1st Session, 38th Parliament
November 2005
Composition of the Committee
Terms of Reference
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Summary of the Consultation Process
Comments on the Fiscal Plan
Priorities for Future Fiscal Plan Surpluses
Contingency Fund and Forecast Allowance
Options for Financing Needed Infrastructure Projects
Public’s Other Comments
Conclusions
Summary of Recommendations
Appendix A: Online and Written Submissions Summary
Appendix B: Organizations Taking Part in the 2006 Budget Consultation Process
Appendix C: Public Hearings Witness List
Appendix D: Written Submissions
Appendix E: Online Responses
To the Honourable,
Legislative Assembly of the
Province of British Columbia
Victoria , British Columbia
Honourable Members:
I have the honour to present herewith the First Report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the First Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament.
The First Report covers the work of the Committee on the Budget 2006 consultation process.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Committee.
Blair Lekstrom, MLA
Chair
Blair Lekstrom Chair |
Peace River South |
Maurine Karagianis Deputy Chair |
Esquimalt-Metchosin |
Burquitlam |
|
Surrey-Tynehead |
|
Surrey-White Rock |
|
Nanaimo |
|
Vancouver-Mount Pleasant |
|
Burnaby North |
|
Powell River-Sunshine Coast |
|
Richmond-Steveston |
from L to R: J. Yap, MLA, R. Lee, MLA, H. Bloy, MLA, D. S. Hayer, MLA, B. Lekstrom, MLA, Chair,
M. Karagianis, MLA, Deputy Chair, L. Krog, MLA, N. Simons, MLA, J. Kwan, MLA, G. Hogg, MLA
CLERKS TO THE COMMITTEE
Kate Ryan-Lloyd, Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk
COMMITTEE RESEARCHERS
Jonathan Fershau, Committee Research Analyst
Brant Felker, A/Committee Research Analyst
Wynne MacAlpine, Committee Research Analyst
Josie Schofield, Committee Research Analyst
Mary Storzer, Committee Researcher
On September 19, 2005, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services was empowered:
To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the pre-budget consultation report prepared by the Minister of Finance in accordance with section 2 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and, in particular, to:
(a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings, telephone and electronic means;
(b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2005 on the results of those consultations; and
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee shall be empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
(d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee,
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to everyone who assisted in our work. In particular, we would like to thank the record number of British Columbians who took the time to participate in the pre-budget consultation process. We would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of these individuals and organizations, as their participation was fundamental to our work and to this important process.
In addition, the Committee would like to thank the people we met during our site visits for sharing their time, knowledge and ideas. These visits provided us with a unique and valuable opportunity to learn about the industries that sustain different communities in the province, and the industries that sustain them. We also appreciate the assistance of constituency assistants in local MLA offices, who helped to organize our site visits.
The Committee would also like to recognize the professionalism of Hansard Services in all the various phases of producing the transcripts of our meetings. As well, we recognize the valuable services provided by the Legislative Assembly Computer Systems Branch and the Legislative Library.
We would like to thank, in particular, Marilyn Pollard and Adam Wang who travelled with us to the public hearings during the week of October 10, as well as Wendy Collisson who provided support at our Vancouver public hearing on October 21. The unsung heroes of the committee's public hearing process included the staff of Hansard Services who produce the transcripts of all of the committee's meetings.
For designing the committee's webpage and developing software solutions for analysing the data collected, we would like to acknowledge the contribution made by Darren Parfitt of the Legislative Assembly's Computer Services.
We would also like to thank the staff from the Office of the Clerk of Committees. Mary Newell provided excellent assistance in advertising the Committee's work, booking witnesses and developing a database to log submissions. Jacqueline Quesnel handled the complicated travel arrangements for the eight public hearings and staffed the information desk. Jonathan Fershau, our Research Analyst, provided research support throughout the process, with the assistance of Brant Felker, Wynne MacAlpine, Josie Schofield and Mary Storzer. Finally, we would like to recognize the important administrative and procedural advice provided by Kate Ryan-Lloyd, Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk, throughout the budget consultation process.
The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services wishes to recognize everyone who assisted in our budget consultation process. In particular, we would like to acknowledge all of the individuals and organizations who volunteered their time to make a presentation at a public hearing, prepare a written submission, or complete our online consultation form. Their collective contribution of time and effort is what ultimately drives this important process.
On September 19, 2005, the Legislative Assembly approved a motion instructing the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to conduct public consultations across British Columbia, based on the Ministry of Finance’s Budget 2006 Consultation Paper. The Committee was instructed to receive proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy, and to report on the results of the consultation process no later than November 15, 2005.
To carry out its mandate, the Committee announced on September 22, 2005 that it would hold public hearings in eight regional centres during the month of October: Victoria, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Smithers, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Kelowna, and Vancouver. In addition, the Committee issued a call for written submissions and accepted online responses to the government’s questionnaire contained in its budget consultation paper.
During the public consultation period (September 22 to October 23), the Committee received over 4,400 submissions, establishing a new record for public participation in the work of a parliamentary committee in British Columbia. The Finance Committee heard 147 oral presentations at the eight public hearings, received 291 written submissions, and 3,998 online responses, reflecting the public’s priorities from all corners of the province.
A clear message the Committee heard was that the government should continue to take a balanced approach when allocating resources for future fiscal plans. This approach includes:
In the Finance Committee’s evaluation of responses to the four questions posed in the government’s Budget 2006 Consultation Paper, the Committee makes 21 recommendations based on this identified theme. In the Committee’s response to the consultation paper’s first question, the committee offers recommendations on taxation policy, new or expanded programs and services, wage increases for public sector workers, new infrastructure projects, and debt management. The Committee also makes recommendations on the government’s practice of setting aside a contingency fund and forecast allowance (question 2), as well as on what strategy the government should pursue for financing new infrastructure projects (question 3). Question 4 allowed British Columbians to submit their comments and suggestions on a variety of topics relating to Budget 2006.
The Committee would like to thank the record number of British Columbians who took time to participate in the budget consultation process. The significant contributions of time and effort made by these individuals and organizations — whether they presented at a public hearing, prepared a written submission, or completed our online response form — were essential to our committee’s work.
On September 19, 2005, the Legislative Assembly approved a motion instructing the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services (the Finance Committee/the Committee) to conduct public consultations across British Columbia regarding the provincial budget and fiscal policy for the period 2006/07 to 2008/09. This year marks the sixth time the all-party parliamentary committee has conducted budget consultations, in accordance with the procedures outlined in sections 2 and 3 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
The Minister of Finance, Hon. Carole Taylor, formally released the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper on September 14, 2005 in conjunction with the September budget update. The updated fiscal plan projects higher than anticipated budget surpluses for the period 2005/06 to 2007/08, while reconfirming all commitments made in the February 2005 budget. In addition, the government forecasts that provincial revenues will increase by $600 million in 2008/09.
The improved financial outlook — in comparison to the February 2005 budget (see Table 1) — is due primarily to higher forecasted energy and tax revenues. The September budget update also reflects new funding from the federal government for early learning and child care, and resources to respond to the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Prudent forecast allowances have also been established to protect the fiscal plan from revenue risks — such as sudden drops in commodity prices, the cost of natural disasters, and other unexpected events. The forecast allowances also cover potential wage and benefit increases arising from the next round of public sector bargaining.
Table 1: Budget Surplus and Forecast Allowance Projections — |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Budget 2005
|
September 2005 Budget Update
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Entitled Choices and Priorities, the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper included a questionnaire that asked the public to respond to four specific questions. The first question asked British Columbians to rank five priority items identified by government as priorities for the 2008/09 fiscal year— tax reductions, new or expanded programs and services, wage increases for public sector workers, financing new infrastructure projects, and paying down the debt. Other questions asked respondents to provide their views on the government’s practice to include both a healthy contingency fund and forecast allowance to keep the budget balanced; and on how the government should pay for important infrastructure investments — specifically, roads, schools and health care facilities; as well as suggestions regarding priority areas for Budget 2006.
Public Consultation Innovations In order to provide greater opportunities for British Columbians to participate in our work, the Finance Committee utilized two new technological applications to assist in the budget consultation process: online consultations and live audio webcasts of public hearings. Online Consultations Building on the Committee’s success with online consultations in the previous Parliament, the Committee developed an interactive online form mirroring the four questions posed in the government’s Budget 2006 Consultation Paper. The use of online consultations provided two benefits to the Committee. First, the data collected from online respondents focused explicitly on the government’s questionnaire, thereby providing useful qualitative and quantitative data for Committee members. Second, the Committee found that the Internet form permitted people from all over British Columbians to participate in this important process. Live Audio Webcasts of Public Hearings This year, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services was pleased to be the first parliamentary committee in the history of British Columbia to provide live audio feeds of committee proceedings — both from Victoria and from public hearing locations throughout the province. Webcasted via the Committee’s homepage (http://www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations/), the addition of live audio feeds permit British Columbians from all corners of the province to hear what others have said during the budget consultations. All webcasts, plus complete meeting transcripts, are archived on the Committee’s homepage. |
Due to the provincial general election earlier this year, the Finance Committee was mandated to conduct comprehensive, province-wide budget consultations within an expedited timeframe. Although not struck by the Legislative Assembly until September 19, 2005, the Committee was still required by statute to issue a report on our consultations no later than November 15. An additional challenge facing the Committee was the limited opportunities to travel, as the fall sitting of the Legislative Assembly commenced earlier than normal.
To address this compressed budget consultation period, the Committee chose three consultation methods in order to hear from British Columbians: public hearings, written submissions, and an online questionnaire. Based on the public’s comments and suggestions received, the Committee’s report and recommendations reflect the key themes and issues pertaining to the government’s fiscal policies and budget plans as interpreted by the Committee.
Due to time limitations, the Finance Committee was required to reduce the number of public hearings from previous years. Travelling to eight separate regions of the province, committee members held public hearings to hear oral presentations from organizations and individuals representing a diversity of economic and social interests. This year, the Committee visited the following communities: Victoria, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Smithers, Kamloops, Cranbrook, Kelowna, and Vancouver. In total, the Committee heard 147 oral presentations at the eight public hearings.
The Finance Committee again encouraged British Columbians to submit their thoughts on the Budget 2006 consultations in writing. The Committee accepted submissions by fax, mail, and e-mail.
This year, we received 291 written submissions from all corners of the province. The written submissions covered a wide variety of topics, including post-secondary education funding, regional infrastructure projects, arts and culture funding, additional funding for equipment and assistive devices for people with disabilities, as well as suggestions for tax reductions and debt repayment. Figure 1 provides an overview of the written submissions received by geographic region.
Figure 1: Written Submissions Received by Geographic Region
Over the one-month consultation period (September 22 to October 23), close to 4,000 British Columbians took the time to fill out the questionnaire contained within the Budget 2006 Consultation Questionnaire, using the Finance Committee’s online response form. The level of public interest in our work marks a record number of submissions received by a British Columbian parliamentary committee on any given topic — more than doubling the total number of Internet-based responses received in last year’s budget consultation process. Figure 2 provides an overview of the online submissions received by geographic region.
The Committee would like to note that the information collected from the online response form does not constitute a statistically significant survey. Rather, the questions posed in the survey were designed to spark a discussion around key budgetary priorities. The quantitative data collected from our online response form constituted one element of the public’s responses to the government’s Budget 2006 Consultation Paper. Comments and suggestions provided by the public via the online response form were reviewed by the Committee and considered on par with written and oral submissions.
Figure 2: Online Responses Received by Region
Further information on written and online submissions received by region is contained in Appendix A. Complete lists of organizations and individuals who made an oral presentation at a public hearing, provided a written submission, or completed the Budget 2006 online questionnaire, are all included as appendices at the end of this report. The minutes, transcripts, and audio webcasts of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services’ public meetings, as well as an electronic copy of this report, are available on the Internet at: www.leg.bc.ca/cmt.
September 21, 2005 |
Planning Session |
Victoria |
October 4, 2005 |
Briefing |
Victoria |
October 7, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Victoria |
October 11, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Dawson Creek |
October 11, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Prince George |
October 12, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Smithers |
October 12, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Kamloops |
October 13, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Cranbrook |
October 13, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Kelowna |
October 18, 2005 |
Deliberations |
Victoria |
October 21, 2005 |
Public Hearing |
Vancouver |
October 26, 2005 |
Deliberations |
Victoria |
November 2, 2005 |
Deliberations |
Victoria |
November 7, 2005 |
Deliberations |
Vancouver |
November 14, 2005 |
Deliberations and |
Victoria |
“…What I am trying to do as the Minister of Finance — and therefore looking at the next budget — is not only to follow the imperative of balancing the budget but also to try to balance all of the needs and issues that we see in the community.” (Hon. Carole Taylor, October 4, 2005).
On September 14, 2005, the Minister of Finance, Hon. Carole Taylor, released the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper . The consultation paper — which is used to guide the Committee’s public consultation process — asked for British Columbians’ opinions on priority areas for fiscal plan surpluses in 2008/09; whether the government should maintain the practice of projecting both a healthy contingency fund and a forecast allowance; how to pay for infrastructure investments; and financial priorities for Budget 2006.
After reviewing the 4,400-plus submissions the Committee received, we attempted to make sense of the wide array of topics covered during the public consultation process. We were challenged to reconcile issues of both provincial and national importance (tax competitiveness, skills training, highway infrastructure), with those issues intrinsically personal in nature — from the listing of Alzheimer’s medications on the provincial formulary, to requests for additional aid to support the developmentally disabled in smaller communities.
In every community to which we travelled and throughout the written and online submissions, we heard and read repeatedly the need to continue to enhance British Columbia’s strong and vibrant economy, invest strategically in communities, and to provide people with the tools and services needed to excel.
There was a general consensus among the witnesses that the allocation of future surpluses to a single priority area is not an advantageous proposition. Instead, a clear message the Committee heard was that the public would like to see a balanced approach when allocating future surpluses. In particular, many of the online submissions highlighted the issue that the allocation of future surpluses should not be an all-or-nothing proposition. Rather, future budgets should strive to allocate surplus resources across the five noted target areas identified in Question 1 of the government’s questionnaire: tax reductions, programs and services, public sector wage increases, new infrastructure projects, and paying down the debt. Here is a sample of the public’s comments:
“We are pleased with the numerous positive actions that the government has implemented through the past several budgets. Our general response to question 1 is that the Board continues to recommend a balanced approach between tax cuts, prudent debt management and conservative spending increases.” ( Vancouver Board of Trade).
“A balanced approach by using any surplus to address each of these in a rank ordered fashion. Perhaps 1/3 to debt reduction, a small tax reduction (reduce the sales tax), then address the medical system and education system in modest ways and provide employees with a cost of living scale increase. Everyone would gain a bit by reducing tax burdens.” (David Carter, Surrey).
“Stay the course... pay down the debt, continue to increase funding for healthcare and education in a balanced approach.” (Sean Walker, Surrey).
The Committee also heard a strong demand for continued consideration of the province’s taxation structure, debt-to-GDP ratio, and regulatory policies; support for investments in the transportation and community infrastructure; and additional programs for persons with disabilities, students and families. Taken together, the Committee decided that our report would be built around the theme of balanced investments to enhance economic competitiveness, invest in physical and community infrastructure, and support necessary social programs for individuals and communities.
Building on this theme, the Finance Committee’s recommendations address the following issues:
Question 1: Fiscal plan surpluses and increased revenues in 2008/09 are available for tax reductions, new or expanded services, wage increases for public sector workers, paying down the debt, new infrastructure or a combination of these items. Please rank these items in order of priority.
The focus of the first question in the government’s Budget 2006 Consultation Paper pertained to the fiscal policies and programs the public would like to see implemented for future fiscal plan surpluses, starting in the 2008/09 fiscal year. As the government currently outlines revenues and expenses in three-year time increments, 2008/09 is the first fiscal year in which significant changes in policy relating to the allocation of fiscal plan surpluses may occur. The public was also asked to order these five priorities in order of importance.
In reviewing the oral, written, and online submissions received, it became evident that the vast majority of respondents were requesting the government to examine issues that have impacted the province’s fiscal plan surpluses and increased revenues commencing with Budget 2006.
As a compromise, the Finance Committee decided to report on Question 1 by proposing several policies and programs that require both the short- and long-term attention of government. Having taken into consideration the importance of the five policy and program areas identified in the budget consultation paper, the Committee has decided to highlight the key programs and fiscal policies that we heard during the consultation process. However, a clear message we heard was that it is important to balance British Columbia’s economic competitiveness with investments in physical and community infrastructure while ensuring proper social programs are available for individuals in their respective communites.
In addition to the options put forward in the budget consultation paper, the Committee also heard strong support for immediate increases to the budgets of the ministries of Advanced Education, and Education. We address these open-ended requests for increased funding in the Committee’s response to new or expanded programs and services.
One clear message we heard throughout our budget consultations was the need for British Columbia to remain fiscally and economically competitive; not only with our neighbours to the east and south, but also on an international scale. We heard that in order to attract investment in different sectors and different regions of the province, it is important for government to monitor taxation levels to ensure competitiveness with other jurisdictions. Here is a sample of what we heard:
“We would encourage the government to keep monitoring tax rates of our major competitors to ensure that we retain or increase British Columbia’s competitiveness.” (Hayes Stewart Little & Co.).
“Tax reduction should mainly be focused on corporate tax to make BC competitive on a world level.” (Douglas Lee, North Vancouver).
“With Alberta as our neighbour, we are in competition with them in a number of areas - skilled labour, development projects, research and development. We cannot afford to become less competitive by allowing our deficit to grow and our taxes (including sales tax) to get too out of line.” (Chris Reniers, Coquitlam).
One topic we heard again and again during the consultation process was a desire to reduce the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) from 7 percent to 6 percent over the next two fiscal years. We heard from retailers and individuals that a reduction of the PST by one-half of a percentage point over each of the next two fiscal years would be a sensible suggestion for returning surplus money back into the hands of British Columbians. In addition, a gradual reduction of the PST would stimulate retail sales and provide a distinct benefit to lower-income families. Below are a few of the comments we received:
“Retailers believe that the economic stars are aligned. This is an ideal time to reduce the PST. We feel it will stimulate the economy and create jobs.” ( Retail BC).
“A sales tax reduction would be the best tax reduction to stimulate the economy.” (Douglas Cochrane, Nanaimo).
“A sales tax reduction would be ideal. It will benefit all income levels, businesses and individuals.” (Michael Saufferer, Kelowna).
During the consultation process, we heard expressions of support for the government’s program to reduce the complexity associated with the collection of the PST. We heard from a variety of organizations and businesses — from lawyers to clothing retailers, hoteliers and automobile retailers — that the red tape associated with the collection of the PST was overly complex and required streamlining. However, the Committee also heard that as changes to PST collection rules have a significant impact on retailers, any regulatory reform program must be comprehensive and fair. The specific suggestions we heard included:
“I think it is important that any review and change of the rules be done thoughtfully. Businesses invest a lot in learning the rules. When the rules change, even if they’re simplified, that change imposes a burden, so it’s important that it be done correctly and thoroughly the first time around.” (Canadian Federation of Independent Business).
“Hotels in B.C. currently pay provincial sales tax on in-room consumables — things like shower caps, shampoos, soaps, sewing kits and all these amenities that we provide to our guests. They’re a part of the total experience, and as such, we feel this is unfair taxation….We estimate that eliminating the PST on in-room consumables will cost the government approximately $7 million.” (Oak Bay Beach Hotel & Marine Resort).
Associated with the government’s PST streamlining program, we heard from the legal profession and the business community that the collection of PST on legal services should be reviewed to ensure fairness:
“The tax on legal fees is incompatible with the government’s goal of creating a competitive business environment in BC. The tax inflates the cost of doing business in British Columbia, relative to other jurisdictions where no such tax is imposed, notably Alberta and Ontario. We recommend that the provincial government eliminates the seven percent social service tax on legal services — the only professional services in BC subject to the sales tax.” (Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Branch).
A recommendation put forward by both the real estate industry and individual citizens was a call for raising the threshold for first-time home buyers to qualify for an exemption to the property transfer tax (PTT), with the eventual goal of removing the tax from all real estate transactions. We heard that both the rules and the inadequacy of current PTT exemption levels have significantly reduced the number of first-time home buyers qualifying for PTT exemptions. This issue has been exacerbated by the strong housing market resulting in dramatic increases in housing prices over the last few years. As such, home ownership for many housing types remains firmly out of reach of median income earners in British Columbia. These witnesses’ specific ideas were:
“The British Columbia Real Estate Association recommends that the provincial government review the property transfer tax — in consultation with the BCREA and other sector groups — to determine the tax’s broader economic impact and identify alternative sources of revenue, and that government table a plan to eliminate the tax, or at the very least, significantly reduce it.” ( British Columbia Real Estate Association).
“We are recommending that you raise the exemption ceiling to $375,000 (for first-time home buyers) and we believe that the price ceiling should be adjusted every year.” (Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver).
“With sky-rocketing home prices in many parts of BC, it is time to eliminate or reduce the property transfer tax.” (Gordon Roberts, Vancouver).
Another recurring issue the Committee heard was a request from the province’s new car dealers to remove the luxury surtax on vehicles. The presenters reiterated their position of previous years that the surtax on luxury vehicle penalizes consumers in rural British Columbia who must, out of necessity, buy more expensive vehicles — usually a truck — for work and for their families. The new car dealers proposed that a possible alternative to the complete repeal of the tax would be to exclude the surtax on the purchase of all trucks.
“Purely and simply, this tax should be eliminated. A possible interim approach would be to eliminate the tax on all trucks, which are often used as both a work and primary vehicle in rural British Columbia, and to raise the threshold on other vehicles to a more realistic level.” (New Car Dealers Association of BC).
The Committee recommends that:
Another clear message that the Committee heard throughout our public consultations was the need for the government to make several strategic investments in the following areas: professional development programs and skilled trades training, advanced education, K-to-12 education, early child development and child care, community living services, women’s services, cultural infrastructure, environmental stewardship, and specific requests relating to the mountain pine beetle crisis.
The Committee heard that the government should take on a greater role in coordinating efforts to integrate internationally trained medical professionals into British Columbia’s medical profession. In addition, a key message put forward by the business community, educators and professional associations is that British Columbia is facing a looming shortage of skilled tradespersons due to a strong demand by industry. We heard that government must continue to do even more to enhance opportunities to attract and train skilled tradespersons and professionals by making both apprenticeship training and co-operative education tax credits available for employers.
The Committee was struck by the difficulties faced by foreign-trained medical professionals in gaining the requisite training to be licensed to practice medicine in British Columbia. In particular, we heard there exists a shortage of residencies available for internationally trained medical graduates. We also heard there is an imminent need to find solutions for assessing foreign medical credentials and that the introduction of paid clinical trainee positions would provide internationally trained doctors with local experience, while undergoing the skills assessment process. The specific suggestions included:
“Increasing the number of residency training positions for internationally trained doctors, expanding the federally-sponsored assessment process and helping the regulatory body become familiar with the medical systems in BC’s primary immigration countries would go a long way to addressing the current medical doctor shortage and the inequalities of the current system.” (Dr. Elisson Rouhana, Burnaby).
The Finance Committee heard that one area in which the government can stimulate the growth of skilled trades training in British Columbia is to provide businesses with an apprenticeship training tax credit based on the model in place in Ontario. Under that system, the government would refund 25 percent of salaries and wages paid to an eligible apprentice in one of over 100 qualifying skilled trades. This credit would increase to 30 percent for small businesses. Some of the comments we received included:
“To move forward to having a healthy trades training system in the province, it is critically important that government address the cost of training apprentices, both in time and money through a training tax credit. We would recommend the tax credit be available to employers on an equal basis, regardless of company size.” (Northern B.C. Construction Association).
“If this government is truly committed to increasing the number of skilled tradespeople in this province, they must take the steps necessary to support those employers who are prepared to train.” ( British Columbia Construction Association).
“We need to find a way to encourage small businesses to take on apprentices and keep them from being “poached” by a larger firm once they are trained.” (Prince George Chamber of Commerce).
“We recommend that we get a tax credit or some kind of a training benefit for training these young kids. The trades are a great career path to get into, but training costs money.” (Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia).
The Committee received several proposals to expand the number of co-operative education opportunities available to students. We heard from both university co-o program coordinators and from business organizations that a new co-operative education tax credit would assist in alleviating the decline in co-op placements in British Columbia. Here are examples of the suggestions:
“Small Kamloops companies need skilled workers to grow. Over the last four years, very few wage subsidies have been available, and as a result, many companies have not been able to employ co-op students. I urge the government to consider a tax credit to companies who employ co-op students.” (Nancy Bepple, Kamloops).
“The Greater Victoria Chamber recommends that the government introduce a co-op tax credit to BC business employers equal to 15 percent of wages paid to qualified co-op students for work placements, capped at $1,500 per student, and that co-op work terms count towards completion of a post-secondary co-op education program at a qualifying B.C. university, college or institution.” (Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce).
“We would encourage the government to increase the number of co-op placements within government across the province as part of your budgetary process over this next year and in the years to come, as one of the ways of solving some of the succession planning in the public service. We think that co-op education is a model that government would want to promote and to invest in, in order to address the trades and skills shortages that are looming.” (Canadian Association for Co-operative Education).
With respect to post-secondary education, the Committee heard concerns from university administrators and student organizations about the current allotment of per student funding provided to universities and colleges. Presenters at public hearings also asked the government to examine whether the current tuition fee schedules were inhibiting students from pursuing a post-secondary education. In addition, requests were made to eliminate tuition fees charged for adult basic education programs.
The Committee heard from key stakeholders in the advanced education sector that the government should increase the per student funding allotment for colleges and universities in order to cover inflationary costs. The comments included:
“Government must ensure that inflationary costs are covered in annual operating grants.” ( British Columbia College Presidents).
“The provincial government has given us new duties, new obligations, and those are going to cost money. We want to be really clear that even though we support the fact that the creation of the university on its own may have opened up a lot of financial possibilities for us, including fundraising, we still think there has to be a commitment by the government to recognize our increased mandate through an increase in our operating grant.” ( Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association).
“It is important to make sure that per-student funding is at a level that allows the institution to be able to afford to offer a broad range of courses and credentials, without being pressured to increase tuition fees. It is crucial that per-student funding be increased to ensure that the cost of developing much-needed infrastructure projects, such as a new library, is not passed on to the shoulders of students. Furthermore, increased per-student funding will also ensure that students in the Kamloops region can access vital programs such as apprenticeship and trades training courses.” (Cariboo Students Society).
The Committee received several submissions applauding the government’s decision to freeze tuition fee increases to the rate of inflation. Some witnesses also pointed out that the increased cost of post-secondary education has been a factor in declining enrolments in several institutions. The suggestions we heard called for an immediate reduction in tuition fees for post-secondary students. Among the suggestions we heard:
“The announcement of a cap on tuition fee increases to the annual rate of inflation demonstrates the government recognizes the hardships that have been imposed by high tuition fees. Students congratulate the government on this decision, and we look forward to seeing this cap enshrined in legislation to provide further assurance to students and their families that they will not again experience the unprecedented tuition fee increases of recent years. Now we can go forward and work together to make post-secondary education even more accessible to average British Columbians in the form of multi-year legislation that reaffirms the tuition fee cap for this year and introduces tuition fee reductions, starting in September 2006. An investment of just $101 million would enable the government to fund a freeze on tuition fees for the next two years and still maintain anticipated service levels.” (Canadian Federation of Students, BC Office).
“The cap has shown students that the government now realizes the hardships put in place by massive tuition fee increases. Now the province needs to take further steps and reduce tuition fees.” ( College of New Caledonia Students’ Association).
“Children are our future. Support public education at all levels. Post-secondary education should be funded at a much higher level. Young people should not have to bear the burdens of crippling debt to receive post-secondary training.” (Susan Darlington, Duncan).
Several organizations in the post-secondary education sector made submissions calling for the abolition of tuition fees on adult basic education programs. We heard the program is of particular benefit to mature students seeking necessary prerequisites before entering post-secondary programs. Here is an example of what we heard:
“Adult basic education (ABE) programs are so important for ensuring that the students who have the least amount of education are able to access the B.C. post-secondary system. ABE allows for students to graduate from high school in an environment more acceptable to adult academic learners in a high school.” (UBC Students Union – Okanagan).
This year, the Finance Committee conducted its consultations on the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper against the backdrop of a labour dispute involving BC’s teachers. On October 13 and 14, 2005, we observed a significant increase in responses to our online questionnaire, relating to the need for more education funding — specifically to class size and class composition.
At the Committee’s public hearings, we also heard from school administrators that government should review its funding commitments relating to escalating heating and transportation costs, particularly in northern and rural school districts.
The issues of class size and class composition were cited frequently by online participants as an area requiring attention in future provincial budgets. We heard from both parents and teachers alike that the government should continue to ensure that the best learning environment is provided for both elementary and secondary school students. Here are some of the specific comments we heard:
“I would like to see more emphasis put on addressing the health and education crisis in rural communities.” (Wayne Lundeberg, Nelson).
“I would like to see the government take an interest in our future - that means helping teachers, students, and parents by way of reducing class sizes and by increasing the funding for special needs and learning disabled children. Let’s make our students a priority - they are our future!” (Fern Imrich, Coldstream).
“Putting money into reducing class sizes and class configuration in order to improve learning conditions for students would be the best way to spend this money.” (Pat Farmer, Abbottsford).
The Committee received several submissions that examined issues pertaining to rural and northern school districts. Two issues in particular were raised by school districts in Prince George and north-eastern British Columbia. First, we heard the existing formula for determining transportation funding in rural and remote districts does not take into consideration declining enrolments. Second, we also heard that rising energy costs are having a detrimental impact on the budgets of school districts. Here are the comments we heard from northern school districts:
“The cost of circular travel in rural and remote areas needs attention. Funding is required to have the province’s students, who live in isolated areas, interact through sports, culturally, and through the arts…. Bus trips for students cost several hundreds of dollars per trip with many trips, recognizing the number of students involved, required throughout the year.” (School District No. 60 – Peace River North).
“If you look at our statistics on students, since ’96 we have lost almost 23 percent of our students. That’s a huge drop in our population. If we look at the graphs of students in various grades, we can only forecast that we will continue to decline in enrolment. The issue with that is when you decline in enrolment, you don’t necessarily reduce transportation costs, because you’re still pulling students from the same vast area. If anything, the percentage of our funding may have to increase for transportation, based on the number of students we have. In essence, it’s a double whammy.” (School District No. 59 – Peace River South).
“School districts are major consumers of energy, and we need to have some kind of a break on this — whether it’s a temporary blip or what’s going on, it’s a real hardship for us because the dollars we have to put into furnaces or to lighting or to the gas tanks on the school buses have to come from somewhere. The only place it’s coming from is really the classroom.” (School District No. 57 – Prince George).
The Committee received several co-ordinated written and online responses in favour of increased spending on a publicly-funded, community-delivered child care system. In light of the recent agreement-in-principle on early learning and child care between the governments of Canada and British Columbia, we received submissions that asked for the new federal dollars to be targeted at reducing child care user fees and increasing the wages of child care providers. We also heard that the government should evaluate proposals for regionalized governance and local service delivery models for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The comments we received include:
“We need to build a quality, publicly-funded, community-delivered child care system in Canada. We call on the Finance Committee and the BC government to: use provincial surpluses to: restore the $40 million cut from BC’s own spending on child care since 2001/02; use the federal dollars for early learning and child care to bring daycare fees down and wages up; develop child care policy and spending that shifts the cost of child care from user fees to public funding; and ensure that every aspect of the BC child care plan and every dollar of spending on child care improve and sustain quality licensed child care services.” (Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC).
“We would like to see a strong commitment to early childhood development, including ensuring that all federal early learning and child care funding goes to its stated purpose, and restoration of the provincial financial contribution to child care to its 2001 levels.” (First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition)
“Our budget should include support for universal, quality, affordable childcare and services to children and families. Meeting the needs of these children when they are young will save this province so much in the future. There is an extreme lack of childcare in rural communities and not many will take on the role of registered home day cares.” (Cindy Lise, Duncan).
“I strongly believe that the capacity for local and regional governance for all children already exists in all of the five regions of the province and should be implemented in 2006. We need to go to the people who live in the communities, who know the issues, and for them to find the solutions.” (Clifford Dezell, Prince George).
The Finance Committee received many submissions that addressed the issue of additional supports for people with developmental disabilities. The submissions we received covered three themes: sufficient program funding for rural communities; requests for an additional investment into the Community Living Restructuring Fund; and an additional allocation of funds for Community Living BC to address the critical needs of people on waitlists.
The Committee was particularly struck by a submission we received from the Smithers Parent/Caretaker Coalition. The coalition expressed concern about the lack of services available in the area for developmentally disabled individuals, particularly when compared to the services offered in urban centres. The witnesses’ specific suggestions were:
Another area of concern expressed by the community living sector was the need for a reinvestment into the community living restructuring fund. The purpose of the fund is to provide grants to adults with developmental disabilities, families of children with special needs, and service providers during the transition of community living services in British Columbia. Some examples of grants administered by the fund include: wheelchair accessible bathrooms and vehicles, ramps, hallway widening, and suites for caregivers and youth transitioning into adulthood. Below are some of comments we received:
“We call on you to invest $10 million in the community living restructuring fund – a proactive fund that helps families make the adjustments they need to support their children at home.” (BC Association for Community Living)."
"Our funding proposal requests consideration to:
“To address some of the more basic struggles and challenges faced by families, an investment of $10 million into the community living restructuring fund will ensure that individuals will be able to remain in their family homes for a longer period of time.” (Vela Microboard Association of BC).
The Committee also received submissions from advocates for persons with developmental disabilities requesting that significant resources be allocated to Community Living BC, the Crown corporation responsible for providing services to the individuals and families living with developmental disabilities. In particular, the submissions on this topic indicated that additional funds should be provided for income supports (such as increases to the shelter allowance, earnings exemptions for couples, job training services), and increased commitments for inclusive education. Below are a few of their comments:
“It is critical that adequate funding in the Ministry of Children and Family Development be a priority, now and on an ongoing basis in order to: address waitlists for services and sustain social services for people with developmental disabilities.” (BC Federation of Families Society).
“I am under the impression that $60-$70 million added to the annual budget of the new Community Living BC (CLBC) will help ensure its success. That amount is not a very big percentage of the projected $1.3 billion surplus. I really support the creation of CLBC and very much want it to be successful. Hopefully you can assist them with a little bit more funding.” (Richard Ashton, Mission).
“Waitlists for adults with developmental disabilities need to be addressed. There is a critical shortage of services to these individuals and they are not being included as citizens in our province. Please make this a top priority for the coming year’s budget.” (Patricia Stuart, Gibsons).
“I would like to see more money put towards Community Living BC to ensure the success of the huge, very badly needed change that is currently taking place in the ministry. We need to ensure we are providing service based on individual needs and not how they may fit into some ‘box’! We need to help them to live as independently as possible, and with dignity and respect.” (Bonnie Fallowfield, Quesnel).
The Committee received submissions for additional resources to be provided to organizations helping women leave abusive relationships. One specific request was for the restoration of funding for local crisis lines and sexual assault centres to augment the services provided by VictimLINK:
“In Kamloops our sexual assault centre efficiently and effectively ran a 24-hour-a-day, 365-days-a-year crisis line for this community and surrounding region for more than 20 years, utilizing approximately 70 Kamloops volunteers annually with these funds. From 1997 to 2003 our crisis line was the only crisis line serving this region. Now Kamloops is one of the only communities of its size in Canada with no crisis lines, no information lines and no suicide lines. We now strongly urge the B.C. government to promptly return all of the program funding eliminated from sexual assault centres across the province in the spring of 2003 back to sexual assault centres so that we can reinstate essential and very needed services.” ( Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre).
The Finance Committee received many requests from the arts community for an increase in the per capita spending on the arts in British Columbia, as well as increased funding to build and support cultural infrastructure across the province. We also heard requests for support of the creation of two new museums. Some of the comments we received were:
“To ensure an adequate investment in communities throughout British Columbia that seek to realize the social and economic benefits of the arts, the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture is seeking all-party support for an investment of $10 per capita, through the British Columbia Arts Council, and significant investment in cultural infrastructure across the province.” (Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture).
“It is our belief that the arts have intrinsic value to our citizens and our society. Access to and being involved with the arts has a lasting and transforming effect on many aspects of our lives.” (Arts Action BC).
“When developing your recommendations for the 2006 budget, please consider some local solutions. Organizations like the Railway and Forestry Museum are creating opportunities for our community. We’re drawing in net funding from outside our region and spending it almost entirely locally…By appearing before you today, we hope that, of course, you’ll come knocking on our door to assist in the first phases of our project.” (Prince George Railway and Forestry Museum).
“The Britannia Earth and Mineral Discovery Centre … is an initiative to clean up the site, turn it into an interpretive centre, turn it into a showcase, turn it into a museum and turn it into basically an icon of sustainability in the minerals business. The provincial government has committed some funds. We’re just suggesting — the project is about $35 million — that the best way to fund it is $10 million from the province, $10 million more from industry and $10 million from the federal government. (Northgate Minerals Corp).
The Committee received many submissions relaying concerns about the environment, particularly concerning the management of British Columbia’s parks system and Crown land in general. With respect to BC’s parks, the funding requests expressed a desire for greater staffing — in terms of parks maintenance and enforcement, as well as the restoration of interpretive programs. The public requested a greater staffing complement to ensure that activities taking place on Crown lands remained in compliance with the regulations in place.
One clear message we heard is that British Columbians are extremely proud of the provincial parks system. However, we also heard a theme that the government can do more to enhance visitors’ experiences when they visit a BC park. In particular, we heard that the public would like to see the government invest more into parks infrastructure, provide greater access to educational materials, and provide enhanced enforcement within parks boundaries. Some of the comments we received included:
“We recommend a budget increase in the order of $12.5 million for visitor information staffing and programs, backcountry rangers, conservation officers and for repair and replacement of park facilities. To put this in perspective, $12.5 million is no more than a rounding error in the budget of the Ministry of Health. Encouraging people to visit parks is a step towards healthy living.” (Federation of British Columbia Naturalists).
“I am really concerned with the lack of budget allocation to environmental issues. I would like to see the government spend more money in that area, as well as educating our kids about environmental issues as well as sustainable solutions.” (Bianka Sawicz, Vancouver).
“Re-positioning parks fits with the government’s great goal of leading the world in sustainable environmental management.” (Bob Peart, Sidney).
The Finance Committee received numerous submissions that spoke about a renewed investment in the forest recreation program. The program, administered by the Ministry of Forests, provides residents and tourists camping and other recreational opportunities at more than 1,100 sites and 500 trails across British Columbia. Although the government has announced increased funding and staffing for the forest recreation program, we heard that a greater investment is required to maintain and upgrade facilities in heavy-use areas. Here is a sample of the proposals that we heard:
“We were pleased by the Ministry of Forests’ budget announcement that the forest recreation program funding will be increased to $6 million by the 2006/07 fiscal year, but feel that the delaying of growth of funding to that level until the start of the next fiscal year will result in further deterioration, loss of recreation opportunities for residents, and loss of potential tourism revenues. The current funding plan is causing economic loss.” (BC Wildlife Federation).
“The Rocky Mountain Forest District is one of the most heavily used forest recreation areas with 600,000 visitors yearly to 113 recreation sites and 91 trails. There is one staff member tending to the program with the region receiving $107,000 per year in funding. The forest recreation program should be something of which we are proud.” ( Cranbrook Community Forest Society).
During the public consultations, the Committee received several submissions concerning the management of the Crown range resource. We heard of several pilot programs designed to promote ecosystem restoration, particularly on Crown rangelands in the interior and Rocky Mountain Trench. Among the suggestions we heard:
“The Grasslands Conservation Council proposing a collaborative and proactive approach to working with government to achieve common goals and objectives, namely: sustainable management and conservation of rangeland ecosystems; ensuring the scientific information and tools are available for land-use planning; limiting the diverse effects on the environment and on grasslands; and promoting sustainable agriculture. We are requesting $300,000 per year for three years to complete these objectives.” (Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia).
“The importance of the range resource to the East Kootenay public cannot be overstated. Neither can the difficulty of addressing the fundamental management problems. The Trench Society proposes that $80,000 yearly funding to the Rocky Mountain Forest District for one restoration program support staff, and a grant of $80,000 to investigate the potential of small wood utilization in the Trench.” (Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society).
We also heard during our consultation process of the need to continue working towards both the completion and implementation of land and resource management plans (LRMPs) in the province. In particular, we received requests from some residents of the Sunshine Coast for financial assistance to develop a comprehensive land use plan for that region. Here is a sampling of the submissions we received:
“The people of the Sunshine Coast need the assistance of government to resolve land use conflict in order to achieve economic certainty and a sustainable future in our area. Please accept our recommendation that the initiation of a Sunshine Coast LRMP be given a priority ranking for use of the anticipated budget surplus and/or a priority for the 2006-2007 budget.” ( Sunshine Coast Conservation Association).
“We are very much in favour of business and economic prosperity. We run our own business and are very interested in vision and sustainable development. We believe that the Sunshine Coast has to develop, but it has to do it in a way that is managed, so that we can all have some security for our futures.” (Sue Leather, Sechelt).
A number of individuals and organizations also called for increased investment in various aspects of environmental monitoring and enforcement. In particular, we received several responses asking for increased vigilance in protecting our freshwater resources from sewage and pollution, as well as calls for more conservation officers. We also heard of the need for an increased emphasis on remediation of contaminated sites and water courses. Below are a few of their comments:
“Funding is urgently needed to survey the conditions of fresh water in this province, with more funds required for remediation.” ( Shuswap Lake Coalition).
“The resource industries are the primary engines of economic wealth in this province. It’s critical that the water monitoring program is maintained for sustainable economic development and environmental protection.” ( Water Highway BC Society).
“I would rank as a top priority strengthening environment-related ministries to be able to enforce regulations and do proper research on environmental impacts of development.” (Jim Breadon, Vancouver).
“I believe that sustainable water management is an area of opportunity and should be given the resources to secure this most fundamental resource for future generations, and as a foundation for a vibrant economy.” (Oliver M. Brandes, Victoria).
A clear area of concern in the province’s interior communities is how to best assist communities in transition as a result of the pine beetle outbreak. A few of the specific specific suggestions we received include:
“The mountain pine beetle is ravaging our schools grounds. Last year, we took 3,000 pine trees off school property in the Prince George area. The net cost for removal is $40-50 per tree and an estimated over half a million dollars for a total removal program. This represents one sixth of our annual facility grant. We need some help, as we not only have to pay for removal, but we would like to be able to plant something for the next generation and as windbreaks.” (School District No. 57 – Prince George).
“The movement of goods through Prince George is a major issue because of the havoc logging trucks are causing on the road due to the mountain pine beetle. We need to see Highway 16 upgraded.” (Prince George Chamber of Commerce).
Another area of concern expressed by interior forest companies is the distortion of the comparative value pricing in the stumpage fees collected from beetle-damaged wood. We heard several presentations on how “water-bedding” on the collection of stumpage fees is harming the pricing of sawlog grade wood. The Committee heard support for the Minister of Forests’ commitment to address this issue in the near future. Among the comments we heard:
“A new timber pricing model is proposed for April 1, 2006. It must be reflective of harvesting challenges and landscape diversity. It must also reconcile rates paid per cubic metre for low cost, highly mechanized systems in the north with the more costly manual systems in the south. The clear message we would like to give the Finance Committee is that the comparative value pricing system is broken…and needs to be fixed.” (Tembec Industries Inc.).
“The mountain pine beetle infestation continues to distort a key parameter – the waterbed – within the comparative value pricing (CVP) model. An abundance of dead pine sawlogs sold at a statutory minimum rate of 25 cents a cubic metre shifts the stumpage burden from those with lots of dead pine to those with relatively little dead pine. As a result, this latter group, which includes Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association members, pay more stumpage than they otherwise should. The government has addressed this inequity in part with an interim adjustment to CVP. The long term solution is to eliminate this sawlog grade altogether and price new sawlog grades at their true market value. It is absolutely imperative that the government meet their goal of fixing this problem by April 1, 2006.” (Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association).
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee heard from many witnesses that a portion of future fiscal plan surpluses should be allocated to reasonable wage increases across the public sector. It was clear from the many online comments that there existed broad-based support for the government’s previous zero wage increase mandates, but also recognition that public sector workers have experienced a decline in their take-home pay as a result of inflation. The Committee heard general consensus that public sector wages should increase approximately at the rate of inflation, subject to the province’s fiscal situation. In addition, the Committee heard that in areas that face recruiting difficulties — such as management, professional, and technical occupations — the government should have the flexibility to develop market-based compensation adjustments. Here is a sample of the comments we received on this topic:
“Wages of public sectors employees in B.C. must be a worthwhile incentive to attract and retain professionals and thus creates positive impacts on mid- and long-term overall economic performances of this province. (Gaston B. Hotton, Dawson Creek).
“We would consider spending increases in the magnitude of 1 to 2 percent per year to be reasonable over the next two years. Given that a significant proportion of the costs for these areas are in wages, we acknowledge that some additional amounts will be required for public sector wage increases.” ( Vancouver Board of Trade).
“We’re saying that now that there’s a surplus, it’s time to share the wealth more widely and, particularly, with those who are least fortunate in our society and with working families who’ve lost ground as a result of policies such as wage freezes or wage rollbacks in the past four years.” (B.C. Government and Service Employees Union).
While the Committee heard that the public was largely in favour of reasonable wage increases in line with the rate of inflation, we did hear some calls for continuation of the existing public sector wage guidelines. Here is a sample of a contrarian submission we received on this topic:
“In our members’ view, the private sector should lead, not follow, the public sector wages because it’s the private sector that’s generating the wealth. Over time, as the economy grows, of course, everyone’s wages can go up. But in the short term, to make this wage gap even wider, in our members’ view, is completely inappropriate.” (Canadian Federation of Independent Business).
The Committee recommends that:
Another common theme we heard as we conducted our public hearings throughout the province was the need for increased investment in our transportation infrastructure. The presenters’ primary concerns were that key stretches of highway are at or near capacity, and that some sections of existing roads are unsafe.
The Committee heard two clear messages relating to transportation infrastructure investments. First, in order to ensure timely goods movement to and from greater Vancouver area ports, and to reduce commuting times across the region, the government should continue to invest and develop the three lower mainland highway projects outlined in the Gateway program. Second, the Finance Committee also heard a clear message that significant transportation projects are also required across the province. We heard of the need for increased capacity on east-west provincial highways connecting to Alberta (Highways 2, 3, and 16), as well as support for developing an inter-modal inland port strategy. We also received submissions requesting support for airport expansions to bolster regional economic development and tourism.
A recurring theme in the oral, written and online submissions was for accelerated investment in the Gateway program. The three components of the Gateway program — Highway 1 and Port Mann Bridge expansion, North Fraser Perimeter Road Project, South Perimeter Road Project — received significant support from the business community and from residents of greater Vancouver. The announcement of $590 million for projects relating to the Gateway program by the Government of Canada further enhances the national importance of these projects to reduce regional congestion, and improve the movement of people, goods and transit throughout Greater Vancouver. Here is a sample of views:
“We have an infrastructure crisis in the Lower Mainland (South Fraser/Port Mann). Even if construction costs are significant, doing nothing is no longer an option. Lost productivity due to traffic gridlock has probably already cost the province more than infrastructure will.” (Kathy Doyle, Surrey).
“We need the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge desperately as soon as possible.” (Kathy Lowe, Chilliwack).
“The highway transportation system, in particular the Port Mann Bridge, is in need of expansion to handle the ever-increasing amount of traffic.” (Kolburn Hughes, Abbotsford).
“We recommend that the government continue to work with municipalities and other groups involved in improving transportation in the province — especially the reduction of the current amount of congestion on the Port Mann Bridge — to ensure that key information is shared between the groups, and that the appropriate funding and other resources are made available for those improvements, for the benefit of those who live or work in the Fraser Valley and beyond.” ( Fraser Valley Real Estate Board).
The Committee, though, did receive many comments from our online responses opposing increased investment in Greater Vancouver’s transportation infrastructure. Some of the comments include:
“Cancel the Gateway project. I don’t want to be stuck in the same traffic jam in ten years with twice as many people, and live in a GVRD that sprawls even further up the Fraser Valley. Focus on developing denser and more complete (live-work-play) communities where infrastructure can be concentrated and therefore cheaper.” (Jeff Deby, Vancouver).
“It depends on what infrastructure projects - doubling the vehicle lanes on the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 would be disastrous.” (Mary Sherlock, Vancouver).
We also received suggestions for improvements to the transportation infrastructure from around the province. In particular, the Committee heard many requests for upgrades to the provincial highway network, expansion of airports and for assistance in developing inland port infrastructure. The presenters’ specific transportation infrastructure requests were:
“At this time, news has come to me through people in the economic development of Grande Prairie county that Alberta will four-lane to the border by the year 2011. That’s four years. That is a main highway from Grande Prairie. It comes from Edmonton, if you’re heading into the north, through our little town of Pouce Coupe… We are the first town to really feel the brunt when you come into Alberta on Highway 2 of this situation. …I ask you to consider that highway situation, which will be an aid to the whole area.” (Councillor Lyman Clark, Village of Pouce Coupe).
“We applaud government on its Cariboo connector initiative to four-lane Highway 97 between Prince George and Cache Creek. This is a great start, but attention is also required on the highways west, north and east of Prince George, which also need significant upgrading. We again reiterate that the increased traffic due to economic activity, as well as the pine beetle epidemic, is taking a heavy toll upon the existing infrastructure. The roads of northern B.C. are critically important to the continued economic activity of our existing primary industries, and to take advantage of the host of opportunities looming in mining, oil and gas, the Prince Rupert container port and tourism, our transportation infrastructure needs immediate attention.” (Northern B.C. Construction Association).
“We need to see Highway 16 — B.C.’s section — upgraded. B.C., at present, only has one real east-west connector, which is down in the south, and that only serves maybe a third of the province, so we certainly need to take care of the other two-thirds, and Highway 16 does need to see some focus, especially if it’s going to handle the traffic that’s heading out to Prince Rupert and back and down through Edmonton and Chicago.” (Prince George Chamber of Commerce).
“The traffic on Highway 3 is becoming much greater. The big transport trucks that are travelling through there are getting busier and busier, and in the summer all the recreational vehicles are coming through as well. With the increased traffic coming from the airport, once it gets up to speed, it’s going to be worse.” (Fernie Real Estate; Fernie Central Reservations).
“What we will likely see is some inland ports developed because of the new Prince Rupert Port. If that’s the case, then we need to make sure that we have infrastructure such as roads, rail, even Internet connections. They have to be there, up and running.” (Prince George Chamber of Commerce).
“The creation of inland container handling facilities (if feasible) at Prince George, Kamloops and/or the Fraser Valley (as recommended in the BC Progress Board report of December 16, 2004) would benefit the economies of those regions, but also generate savings in highways maintenance costs, air pollution and congestion at existing ports.” ( Kamloops Chamber of Commerce).
“The Kamloops Chamber asks you to consider the long-term benefits — to Kamloops and other communities in the Heartlands — of investment today in our transportation infrastructure, including airports, rail, and highways.” ( Kamloops Chamber of Commerce).
“The financing of new infrastructure projects is an important priority for the Chamber. Airport infrastructure development, in particular, is critical for economic development and business activity in the northwest. The federal government has been approached for funding.” (Smithers and District Chamber of Commerce).
The Committee recommends that:
The Finance Committee is aware that underlying the government’s ability to plan tax reductions, new or expanded programs, wage increases, or building new infrastructure projects is the province’s ability to keep the total provincial debt affordable. According to the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper, the total provincial debt is now forecast at $35.9 billion in 2005/06, $37.3 billion in 2006/07 and $38 billion in 2007/08 in order to support the construction of vital infrastructure identified in the previous section. However, an important measure of debt affordability — the taxpayer-supported debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio — is forecast to decline to 17.1 per cent in 2005/06, 16.7 per cent in 2006/07 and 15.8 per cent in 2007/08.
During our public consultations, a clear message we heard was that while the total provincial debt may need to increase to support necessary infrastructure investments, the taxpayer-supported debt-to GDP ratio should be declining over time. We also reviewed several submissions that called for a long-term debt management plan to be announced, with the goal of keeping British Columbia’s level of public debt affordable.
The province’s forecasted decline in taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio was viewed positively by many in the business community. The current taxpayer-supported debt-to GDP ratio of 17.1 percent, was seen as a manageable debt level. However, some of the witnesses felt that without identifiable debt-to-GDP ratio targets, the government may continue to increase the aggregate debt of the province. Here are some of the suggestions we heard concerning setting a target for the debt-to-GDP ratio:
“The Business Council does recommend that the government continue to focus on gradually reducing the taxpayer-supported-debt-to-GDP ratio, currently at about 17 percent. We think targeting a level of perhaps 15 percent by the end of the fiscal plan would be a prudent approach. That can be delivered in the context of continuing with the capital spending program.” (Business Council of BC).
“We are pleased that the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio is declining, but would like to see ten-year targets set for B.C.’s debt ratio. We believe that is realistic to reduce B.C.’s taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to 10 percent by 2015.” ( Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia).
Another recommendation we heard was that government should commit to implement a long-term debt management strategy, with the ultimate goal of British Columbia retiring its taxpayer-supported debt. Some of the online submissions indicated disappointment that the government seems reluctant to put into place a debt management strategy. Here is a sample of the comments we received:
“It is now time to formalize a debt management strategy, with long-term targets for debt reduction, using the ratio of taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP as the key benchmark. An acceptable target would be a return to the 10 percent level of past years.” (Tenisci Piva Chartered Accountants).
“The Chamber recommends that the provincial government adopt a legislated debt retirement plan similar to that of Alberta.” (Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce).
“We encourage the provincial government to begin a long-term strategy to begin to reduce the amount of total debt, and use the savings generated from reduced debt servicing to strategically invest in our economy, further drive down the debt burden, and provide room for tax relief.” ( Kelowna Chamber of Commerce).
The Committee recommends that:
Question 2: There are always risks and challenges to keeping British Columbia’s budget balanced. International events can lead to economic slowdowns. Revenues can drop expectedly. Natural disasters like forest fires, earthquakes and floods can create large unforeseen expenses.
The government’s approach to managing these risks is to set aside a contingency fund and a forecast allowance to protect the balanced budget from unforeseen events. At the end of the year, if these are not needed, they are used to reduce borrowing and debt. Do you agree with this approach?
Yes — “The budget should contain a healthy contingency fund and a forecast allowance to keep the budget balanced,” or
No — “The budget should spend all available revenues. If something unexpected happens, there are other options.
Respondents who disagreed with the principle of the maintenance of a healthy contingency fund and forecast allowance to keep the budget balanced were then asked to rank three additional options:
To help ensure that budget surplus targets are met, the updated plan includes forecast allowances of $300 million in 2005/06, $600 million in 2006/07, and $900 million in 2007/08. These allowances will help protect the fiscal plan from revenue risks such as sudden drops in commodity prices, the cost of natural disasters, and other unexpected events. The forecast allowances also cover potential wage and benefit increases arising from the next round of public sector bargaining.
Upon reviewing the oral, written and online submissions, it was clear to the Committee there is broad support for the practice of setting aside both a contingency fund and a reasonable forecast allowance to protect balanced budgets from unforeseen events. Several of the submissions indicated that this practice is an important component of sound fiscal planning:
“It’s prudent that the provincial budget contains a contingency fund and forecast allowance to help cover unforeseen expenses.” ( British Columbia Real Estate Association).
“I agree in principle with the government’s current practice of providing both a contingency fund and forecast allowance to protect balanced budgets from unforeseen events.” (Peter Justo, Victoria).
“Having a contingency fund brings peace of mind. It’s nice knowing that in an emergency, funds are available to be spent immediately, with no concerns as to where we’ll find the resources.” (Marc Aucoin, Vancouver).
Of the 3,998 valid online responses to Question 2, a majority were in favour of contingency funds and forecast allowances being built into future budgets to ensure they remain balanced. Those who were against the practice indicated a preference for reduced spending should the government be faced with large, unforeseen expenditures.
The Committee received several comments on Question 2 — particularly in relation to the distribution of surplus funds, and the increasing value of the projected forecast allowance for the fiscal years 2006/07 and 2007/08:
“Maintaining a reasonable contingency to cover unexpected occurrences is logical. However, when it appears that the contingency fund will not be required for emergencies, the money should go toward funding postponed service and infrastructure improvements.” (Sheila Wallace, Vancouver).
“Having a contingency fund is good planning. The question is what to do with what is not used in the budget year.” (Judith Rees-Thomas, Saturna Island).
“The contingency fund should be limited; the intent is not to create of pool of money to direct to other purposes. If this is the principle, then I agree.” (Keith Egger, Prince George).
“I agree with a contingency fund, however any excess money doesn’t all have to go to the debt, it could go to different programs and sectors that could use the money.” (Ryan Mansley, Westbank).
“I agree to a contingency fund, but only if it does not result in further reductions to existing programs and services. Otherwise a smaller contingency fund and taxes to make up the rest if needed.” (Jacqueline Farquhar, Vancouver).
“I like the idea of a contingency fund; however, the funds should not necessarily go to paying down debt. They could be used in other areas. The surplus fund could also be used for capital projects and one-time funding for ministries.” (John Gilbert, Victoria).
The Committee recommends that:
Question 3: Important investments in roads, schools, and health care facilities worth over $12.1 billion are planned over the next 3 years.
The province’s infrastructure projects are funded by new borrowing — much like a homeowner may take out a mortgage to pay for building an addition to their home. The surplus is used to reduce this new borrowing.
When the surplus is larger, the province needs to borrow less, when the surplus if smaller, the province may need to borrow more.
Please indicate the statement below that you agree with most.
The focus of the third question in the government’s Budget 2006 Consultation Paper was on how to pay for important infrastructure investments in roads, schools, and health care facilities, worth in excess of $12.1 billion over the next three years. Witnesses were asked to choose from five options concerning alternative strategies to addressing these infrastructure needs.
A clear message we heard throughout the consultation process was that there exists a strong demand for the government to invest in building needed infrastructure projects — but a prudent strategy is for the province to limit borrowing and keep debt affordable.
“The BC Chamber believes that it is acceptable to borrow to build, but not all infrastructure projects are worthy of capital investment. We will continue to urge the government to focus on areas where the opportunity for a return on investment exists in the sense of economic growth. Consider financing projects in communities outside the lower mainland to deal with the lack of access to resources and utilize P3s.” ( British Columbia Chamber of Commerce).
“The cost of infrastructure will grow relative to the cost of borrowing today. There is good debt and bad debt. Infrastructure should be considered a good debt.” (Mike Johnson, Coquitlam).
“Like a responsible individual, the government would be wise to borrow for infrastructure projects that will, in the long term, have a positive effect on the province’s financial well-being.” (Lorna Robin, Crawford Bay).
Our online questionnaire asked respondents to provide their preference for financing needed infrastructure projects. As with the oral and written submissions, a majority of those who responded to our web questionnaire indicated a preference for Option 2: “It is important to build needed infrastructure projects, but we need to limit our borrowing and keep debt affordable.”
The Committee acknowledges two additional themes that emerged in the comments received through the online responses to question 3. First, we heard there is need for the government to clearly articulate what projects are planned under the three-year, $12.1 billion infrastructure plan. Several submissions indicated they lacked sufficient information on the specific projects under consideration to make an informed choice. While there is broad support for increased investments in “infrastructure,” many of the respondents requested that the government provide additional information on exactly which projects are under consideration.
“This is a complex question that you have simplified so much that it makes it a difficult choice. Depends on what kind of structures, what partnerships you can build, and how creative you can get.” (Shirley Kricheldorf, Masset).
“Prioritize what are the most important projects for the fiscal year and educate the population on why they are important and what is going to be done about them. Educate us on the costs and debts that come with these projects so we as voters can be informed.” (Karen Custodio, Langley).
A second theme that emerged in the online responses to Question 3 was the need for government to carefully monitor infrastructure expenditures relating to the 2010 Olympics. Some responses indicated a preference for capital project dollars to be allocated to needed infrastructure projects throughout British Columbia. Here is a sample of what we heard:
“Infrastructure projects should be chosen on a priority basis with regard to how many British Columbians directly benefit from the project. For example, I would be in favour of new schools and hospitals over building facilities in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics. The average British Columbian will not directly benefit from much of the 2010 Olympics infrastructure.” (Diane Silk, Kelowna).
“I’m glad the Olympics are coming, but let’s face it, many of the projects involved there are not ‘needed.’. If something is indeed ‘needed,’ then I don’t think it’s a tough decision about whether to build it or not.” (Ken Pistak, Trail).
The Committee recommends that:
Question 4: Other comments and suggestions regarding your priorities for Budget 2006.
Question 4 was an open-ended question that provided British Columbians the opportunity to express their views on a myriad of topics. Their responses were varied, ranging from increasing investments in research and development, to investments in the province’s power transmission grid, to additional support for people requiring assistive devices
Over the course of reviewing the more than 4,400 submissions, we received interesting, intriguing and innovative suggestions on regulatory reform, program development, and specific policies to strengthen our economy. Building on the overarching theme of balanced measures to enhance British Columbia’s economic competitiveness, invest in physical and community infrastructure, and support necessary social programs for individuals and communities, the Committee would like to highlight — without passing judgement on their viability — the submissions we received in the following areas.
This year we received many submissions which called for the government to do even more to support British Columbia’s growing economy. Two areas in particular the Committee identifies as being of interest: tax credits for research and development, and sales tax harmonization to make certain that British Columbia remains competitive in a global taxation environment.
A clear message we heard during our public hearings was that British Columbia should do even more to encourage cutting-edge research and development (R and D) in the province. We heard several suggestions on how the government could spur on R and D investments in both the private sector and in our universities. In particular, we were intrigued by proposals for expanding the provincial research and development tax credit and providing additional support to universities to fund graduate student research. Here are some of the comments that we heard:
“Provincial involvement in genomics research has made a significant difference. It has helped us to obtain federal funding; it has assisted us in developing world class platform technology infrastructure; and it has worked to attract key research ‘stars’ in the life sciences.” (Genome British Columbia).
“Alter the existing refundable provincial research and development tax credit by extending it to all companies with operations in British Columbia that undertake qualifying R and D.” (Business Council of British Columbia).
“The part I wanted to focus on today is in relation to graduate students. They really are the key link in relation to the development of further opportunity, not only in relation to the economy but in the development of a civil society as well...Graduate funding in British Columbia was effectively stopped in 1991, with the exception of resources that were made available through the doubling-the-opportunity initiative that was introduced about four years ago, and it really is key to the sustainability of university research into the future. The graduate student is really a pivotal link in the conduct of effective world-class research, but also in that key link between the universities and industry.” (University Presidents Council of British Columbia).
Another issue raised by business organizations was the need for the government to examine the issue of Provincial Sales Tax / Goods and Services Tax harmonization. Submissions we received on this topic argued that the full harmonization of the PST and GST would assist business in terms of reduced administrative costs for business and government associated with the collection of these taxes, establish clear rules for the auditing of the collection of these taxes, and provide a simpler taxation system for consumers. The organizations presenting on this topic also stressed that tax harmonization should be revenue neutral and that a rebate program be established to protect lower income British Columbians. The statements we heard include:
“Having to comply with both PST and GST rules is complicated. Please adopt the harmonized sales tax (HST) as the Maritime Provinces have done.” (Alastair Murdoch, Victoria).
“A harmonized system would improve the competitiveness of our businesses, particularly small business, and would save the provincial government significant administrative costs. To effectively implement a harmonized system, there are three key areas that would need to be considered: (1) protecting lower-income British Columbians to ensure that they are not impacted — this may require a low-income rebate, as is done for the GST and is already done for the provincial social service tax; (2) ensuring that the overall impact is revenue-neutral for the B.C. government; (3) assessing discrepancies in the application of the two sales taxes.” ( Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia).
“We’ve not yet heard anyone in government provide a thoughtful analysis of the economic and revenue-generation reasons for considering harmonization. So I urge this committee to urge the Finance Minister to look beyond politics, if you can, and take a serious and sincere measure of the pros and cons of harmonizing the PST and the GST.” (Retail Council of Canada).
“The Chamber recommends that the government commit itself to moving quickly to reaching agreement with the federal government for the full harmonization of PST and GST, including the harmonization of the collection, reporting and remission of the GST and PST, and the related audits.” (BC Chamber of Commerce).
A concern the Committee heard from both the mining and forest industry was a call to remove the PST from industrial sales of process electricity. Representatives from these industries stated the tax puts British Columbia’s industrial producers at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis similar industries in competing provinces, and that the tax is a disincentive to further industrial development in the province. Here is what the Finance Committee heard:
"One way to keep the taxes flowing from the three-quarters of a billion dollars’ worth of economic activity generated by Highland Valley Copper each year in the province is to help reduce its cost structure. This can be done by eliminating provincial sales tax on industrial sales of process electricity, as is done in every other province in Canada.” (Highland Valley Copper Corp.).
“We’re asking for a removal of the provincial sales tax on electricity purchases.… Low-cost electricity is our competitive advantage as a province, and B.C. is the only province in Canada to apply the full PST to industrial electric power purchases, which really places B.C. industries at a disadvantage.” (Mining Association of British Columbia).
Another key theme that emerged from the budget consultations is there are many worthwhile physical infrastructure and community projects around British Columbia that may require additional investment from the provincial government or Crown agencies. We heard specific requests for infrastructure upgrades to our provincial electricity grid, as well as requests for university infrastructure upgrades.
During the Committee’s public hearing in Smithers, we were made aware of an important infrastructure project that would appear to have significant economic benefits to the northwest region of the province — the electrification of the Highway 37 corridor from Meziadin Junction to Dease Lake. We heard the construction of this transmission line would provide significant benefits to First Nations communities in the region, as well as spur on lucrative mineral exploration projects. Some of the comments were:
“The Coalition is seeking to secure a power line extending the BC Hydro grid north from Meziadin Junction to Dease Lake in order to realize the development potential of the Highway 37 corridor, as well as the same electricity rates as users in other parts of B.C. The minerals industry (e.g. Eskay Creek Mine)., communities and First Nations will also benefit. The northwest region is the only area where private sector activity has not grown due to lack of access to electricity.” (Northwest Powerline Coalition).
“The development of this vital power and infrastructure corridor is crucial to the opening of the northwest to industry and investment. This type of infrastructure development will result in new opportunities for communities by creating new jobs and employment in forestry, mining, oil and gas, tourism and breathing fresh air into existing tourism and service businesses.” ( Smithers Regional Airport).
“The cost of electrifying Highway 37 is estimated by B.C. Hydro at being $300 million. So if we get just one more of these major mines operating, the government will get back its investment in the electrification of Highway 37 in spades not only from direct taxes but also from the high-paying jobs and the spin-off benefits to the north.” (Western Keltic Mines Inc.).
The Committee also heard through the consultation process of infrastructure projects for post-secondary institutions. In particular, the Committee heard calls for the continuation of increased funding for campus expansions and infrastructure across British Columbia. Here is a sample of what we heard:
“The physical infrastructure of our colleges, institutes and university colleges needs to be upgraded. Many facilities suffer from old equipment or outdated technology or limited office and classroom space. We can’t expect to meet the demands of a modern economy if the infrastructure we have to rely on does not keep pace with those demands.” (Federation of Post-secondary Educators of B.C.).
“Continue to invest in infrastructure projects, such as the new Cloverdale campus and Surrey campus expansion, and fully fund capital costs so that institutions do not have to dip into their operating budgets, as they do now, to help pay to capital expansion.” (Kwantlen Faculty Association).
“In the formal launching of the new university, the Premier announced that government would support the planning and construction of a new library learning commons as the most critical new development for Thompson Rivers University. With the current facility already ten years out of date, TRU must move quickly to build this new facility, given that it will take up to two years to complete the planning and design phase of a new library and four years to complete. Recognizing that the inflationary costs of construction are certain to rise significantly during this time period, we ask government to ensure their support is based on a realistic projection of costs four years out, with adequate funding to meet the inflationary escalation of construction costs.” ( Thompson Rivers University).
This year, we received several submissions on topics that would address quality of life issues. We heard requests for the government to expand funding for equipment and assistive devices for persons with disabilities, as well as calls for Alzheimer’s medications to be covered by Pharmacare. In addition, we heard requests for government to consider additional support for alternative and preventive health care.
During the consultation process, we received several written submissions asking for increased funding for equipment and assistive devices for persons with disabilities. The Committee heard from the British Columbia Paraplegic Association that an increase in their annual budget would greatly assist in providing assistive devices to the physically disabled and visually impaired. We also heard for a call for increased integration across ministries to identify best practices and establish standards for equipment provision. Here is a sample of what they had to say:
“We have done a preliminary evaluation of our programs and the needs of people with disabilities. This evaluation suggests that with an increase of $3.67 million to our annual budget, we would be in a position to: expand BCPA rehab services and the peer program to every region of B.C., and also meet the current demand for assistive devices for the severely disabled.” ( British Columbia Paraplegic Association).
“We recommend that BC invest $35 million annually in equipment and assistive devices for people with disabilities (in order to catch up with its sister provinces). This investment should begin in the 2006 budget. And that priority spending should be directed at individuals who currently have no funding source for equipment and devices.” (Provincial Equipment and Assistive Devices Committee).
“As one of the largest medical equipment providers in the province, we are anxious to see both greater investment in equipment and assistive devices and a comprehensive strategy for addressing equipment issues province wide.” (Canadian Red Cross, Lower Mainland Region).
“We frequently encounter situations where those who suffer partial or total hearing loss can benefit from communication aids — such as telephone devices, personal assistive living devices, or alerting systems, but cannot afford the purchase price of the devices they need…. We urge the Finance Committee to support those with disabilities, as we believe that with appropriate support, many individuals with hearing loss can become more productive and successful citizens, thereby benefiting the provincial economy and all British Columbians.” (Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing).
“As a legally blind British Columbian in receipt of CPP disability, I am severely limited in my ability to purchase assistive devices…. I have an outdated speech program on my computer, which was purchased while I was still working. Many blind and visually impaired people are unable to access technology at all because they do not have the financial resources to do so. As a result, they tend to become even more isolated from society.” (Sabine Laubental, Victoria).
“As a visually impaired British Columbian, I have had to have software installed on my computer that reads to me what is on the screen. That cost me an extra $1100, and $750 in upgrades, in order to be equal with computer users that are sighted. In my travels to different provinces, I have learned that people with a visual impairment who use computers are subsidized by their provincial government for their specialized equipment. I ask the government to assist us with our need for adaptive equipment, so that we can be on a more level playing field with our non-disabled colleagues.” (Rosamund van Leeuwen, West Vancouver).
During the public hearings, we heard several requests for the government to consider adding three Alzheimer’s medications to the provincial formulary to enhance the quality of life of those suffering from this debilitating illness. Here is a sample of these requests:
“We submit that some portion of the surplus be directed to the health of our seniors and, specifically, that aging British Columbians be allowed to benefit from the therapeutic advantages of cholinesterase inhibitors (Aricept, Exilon, and Reminil ) in order to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacare has consistently refused them benefit status based on advice from their therapeutics initiative committee. Their committee, however, is at odds with the rest of the country, with expert opinion, and with clinical practice guidelines.” ( Prince George Regional Hospital, Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Unit).
“We recommend that the three medications currently available to treat the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease be listed immediately on the provincial Pharmacare formulary. We believe it is the equitable thing to do, and the right thing to do.” (Alzheimer Society of British Columbia).
“Cover medications for Alzheimer’s as other provinces do. Help make life more bearable for those suffering this dreadful disease.” (Canadian Association of Retired Persons).
“It is our belief and hope that the budget will give consideration to our present medication costs, realizing there are other areas presently being covered that also show no guarantee of a cure.” (Al Rempel, Chilliwack).
The Committee heard submissions requesting government to examine the worthwhile contributions made by health care professionals in the areas of complementary medicine and preventive health care. Specifically, we heard a request from chiropractors for the government to include information on chiropractic service options in literature distributed to people recovering from neck and back injuries by government agencies such as the Workers Compensation Board, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Medical Services Plan.
Another topic addressed in the public hearings was for government to expand outreach programs promoting preventive health care. In particular, the Committee heard of a need to provide additional information on illness prevention to British Columbia’s ethnic communities. Here is what we heard:
“The B.C. Chiropractic Association and College encourages government update their government-based health care information — healthy living guides, health files, WCB, Internet and print-based materials. We also recommend that the government review regulations regarding public utilization and access to reduce the duplication of costs.” ( British Columbia Chiropratic Association; British Columbia College of Chiropractors).
“There are cultural issues (related to the delivery of health care)….There are certain areas, whether it’s the South Asian community or the Italian community, where we have found that (providing information on) chronic disease managements in temples and other areas where these groups feel more comfortable they, certainly make use of it. …we have to invest money in (preventative health care) where ethnic communities can understand in their own language, in their own context, in their own cultural area, that these services provided by government are important, that these things are available.” (Dr. Gary Randhawa, Kelowna)
This year, the Finance Committee received a record 4,436 submissions from every corner of the province. From Abbotsford to Zeballos, British Columbians were given the opportunity to participate in shaping the province’s future fiscal framework.
We received a wide array of ideas on how to spend future fiscal plan surpluses. We heard many calls for additional tax reductions, debt repayment, and reducing red tape. We also heard requests for government to continue to invest in necessary infrastructure projects around the province to be built over the course of the next five to ten years. However, we also heard that some British Columbians were opposed to additional tax cuts: preferring that government spend more on public sector wages and programs such as health, education, social services and the environment.
In Question One of the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper, the public was asked to rank the importance of five stated priorities identified by government for future fiscal plan surpluses and increased revenues: tax reductions, new or expanded programs and services, wage increases for public sector workers, financing new infrastructure projects, and paying down the debt.
It was clear to the Committee that the public was not interested in waiting until the 2008/09 fiscal year to begin addressing the priority areas. Rather, what the Committee heard was that the government should institute a balanced approach in allocating future fiscal surpluses — commencing with Budget 2006 — across the five priority areas identified by government. At our public hearings, it was clear that the business community would like the government to target three areas: tax reductions, new infrastructure projects, and paying down the debt. However, the written and online submissions propose a different scenario, with calls for increased general spending in the ministries of Health, Education, Advanced Education and Environment, as well as fair and reasonable pay increases for public sector workers.
In the witnesses’ responses to Question 2, a general consensus emerged that the government should continue to set aside both a contingency fund and a forecast allowance to protect the balanced budget from unforeseen events. Where we heard disagreement was on the issue of what dollar amount should be set aside in the contingency fund and forecast allowance, and how to distribute these funds when the budget is in surplus.
With respect to Question 3 of the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper, it was clear to the Committee that the public supports prudent investments in needed infrastructure projects — by limiting borrowing to keep debt affordable. However, the Committee acknowledges that the government needs to clearly identify what it considers “needed infrastructure,” and how such investments — particularly how expanded capacity of the provincial highway network in the lower mainland — will benefit local communities.
In order to provide a framework for analysing the variety of comments the Committee received under question four of the Budget 2006 Consultation Paper, we have categorized the various requests according to our theme of a balanced approach to enhance our economic competitiveness, invest in our physical and community infrastructure, as well as suggestions for supporting necessary social programs for individuals and communities.
This theme also is evident in the Committee’s 21 recommendations to government. In terms of measures to enhance British Columbia’s economic competitiveness, the Committee believes that a gradual reduction in consumption taxes, particularly to the provincial sales tax, property transfer tax, and the surtax on luxury vehicles are appropriate tax policy changes that would spur on increased investment in the province. Similarly, we recognize the need to streamline the collection of the provincial sales tax to reduce administrative costs for small business as well as a strong call for the province to adopt a comprehensive, long-range debt management plan. In addition, the Committee concurs with the submissions we received in favour of a fair and reasonable wage increase for public sector workers.
With respect to specific investments in our physical and community infrastructure, the Committee heard a variety of requests relating to a range of program areas: skilled trades and co-operative education programs; support for foreign trained medical professionals; environmental stewardship; as well as specific supports for communities facing the mountain pine beetle outbreak. We also endorse the strong support for investment in new infrastructure projects across the province, including support for strategies and projects that will bolster British Columbia’s position as Canada’s Gateway to the Asia-Pacific.
This year, we also believe there is need for government to consider investing in a variety of social programs to support individuals and communities. The Committee believes that the government should review the per student funding allocation for BC’s colleges and universities to ensure that new post-secondary education spaces — including skilled trades training spaces — are sufficiently funded and consider removing adult basic education tuition fees.
In addition, the Committee suggests that government examine the possibility of expanded targeted funding for rural school districts, as well as support efforts to address students’ learning conditions; examine funding commitments to child care; investigate providing additional resources to support a continuum of services for women; as well as per capita increases in arts funding. Furthermore, we also heard a clear message that additional investment in community living services— particularly additional supports for the developmentally disabled and their families in rural or remote communities — should be considered.
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee recommends that:
Online Responses and Written Submissions Received by Region
Region |
Region |
||
Electoral Districts |
On-line Responses |
Electoral Districts |
On-line Responses |
Written Submissions |
Written Submissions |
||
North Fraser Valley |
Burnaby / New Westminster |
||
1. Abbotsford-Clayburn |
133 |
5. Burnaby-Edmonds |
192 |
2. Abbotsford-Mount Lehman |
6. Burnaby North |
||
11. Chilliwack-Kent |
6 |
7. Burnaby-Willingdon |
15 |
12. Chilliwack-Sumas |
33. New Westminster |
||
South Fraser Valley |
Tri-Cities |
||
21. Fort Langley-Aldergrove |
241 |
8. Burquitlam |
231 |
26. Langley |
15. Coquitlam-Maillardville |
||
28. Maple Ridge-Mission |
6 |
44. Port Coquitlam-Burke Mountain |
12 |
29. Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows |
45. Port Moody-Westwood |
||
Mid-Island |
South Fraser |
||
3. Alberni-Qualicum |
293 |
17. Delta North |
260 |
30. Nanaimo |
18. Delta South |
||
31. Nanaimo-Parksville |
16 |
50. Richmond Centre |
|
14. Comox Valley |
51. Richmond East |
5 |
|
North Island / Coast |
52. Richmond-Steveston |
||
16. Cowichan-Ladysmith |
157 |
Surrey |
|
35. North Island |
57. Surrey-Cloverdale |
338 |
|
46. Powell River-Sunshine Coast |
15 |
58. Surrey-Green Timbers |
|
North-east /North-west |
59. Surrey-Newton |
||
4. Bulkley Valley-Stikine |
180 |
60. Surrey-Panorama Ridge |
|
34. North Coast |
61. Surrey-Tynehead |
13 |
|
41. Peace River North |
62. Surrey-Whalley |
||
42. Peace River South |
14 |
63. Surrey-White Rock |
|
56. Skeena |
Vancouver East |
||
Prince George / Cariboo |
66. Vancouver-Fraserview |
255 |
|
9. Cariboo North |
167 |
67. Vancouver-Hastings |
|
10. Cariboo South |
68. Vancouver-Kensington |
||
47. Prince George-Mount Robson |
69. Vancouver-Kingsway |
27 |
|
48. Prince George North |
11 |
71. Vancouver-Mount Pleasant |
|
49. Prince George-Omineca |
Vancouver West |
||
Kamloops / Thompson |
64. Vancouver-Burrard |
398 |
|
22. Kamloops |
160 |
65. Vancouver-Fairview |
|
23. Kamloops-North Thompson |
70. Vancouver-Langara |
||
55. Shuswap |
13 |
72. Vancouver-Point Grey |
48 |
79. Yale-Lillooet |
73. Vancouver-Quilchena |
||
Okanagan |
North Shore |
||
24. Kelowna-Lake Country |
299 |
36. North Vancouver-Lonsdale |
180 |
25. Kelowna-Mission |
37. North Vancouver-Seymour |
||
39. Okanagan-Vernon |
77. West Vancouver-Capilano |
15 |
|
40. Okanagan-Westside |
12 |
78. West Vancouver-Garibaldi |
|
43. Penticton-Okanagan Valley |
Greater Victoria |
||
South-east |
20. Esquimalt-Metchosin |
371 |
|
13. Columbia River-Revelstoke |
139 |
27. Malahat-Juan de Fuca |
|
19. East Kootenay |
38. Oak Bay-Gordon Head |
||
32. Nelson-Creston |
10 |
53. Saanich North and the Islands |
|
76. West Kootenay-Boundary |
54. Saanich South |
49 |
|
Outside BC/Unknown |
74. Victoria-Beacon Hill |
||
On-line Submissions |
4 |
75. Victoria-Hillside |
|
Written Submissions |
4 |
|
|
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
City of Dawson Creek (Councillor Alvin Stedel)
City of Prince George (Mayor Colin Kinsley)
District of Chetwynd (Councillor Bob Nicholson)
District of Tumbler Ridge (Mayor Clay Iles)
Village of Pouce Coupe (Councillor Lyman Clark)
Peace River Electoral Area "D" (Director Albert Erbe)
Peace River Regional District (Director Karen Goodings)
FIRST NATIONS
Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council
Ktunaxa Nation Council
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Provincial/National Organizations and Local Affiliates
British Columbia Chamber of Commerce
• Creston Chamber of Commerce, District 9
• Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce
• Kamloops Chamber of Commerce
• Kelowna Chamber of Commerce
• Prince George Chamber of Commerce
• Smithers District Chamber of Commerce
• British Columbia Real Estate Association
• B.C. Northern Real Estate Board
• Fernie Real Estate
• Fraser Valley Real Estate Board
• Pacific Shore Realty Ltd.
• Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver
• Victoria Real Estate Board
Business Council of British Columbia
Canadian Bankers Association -BC Committee
Canadian Bar Association - British Columbia Branch
• Coller Levine, Barristers and Solicitors
Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.
Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia
Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia
• BDO Dunwoody LLP
• Hayes, Stewart, Little & Co.
• Tenisci Piva Chartered Accountants
Insurance Bureau of Canada
Motion Picture Production Industry Association of B.C.
New Car Dealers Association of B.C.
Retail BC
Retail Council of Canada
Vancouver Board of Trade
INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES
A-440 Piano Service
Allied Insurance Services Inc.
Alpine Toyota
• Amsoil Inc.
Associated Computer Technologies
Arcadian Productions Inc.
BI Pure Water ( Canada) Inc.
Bucky's Sports Shop
Cariboo Envirotech Ltd.
Changes Clothing and Jewellery Bar
Clear Educational Solutions
Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp.
Dawson Mall
Decca Consulting Services Ltd.
Denman Island General Store
Dianes Lingerie
Dr. David E. Carter Consulting Ltd.
Dreamscape Futons
Eagle Point Restorations
Harbour Shoes
HCP Consulting Ltd.
Hindle's Camera & Stationery Ltd.
Inland Auto Centre Ltd.
Integra Leasing Corp.
Jean Hutton Custom Framing
Kalidoscope Colour and Glass Gallery
Kerrisdale Cameras
Key Largo Jewellery and Loans Ltd.
Lauber Consulting
Locations West Investments
Luan Business Services Ltd.
MEDIchair Victoria
Mid-Island Gifts
Night Owls
Pateman Holdings Inc.
Pottery by Bruce MacDiarmid
Purdy's Chocolates
Ralph's Radio Ltd.
Samco Software Inc.
Schooner Ventures
Seven Holdings Ltd.
Silenus Resource Management Inc.
Solar Source Publishing
Star Marketing Ltd.
Student Tours & Promotions
Sundrops Snowflakes
Surroundings Gifts
Swimco for swimwear
Sydney Reynolds Ltd.
Trkla Consulting
Vernon Shoes
Versys Technology Corp.
West Wood Players Ltd.
Westcoast Roofing Systems Ltd.
White Spot Restaurants #615
Zone 4 Hairstyling &Tanning
ECONOMIC SECTORS
Agriculture and Fisheries
British Columbia Fruit Growers Association
Horse Council of BC
Kootenay Livestock Association
Prince George Horse Society
Construction Industry
British Columbia Construction Association
BC Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association
Canadian Home Builders Association - Kamloops
Cement Association of Canada
Northern B.C. Construction Association
The Beedie Group - Greater Vancouver
Energy and Mining Sectors
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Elk Valley Coal Corp.
Highland Valley Copper Corp.
Joy Propane Ltd.
Mining Association of British Columbia
Northgate Minerals Corp.
Northwest Powerline Coalition
Propane Gas Association of Canada Inc., B.C. Committee
Strickland Energy Consulting
Western Keltic Mines Inc.
Forestry Sector
B.C. Wood Specialties Group
Cranbrook Community Forest Society
Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations
Greenwood Forest Products (1983) Ltd.
Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association
Tembec Industries Inc.
Tourism Sector
B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association
Fernie Central Reservations
Hudson Bay Lodge
Northwest CruiseShip Association
Oak Bay Beach Hotel & Resort
Resorts of the Canadian Rockies
Tourism Victoria
Van Dop Arts & Cultural Guide to BC
Transportation Sector
Bowen Island Municipality Ferry Advisory Committee
British Columbia Cycling Coalition
British Columbia Trucking Association
Lower Mainland Chambers' Transportation Panel
Smithers Regional Airport
Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition
Water Highway B.C. Society
Other
British Columbia Co-operative Association
Initiatives Prince George
Southside Economic Development Association
LABOUR UNIONS
B.C. Government and Service Employees Union
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Western Region
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 514
Peace River South Teachers Association
Prince George District Teachers Association
EDUCATION SECTOR (K-to-12)
Association of Surrey Special Education Teachers
Britannia Community Schools Team
B.C. Music Educators' Association
Canadian Parents for French - Victoria Chapter
False Creek Elementary School Parent Advisory Council
Fraser Lake Elementary Secondary School
James Thomson Elementary School Parent Advisory Council
Langley District Parent Advisory Council
Lillooet Learning Communities Society
Parents Coalition for Music Education in 100 Mile House
School District No. 57 ( Prince George)
School District No. 59 ( Peace River South)
School District No. 60 ( Peace River North)
Vancouver School Board
EDUCATION SECTOR (POST-SECONDARY)
BC College Presidents
Canadian Association for Co-operative Education
Canadian Federation of Students, B.C. Office
Cariboo Student Society
College of New Caledonia Students' Association
Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia
Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC
Kwantlen Faculty Association
North Island College
Northern Lights College
Selkirk Students Association
Thompson Rivers University
Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association
Thompson Rivers University School of Social Work and Human Service
University of British Columbia Students Union -Okanagan
University of Northern British Columbia
University Presidents Council of British Columbia
University of Victoria Students' Society
HEALTH SECTOR
Ambulatory Surgical Centre Canada Co.
Alzheimer Society of British Columbia
Association of International Medical Doctors of British Columbia
Association of Mental Health Service Providers
BC Healthy Living Alliance
British Columbia Chiropractic Association
British Columbia College of Chiropractors
British Columbia Medical Association
British Columbia Paraplegic Association
Canada 's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies
Canadian Mental Health Association
• British Columbia Division
• Kelowna and District Branch
Canadian Red Cross, Lower Mainland Region
Canadian Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Network
Creative Centre Society
Dieticians of Canada, BC Region
District 69 Society of Allied (Health) Support Groups
Gateway Society: Services for Persons with Autism
Genome British Columbia
Hepatitis C Council of British Columbia
Interior Health Regional Consumer Council
Kelowna Medical Society
Northern Health - Centre for Healthy Living
PhytoCan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Prince George Hospice Society
Prince George Regional Hospital, Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Unit
Provincial Equipment and Assistive Devices Committee
Public Health Association of British Columbia
Society of Living Intravenous Drug Users
Vancouver Native Health Society
Victoria AIDS Resource and Community Service Society
NON-PROFIT SECTOR
Advocacy Groups
B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming
Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Fraser Valley/White Rock Chapter
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, B.C. Office
Council of Canadians - Kamloops Chapter
Council of Canadians - Mid-Island Chapter
The Advocacy Centre
The Fulcrum Project
New Rural Partnerships Project
Prince George Council of Seniors
Arts Community
Alliance for Arts and Culture
Arrow Lakes Cultural Society
Arts Action BC
ArtsConnect Tri-Cities Arts Council
Arts Council of Surrey
Big Picture Media Corporation
Boca del Lupo Theatre
Canadian Institute of the Arts for Young Audiences
Citizens Roundtable for the Arts
Coastal Sound Music Academy
Cor Departure Physical Theatre Society
Crimson Coast Dance Society
Electric Company Theatre
Escape Artists Society
Festival Vancouver
Gateway Theatre
Grian Culture and Language
Island Mountain Arts
Iwa Stone Masonry
Le centre cultural francophone de Vancouver
MediaNet
Melusine Foundation
North Shore Heritage Preservation Society
Pacific Baroque Orchestra
Quadra Arts Centre
The Boards (BC's Theatre Web-Zine)
The Dance Centre
The Only Animal Theatre Society
Prince George Railway and Forestry Museum
Smithers Community Band Society
Vancouver Out On Screen Film and Video Society
Vancouver Tap Dance Society
West Kootenay Regional Arts Council
Working Arts Society
Child- and Family-Serving Agencies
Abbotsford Early Childhood Committee
British Columbia Association of Child Development and Intervention
B.C. Federation of Families Society
Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC
Covenant Kids Christian Daycare
Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C.
First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition
Kamloops Child Development Society
Kootenay Kids
Loving Care Day Care
Nanaimo Family Life Association
Success by 6 - Central Island
Toybox Daycare
Western Society for Children
Community/Housing Organizations
Community Housing Action Committee
Dawson Creek Catholic Social Services
Greater Vancouver Community Social Service Workers
HFBC Housing Foundation
Kamloops Food Bank/Action Centre
Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society
Penticton and District Community Resources Society
Progressive Housing Society
Rainbow Refugee Committee
South Peace Community Resources Society
Willow WAI Housing Project
Disability-related Groups
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Victoria Chapter
British Columbia Association for Community Living
Canadian Council of the Blind, BC-YT Division Board
Canadian Federation of the Blind
Community Living Restructuring Fund
Cowichan Valley Association for Community Living
Cranbrook Society for Community Living
Developmental Disabilities Association
Jacynthe Amélia's Choices Society
Kinsmen Foundation of BC & Yukon
Mission Self Advocacy Group
Smithers Parent/Caretaker Coalition
Sunshine Coast Association for Community Living
Tactile Colour Communication Society
Vela Microboard Association of British Columbia
VoicePrint Canada
Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Environmental Groups:
B.C. Wildlife Federation
• B.C. Wildlife Federation, Shuswap Region
• Kamloops Flyfishers Association
Conservation Voters of BC
Federation of BC Naturalists
Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia
Halfmoon Bay Greenways
Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society
Shuswap Lake Coalition
Stop Computer Land Fill Society
Sunshine Coast Conservation Association
West Porpoise Bay Community Association
Women's Services
Cranbrook Women's Resource Society
Haven Society, Nanaimo
Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre
Kamloops Women's Resource Centre
Kelowna Women's Resource Centre
North Shore Women's Centre
South Fraser Women's Services Society
Terrace Women's Resource Centre
Vernon Women's Centre
Other
Communist Party of BC
Liberal Party of Canada - Prince George-Peace River Riding Association
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) - Victoria
Chris Aikman, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Alzheimer Society of British Columbia, Dan Eisner,
21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Ambulatory Surgical Centre Canada Co., Astrid Levelt,
Dr. Gerard McKenzie, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Frank Anderson, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Arts Action BC, Mary Desprez, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Association of International Medical Doctors of British Columbia, Patrick Coady, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
B.C. Government and Service Employees Union,
George Heyman, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association, Jack Davidson, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
B.C. Wildlife Federation, Tony Toth, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Mike Batty, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
BC College Presidents, Dr. Liz Ashton, Jim Reed,
07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
BC Healthy Living Alliance, Sonya Kupka, Janice Macdonald, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
BC Northern Real Estate Board, Daryl Muchowski,
11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
BC Wood Specialties Group, Bill Downing, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
BDO Dunwoody LLP, Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, Don Simpson, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Nancy Bepple, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
British Columbia Association for Community Living, Laney Bryenton, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Jon Garson, John Winter, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
British Columbia Chamber of Commerce - District 9, Mac D. Campbell, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
British Columbia College of Chiropractors; British Columbia Chiropractic Association, Dr. Jim Cooper, Dr. Don Nixdorf, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
British Columbia Construction Association, Manley McLachlan, John Restakis, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
British Columbia Fruit Growers Association, Glen Lucas, Joe Sardinha, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
British Columbia Medical Association, Dr. Michael Golbey, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
British Columbia Paraplegic Association, Stephanie Cadieux, Melanie Crombie, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
British Columbia Real Estate Association, Dave Barclay, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
British Columbia Wildlife Federation, Shuswap Region, Don Tretheway, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Business Council of British Columbia, Jock Finlayson, Ken Peacock, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Steve Spalding, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Fraser Valley/White Rock Chapter, Bruce Bird, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Canadian Bar Association - British Columbia Branch, Caroline Nevin, Frits Verhoeven, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, B.C. Office, Marc Lee, Stuart Murray, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Laura Jones, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Canadian Federation of Students, B.C. Office, Lisa MacLeod, Scott Payne, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Canadian Federation of the Blind, Mary Ellen Gabias,
13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Canadian Home Builders Association - Kamloops, Tim Kasten, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia Division, Catharine Hume, Sepp Tschierschwitz,
21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna and District Branch, Charly Sinclair, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Vivienne Candy, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Cariboo Student Society, Nathan Lane, Terry Monteleone, Jessy Sahota, James Studer, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Cement Association of Canada, Derek Townson,
21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
City of Prince George, Mayor Colin Kinsley,
11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC, Sharon Gregson, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
College of New Caledonia Students’ Association, Valentine Crawford, Rob Mealey, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 514, Donald Vye, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Western Region, David Schaub, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia, Rob Clift, Norma Wieland, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Conservation Voters of BC, Matthew Price, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Council Of Canadians - Kamloops Chapter, Anita Strong, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Cranbrook Community Forest Society, Roy Catherall,
13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Dawson Creek Catholic Social Services, Laurie Patterson, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Clifford Dezell, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
District Of Chetwynd, Bill Caldwell, Bob Nickolson,
11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Chris Doyle, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Keltie Durrell, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Dr. Bill Ebert, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Elk Valley Coal Corp., Roger Berdusco, Cindy Gallinger, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Albert Erbe, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Federation of BC Naturalists, Jeremy McCall, Bev Ramey, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations, Dean Daly, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Federation of Child and Family Services of BC, Craig Meredith, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC, Dileep Athaide, Phillip Legg, Cindy Oliver, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Fernie Real Estate; Fernie Central Reservations, Daniel McSkimming, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, Michael Goldberg, Dr. Jean Moore, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, Paul Penner, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Gateway Society: Services for Persons with Autism, Sonia Osborne, Karen Philipchuk, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Ann Geddes, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Genome British Columbia, Bruce Schmidt, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Dr. Mychael Gleeson, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Grasslands Conservation Council of British Columbia, Bruno Delesalle, Dave Whiting, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Greater Vancouver Alliance For Arts And Culture, Sandy Garossino, Heather Redfern, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Carter, Bryan Dreilich, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Hayes, Stewart, Little & Co., Dan Little, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Highland Valley Copper Corp., M. Dal Scott, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Horse Council of BC, Jennifer Milton, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Hudson Bay Lodge, Al McCreary, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Initiatives Prince George, Gerry Offet, Dr. Terry Weninger, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, Richard Rees, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Insurance Bureau of Canada, Serge Corbeil, Lindsay Olson, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, Jim Hackett, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Gerald Jolliffe, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Philip Jones, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association, Jeff Swannell, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Kamloops Child Development Society, Deborah Frolek, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Kamloops Flyfishers Association, Trevor Jeanes, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Kamloops Sexual Assault Counseling Centre, Cynthia Davis, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Kamloops Women’s Resource Centre, Trish Archibald, Dodie Goldney, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, Kevin Crookes, Weldon Leblanc, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Kelowna Medical Society, British Columbia Medical Association, Dr. Gary Randhawa, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Kootenay Livestock Association, Peter Fisher, Donna Morrison, Faye Street, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council, Troy Sebastian, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Ktunaxa Nation Council, Rosemary Nicholas, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Mining Association of British Columbia, Michael McPhie, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC, Peter Leitch, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
John Nelson, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
New Car Dealers Association of B.C., Norm Assam,
13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
New Car Dealers Association of B.C., Glen Ringdal,
21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
New Car Dealers Association of B.C., Jim Inkster,
11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
New Car Dealers Association of B.C.; Alpine Toyota, Terry Parsons, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
North Shore Womens Centre, Michelle Dodds, Danielle Gauld, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
North West CruiseShip Association, John Hansen,
07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Northern B.C. Construction Association, Rosalind Thorn, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Northern Lights College, Swapan Chowdhury, John Royer, Jean Valgardson, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Northgate Minerals Corp., Terry Lyons, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Northwest Powerline Coalition; Western Keltic Mines Inc., Donald McInnes, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Oak Bay Beach Hotel & Resort; BC and Yukon Hotels Association, Kevin Walker, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Peace River South Teachers Association, Judy Richardson, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Penticton and District Community Resources Society, Kim Lyster, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Prince George Chamber of Commerce, Myron Gordon, Michael Kerr, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Prince George Council of Seniors, Bob D’auray, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Prince George District Teachers Association, Karen MacKay, Matt Pearce, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Prince George Horse Society, Steven Dubas, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Prince George Railway and Forestry Museum, Alecia Greenfield, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Prince George Regional Hospital, Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Unit, Dr. Douglas Drummond, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Propane Gas Association of Canada Inc, B.C. Committee; Joy Propane Ltd., Ronald Graham, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Provincial Sales Tax Committee, Karen Goodings, Alvin Stedel, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Domenic Rampone, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, Janet Cunningham, Harriet Permut, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, Andy Cohen, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Retail BC, Mark Startup, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Retail Council of Canada, Kevin Evans, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Douglas Robertson, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Terry Robertson, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
Rocky Mountain Trench Natural Resources Society, Maurice Hansen, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
School District No. 57 ( Prince George), Fred McLeod,
11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
School District No. 59 (Peace River South), Sam Barber, Judy Clavier, Bill Deith, Wayne Ezeard, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
School District No. 60 (Peace River North), Heather Hannaford, Ernie Inglehart, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Selkirk Students Association, Dave Westmacott,
13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Smithers and District Chamber of Commerce, Sharon Robertson, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Smithers Parent/Caretaker Coalition, Maggie Foot, Ernie Harding, 12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Smithers Regional Airport , Mayor James Davidson,
12-Oct-05 (Smithers)
Society of Living Intravenous Drug Users, Carol Romanow, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
South Peace Community Resources Society, Jane Harper, 11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Tembec Industries Inc., Brian Clifford, Troy Hromadnik, John Reith, Chris Stagg, 13-Oct-05 ( Cranbrook)
Tenisci Piva Chartered Accountants, Ron Tenisci, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Thompson Rivers University, Roger Barnsley, Ron Olynyk, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association, Dr. Thomas Friedman, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Thompson Rivers University School Of Social Work and Human Service, Michael Crawford, 12-Oct-05 ( Kamloops)
Tourism Victoria, Lorne Whyte, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
University Of British Columbia Students Union - Okanagan, Heather Cook, Rob Nagai, 13-Oct-05 ( Kelowna)
University Of Northern British Columbia; Canadian Association for Co-operative Education, Dr. Peter Rans, 11-Oct-05 ( Prince George)
University of Victoria Students’ Society, Penny Beames, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
University Presidents Council of British Columbia, Don Avison, Christine Massey, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, Jack Becker, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Vancouver Board of Trade, Brad Gordica, Dave Park, Al Sello, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Vela Microboard Association of British Columbia, Linda Perry, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Victoria Real Estate Board, Gary McInnis, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Village Of Pouce Coupe, Councillor Lyman Clark,
11-Oct-05 ( Dawson Creek)
Water Highway BC Society, David Sellars, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Gordon Watson, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Willow WAI / Haven Society, Mike Hunter, Jane Templeman, 07-Oct-05 ( Victoria)
Marilyn Elizabeth Young, 21-Oct-05 ( Vancouver)
Abbotsford Early Childhood Committee, Lucy Honey-Ray, FGS-2005-029
Govindan (Dan) Achuthan, FGS-2005-281
John Aldous, FGS-2005-020
Alliance for Arts and Culture, Phoebe Huang,
FGS-2005-142
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, John Rae,
FGS-2005-112
Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Victoria Chapter, Linda Bartram, FGS-2005-227
Eva Almeida, FGS-2005-274
Cam Anderson, FGS-2005-128
Necole Anderson, FGS-2005-188
Arts Council of Surrey, Eileen Gratland, FGS-2005-208
ArtsConnect Tri-Cities Arts Council, Helen Daniels,
FGS-2005-216
Richard Ashton, FGS-2005-090
Association of Mental Health Service Providers,
Mark Smith, Lynn Wood, FGS-2005-289
Rolf Auer, FGS-2005-121
B.C. Federation of Families Society (BC FamilyNet), Anita Dadson, FGS-2005-210
Dave Bacon, FGS-2005-005
Jean Bain, FGS-2005-104
Wes Baker, FGS-2005-270
Cam Bartram, FGS-2005-278
Cathy Batho, FGS-2005-111
Clare Marie Belanger, FGS-2005-019
Jessie Bell, FGS-2005-050
Pat Bencharski, FGS-2005-186
Jeremy Berkman, FGS-2005-089
Chris Betuzzi, FGS-2005-258
Big Picture Media Corporation, Mark Achbar,
FGS-2005-221
Sandra A. Billy, FGS-2005-179
Deb Bischoff, FGS-2005-288
Rebecca Bishop, FGS-2005-120
Linda Blankstein, FGS-2005-122
Boca del Lupo Theatre, Sherry J. Yoon, FGS-2005-168
Boca del Lupo Theatre, Jay Dodge, FGS-2005-167
Boca del Lupo Theatre, Hilary Davis, FGS-2005-054
Rick Bohonis, FGS-2005-134
Marc Bombois, FGS-2005-162
Bowen Island Municipality Ferry Advisory Committee, Anne Ayre, FGS-2005-177
Oliver Brandes, FGS-2005-170
Ruth Bredenhof, FGS-2005-164
British Columbia Association of Child Development and Intervention, Bruce Sandy, FGS-2005-171
British Columbia Cycling Coalition, Peter Stary,
FGS-2005-196
Shannon L. Brown, FGS-2005-061
David Brun, FGS-2005-201
Claudette Burton, FGS-2005-176
Tom Burton, FGS-2005-059
Brian Butler, FGS-2005-078
Canada ’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D), Russell Williams, FGS-2005-148
Canadian Bankers Association, BC Committee, Paul Griffin, FGS-2005-156
Canadian Council of the Blind, BC-YT Division Board, Michelle Creedy, FGS-2005-235
Canadian Federation of the Blind, Elizabeth Lalonde,
FGS-2005-197
Canadian Institute of the Arts for Young Audiences,
Lindy Sisson, FGS-2005-263
Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.,
Greg Traversy, FGS-2005-075
Canadian Red Cross, Lower Mainland Region,
Fiona Lewis, FGS-2005-246
Laura Carberry, FGS-2005-123
Arlene J. Carson, FGS-2005-239
Larry Carson, FGS-2005-084
Julie Caudle, FGS-2005-290
Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, Edward Downing, FGS-2005-236
Maxine Chalmers, FGS-2005-215
Jean Chambers, FGS-2005-238
Rebecca Christofferson, FGS-2005-261
Rita Chudnovsky, FGS-2005-169
Citizens Roundtable for the Arts, Sandra Garossino,
FGS-2005-213
Clearly Canadian Beverage Corp., Tom Koltal, FGS-2005-091
Hilda Cliffe, FGS-2005-209
Coastal Sound Music Academy, Donna Otto,
FGS-2005-135
Kim Collier, FGS-2005-152
Sheila Collier, FGS-2005-030
Community Living Restructuring Fund, Lorraine Ward, FGS-2005-267
Community Living Restructuring Fund, John Graham, FGS-2005-267
Dr. Lawrence Cook, FGS-2005-008
Cowichan Valley Association For Community Living,
Barry Rundquist, FGS-2005-077
Michele Crawford, FGS-2005-240
Creative Centre Society, Iris Davies, FGS-2005-284
Dan Curtis, FGS-2005-229
Mindy Davis, FGS-2005-040
Marianne de Kleer, FGS-2005-125
Geoff Dean, FGS-2005-007
Developmental Disabilities Association, Alanna Hendren, FGS-2005-108
Carole Didier, FGS-2005-052
Dietitians of Canada, BC Region, Janice Macdonald,
FGS-2005-269
Gerald Dirks, FGS-2005-250
District 69 Society Of Allied (Health) Support Groups, Lou Drage, FGS-2005-016
District of Tumbler Ridge, Mayor Clay Iles, FGS-2005-286
Dr. Stephen Drance, FGS-2005-222
Barbara Duncan, FGS-2005-127
Allan Eaton, FGS-2005-265
Electric Company Theatre, Cynthia Reid, FGS-2005-158
Mara Elwood, FGS-2005-058
Susie Fitz-James, FGS-2005-096
Lucia Frangione, FGS-2005-154
Allan Fraser, FGS-2005-032
Janice Froese, FGS-2005-220
Susan Gallagher, FGS-2005-277
Lynne Gallant, FGS-2005-243
Philip A. Gates, FGS-2005-189
Ruth Gilliatt, FGS-2005-009
Anne Gilroyed, FGS-2005-117
Mike Gismondi, FGS-2005-145
Dianne Goldberg, FGS-2005-039
Tom Good, FGS-2005-011
Walter Gorlitz, FGS-2005-126
Greenwood Forest Products (1983) Ltd., Peter Beulah, FGS-2005-285
Estanislau Nogueira Gubiotti, FGS-2005-174
Shyamal Gupta, FGS-2005-287
Halfmoon Bay Greenways, Elise Rudland, FGS-2005-116
Melba Hanson, FGS-2005-184
Robert Hebert, FGS-2005-251
Hepatitis C Council of British Columbia, Ken Thomson, FGS-2005-205
Lachlan Heron, FGS-2005-143
Jane Heyman, FGS-2005-115
Chris Hilliar, FGS-2005-159
John Hollifield, FGS-2005-230
George Hoock, FGS-2005-102
Theresa Hood, FGS-2005-113
Patricia Houston, FGS-2005-228
Sheila Hunter, FGS-2005-067
Interior Health Regional Consumer Council, Maurizio Baldini, FGS-2005-031
Sue Irwin, FGS-2005-074
Randy Jacobs, FGS-2005-232
Lloyd Jeck, FGS-2005-068
Pam Johnson, FGS-2005-140
Gary F. Johnston, FGS-2005-141
Betty Jordan, FGS-2005-259
Peter Justo, FGS-2005-224
Elizabeth Kaller, FGS-2005-257
Kamloops Chamber of Commerce, Barry Baker,
FGS-2005-027
Kamloops Food Bank/Action Centre, Margaret Spina,
FGS-2005-226
Virginia Karr, FGS-2005-283
Larry Kazdan, FGS-2005-204
Bruce and Flo Kehler, FGS-2005-252
Wayne Kelly, FGS-2005-023
Kelowna Women’s Resource Centre, Micki Smith,
FGS-2005-106
Marilyn Kendall Smith, FGS-2005-276
Lynne Kent, FGS-2005-194
Kevin Kerr, FGS-2005-211
Jon Kesselman, FGS-2005-003
Karen Kilbride, FGS-2005-190
Annie Klein, FGS-2005-049
Lucy Kong, FGS-2005-097
Maria Kovacs, FGS-2005-241
Linda Kusz, FGS-2005-038
Kwantlen Faculty Association, Terri Van Steinburg,
FGS-2005-092
Barbara Laird, FGS-2005-187
Sabine Laubental, FGS-2005-183
Le centre culture francophone de Vancouver, Pierre Rivard, FGS-2005-157
Kevin Leask, FGS-2005-098
Sue Leather, FGS-2005-280
Norman Leech, FGS-2005-133
Denis Legal, FGS-2005-069
Angusta Lokhorst, FGS-2005-144
Chiara Longhi, FGS-2005-109
Lower Mainland Chambers’ Transportation Panel,
Peter Holt, FGS-2005-173
B.J. Lynch, FGS-2005-282
Tiffany Lyndall-Knight, FGS-2005-136
Lew MacDonald, FGS-2005-085
Kevin MacDuff, FGS-2005-193
Wendy Mackay, FGS-2005-022
Angus MacKinnon, FGS-2005-231
Jodi Ryan MacLean, FGS-2005-064
Karon MacLean, FGS-2005-057
Doug Madden, FGS-2005-071
Wallace Mak, FGS-2005-131
O.J. (John) Mardall, FGS-2005-018
Richard Marion, FGS-2005-247
Michele Mathew, FGS-2005-062
Rob Mathews, FGS-2005-105
Susan McCalla, FGS-2005-256
Cathy McDonagh, FGS-2005-072
Janice McDonagh, FGS-2005-051
Lisa McGauley, FGS-2005-260
Patrick McIsaac, FGS-2005-035
MediaNet, Peter Sandmark, FGS-2005-099
Thom Meier, FGS-2005-149
Melusine Foundation, Lionel Johnson, FGS-2005-200
Margaret (Peg) Mercer, FGS-2005-254
Ruth Miller, FGS-2005-245
Emily Molnar, FGS-2005-160
Shannon Moneo, FGS-2005-079
Sharron and Jim Moraes, FGS-2005-056
Wendy Mould, FGS-2005-124
Tony Mulder, FGS-2005-010
Dianne Mumm, FGS-2005-110
New Rural Partnerships Project, Kathleen O’Malley,
FGS-2005-191
Eric Nielsen, FGS-2005-004
Jing Niu, FGS-2005-266
Betty Nobel, FGS-2005-272
North Island College , Office of the President, Lou Dryden, FGS-2005-161
Northern Health - Centre for Health Living, Elaine Wikkerink, FGS-2005-130
Betsy Nuse, FGS-2005-155
Ron Nye, FGS-2005-218
Ellie O’Day, FGS-2005-083
Alfred Ogilvie, FGS-2005-033
Lorene Oikawa, FGS-2005-175
Siobhan-Louise O’Keefe, FGS-2005-100
Eliza Olson, FGS-2005-214
Glenda Olson, FGS-2005-195
Rick O’Neill, FGS-2005-249
Allan Orr, FGS-2005-065
Pacific Baroque Orchestra, Tom Durrie, FGS-2005-198
Bess and John Paleos, FGS-2005-207
Carol Palladino, FGS-2005-081
Peggy Palmer, FGS-2005-044
Parents Coalition for Music Education in 100 Mile House, Flo Dew, Pat Seilis, FGS-2005-166
Margaret Pearson, FGS-2005-047
Bob Peart, FGS-2005-014
Darwin Pehl, FGS-2005-242
PhytoCan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wendy Little, Eric Nash, FGS-2005-107
Alison Prentice, FGS-2005-206
Progressive Housing Society, Lynn Wood, FGS-2005-080
Provincial Equipment and Assistive Devices Committee, Christine Gordon, FGS-2005-165
Public Health Association Of British Columbia, Sharron Turner, FGS-2005-076
Purdy’s Chocolate, Karen Flavelle, FGS-2005-015
Kathy Rae, FGS-2005-060
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Arnold Ranneris, FGS-2005-103
Al Rempel, FGS-2005-017
Joan Richdale, FGS-2005-034
Gordon Roberts, FGS-2005-024
Myrna Robinson, FGS-2005-021
Penny Robinson, FGS-2005-111
Larry Romanuik, FGS-2005-139
Gideon Rosenbluth, FGS-2005-147
Dr. Elisson Rouhana, FGS-2005-045
Ruby Rowat, FGS-2005-119
Nora S. Sarsons, FGS-2005-178
Cindy Schlamp, FGS-2005-073
Joan Schwartzenberger, FGS-2005-202
Lisette Sekaren, FGS-2005-271
Lorne Selby, FGS-2005-259
Lee Sexsmith, FGS-2005-001
Valerie L. Sharp, FGS-2005-181
Betty Shaw, FGS-2005-028
Shuswap Lake Coalition, Eva Lyman, FGS-2005-025
Alan Sirulnikoff, FGS-2005-223
Judy Smith, FGS-2005-273
Robert Smith, FGS-2005-046
Roy Smith, FGS-2005-275
Virginia Smith, FGS-2005-048
Smithers Community Band Society, Hubert Burger,
FGS-2005-094
Patricia Snider, FGS-2005-225
Rosario Soneff, FGS-2005-088
South Fraser Women’s Services Society, Denise Darrell, FGS-2005-063
Pia Southam, FGS-2005-129
Southside Economic Development Association,
Beate Marquardt, FGS-2005-041
Maria Squance, FGS-2005-217
Diana Squires, FGS-2005-150
Melissa St. Germaine-Small, FGS-2005-070
Katharine Steig, FGS-2005-262
Roderick Stewart, FGS-2005-118
Lynne Stopkewich, FGS-2005-219
Paul Strebel, FGS-2005-185
Anita Stuart, FGS-2005-137
Lisa Stuible, FGS-2005-292
Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, Daniel Bouman, FGS-2005-212
Len Sutton, FGS-2005-082
Laurel Swenson, FGS-2005-291
Tactile Colour Communication Society, Lois Lawrie,
FGS-2005-199
Kent Tate, FGS-2005-101
Terrace Women’s Resource Centre, Frances Birdsell,
FGS-2005-264
The Boards (BC’s Theatre Web-Zine), Ian Martin,
FGS-2005-132
The Dance Centre, Mirna Zagar, FGS-2005-268
The Fulcrum Project, Alan C. James, FGS-2005-055
The Only Animal Theatre Society, Kendra Fanconi,
FGS-2005-163
Ken Timewell, FGS-2005-012
Robin Tomlin, FGS-2005-036
Cathy Tremblay, FGS-2005-053
Petros Tsaparas, FGS-2005-026
Van Dop Arts and Cultural Guide to BC, Morgan Geisler, FGS-2005-087
Rosamund van Leeuwen, FGS-2005-234
Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, Colin Brander,
FGS-2005-042
Vancouver Native Health Society, Kristen Yarker,
FGS-2005-182
Vancouver Out On Screen Film and Video Society, Drew Dennis, FGS-2005-237
Vancouver School Board, Adrienne Montani,
FGS-2005-138
Vancouver Tap Dance Society, Anna Kramer,
FGS-2005-114
Bea Varley, FGS-2005-037
Victoria Aids Resource and Community Service Society, Michael Yoder, FGS-2005-013
Harry Vogt, FGS-2005-086
Voiceprint Canada, John Harris, FGS-2005-255
William Wang, FGS-2005-203
West Kootenay Regional Arts Council, Krista Patterson, FGS-2005-095
West Porpoise Bay Community Association, Bob Milton, FGS-2005-279
Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Richard Waters, FGS-2005-253
Western Society for Children, Wanda Gendron,
FGS-2005-244
Sarah Westwick, FGS-2005-146
Cindy White, FGS-2005-233
Jeroen Witvliet, FGS-2005-151
Chandra Wong, FGS-2005-192
John Wong, FGS-2005-002
Bette Wood, FGS-2005-248
Carol Wood, FGS-2005-066
Elizabeth Woods, FGS-2005-172
Maiko Bae Yamamoto, FGS-2005-180
Marilyn Elizabeth Young, FGS-2005-006
Mirna Zagar, FGS-2005-093
Jerry Zushman, FGS-2005-043
Farshad Abasi |
Zheng Ping Han |
Rod Osiowy |
© 2005 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia