually will pay.

The next generation's ability to shape and build is being compromised by the current fiscal restraint policies of this government, and the architects of these policies, I believe, have little regard for children. At least, they do not understand the negative effect their decisions are having right now on the children in this province and will have on our economic future.

The second theme I'd like to talk about is the funding freeze. It is more than a funding freeze, because it amounts to cutbacks. As expenses increase and the resources for school boards are limited, the freeze actually requires school boards to make cuts. That funding freeze and the imposition of Bill 27 and Bill 28 have created a situation of deteriorating learning conditions for the students of this province.

Increased class sizes and a reduction in support services are a direct result of the financial squeeze that is being put on school boards. The minister asserts that trustees are making these decisions. Now, they are making choices, but the reality is that trustees don't have any choice. They are forced to make the cuts to service, and that results in laying off teachers and jamming more students into crowded and sometimes unsafe classrooms.

During the past 30 years, there have been several independent research studies that have proven conclusively that small class sizes at the primary level result in higher graduation rates at the secondary level and greater participation in post-secondary education. The direct result of small class size is citizens who participate more actively in democracy and in the economy of their community, so this funding freeze we're currently experiencing has already imposed and already means that today's primary students are less likely to participate in a democratic society and a free economy when they become adults.

A second point I'd like to make about the funding freeze has to do with the closure of school libraries. The libraries are closing as funding cuts force teacher-librarians to be reduced. The Minister of Education has placed an increasing emphasis on improving student

achievement, and to that end, many districts, including this one, are embracing a program of literacy. But what's wrong with this picture? On the one hand, literacy is being promoted; on the other hand, library doors are being locked. I visit schools, and when the dismissal bell rings, I can't get into a library and nor can any of the students, because they're locked. There are no teacher-librarians to allow the kids to enter those premises.

In middle schools, access to applied skills programs and support services has also been reduced. Computer labs, aside from having outdated software, often have only 28 workstations, and usually one or two or those workstations are inoperative — you know, computer glitches. Regularly forcing 32 or 33 students into that lab situation means that five or six kids are standing around waiting for a turn at a keyboard. They're not actively involved in instruction.

At the secondary level, students are finding graduation more difficult as a result of large class sizes. Not only is it more difficult to get the assistance they need, but it's becoming more difficult even to stay in the class. One class in this district of 40 students at the beginning of the year found that students were sitting on ledges. There weren't enough desks in the room. They were sitting on ledges and on the floor, and in order to survive, several qualified students had to be eliminated from that classroom through an early pretest that was quite stringent and signalled to many of the students that this was going to be a very difficult course and that they ought to just drop out.

Because of the funding freeze, these students are denied access and opportunity. The Minister of Education may approve of that practice, because the culling of less-gifted students will result in higher-average class test scores — right? — and that will be used as evidence of improved achievement. The point is that universality, a clear tenet of the charter of education, is severely compromised through this practice.

According to provincewide polling this summer, more than two-thirds of British Columbians believe that learning conditions have deteriorated since the teachers' collective agreement was stripped of class-size limits and minimum service levels. Almost 69 percent of the respondents in the McIntyre Mustel poll said learning conditions are now worse for students, and 47 percent of the respondents who identified themselves as Liberal supporters said that they also believed education conditions were worse than they were two years ago. The funding freeze is having a devastating effect on the public education system.

The third theme I want to just mention briefly has to do with the funding formula itself. The new funding formula, although it's ostensibly simpler, is creating inequities, especially in the interior. The removal of the special grants for rural schools has resulted in the closure of almost 100 schools across this province, and more closures have been threatened. In this district we have a couple of rural schools, and just recently the school board passed a policy on a procedure for consideration on school closure. Even in this district, a couple of our schools are being threatened.

Such a closure would not only disrupt the lives of the students as they're forced onto school buses every day, but it'll have an impact on the social, the cultural and the recreational life in those smaller communities. Closing the school cuts the heart out of a community.

I mentioned that I was also going to speak a bit about spending priorities in the Ministry of Education, but I realize that my time is just about over. It is in my brief, and I will let you read it. I'll just list them briefly by saying that it's difficult to justify the disastrous effects that I've just mentioned in our public education system when we see the Ministry of Education spending money in directions that have no effect on improving student achievement. I'll just list some of the examples that you'll find in my brief. One is assessment — the announcement that there's going to be provincial examinations for grade 10 students. Well, it doesn't matter how many times you weigh the pig; it doesn't get any heavier. Continued assessment of students doesn't improve their achievement. In my view, this is a waste of money or, at least, money that could be better spent.

In my brief I talk about the priority of funding for independent schools, the public money that's being spent on the B.C. public sector employers association, money that's spent on the College of Teachers, the money that's being spent in the media on full-page advertisements on behalf of the Ministry of Education. I'm questioning priorities in school governance, supply and service, administration, testing and assessment and even the ministry itself. Efficiencies could be found that would not affect the student in the classroom and could ameliorate some of the effects that I've just been talking about.

In conclusion, I'd simply like to say that none of this, of course, had to happen. If the government's economic strategy of tax and spending cuts, privatization and deregulation had instead been merely one of maintaining the status quo with modest increases in health and education to maintain the service levels, this province would be on an even keel today, and we would still have a balanced budget by 2004. It's not too late. Investment in public education can still be prioritized with the same zeal now being given to the Olympics. It all comes down to choices that this government will have to make. Should we reduce class size, support special needs students and reopen rural schools, or should we build a speed skating oval, improve the highway to Whistler and rebuild the Myra Canyon trestle that was so tragically burnt in the recent fire?

The latter priorities are laudable but only when our most vulnerable citizens — our children — already have the adequate services they need. The money is available. B.C. is still a wealthy province, but our economic strategy must include more than tax cuts and privatization. It must value people and especially children. Let's not deny their access to opportunity for their chances for success in life.

Thank you very much. I do have three recommendations: (1) lift the funding freeze — increase funding

to reflect the reality of increased costs; (2) adjust the funding formula — replace the grant for rural schools and save small communities; and (3) ensure that spending priorities have a direct and positive influence on services to children in the classroom.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Litke. I will now ask members of the committee if they have any questions with regard to clarification on content.

I. Chong: I appreciate your presentation, Mr. Litke, and I'm glad to hear you agree that efficiencies can and should be found, which I do expect that trustees are attempting to do.

Last year on the prebudget consultation paper, as the Chair has indicated, we listened to presenters and made recommendations that were then tabled. One of the recommendations — and I don't know if you've had time to read the prebudget consultation paper last year — was to continue to put education and health care first in line for new funding. In fact, the budget of 2003 that was introduced in February by the Minister of Finance did provide for over $200 million in new funding over the next three years. Just to let you know where….

I. Chong: Well, it's over the next three years. I just wanted to let you know that it's not a total freeze, as you may wish to classify it.

I. Chong: We are looking to hear from people as to where efficiencies can be found. Again, I wanted to let you know, in case you didn't have a chance to look at the paper, that that was happening. Thank you.

W. McMahon: Would you clarify for us whether your school district is going through declining enrolment in large numbers?

G. Litke: It's pretty stable. Yes. I mean, in the spring they staff for a declining enrolment, and then in September they see the whites of their eyes as the students cross the threshold. Then they end up in the first week of school hiring back the teachers they've laid off. The net layoff picture in this district is fairly stable, but it still creates stability because those who were laid off in the spring then find a job somewhere else in the autumn. I was talking to one young teacher recently. She's been teaching now for ten years. She has never spent more than one year in the same school. Every year of those ten years she's had to move schools, because she gets laid off in the spring and gets rehired in the fall.

G. Litke: No, it's because of the school district's projected enrolment figures. They always think there's going to be a decline. They lay teachers off, then the decline doesn't materialize, and then they hire them back.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation today, Mr. Litke. We appreciate you taking the time.

B. Locke (Chair): I will call the next presenter: the Arthritis Society of British Columbia and the Yukon, Trudy Battaglio.

T. Battaglio: Good evening. My name is Trudy Battaglio, and I am the regional development coordinator of the interior region with the Arthritis Society of B.C. and Yukon.

I would also like to introduce Tom Kemp. Tom is a semi-retired professional and a recipient of knee replacement surgery. He's going to share a little bit later with you his before-and-after story.

I'm here today to ask that this committee consider the implications and the cost on the provincial budget when the needs of its citizens for access to adequate medications, treatment and joint replacement surgery are either not available or delayed. Most people imagine that arthritis is not a serious disease, that pain can be easily controlled by those extra-strength medications that we see advertised on TV and that even if you get it, it wouldn't be till you are much older. I'm asking you to think again.

I'm providing you with a brief handout that highlights the significance of this disease in our country and in our province. One in seven persons has some form of arthritis; 60 percent of those are under 65 years old. In fact, a report by the CBC last night actually said that number has now been upgraded to one in six persons. The prevalence of osteoarthritis alone, which is the breakdown of the cartilage and one of more than 100 types of arthritis, is two and a half times greater than heart disease and more than six times greater than cancer.

For those hoping to be 70 years old, you have an 85 percent chance of having arthritis. Arthritis is the most common cause of long-term disability. Every ten years the number of people with arthritis grows by ten mil-

lion; that's about 300 new people each day diagnosed with some form of arthritis. It's estimated that approximately $18 billion per year — that's a Canadian figure — is lost in productivity due to bone and joint problems. The CBC report last night indicated that there are approximately nine million visits to doctors per year because of bone- and joint-related problems, plus all the follow-up tests, treatment and medications.

How are we doing as a province? B.C. ranks eighth among the provinces for joint replacement surgery wait times. The wait-lists for orthopedic surgery are the longest in B.C. when compared to any other type of surgery. The official stats now show that 6,000 are waiting for joint replacement in B.C. — although surgeons would suggest the figure is more likely to be accurate at approximately 9,000 — and the average wait time is 34 weeks from the time the surgeon agrees that the patient is sufficiently critical to be placed on the priority list.

T. Kemp: Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. I was asked to give a brief history of what triggered the point I am at now, where I have had to have a knee replacement. I have always been an active individual over my careers, from a child to where I'm at now. I've always been an involved athlete. I play hockey; I ski; I ice boat. I do a lot of things a lot of people do but maybe a little more aggressively; I'm not sure. That may be the cause of my problem.

My first operation was back in 1983, when arthroscopic surgery wasn't developed to the extent it is today. I had a full-blown surgery done — which is a matter of going in, cutting it open, removing or repairing the cartilage and then sewing it back up — with a long period of rehabilitation, because at that stage of the game you've got to walk out with a cast on. Then you deal with a huge bandage, and you're on crutches. Then you go to a cane, and then you go to physio. A knee replacement was easier, let me tell you.

In any event, that same knee progressively got worse over the years. I added two arthroscopic surgeries after that. I got to the stage where there was no longer any cartilage. Back in October, when I finally was able to get in to see a physician who was able to determine the seriousness of the problem, my choice of medical treatment was, of course, a knee replacement, which is what happened.

Now, getting to the point of having a date set was a long and tedious process. In the meantime you do live off drugs, because the pain in your knees gets to the stage where it even aches at night when you toss and turn and roll, and getting up, down, sitting and standing all become a problem. It affects me as a person, obviously, and it also affects the people around me. It affects the place where I work. I have to rely more on my staff. I certainly have to rely more on my wife. She has to pick up the situation when I cannot carry on.

I'll give you an example: even driving. Towards the end, my knee was locked up so much that I almost had to reach over and kiss her before I could get my leg into the car. It was that sort of problem that you had to live with until such time as somebody could get in there and say: "Okay, let's fix it." I did. I got it fixed, and I'm so grateful for the fact that it is fixed now.

Like I say, it has affected my job and my family, and it has gone on for a long, long period of time. I've had to deal with a lot of additional costs. I've had to buy knee braces, which I hopefully won't need anymore, but you never know for sure. I've certainly had the added cost of drugs. Vioxx and Celebrex, which you all have heard about on TV and radio, I'm sure, are the so-called medical cure for what we have. It's very nice, but it's also very expensive. I'm not the type of person who has this wonderful medical plan available to me, so everything comes out of my pocket.

Other than the costs and the delays and the process of having to go through the surgery, I can say now that I'm glad I've done it. I'm certainly not glad I've got a bionic knee, but it's a lot better than what I had. I'm just sorry it took as long as it did, and I have to agree with my colleague here. She and her group are trying to make a presentation to you to try and put some emphasis on how to reduce this, because it's a tremendous cost to the province as far as I can see.

Just a small example. I have to go into the hospital to see a doctor. They have a clinic in the hospital to service patients. It's almost like taking a number and waiting in line for your number to come up on the board someplace. Because of the delays I'll sit for up to two to two and a half hours in a waiting room waiting for a five-minute discussion with a doctor. Now, I work for a living, and that impacts on me and on the people I deal with. It just seems to be a constant delay all the way through the process. I guess what I'm hoping to see from our province is an improvement to what I've just gone through. If we can pass that on to people coming behind me, then I think you're doing your job and what I've got to say today may help. I hope it will.

T. Battaglio: Every week as part of my role I meet with people who are in their thirties, forties, fifties, who are required to give up their jobs or certain parts of the functioning that they're able to do with their families. We see moms who are no longer able to pick up their kids, grandmothers that are no longer able to do some of those things, because their arthritis is not being dealt with adequately.

This is an invisible disease. What makes it difficult is that it's invisible. It's a disease that fluctuates. Sometimes people can get up one morning and they're fine. The next day they can hardly get out of bed. These are the things that make this disease very difficult for some people to understand.

When this serious health care need goes untreated, it doesn't just impact on individuals. It also impacts on families, on communities, when their members can no longer work. It impacts on the medical system when they have to go see the doctors, wait for treatment and

all of those other things that come along with that. It certainly impacts on the public health dollars when you hear about the number of visits that people are making to the doctor in order to help relieve their pain. The cost of the wait-lists is unacceptable. It has physical impact, social impact, employment and economic impact.

What are we asking for? We believe we need to act now. Because of the aging population, in the next ten to 15 years, hundreds of thousands of new cases will be diagnosed, and the demand for surgery will increase. Earlier I was saying that the number is going to increase by a million every decade. The pressure on our public health system will increase substantially if this is not going to be addressed. We are requesting that additional funds be allocated to decrease the wait-lists and ultimately reduce the human cost and the financial cost that result from undue waiting.

We are requesting that this be recognized as a provincial priority so that we can work together with B.C.'s health regions to find a solution.

I've provided you with a handout, which provides you with some more information. It talks about the demand for orthopedic care exploding as the population ages. It highlights the orthopedic situation in B.C. as it stands now. It talks about patients' lack of access to hip and knee replacement surgery and the continuing crisis with the overwhelming economic and human impact, and then it proposes some steps we believe are a step in the right direction towards a solution for this problem.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you. I'm going to ask members of the committee if they have any questions on clarification of the information, and I would like to stress to the members that the purpose of your question should be around the information given to you.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): I'm just wondering whether many of your people are on Remicade and whether that's helped.

T. Battaglio: Absolutely. I've talked with a number of people with rheumatoid arthritis where the Remicade has had significant impact since it has been placed on the provincial medical plan — the difference between some people not being able to get out of bed or being wheelchair ridden and all of a sudden being able to walk and become productive members. Certainly, the Remicade has had a huge impact. That was something that was put on the provincial medical plan within the past few years.

T. Battaglio: Sorry. I just need to clarify that, though. That's been responding to one type of arthritis — to rheumatoid arthritis. There are certainly many other types of arthritis, like this one that we're talking about, that Remicade wouldn't have an impact on.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): I understand. I think it's just been put on, and I was wondering whether in fact it really has helped.

T. Battaglio: It certainly has had an impact on that particular type of arthritis, but there are more than one hundred different types.

J. MacPhail: Very interesting personal perspective as well. I wasn't familiar with the consequences of arthritis. I very much appreciate it.

I was promised by the Minister of Health that they were going to soon be breaking down wait-lists and times by region. Do you have any information about that in terms of orthopedic surgery?

T. Battaglio: Yes, I do. I don't have it with me today. I can certainly provide that to the committee. But yes, we do have that information.

T. Battaglio: Doctors are also telling me, though, because we've been having provincial forums throughout the province, that the figures are underestimated. Those figures amount to the 6,000 that I spoke about earlier. They're saying that in fact it's likely to be 9,000-plus. But we do have it broken down by region.

J. MacPhail: I would really like it; I'm sure the rest of the committee would as well.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation today, Trudy, and thank you, Tom, for sharing your personal experience. We appreciate your time very much.

I'll call our next witness, please: Tina Solary, South Okanagan–Similkameen Brain Injury Society. You can begin, Tina.

T. Solary: Thank you for this opportunity. It's a pleasure to present to you. My name is Tina, and I'm representing the South Okanagan–Similkameen Brain Injury Society. We refer to it as SOSBIS, so we can keep things a little more brief.

SOSBIS was formed in 1989 by concerned individuals who were aware of the considerable need to provide education and support to survivors of brain injury and their families. Their second objective was to increase awareness about brain injury in the community at large. The society is a non-profit group incorporated in 1989 under the Society Act of B.C. Our mission is to promote knowledge and encourage public awareness and understanding of the special needs of persons suffering from brain injuries and members of their families. We seek to stimulate and guide community action that will ensure the provision of necessary support for brain injury survivors and their families. That is why I'm here today.

Unfortunately this year, as I understand it, SOSBIS is not to receive any additional funding from the provincial government; however, the demand for services has expanded dramatically. There is a large need in Penticton and the surrounding area, such as Summerland, Oliver and Osoyoos, for support for stroke survivors and their family. It appears that many stroke survivors in our community have been falling through the cracks. They are hungry for information about stroke, how to avoid a second stroke, what the effects of stroke are, how to live with these effects, and how to live in as functional and independent manner as possible.

SOSBIS has provided stroke services in the past and has received many referrals. The stroke population has different needs than other brain injury survivors, so SOSBIS wanted to create services specifically for stroke survivors so that they could help this large population. However, they have not had sufficient resources to do this. There has been little support for stroke survivors in the community. There was previously a support group, but it closed down in 1999. In February of 2003 key stakeholders from SOSBIS, rehabilitation and social work in the hospital, the Healthy Heart Program, community social work, stroke survivors and their families got together. They identified that there was a gap in service related to the ongoing psycho-emotional support for stroke survivors and their families.

A steering committee, with the assistance of some nursing students, set up focus groups to determine the needs and wants of members in the community. The Stroke Recovery Association was contacted and presented at one of the focus groups. The group also met with the coordinator from a Kelowna group running a similar program. An executive committee was formed, and their first task was to advertise for a coordinator. This did not occur, as there was a decrease in the funding to the provincial Stroke Recovery Association, and there was not going to be sufficient funding to get a coordinator and to maintain the program.

The South Okanagan–Similkameen Brain Injury Society took on the responsibility of hiring a coordinator, and a stroke recovery group became a reality. SOSBIS took on this project with hopes of securing funding in the future. They felt it was a service that needed to be provided immediately. The stroke recovery group started in August of this year and had an average turnout of 12 people at each meeting. We have since grown in size immensely and now have a membership of 38 people with an average of 20 people at each meeting. These are just the stroke survivors; there are other members of the brain injury society as well.

Other services are required for the stroke population, such as case management, ongoing rehabilitation opportunities, recreational activities, education and counselling. With an aging population, especially in a retirement community like Penticton, the demand for services for stroke survivors is growing. Also, more and more younger people are having strokes, and it is important that these people have somewhere to turn. It is beneficial to the government to have these people learn to manage their chronic conditions as independently as possible, relying less on the health care system. Rehabilitation in a group setting would be far more cost-effective than serving all these people individually.

When preparing your report, please consider the information I have presented to you and highlight the need for the service to be provided in our community.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Tina. I will ask the members of the committee if they have any questions.

B. Locke (Chair): I will ask the next presenter if he could come forward: Mayor David Perry, city of Penticton.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. If I seem a little disconcerted, it's because my wife stole my car earlier to attend the coaching of her field hockey game in Kelowna, and I've arrived in a city pickup truck. If the citizens see me, they'll be thinking I'm hauling grass clippings off to the dump or something like that. So I must get home before midnight at least.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation to the committee here in our own community. As always, I appreciate this opportunity to attend a session such as this, and communicate to you the concerns of the citizens of Penticton.

I believe it is also valuable from your perspective to hear from municipal representatives such as myself as we tend to be the level of government closest to the ground, as it were, and therefore hear and see first how the policies of senior levels of government are affecting our communities.

I would point out that I had the pleasure of appearing before this committee once before in 2001 — I believe prior to the last provincial election. As I recall, the thrust of my presentation at the time was to stay the course in terms of government spending and not embark on a program of massive cuts and reduction of taxes to meet that political thirst for a balanced budget at all costs. All I can conclude from that encounter is that occasionally as a politician you get used to not being listened to. I'm sure many of the committee members will understand that situation.

Tonight let me dwell on a number of themes that are becoming apparent to me. First let me say that as a municipal politician of some 13 years experience and now mayor of this great city, I'm used to balanced budgets. For us, as everyone here knows, it is a legislative requirement that we have to wrangle with virtually on a daily basis.

We are required to make choices, some of them very difficult, and we get response back from the public very quickly if we do not support cleaning up the beach, money for fireworks, street cleanup downtown or weed control on our sidewalks. So I'm not without some sympathy for the challenges that the provincial government faces in an effort to make the clearly required move from a resource-based economy of the last 100 years to an information-based economy of the future.

Having said that, however, I believe you are hearing clearly at your level that the citizens of British Columbia have a threshold level beyond which they will not be pushed in the move to make these changes. They are clearly saying there are certain things that are considered sacred no matter what the status of our fiscal situation might be.

You have heard it most recently on the drive to privatize the Coquihalla. You will hear it again with the push to privatize ICBC. If the message isn't clear by that time, you will surely hear it loud and clear on the move to sell off assets of B.C. Hydro. These are decisions that have been made. Corporations have been created, and public bodies initiated by political parties of various stripes over the last 50 to 60 years. To tamper with these structures that the citizens of our province value so much will surely be political folly.

Well, enough about the provincial issues because I'm hardly qualified to give you advice at that level. Let me touch on some of the concerns that are near and dear to the citizens of our community — citizens who I hear from at my desk on a daily basis.

First and foremost, the issue is crime. We are currently experiencing a 38 percent increase in our quarterly crime statistics over the same period last year. This is occurring across the board and not just in the particular categories of measurement such as theft or assault, although we have a strong suspicion that they are all drug-related statistics.

I believe honestly, and it's my own personal opinion, that we are seeing the first impacts of the severe cuts that have been made to social programs since 2002. The effects are now starting to be felt at the local level — at our level.

I would like you to know that we are doing our bit to find solutions to these problems, so I'm not here simply whining tonight. I have initiated an innovative drug task force that pulls together agencies and departments from all different sectors of the community in order to address the problem of drug abuse in the city at the local level. That initiative, along with a crime prevention youth initiative, was recognized just last week at the B.C. Crime Prevention Association's annual award presentation as unique in municipalities across British Columbia.

Also, I'm asking our local inspector of the RCMP to prepare a manpower review, study force, to bring forward to city council during the annual budget process which will get underway this year. We will then debate the need to hire additional police officers to meet what we see is a significant concern in our community.

However, we can only do so much on our own. I'm asking the government to reconsider the depth of cuts that have been made to social programs related to those in need, such as women's centres, drug addicts' services, counselling services, etc.

Secondly, I'm calling on government to reinvest in youth. At the recent UBCM meeting I attended an excellent cabinet presentation and listened to Minister George Abbott as he spoke about the importance of amateur sport and the need for opportunities for all young people around the province, not just in Vancouver and Whistler. For those involved in these areas with our own children and the children of others, we see clearly the difference that it makes. There's no question that the turn in crime statistics is in part connected to our own youth.

Again, I want to emphasize that we are doing our bit at the local level — an ambitious minor sports program; a Families and Schools Together program, initiated locally; coaching instruction; Kidsport; and on and on. Again, senior government has a very important role to play in this area. Instead of cuts where youth are affected, why not talk about investment?

In addition, tonight I want to touch on the importance of our own hospital and the role it plays in regional health care. Penticton Regional Hospital is an institution that is valued beyond measure by the residents of the whole southern Okanagan region. I consistently hear stories or read in the paper of the wonderful people that work there and the support they give their patients. I hear the stories of the impact on our housing market when people move to our area just so they can keep close to this particular hospital. I meet regularly with concerned groups who keep me apprised of the threats that may reduce the effectiveness of this facility to provide the level of care that is needed to the residents of the region. Again, we are trying to do our bit, at our level.

The region supports, considerably, the hospital foundation in their drive to raise money for new equipment. The city views the facility and its staff as an economic driver and encourages our economic development officer to actively spend his time recruiting specialists and general practitioners to fill the ever-growing vacancies. I personally meet with prospective candidates every chance I get, to convince them of what a wonderful region we live in. But we can't do it while the aging equipment is not replaced, while valuable jobs are centralized in Kelowna and while we cannot attract the necessary professionals to service our population.

I could go on tonight, well beyond the allotted time, to talk about such things as the impact of the elimina-

tion of secondary highways maintenance programs, the disappearance of unconditional grants, the reduction in transit subsidies and the change in rules for the use of lottery funds and the resultant impact on social programs. All of these we have to shoulder — the burden, the responsibility or the cost — in some form or another.

In conclusion, then, I would appeal to you to listen carefully to the communities you visit as you travel around the province. It is at this level that you will find the true bellwether of the impact of your policies and the impact they're having on the citizens of our province. I think you will find a similar message, and that is: a balanced budget, yes, but not at the expense of our safety, our youth and our medical services.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and, of course, anticipate any of those hard questions you might have for me.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you, Your Worship. I will now ask the committee members if they have any questions.

Several municipalities that I spoke with last week at the UBCM are doing a calculation of the shifting costs — acknowledging that there's one taxpayer — of programs that were delivered provincially to the municipalities. Is Penticton contemplating doing that?

D. Perry: We haven't done that yet, and we haven't talked about that. What I'm talking about is a sensing of what we're getting and the impact it's starting to have on the various areas like policing and that kind of thing. We haven't initiated a study as yet, and that may be something that might come out of our budget process.

I can only appeal to you as a municipal mayor and give you my instincts of what I'm hearing on the street and the phone calls I'm getting coming to my desk, but I think that's a very real sensing of what we're seeing in our community, and I can't believe our community is very much different from other communities around the province. Our budget process this year will be a challenging one, because we will have to start looking at and taking into account all of those things I've mentioned, such as transit service and those extra costs we're going to have to look at supporting.

M. Hunter: Your Worship, I was actually quite shocked by the 38 percent number for the increase in crime. I don't want to get into a debate with you about the causes, because I could tell you that in my community, in Nanaimo, we haven't seen anything like that. What is it about Penticton? Is Kelowna suffering the same increase? Or is it focused here? Are there more people coming in? Are we seeing drug use increase? Can you just expand a little bit or give us some hint as to why that rather shocking increase?

D. Perry: I appreciate you asking that question. I introduced that tonight. I know the press is here, so I'm putting my head in the noose by doing that, but it's something I felt we needed to address to the public at some point. Our inspector has just gone down to Vancouver to re-analyze those statistics, and I'll be meeting with him tomorrow morning. Again, I'm basing it on that gut instinct of the kind of people I'm seeing around town and the kinds of things I'm hearing.

Obviously, I think, part of the factor is Penticton — the climate, the extensive good weather we've seen all summer in spite of the problems we had toward the end of the summer. We've become a bit of a magnet for people who know they can come and exist here without having to fight those kinds of conditions. I think that's part of what we're seeing. But I can't, in all honesty, avoid the opinion myself that a lot of it is socially driven. People are coming here, yes, from other areas because they don't have the supports they originally had in other areas. Drug use and drug issues are a continuing concern. We've initiated the task force, and that's starting to pay some dividends, but along with the people that appear in town is the increase of drug use we're starting to see evidence of. I think it's by virtue of the same reason our valued tourists like to come here that we're also attracting others of the more undesirable sort.

D. Perry: We don't as a municipality. No. The lower mainland, I believe, does. Again, I'm assuming that's something the community charter will give us the opportunity to look at.

B. Locke (Chair): Seeing there are no other questions, I want to thank you, Your Worship, for your presentation. We appreciate your coming out in your pickup truck and everything, taking the time. You better go look for your car.

B. Locke (Chair): Members, our next presenter isn't here, so we'll call Mr. Bill Horne, who was going to be at our open-mike session. We'll do that now if we can.

B. Horne: Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members and staff. I've got a digital version of this for you and a hard copy. My name is Bill Horne, and I'm the director of the summer program and spiritual nurture pathway at the Naramata Centre 20 minutes up the road. The Naramata Centre, if you don't know, is part of the United Church of Canada. It's a learning and conference centre which provides an affordable venue for professional development training, conventions, retreats and things like that. Community organizations, people working in education and health care, the environment and social justice issues, as well as

several government ministries, meet there annually. Perhaps you might consider convening your committee there next time you're in this area.

I moved to Naramata at the beginning of September from Wells, B.C., near Barkerville Historic Town. I would like to address the impact of the provincial budget and policies on the North Cariboo as well as on the South Okanagan, because I'm kind of a nomad.

Let me start here. Cuts to health care, education, welfare and non-profits have affected the Naramata Centre in many ways. Most alarming is the fact that a number of organizations and groups that regularly use the centre, primarily non-profits, can no longer afford to use our facility, even though ours is one of the most economical places to meet. I'm talking about groups like the Family Support Institute, the Hemophilia Society and disability organizations. These are the people that need community the most, and they've had their funds cut.

Combined with the effects of federal deregulation in the airline industry, reduced flights into Penticton and higher fares, it is now more difficult for our clients to get up to Naramata. The result is decreased revenues for the centre. Although the government appears to believe that the private sector charities and churches can fill some of the large gaps left by the cuts, the reality is that the cuts are making it harder for us to serve people who are struggling.

Individual members of our staff report that they face more and more deductions of taxes and higher gas prices. Their disposable income has dropped since this government came into power because of higher MSP premiums, sales taxes and so on. This reflects the findings of the study by the B.C. office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called Bleeding the Hinterland, which reported — and I'll just summarize the pertinent one for here — that West Vancouver average tax cuts were over $2,000, but the smallest tax cuts in B.C. were in the Okanagan. Keremeos had the smallest average tax cut in the province at only $335 per taxpayer, followed by Oliver and Osoyoos . I have a whole chart attached for you.

Some of you may be familiar with that report and may take issue with it, but the fact remains that the money saved from the spending cuts is very close to what was given away in lost revenues, primarily to the province's wealthiest residents. On a geographical basis, this has caused a significant shift of revenue and resources away from the hinterland.

What's the human cost? One staff member told me the following this afternoon. I'll quote her: "I have a son in care with the ministry, and the care has declined to such a degree that he hasn't been able to reach his social worker for three weeks." She goes on to describe some of the difficulties they're facing because of that:

"Being a single parent has also become more difficult as child tax credits and premium assistance programs have been either completely cut or the minimum lowered so far below poverty that I make too much working a part-time job, that I don't even qualify for even a prorated rate. Then my daughter was told she's not allowed to ride the school bus because we live within five miles of the school. She can either walk or ride the city transit, but she can't afford that, given a student rate. I've been very frustrated by these kinds of policies."

Back to the economy. Breaks to the resource sector and the heartlands strategy in no way make up for the de-ruralification of B.C. that's taking place right now. With long-term trends like falling commodity prices, it makes sense to invest in the infrastructure of small-town B.C., not undermine it. My wife and I have been active members of our local chamber of commerce for nine years as small business people. We fail to understand the penny-wise and pound-foolish approach the government has been taking.

For example, how prudent have been cuts to the Forest Service or the fire commissioner's office? Did the government save more than it ended up spending to fight the summer's fires? How many people were at risk because of those fires? How vulnerable were the economies of communities and regions affected by the fires? Is it sensible to close the Penticton forestry office? The chief of the Naramata volunteer fire department, Graham Baker, who was instrumental in fighting the whole southern flank of that Okanagan Mountain fire, wonders when the approximately $152 million in insurance revenues will flow to the fire commissioner's office, instead of into general revenues. I can only imagine his frustration. This is a false economy.

I'm glad the government seems committed to rebuilding the KVR trestles. This is an important investment in the historic economic and recreational infrastructure of the region. Why, then, is the government so determined to cut funding for Barkerville Historic Town, the largest historic site in western North America and the place that accelerated Canadian Confederation?

I'm just curious to know how many of you have been to Barkerville. Maybe about a third. By cutting all the Barkerville maintenance and security staff, the ministry has put the entire site at risk, including the large collection of artifacts that belong to all of British Columbia. Perhaps the minister doesn't understand how much 18 feet of snow weighs and what it does to historic buildings.

Barkerville is the motor for the summer tourism economy in the Cariboo, and many business people who have invested heavily in the region — myself included — stand to lose if this asset is undermined and left unprotected. Residents in that area are furious and cannot understand why the government's willing to invest in Olympic infrastructure while begrudging Barkerville a fraction of that amount, which goes a long way.

Marilyn Rummel, a longtime retailer and restaurateur in the Wells-Barkerville area, did the math for a more complete picture of Barkerville's real costs and revenues. She demonstrates that when one takes into account the provincial taxes generated by Barkerville businesses, staff and visitors, the subsidy is going from the Cariboo to Victoria and not the other way around. I'm attaching a copy of the Wells Community News,

which details her calculations. The government's policy on Barkerville just doesn't make business sense.

Those of us who've operated businesses in the area know firsthand what it means to face a school closure. It doesn't just affect the children or the vitality of the community; it makes it harder to hire workers with families. How can a town market itself as a retirement community, if it loses its hospital? Each of these has its own spinoff effects.

For two years my wife, Claire Kujundzic, was president for the Wells and District Chamber of Commerce. Last summer, as vice-president, she took the extraordinary step of starting a hunger strike to save our elementary school from being closed and to stop the young children from being bused an hour each way on a mountain highway every day. She had to stop after ten days when she was admitted to hospital, but 50 people around B.C. joined that hunger strike at different times.

She had chest pains when she was admitted, because her body was starting to consume heart muscle, and if she had continued fasting, she would have died. The school is still open, although Wells has paid a high price for it — essentially, being doubly taxed. But the hunger strike was symptomatic of something more. Starving the heart of B.C. puts the rest of the province — the body of B.C., not just the heart — at risk. We're not expendable; we're intricately connected. I encourage you to re-examine your economic policies and stop harming the heart, without which our province will fail. Please listen to the Wells-Barkerville business community on that issue and in this region as well.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Bill. I will ask the members if there are any points of clarification that they would like to ask.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Horne. I have been to the Naramata Centre. Is the Naramata Centre going to continue on?

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your taking the time.

Our next presenter is the Okanagan University College Students Association: Karina Frisque.

K. Frisque: This might be a tad scattered. Unfortunately, there was a little communication error, and we only found out about the time change this morning. Tree Kennedy, the president of the Penticton student s association, was also supposed to be here. She can't make it, unfortunately, so I'm here speaking on behalf of 7,000 Okanagan University College students from Penticton, Kelowna, Vernon and Salmon Arm.

Tuition is something that concerns us very much. Over the past two years at OUC we've seen our tuition rise over 100 percent. This is a direct result of the lack of government funding and deregulation of tuition fees. Also, over the last two years we've seen some of the largest graduating classes come out of high school in this province. In addition to mature students coming back for retraining and getting new skills, this has created a huge crisis in access. There are not enough spots for how many students need access to post-secondary education.

In addition, the high prices of tuition are a huge barrier to post-secondary education for many people in this province. Also, students are graduating with enormous amounts of debt. I think the average is over $20,000 in student debt. Because of these massive tuition increases and lack of government funding, more and more students are unable to go to post-secondary education in this province. Those that are able, graduate with so much debt that a lot of them are forced to leave the province to find more lucrative jobs to pay off their student debt.

Also, the lack of government funding has created another crisis at our school. We're finding fewer resources. Our libraries have had to be cut down. Our computer labs have had to be cut down. This is a direct result of not enough government funding, so I'm here today to ask that you make students a priority and that the funding for post-secondary education is increased.

Part of a really healthy economy is a well-educated class of people. You need to have well-educated individuals to make the economy grow and to make a province strong, so by investing in post-secondary education, you're investing in the future. Also, it's very important to remember that the students are the future of this province and that in order to keep this province strong, we need to invest in our students.

I apologize for being so scattered, but that's it. Mainly my big concern is that you do recognize the fact that tuition is a huge, huge crisis right now, that the state of our post-secondary institutions in this province is not very healthy and that this is just something that needs to be recognized.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Karina. I will now ask the members of the committee if they have any questions.

W. McMahon: Just a point of clarification. Did you say that your tuition has increased by 100 percent this year?

K. Frisque: Over the last two years. Since 2001-02, I believe it's about 120 percent for our institution.

K. Frisque: Oh, yeah. For all the students attending OUC, it has gone up that much.

We have been hearing these concerns from other presenters in other areas as well. I understand the increase in the tuition fees has caused excessive burdens on the students in terms of finance. My question to you is: are you finding that the students are now finding it increasingly difficult to access student loans?

K. Frisque: I'm not 100 percent sure. I know that the cancellation of first-year grants has had a really negative impact on students, and accessing student loans has always been a problem, because there are so many limitations and restrictions on it. A student loan is not always something that a person would want to take on, just because of the huge debt load that you'll end up graduating with. Unfortunately, it's sort of an option that most students have to face.

I don't know if it's a huge problem. More, it's just the fact that it's money that you're going to have to pay back eventually, so grants would be much more beneficial. Because first-year grants have been eliminated, that makes the debt load much higher when people do graduate.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): What are your fees? In terms of dollars, what are your student fees right now?

K. Frisque: Right now, for an arts degree, they're about $1,600 per semester, and two years ago they were about $700 a semester.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): When you say semester, is that just for the three-month period? Is that it?

K. Frisque: Yeah. It would be, like, from September until Christmas break and then January until April. But if you're in science or business and you have lab courses, it's even more. In some programs like social work, where you need a practicum, it's even more. I know people who are paying over $3,700 for a year's tuition when two years ago it used to be about $1,700.

B. Locke (Chair): Karina, thank you very much for taking the time out of your day and presenting to us.

K. Frisque: Thanks for this opportunity, and I hope that committees such as these will always be receptive to hearing students' concerns.

B. Locke (Chair): Our next presenter is Mr. David Herman, B.C. Real Estate Association. Is he here? We're a little ahead of time, actually.

B. Locke (Chair): We've all been waiting for you. We're happy to do so. Mr. Herman, the mike is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the committee, for this opportunity to submit the British Columbia Real Estate Association's prebudget recommendations. I'm David Herman, the president of the B.C. Real Estate Association. Our association represents 12 real estate boards and more than 12,000 realtors across British Columbia. I am very pleased to be joined today by Ann Hayes, president of the South Okanagan Real Estate Board.

As you might know, the real estate sector is one of the key drivers of the provincial economy. Last year dollar volume sales of homes in the multiple listing service, residential only, were over $19 billion — a new record — and it appears that we'll easily surpass that number this year. Research tells us that the average housing transaction in Canada generated an estimated $19,800 of spending for general household purposes, such as furniture, renovations and financial services. In B.C. this spinoff generated nearly $1.6 billion last year. We anticipate the real estate market to continue to perform well for some time to come.

With regard to budget issues, the government has taken action in three areas we believe will impact B.C.'s economic recovery: the Real Estate Act, the community charter and housing affordability. BCREA and the South Okanagan Real Estate Board are pleased with the government's actions to date toward introducing a new Real Estate Act. It's essential that a new Real Estate Act be dynamic and that it strengthen public confidence.

We recommend that a broker or agent who holds a valid licence issued under the act may apply for a permit to carry on the business of providing real estate trading services to a brokerage as a personal corporation. This would permit brokers and agents to incorporate personal corporations to reap the applicable tax benefits and is modelled on similar provisions found in the Legal Profession Act, the Health Act and the Health Professions Act. This would not, however, mitigate or lessen a realtor's liability.

With regard to the community charter, the B.C. Real Estate Association and the South Okanagan Real Estate Board share the concern of the greater business community that the charter will lead to increased government control over business activities in a manner that would undermine the government's efforts to encourage economic growth. We are concerned that the charter will result in less uniformity and standardization, which will increase the costs of doing business in this province. At a time when the B.C. economy needs to be stimulated, implementation of the proposed charter could damage the province's economic recovery. We encourage the government to continue to consult with business and the industry groups throughout the phase of implementation of the community charter.

A. Hayes: Housing affordability. We support the government's goal to make housing affordability a priority, and we trust that the government will involve our provincial association in this initiative. While the housing market in most areas of the province has im-

proved remarkably in the last year, housing affordability remains a major issue.

Development cost charges. Development cost charges pose the greatest obstacle for potential buyers of new and affordable housing. We recommend the government work in conjunction with local government to place limits on development cost charges and levies that are tied to the actual cost of development. We further recommend the government standardize the development application process and set fixed turnaround times for the various steps involved in development and construction.

Residential Tenancy Act. The new Residential Tenancy Act streamlines regulations and strengthens protections for landlords and tenants. We also believe the new act can help revitalize investment in the rental housing market. This legislation will go even further to encourage investors if the government removes the landlord's new obligation to pay one month's rent to a tenant when the tenancy is terminated based on the landlord's use. If this provision remains in the act, we believe it will inhibit investors from wishing to become landlords, and the cost will be added to the costs associated with buying property, therefore adding to the cost of housing and inflating rents.

Property transfer tax. The government's changes to the first-time homebuyers program implemented in February 2003 were welcomed by the real estate profession. Unfortunately, they do not go far enough. With market values increasing, there is a need to re-examine the exemption ceiling for first-time buyers. However, we believe the immediate elimination or implementation of a program to phase out the property transfer tax will boost the construction industry and cement consumer confidence. As a trial, we recommend a one-year pilot program to encourage property purchases in the areas hardest hit by forest fires and the negative effects of the softwood lumber dispute. We suggest the government completely eliminate the property transfer tax in these areas during the one-year period.

Real estate as an investment. Highlights from the first half of 2003 demonstrate that real estate continues to be the bright light in the province's economy. B.C. residents are exhibiting confidence in housing markets across the province, thanks to stable inflation and the lowest mortgage rates in 47 years. These market conditions are expected to continue for the foreseeable B.C. future, presenting government with a unique opportunity to leverage consumer confidence.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association and the South Okanagan Real Estate Board recommend government promote real estate in our province as an investment opportunity. As an investment, experts characterize real estate as a secure, low-risk opportunity that provides substantial revenues to government and stimulates the construction and retail sectors. This will provide a rallying point from which government can demonstrate the province's economic resilience and optimism.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. I will now ask the members of the committee if they have any questions with regard to content.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I was reading ahead in the submission, and I noticed the comments about the SFU Surrey campus.

J. MacPhail: Are there any discussions going on with the government around that matter?

D. Herman: No. I'm glad you brought that up. We were debating whether or not to bring that forward today, depending upon time. With the closure of Tech B.C., we don't feel that there's ample space in the Fraser Valley for schooling. I think there are 73,000 feet allocated now to SFU in Surrey, and we would like to see that increased if possible.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. One other question. I met with my real estate association people last week on the act. There were going to be discussions about ensuring the self-regulation of the industry. Do you have any update on that? I met with them just last week, so maybe not.

D. Herman: On the bonding issue, we all know the insurance part of things is very, very expensive. We've been looking at the bonding issue. There are numerous things going on in the Real Estate Act that are probably best dealt with now that we're finally getting around to it. I think it's been 46 years or 45 years or something like that. We would like to see the industry self-regulated, by all means, and that the bonding and self-insurance issues would be looked after by the industry.

L. Mayencourt: On the property transfer tax. It's an issue that has come up in my neighbourhood, which is downtown Vancouver. You've shown here that it actually increases government revenues if you hit these targets of 6,400 additional units and what have you.

L. Mayencourt: Is that based on the whole province — the property transfer tax — or is it on those areas affected by the fires, like the pilot project that you're suggesting?

D. Herman: No, the two aren't really related in that sense. The pilot project, just to deal with that question first, would be to stimulate confidence in those areas and not just with forest fires — we know that's been a terrible tragedy in the province — but also with the softwood lumber dispute. Not all areas of the province, believe it or not, are experiencing great times in the real

estate market. Of all our boards, 11 are — or the sales numbers are up — but sales prices and activity are still fairly low in the north in the Prince George area. That would be to sort of stimulate home ownership and confidence in some of those areas.

The property transfer tax ceiling right now is $275,000. You can imagine in some areas of British Columbia, predominantly the lower mainland and Victoria, that at that price, we're bumping the ceiling now with first-time buyers on that. I know that in February of this year, we applauded the decision to stagger the cost up to $300,000. We're not even sure if that's applicable anymore. Maybe that number should be higher. Of course, we'd like to see you take it right out, but I think that's asking a lot. We'd like to see you eventually take the property transfer tax out.

J. Nuraney: My question is relating to the community charter and your concerns as to how that would bend from the economic activity in your field. What is it that the municipality says your policy is now to do to make it even more difficult for you?

J. Nuraney: No. This is you saying something about the greater authority and the discretionary powers to local governments may be giving rise to some municipalities discouraging development.

D. Herman: I think the way our association reads it — and my understanding of it — is that there may not be a current mechanism for remedies or appeal, which there is now, if the communities were to govern some issues.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much, David. I appreciate your comments and your issue with Simon Fraser University. I just want to let you know the Surrey caucus members have been meeting with the Simon Fraser University board of directors and the staff on a regular basis, and ICBC and SFU are trying to finalize their agreement for the former campus. We try to make sure we listen to their concerns there. If we need to have meetings with the minister…. We often try to have meetings with the minister to make sure those concerns are brought out as well. I want to make sure that you understand that we've been in meetings with the Surrey Chamber of Commerce on a regular basis, and a lot of times we've used their boardroom to hold those meetings.

B. Locke (Chair): I thank you very much for your presentation today. Thank you for taking the time. We appreciate it.

B. Locke (Chair): Our next presenter is Mr. Philip Hochstein, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia. Welcome. Please begin.

P. Hochstein: Thank you, Madam Chairman. On behalf of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia, I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate once again in the government's prebudget consultations. ICBA represents the open shop construction industry, which now maintains an 85 percent market share of all construction work in the province. It includes both general and subtrade contractors.

Last year I appeared before this committee and told you that our members were cautiously optimistic about the future. That sentiment still holds true today, bolstered by your strong construction activity and exciting news of our province hosting the 2010 Olympics. Today I don't want to minimize the difficulties facing our provincial economy. From SARS and softwood to BSE and forest fires and the high Canadian dollar, British Columbia has had a tough year, particularly in the resource sector.

But I want to share with you, as I did last year, some encouraging news from our industry, an industry we believe continues to be a bellwether for economic times ahead. Through ICBA's health and benefit plan, we track the volume of work done by our members each month, the total number of person-hours spent on construction sites across British Columbia. The plan numbers provide an early indication — a snapshot, if you will — of the health of the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors and, with that, investors' views of our province.

They signal that the commercial side of the industry is beginning to show early signs of a boom similar to the residential sector. In August alone we saw extraordinary growth of over 10 percent in the total number of person-hours registered under our health and welfare plan compared to the same month in 2002. In fact, it was the busiest month we have ever seen and by a country mile.

Just this week a Canadian business journal reported that a recent survey of Canadian construction firms found that the percentage of companies planning to hire additional workers is at a ten-year high. Nearly two-thirds of construction companies anticipate hiring new staff in the third quarter. The survey found that firms in British Columbia are considerably more optimistic than they were a year ago.

There remain, however, important issues that need to be addressed by the provincial government to allow B.C.'s construction industry to help fuel a broad and

sustained economic recovery. The first of these issues — and I'm sure it's not news to you — relates to liability insurance. Liability insurance rates are skyrocketing across North America, a market phenomenon caused by a number of factors that vary from the downturn in the equity markets, the increasingly litigious world in which we live and the horrific events of September 11. In B.C. some sectors of our industry have seen liability insurance costs jump 1,000 percent.

If skyrocketing insurance prices weren't bad enough, there have been instances when strong, established, reputable construction firms have not even been able to obtain liability insurance — not at any price. Without liability insurance, contractors can no longer be bonded, without which they can no longer work, leading to business closures and layoffs for, frankly, no good reason.

Two policies of your government, joint and several liability and unlimited limitation period, are exacerbating the current market failure in liability insurance. In short, those policies are making a bad situation worse. Take, for example, the construction of a $2 million commercial building. Currently, should there be a failure in that building for whatever reason, you may be surprised to hear that every contractor who participated in that construction — from the framer to the electrician to the drywaller to the floor layer — is potentially liable for the entire cost of the repair. This forces contractors to purchase liability insurance well beyond their proportionate responsibility, which may be only a small fraction of the total cost of the project.

ICBA supports a change in public policy from joint and several liability, as I just described, to proportionate liability insurance in order to ensure that the cost of any potential damage is borne equitably by all parties. We believe that if the electrician was responsible for 5 percent of the problem with the building, he should be held accountable for only that share. We believe in the principle of accountability but for your own work, not that of others.

ICBA supports reduction in the ultimate limitation period to ten years, as it exists in other jurisdictions, so that insurers can better quantify their risk. We also believe ten years is a reasonable period for what is, in effect, a statute of limitations, not because contractors want to avoid responsibility, but rather because after a decade the line between what is considered a construction failure and expected repair and maintenance problems becomes increasingly difficult to determine.

Last year I told you about another subject that we call job targeting, a practice that continues to have a negative effect on the construction industry and the tendering process. In job targeting the union turns over its members' dues to its contractors in order to underbid the open job competition. This practice perverts the tendering process as payment often occurs after the tenders have closed. Job targeting compromises any notion of a fair and transparent bid process, which remains the tried-and-true measure of value and cost-effectiveness for taxpayers or private sector investors.

Job targeting also violates the fundamental labour relations principle that unions and employers should remain at arm's length. Job targeting gives the union unreasonable control over the viability of the contractor.

This isn't just an issue of concern to the construction industry. Job targeting impacts every British Columbian, because the union dues being deducted to put toward job targeting are tax deductible. In 2000 the total amount of union and professional dues deducted by British Columbians was just over $350 million. You should know that the government of Alberta recently appointed a committee of MLAs, along with representatives of the construction industry and the building trades, to examine this entire process. In our province during the past year a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers launched a class action lawsuit claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars of dues were collected unlawfully from IBEW members to support job targeting.

This is really an issue of fairness and integrity which continues to cry out for government action. This government could and should move to amend the Labour Relations Code immediately to outlaw this practice. At the very least we suggest that you follow the Alberta lead and can think of no better group of MLAs than you to examine this issue in detail.

P. Hochstein: That'd be cool. I would be happy to participate in that review with you.

Contracting out. One subject I spoke of last year that still remains a concern is the continued use of expensive and inefficient in-house construction forces by many public agencies, including provincial Crown corporations, municipal governments, school boards and post-secondary institutions. There continues to be evidence of huge financial losses to the taxpayers as a result of this practice. We would encourage your committee, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, to look closely at this issue and make every effort to have restrictive language removed from public sector collective agreements, a factor that is often at the root of this problem.

For example, at SFU all construction, renovation and maintenance projects under $150,000 are still being done by contractors chosen by the campus unions. In other words, it's a union-only jobsite, which my members find totally unacceptable. Worse, it means hard-earned dollars that could be going into classrooms and textbooks and lab equipment are being wasted on inflated construction costs that are a hallmark of building trade union agreements.

In the interest of fairness and to restore fiscal responsibility, government must open all public sector project management construction and maintenance to true public tendering principles. That means not only the work done directly by the provincial ministries but by government agencies, Crown corps, post-secondary

There are two other issues. One is the Olympics. Nowhere will the proper tendering of construction work be as important as the Olympics. That's just one of the reasons ICBA has assembled 16 CEOs from B.C.'s largest construction companies, union and non-union, to volunteer on an advisory committee regarding the Olympic building program. The 2010 construction leaders task force will provide advice and expertise to all levels of government and to the organizing committee on both construction policy and practices related to the games.

At its first meeting two weeks ago the task force met with the planners regarding construction of the new Trade and Convention Centre. Their advice to them and to the government through you today is clear: all Olympic work should start as soon as possible. There was a day when time used to be a friend of construction budgets. That day has now passed, as construction inflation is running as high as 15 to 20 percent in some trades. If we have one piece of advice to offer strongly and unanimously among all 16 of the CEOs on Olympic construction, it is: start. The early and proper sequencing of Olympic projects will be critical to bringing the games in on time and on budget.

One last issue that came up recently was deals with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Just this week there was an agreement announced between the Lottery Corporation and the Vancouver Canucks. ICBA believes that at its core, this agreement is a business subsidy dressed up in a hockey jersey. The B.C. Liberal Party promised it wouldn't subsidize businesses. It's wrong, and it's bad public policy. It's an insult to the small business owners in every other sector who manage their businesses without handouts from government.

It hurts to speak up against my favourite team. I love the Canucks. My members love the Canucks. Half the building is filled with people from the construction industry, but the principle still holds. We oppose a scheme that is subsidizing a billionaire owner, a millionaire manager and millionaire players.

In closing, again I would like to express my thanks to the committee for this opportunity to make the views of the industry heard in your prebudget consultation. We continue to believe the government is, most times, on the right track and that sustained economic growth will happen once a competitive climate for business and investment has been restored. I know that would be the intent of your budget recommendations, and I wish you the best in developing them.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Hochstein. I will now ask members of the committee if they have any questions.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): Thanks a lot for your presentation. I guess I'd like to go into some more detail with you with regard to job targeting.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): I'm not sure I quite understand exactly your objection to it, but maybe at a later date we can talk about that.

B. Kerr (Deputy Chair): Of the 16 CEOs that are on this committee, are any of them members of the CLRA?

P. Hochstein: I think there is one of the 16 — Ellis-Don. The committee was set up…. The criterion for the committee was companies in British Columbia that did over $40 million worth of volume in the year. We didn't look at union affiliation or association affiliation. Many of them are not members of my organization. We looked for the best and the brightest — roadbuilders and otherwise. They all volunteered their time.

M. Hunter: Phil, I've got two questions, if I may. One, I'd like you to explain why we're looking at a 15 percent inflation increase in construction costs. Secondly, I'd like to ask you if you have any comments on the issue of training and shortage of skilled labour. We've heard quite a lot over the last couple of days on advanced ed and post-secondary education, so I'd like your views on that, if I may.

P. Hochstein: Okay. Construction inflation is a pretty simple thing. There's more demand than there is supply, both of materials and of people, and as a result, there is competition for those scarce resources. That's especially pronounced in formwork, for example. There are a lot of concrete structures in the Olympics, and the trade and convention is…. You know, to take it out of the water is $100 million, and that's mostly concrete once you build that. That's really the big part of it, and there doesn't seem to be — knock wood — much sign of it slowing down.

It's not to say we aren't going to be able to build everything that needs to be built, either for a public sector client or a private sector client, but it costs more. Our workers have gone a long time without raises. The margins within the construction industry have traditionally been quite small, and that's because the industry wasn't as buoyant as we had once hoped it would be. I think the situation is changing, and that's what's driving the trade. Formwork is especially bad. Siding is especially bad. Painting is especially bad. Formwork is a big problem, because that's a big cost of a project. Ironwork is going up, with the cost of steel and that kind of thing.

In terms of training, I think the government did the right thing when they changed the training legislation.

I think it was this session. What they did, really, is say: "We're going to preserve the old apprenticeship system for those people who want it and for whom it works for, but we're also going to open the door to people who want new and different trades and specialties." I'm hoping that the training system, because of that flexibility, will allow the industry and the people to train the people up faster so that we can meet the needs of our clients in the public and private sectors.

It will require the employers to step up. It will require the training institutions, public and private, to respond to the needs of the workers and the employers. If they do, then the system now has the flexibility it never had before to respond.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Phil, for the presentation. You mentioned right at the beginning that 85 percent of the construction is non-union labour. Is that an increase or decrease from last year?

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time out of your schedule, Phil. We appreciate you coming very much. Thank you.

Our next presenter is Mr. Brian Given, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. You can start whenever you're ready, Brian.

B. Given: Thanks very much. I'm struggling with a bit of a frog in my throat, so I'll try to be as clear as I can. I feel a bit like John Daly at Crooked Stick — you know, the last minute under the gun here. I got the call at about 4 o'clock this afternoon. They said we'd have a chance to speak today. It's been a bit of a rush, but we're here.

I didn't exactly follow the format in terms of your four questions. I actually approached this from our perspective — the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, obviously — and the greater social good, the fabric of the province. I'll address some of the issues that we're dealing with, and I'm hoping to shed some light on the health care issue as well.

A brief history. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind has been around since 1918. We're serving some 107,000 blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind Canadians, which equates to about 17,000 British Columbians. We help those individuals become full participants in Canadian society.

In speaking of blindness and vision impairment, we include both those who are functionally blind and those who are experiencing a level of vision loss that interferes with their daily living activities. We work in partnership with volunteers, government and private sector to achieve our goals.

The CNIB welcomes the opportunity to be here and speak to you tonight. We'd like to focus on three things. One is the right to read. Three million Canadians — approximately 300,000 British Columbians — cannot read print due to a visual, physical or perceptual learning disability. Most rely on books or other formats to access reading, culture, leisure, and news and information. So recommendation No. 1 that we'd like to see the government look at is: the provincial government of British Columbia to play a significant role in the resourcing of the production and distribution of published print material for the blind and visually impaired.

Currently less than 5 percent of the published material that is accessible to these Canadians is available in formats such as Braille, audio-narration, electronic text and large print. Without significant increases, the provision of these unabridged accessible published materials as a substantive representative collection for library services cannot be developed or sustained for these Canadians.

Our knowledge society's information and technology facilitate unprecedented opportunity to create and distribute alternate-format content based on the specialized needs of the print-disabled community. The special needs of these populations cannot be addressed by a single library acting on its own. Government participation, therefore, is drastically needed.

Recommendation No. 2: federal-provincial–private sector partnerships fund a program that ensures Canadian residents who are print-disabled receive service equivalent to that received by sighted residents, to be achieved by a national network composed of municipal, provincial and federal governments, public educational libraries, the CNIB and private partners.

I'm going to skip a little bit of this and go to my next point. It's the right to vision care, and that the province earmark health care dollars for vision care.

"In 1996 the cost of blindness in Canada was about $500 million. By 2016 the cost will climb by approximately 50 percent to $750 million." That was a quote from Dr. Barbara Robson, school of optometry, University of Waterloo.

Health care money is needed. Imagine for a moment if you broke your leg in a traffic accident or any other unfortunate incident. Canada's health care system will provide you with medical attention and rehabilitation services needed to recover the use of your leg. If, however, in that same accident you have experienced severe vision loss, you will find yourself left out of the public health care system. You will be depending on the services of a charitable, non-profit organization — us, the CNIB — for counselling, referral, rehab teaching, orientation mobility, vision rehab, technical aids, career development, employment and library services.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, I just ask you for a moment to think about your day today. I know it's been hectic, and I appreciate you being here late at night as well. Think about this for a minute. Go back to this morning when you got up and go through your day step by step in your mind. Do it quickly. Now, go back again and try to do that in your mind or think

about doing that vision-impaired or blind. It is very, very difficult to do, I can assure you.

The CNIB has an open referral system ensuring that anyone experiencing failing vision may request service from a district office at no cost to the consumer. It's not no cost; it's a cost obviously to us, but not to the consumer.

I've listed there the seven core services. I won't read them. What the CNIB does and the services we provide are absolutely critical to Canadian society. If we didn't provide our core services, some other entity would have to do it. It would have to be done. You need to have your confidence restored when you lose your sight. You also need practical things to get around as effectively and efficiently as possible. You need access to information that allows you to use your skills and experience your talent. You need access to the latest technology which allows you to pursue a career. All of this is absolutely essential.

When people lose their vision, it has a major impact on their lives. They lose not just their eyesight but also, in many cases, their self-esteem. If I can just relate a story that I experienced to show you the impact that we can play and others have on people's lives. I started with the CNIB 16 years ago as a volunteer, as a board member, with no intention of working with the CNIB. The first time I went out to visit a woman — she was in her eighties — I warned her one night before I came that there was this big guy coming to the door, and not to be scared — you know, I'm tall, dark, moustached. I came in, and I sat down with her.

My sole purpose in life was to see what she needed. I marked her stove, and I helped her read her mail and did some other things. Near the end of this visit — she'd made me tea, and you know, it was very nice and very pleasant — we were talking. CNIB has a little device that's called a signature card, and it goes on your cheque. It just acts as a guide so you can sign a cheque. I showed her how to do this, and she broke down and cried, and she cried for about five minutes.

I was a volunteer; I was a rookie. I didn't know what to do. I sat there and held her hand, like I would do my own mom or my grandma.

At the end of the session I said to her: "Why are you crying?" She said to me: "Because, young man, you've just given me back my independence." At that point in time I was hooked. I became more involved. I went back to college. I got a diploma in counselling, and I've held a variety of positions, including the latest one. I can't even remember my title, but I fundraise.

In brief, that's the kind of impact we have on people's lives, which happened to me. It's a very rewarding career, but it's not without tremendous costs both to the individual and to the agency. Presently it's costing governments too much money not to provide, for instance, equipment to help blind and visually impaired Canadians maintain their independence. In fact, there is such an essential return that Canadian society cannot afford not to do it.

We need to come up with some clear financial and other results in investing in curing curable blindness, preventing preventable blindness and through appropriate services ensuring that people who are blind or visually impaired have available to them what is necessary to be productive.

The last point I want to make is to earmark additional dollars for vision care. It is important that the commitment from the federal, provincial and territorial governments include funds designated specifically for vision needs. Otherwise, the money may succumb to various government short-term demands and so on. These funds must be allocated for core vision care services within the province, with the stipulation that they specifically fund key vision care initiatives. That is why designated health care dollars need to be made specific for vision care and transferred from federal and provincial coffers.

A summary before I close. The CNIB B.C.–Yukon division is requesting the provincial government, through restructured regional health boards across B.C., to support increased government funds for library, low-vision and peer counselling services aimed at meeting the essential needs of older adults who are identified as blind, visually impaired or deaf-blind. Eighty percent of the people we see today, who come through our doors, are seniors over the age of 55. Some of our clientele will say that 55 is just a pup, but that's what we classify in our world — 55 and up.

We're seeing 1.5 new people every working day — every day — and that's just new people. These clients will benefit from functional low-vision consultation peer counselling support to enable them to remain independent in their homes and communities for as long as possible. This is key, because you know the cost of health care dollars that are applied to other things like long-term care or continuing care. That's the thing we want to help avoid — and we do.

In summary, we believe that the measures suggested above will contribute to the government of British Columbia's vision of an inclusive society where people who are blind or visually impaired also share the best quality of life and standard of living and are full participants in the B.C. economy. This will be accomplished once the fundamental right to read, work and receive vision care becomes a reality for all blind and vision-impaired Canadians.

I want to thank you. That's the end of my submission. I did skip over some things, because I know you all can read, and I don't want to take up an excessive amount of your time, realizing that you've had a long day already.

B. Locke (Chair): Brian, thank you for your presentation. We appreciate it very much.

I will now ask the members of the committee if they have any questions of clarification.

J. Bray: Thank you very much, Brian — also, for relating your personal story as to why you've become so involved. It's always a nice addition to the presentations.

I'm wondering whether the CNIB has any empirical data that talks about the number of people going into,

say, intermediate care where the primary care issue is loss of sight or severe visual impairment and, if so, how much of that could be reduced by the intervention you're talking about on the last page — whether that exists at all.

B. Given: We can pull data on just about anything. So if you have a specific question like that or need to know, we can probably provide you with that information.

I can tell you that we have been care providers. We have been follow-up to individuals. We work very closely with other departments — hospitals, other agencies. People are discharged from the hospital who are visually impaired, and we can be there to assist in additional capacities. We will often be called in if someone who has been admitted is visually impaired, and we will talk to individuals.

I myself was consulted on an individual who tried to commit suicide a number of years ago with a gun and missed. All he really did was blind himself, so there was extensive consultation with the hospital at that particular time.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much for coming today, Brian. We appreciate your presentation.

B. Given: Thanks very much. I know you face some difficult decisions. Thanks for your time.

B. Locke (Chair): Our last presentation before the open-mike portion is Michelle Jefferson, Destination Osoyoos. Oh, you've got a whole troop of people there behind you.

M. Jefferson: Oh yes. It's called reinforcements. [Laughter.] It's very important.

B. Locke (Chair): You can come and sit up at the front, if you like. It will give Michelle that security she needs. There you go.

As I hope is obvious, I'm not Glenn Mandziuk, who is the executive director of Destination Osoyoos, the tourism and community economic development society in Osoyoos.

My name is Michelle Jefferson, and my position is the visitor information and tourism services manager for Destination Osoyoos. Unfortunately, Glenn was taken ill suddenly this afternoon and sincerely regrets that he cannot attend this important meeting personally. I will do my best to present on his behalf, so thank you once again for the opportunity. We want to first acknowledge that you have not only a gruelling task but, from the looks of your travel agenda, a rather gruelling schedule. Thank you again for the opportunity to be a participant in this process.

Osoyoos is located 60 kilometres south of Penticton. It's a small resort town of 6,500 located in the southern Okanagan immediately adjacent to the U.S. border. It is home to Canada's only desert, warmest freshwater lake and has an economic base founded on agriculture, tourism, construction, commercial and small-scale manufacturing such as recreational vehicle manufacturing, metal fabrication, value-added wood production and biotechnology. Because of our weather and lifestyle, Osoyoos also has become a strong retirement community.

Osoyoos is a community that has undergone some dramatic changes over the past few years, and we are proud to say that most of those changes have had a positive effect economically. Although we are experiencing a boom right now with over $200 million in projects, it has not always been that way. We are a community that has had to find our way through difficult times. In the interest of time, we will focus our remarks on a single aspect of our economic development success: namely, tourism — which is good, because it's one area that I know something about, at least.

Many have known Osoyoos as a sun-and-fun resort for their family's summer vacations. This is a legacy that we continue to see, with extended families returning annually to rekindle childhood memories and pass it on to their children. But the times and our visitors are changing, and we have had to change along with the times. We needed to modernize our existing infrastructure, develop new products and services, and diversify our tourism markets. We could not live in the past and hope to have a bright future.

Spearheaded by the economic development office, the community embarked on a comprehensive strategic planning process that involved and continues to involve community leaders, industry representatives and the general public in a program that is reviewed every two to three years and assesses our strengths and weaknesses. It also considers our business recruitment, community marketing and project development opportunities. A critical success factor in this process is having an administration and council that developed and adopted a vision, partnership and policies that went a long way toward creating an environment conducive to tourism development in a proactive and, most importantly, sustainable way.

Our success is measured in many ways, including new and updated accommodation facilities, including a $52 million resort and convention centre and a $50 million resort spa that are going on this fall, new ecotourism, wine tourism, golf tourism, attractions, programs and packages, development of new festivals and events that focus on the off-season, commencement of a targeted and joint marketing campaign between our community, the Osoyoos Indian band and the town of Oliver under the banner "Desert Wine Country." Although we may compete locally, we market collaboratively.

Enhancement of our partnership with the Osoyoos Indian band has resulted in us using resources that

create synergy and mutual success, the implementation and support of programs that attract the most welcome new migratory species — the snowbird — to our climes. All of this leads to diversification of our tourism market, which equates to resilience and the ability to weather downturns in the economy — whether regional or national.

Even with these changes, we still have a long way to go. We need a larger skilled labour pool, affordable housing, and there is the need to stretch our tourism season. We also must deal with unemployment in our community and the fact that our population is aging. But through this process, here is what we've learned and what we believe you should consider in your deliberations.

Before these ideas are dismissed as only working in the sunny Okanagan, it is important to understand that Glenn serves as the president of the Economic Development Association of British Columbia. In that role, he is very much aware of other communities and their challenges, so this perspective is both micro to Osoyoos and macro to rural communities in our province.

While economic development is a shared function of all levels of government, it is most effectively implemented at the municipal level. Currently, communities across this province are investing significantly in the development of their economies. In fact, preliminary figures obtained by the Economic Development Association of B.C. determine it to be over $50 million annually. What used to be known as industrial development, where attention was paid simply to building industrial parks and filling them up, has now evolved into a broader practice that considers all sectors of the economy.

We cannot simply consider any one sector in isolation — not locally and not provincially. Too often programs are created to support the development of one sector, and usually this occurs in a time of crisis. So what do we think rural communities need? First, we acknowledge that our government has many competent and experienced staff in many departments, thinking daily about how to create and implement programs that would support economic development in rural communities. We are not going to try and outwit that significant resource, but we would like to suggest that the next budget consider implementation of a new community economic development strategy that would support and sustain efforts by rural communities to take their ideas and plans to the next level, whatever that level may be.

Do we have a framework already laid out? No. That would be very presumptuous of us. Instead we're going to present the underlying philosophies and values that we think should be considered if a new community economic development strategy were to be created.

An all-inclusive approach. Whatever programs are created — be they marketing, training or infrastructure — they must be inclusive so that every community, regardless of their economic drivers, can have access.

Building partnership and ownership. It is critical that all levels of government buy in, both in spirit and financially, to ensure there is a vested interest in the outcome. If you ever doubt the power of ownership, just ask yourself how often you have seen somebody polishing a rented car.

Consistency. In the past ten years we can cite numerous examples of programs to support communities that have come and gone. A collaborative economic development strategy for the province must have a commitment to long-term implementation. A time frame of five years is usually the required time to realize the outcomes of economic development change.

Focus on business as a resource. Business represents significant revenues to the government. Therefore, there should be a concerted effort to implement a provincial marketing plan for business attraction that encourages participation by rural communities, because it is fiscally attainable.

Support for infrastructure. Whether it be road development or improvement, industrial park development or transport infrastructure, ensure that the results clearly connect to economic development goals.

Address the shortage of capacity. As we know, between 60 and 70 percent of provincial revenue comes from areas outside the lower mainland. Therefore, rural economies hold the key to future provincial government revenue. By supporting our rural communities and their individual economic development mandates, the whole province wins economically.

Bottom-up direction, top-down guidance. Allow rural communities to determine their destiny, because they know what their needs, abilities and strengths are. They have usually identified their own priorities, so allow them to set and implement them with provincial support, recognition and guidance.

One point of contact. Each provincial ministry has an economic development strategy. By developing a collaborative strategy and a single point of contact for communities, we can become more efficient and integrated in our approach.

Lastly, accountability. Ensure appropriate measures are in place to measure success, and allow for the sharing of knowledge and experience between communities.

You've heard presentations from Prince Rupert about how their fisheries need support; you've heard from Prince George that their forestry industry needs support. Many other communities have spoken of their individual needs, which may be quite unique to them. You've also heard from educators and the educated that there are needs in that entire system, and of course, health care seems to be another universal theme.

One thing that rings true is that you cannot be all things to all people, and there are limited government resources available. Each community in this province is unique; each has its own challenges. Each also is in a different stage of development and has differing levels of expertise and experience to draw on. Some are

emerging, some are seeing their resource-based economies collapsing, some are struggling to maintain the status quo, and some are moving forward and succeeding. In short, all are different, but we need to create an even playing field, particularly for the rural communities. Therefore, only focusing on single industries or on big business is not the answer in our opinion.

We encourage the government to investigate a different approach to community economic development — one that would enhance rather than encumber a community's ability to meet the challenge, one that would allow communities to meet their needs during the different stages of development, one that would help them identify and build on their strengths. We're asking you to think in terms of return on investment.

Through a long-term commitment to a new community economic development strategy, you will be helping each community to realize their full potential, to reframe their focus and to initiate movement along a new path. You will be further strengthening the resilience of their economy and ultimately supporting the economic viability of the heartland and the province. To paraphrase old wisdom: give a community a fish, and they'll eat for a day; teach a community to fish, and they'll not only eat for a lifetime but will probably create value-added products to enhance the experience.

On behalf of my community, thank you for the opportunity to present these thoughts from the heart and from the heartland. On behalf of Glenn Mandziuk and Osoyoos, we wish you every success in your endeavours.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Michelle, for your presentation. You did a marvellous job of pinch-hitting for Glenn. We appreciate your taking the time out of your day. I will ask the committee members if they have any questions.

J. Nuraney: Just one quick question. When you say "one point of contact," are you talking in terms of the economic development strategies that each community has and, if they have to or need to coordinate at a certain point, that they should be able to have one point of contact where all these things get caught in?

M. Jefferson: Yeah, very much a facilitated process. That's what we're thinking will work the best in order for that sharing to occur.

B. Locke (Chair): Thank you very much, Michelle. We appreciate your coming today, and I hope that Glenn is feeling better. Let him know we're thinking of him.

Members, we are now going to switch to the open-mike portion of our presentation today. There is one person: Mr. Bob Lee. Could he please come forward.

B. Lee: I'm gonna tell the members here what was happening all over. I've got a brother that's building houses, and I've got another that works for the plant. I've got a brother that's cutting trees in the forest. He's in forestry. Now he's a seasonal firefighter, fighting forest fires.

Years ago in some towns the forestry was thriving — whether it's Williams Lake or Quesnel or Revelstoke or maybe Port Alberni — and now that hurts. I felt sorry. Some workers got laid off at some of the plants. What really hurts are the import duty taxes the U.S. government just slapped on it. That's if the lumber's going across the line to the States or the lumber's going overseas.

I travelled up to Williams Lake. I had my brother and his wife down, and thought: why he was trying to wreck the house? I heard the women's shelters and the legal aid have been cut back. The provincial government pays legal aid, under the Attorney General. The women's shelters…. It's all been by the same ministry, the Attorney General.

When I was in Williams Lake or Quesnel, there used to be the BCR passenger train. Passenger train service used to run up to Prince George out of North Vancouver. It was brought in by the province when the railroad first opened. The provincial government set it up. Then the old Bennett government — W.A.C. Bennett — came in and later expanded the railroad, modernized, put in the diesels and the Budd car passenger train. Then the industries that were thriving went faster. Then it went up to Prince George and turned around and went up to Dease Lake. Dease Lake is almost touching the Yukon border, up with Alaska.

During the 1950s, when the Alaska railroad was modernized with the diesel train…. But the present provincial government forgot and also got to put the level of the federal government to extend the track to go to Alaska. Now there's Prince Rupert. There's a new cruise port that's going to open up in 2005 — tons of cruise ship passengers, a lot of them going on Alaska cruises. They take seven days on the boat, going round-trip. When the new port was built, they could hook up to the train when they turn around by Jasper. When I've been up past Prince George, it was back in '85 or '86. I saw some kind of turnoff and the electric locomotives on the train. They load the coal up at Tumbler Ridge, and then they bring it down, and they just transfer it onto it. That is north of Prince George. It's where they take the coal down to Vancouver, and it goes on the ship.

Then the industry was thriving with the sawmills, and there was still the CPR train. Passenger rail service was Via Rail. The passenger train used to run through Calgary. They load up at Revelstoke. They load up at the other towns — Salmon Arm — and then down to Kamloops, and it goes all the way down to Vancouver and connects with major flights and cruise ships.

The passenger train was taken off in 1990. I've been on there. It was before Christmas, 1989. Coming back, I met a gentleman. He was with his video camera and filming about the parts for the master tape — a video about the last train across Canada. He boarded the

train at the ferry on the east part of Nova Scotia, coming off from Newfoundland. Then he turned around by Halifax, went up around Halifax and went across and took the passenger train out. BCR ran the train. People travel by cruise ships, and they still…. The provincial government now…. That was a big mistake. They cut out the BCR passenger service. The proper way was if they…. So when a cruise ship facility was built at Prince Rupert last time, they put a bigger train on in the summer. It was before the BCR was taken out of service. Rail up there was going to run an American-based train or something. Now it's freight operations and also a passenger train. Before they took the passenger trains out, these…. Talk about the highway too — like the Trans-Canada Highway up towards the Rogers Pass to past Golden. It just needs upgrading.

B. Locke (Chair): Yeah, but we do appreciate you coming and making the presentation to our committee. We hear your concerns for transportation, and they're being recorded by Hansard. Thank you very much for your presentation today.

B. Lee: The provincial government's going to look into it? Talk to the level of government?

B. Locke (Chair): Well, all the words you have said to us today will be recorded by Hansard and will be considered in the writing of our report. We thank you very much for taking the time.

On behalf of the committee, we certainly appreciated being here in Penticton today. We've had a very interesting session and appreciate the input from all the people of Penticton. We certainly had a great amount of input, and we thank you for that.

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

	1) B.C. Schizophrenia Society	Mark Wish Gayle Tissington
	2) Penticton and Area Women's Centre	Susan Dumontet Tina Sager
	3) Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association	Deanna Rainey
	4) British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association	Glen Lucas Penny Gambell
	5) KPMG	Jeff Omland
	6) Oliver and District Community Economic Development Society	Patrick Deakin Jessica Murphy
	7) Okanagan Skaha Teachers' Union	Garry Litke
	8) Arthritis Society of BC and Yukon	Trudy Battaglio Tom Kemp
	9) South Okanagan–Similkameen Brain Injury Society	Tina Solary
	10) City of Penticton	Mayor David Perry
	11) Naramata Centre	Bill Horne
	12) Okanagan University College Students Association	Karina Frisque
	13) B.C. Real Estate Association South Okanagan Real Estate Board	David Herman Ann Hayes
	14) Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia	Philip Hochstein
	15) Canadian National Institute for the Blind	Brian Given
	16) Destination Osoyoos	Michelle Jefferson
	17) Bob Lee

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES