2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Thursday, September 18, 2008

4 p.m.

Colonnade/Canadian Room, Coast Canadian Inn

339 St. Paul St., Kamloops, B.C.

Present: Randy Hawes, MLA (Chair); Robin Austin, MLA; John Horgan, MLA; Richard T. Lee, MLA;
John Rustad, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Bruce Ralston, MLA (Deputy Chair); Harry Bloy, MLA; Dave S. Hayer, MLA;
Diane Thorne, MLA; John Yap, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 4:03 p.m.

2. Opening statements by Randy Hawes, MLA, Chair

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

4. The Committee recessed from 5:06 pm to 5:15 pm.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions

6. The Committee adjourned at 5:37 p.m. to the call of the Chair.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on
Finance and Government Services

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Issue No. 78

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1849 ]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

The committee met at 4:03 p.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): I'm Randy Hawes, and I'm the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. I'd like to welcome you here to this, we believe, very valuable exercise asking for your opinions and asking for your participation in this important process.

In preparing the estimates for budget 2009, the Minister of Finance is required to release both a fiscal forecast and a budget consultation paper by September 15 of each year. The consultation paper is required to provide a description of the major economic and policy assumptions that underlie the fiscal forecast, as well as identify key issues that need to be addressed by the public in preparation for the next budget.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is charged with carrying out public consultations on the minister's behalf. This is an all-party committee and is required to report back to the Legislative Assembly by not later than November 15.

If you wish to review the consultation paper, we have a number of print copies with us that are available at the registration desk. If you wish to make a written submission to the committee, that is available to you at our website, www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations.

As a reminder, any input the committee receives in writing or in electronic form is given the same consideration as any oral presentations that may be made here today. Due to the recently announced federal election, we have also extended the deadline for receipt of submissions to October 24.

Today we're going to hear from a number of presenters who have preregistered with the Office of the Clerk of Committees. Those presentations are given 15 minutes, and we recommend that you try to take ten minutes on your presentation and allow us five minutes for questions and answers. However, if you wish to go longer on your presentation, that's completely up to you. I will give you the high sign at ten minutes just so you know. If you continue, I'll give you the high sign when you have two minutes left in your presentation.

[1605]

Time permitting, we may also have an open-mike session at the end of the hearing. Any open-mike presentations are given five minutes, and there are no questions.

I'll now ask the other members of the Finance Committee to introduce themselves, starting with Richard on that end.

R. Lee: Good afternoon. I'm Richard Lee, MLA for Burnaby North.

J. Horgan: John Horgan. MLA, Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

J. Rustad: John Rustad. MLA, Prince George–Omineca, and chair of our northern caucus.

R. Austin: Robin Austin. MLA for Skeena. I live in Terrace.

R. Hawes (Chair): Joining us today, I am pleased to introduce our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd. Also with us today are Stephanie Hansen, who is on the registration desk, and the staff of Hansard Services, Michael Baer and Polly Vaughan, who are recording the proceedings here and will prepare a written transcript. As well, the proceedings are being put out live on the Internet.

With that, I'd like to call on Dr. Thomas Friedman and Eric Villeneuve of the Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association.

Welcome.

Presentations

T. Friedman: First, welcome to Kamloops, all of you. We're delighted that you are coming to our city. Thank you, especially, for the invitation to address the committee and present the views of the TRU Faculty Association on what we believe should be the provincial government's budget priorities for 2009.

I'd like to introduce Eric Villeneuve, the vice-president of our faculty association. The two of us are here in place of our president, who happens to be working with nursing students over in Thailand.

We're here today representing the nearly 650 academic staff at Thompson Rivers University. Our institution was established as a full-status university in April 2005 with a mandate to meet the educational needs of our region's communities and to meet the open-learning needs of all British Columbians.

Our instructors, researchers, librarians, counsellors and educational coordinators are all working hard to ensure that TRU has both the capacity and the opportunity to provide the educational programming that this region needs to grow and prosper.

One of our strengths at TRU is our comprehensive program offerings. We offer a full range of university programs, but we also offer adult basic education and opportunities for adult learners to re-enter the workforce, particularly those who may be on social assistance.

We also have a trades and technology centre, and we want to make sure that we are able to be in position to provide the entry-level and apprenticeship training in the trades that we know this province will desperately need. As a matter of fact, there is a skills shortage in our province right now.

The legislation that created TRU was very specific. It told us that we had to meet the educational needs of the Thompson–South Cariboo region. While our members are devoting themselves to meeting that goal, we can do better.
[ Page 1850 ]

I'd like to identify three major problems in the post-secondary education system that need fixing. These are problems directly related to government policy and funding decisions. First, since 2001 the block grant funding for post-secondary institutions, while increasing modestly, has not kept pace with inflation or with the real cost of delivering our programs. Our institutions have seen real per-student funding decline over the last seven years.

If our institutions simply receive the same inflation-adjusted per-student funding they had when the current government took office in 2001, that funding level would amount to about $10,100 per student. Instead, the current level in 2008 is closer to $9,100 per student. That's a $1,000-per-student shortfall. But to add to that, the ministry cut all of the institutions' funding by 2.6 percent this year. Universities, in particular, are finding it hard to meet the challenge of that budget cut.

Second, the ministry continues to use what we consider an antiquated per-FTE-student basis for determining the block grant. We're not the only ones who believe this. In 2006 the B.C. Auditor General, in his report, stated that funding formula changes were needed in the post-secondary system. In the document that I've submitted to the committee, I quote the Auditor General, and you can look up his report.

[1610]

The Auditor General also said that the student grant model was not working, was not transparent and did not meet the needs of expanding our capacity in terms of post-secondary institutions.

Third, the provincial government's laudable target of creating new capacity — that is, the 25,000 new student seats that were promised us — is not taking place on schedule. Part of that is due to the funding shortfall.

These three concerns, in the opinion of our members, must be addressed — funding levels, funding formulas and appropriate expansion of capacity — if we're to meet the educational needs of our citizens.

What's the impact of those problems? First, our institutions are underfunded. Second, there has been a major shift in the burden of costs from the public to individual students and their families. I'm sure all of you have heard from families in your ridings about the high cost of university education. That has led directly to a loss of access and affordability.

At TRU the underfunding has led to a reduction or elimination of many of our regional programs, which are extremely important in a region of our size; the loss of capacity through an inability to replace retiring academic faculty; and lower course and program choices for our students.

Students tell us that they came to Thompson Rivers University because of small class sizes and contact with tenured faculty. Unfortunately, that's beginning to change. Our university is finding it difficult to provide adequate resources for both our teaching and our research faculty.

Since 2002 when the provincial government allowed tuition fees to rise, we've seen an increase in tuition of approximately 300 percent in the post-secondary system. This policy has not only made it more expensive for individual students and their families but has also marked, as I said, a fundamental shift in education funding policy. Instead of what we believe is a worthwhile public investment in public post-secondary education by the government, we've seen a burden borne by students and their families — a burden, we might add, that is really preventing students from attending post-secondary.

The barriers to access to post-secondary education are coming at a time when we desperately need skilled, properly trained workers in our economy. The economic forecasts, including those by the Minister of Finance, are such that our economy is likely to face a downturn in the near future. A lot of people who are out working now are going to be required to get credentials to continue to be productive members of society, and 73 percent of all jobs that are going to be created over the next decade will require some form of post-secondary education.

The skills shortage doesn't just affect those in the trades or technology areas. It's affecting all people in society. If we don't address this problem, according to the B.C. Business Council, we risk stagnating economic growth in the future.

I've given you a document from Statistics Canada that paints a very negative picture of our participation rate in B.C. The number of people involved in post-secondary education is among the lowest in the country. What's even more disturbing is that we have the lowest level of post-secondary education completion in the country. We believe that this has to be turned around.

The Premier said many years ago that his stated goal was for B.C. to be the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in Canada. It's really hard to quibble with that lofty goal, but we can't get from here to there without a major reinvestment in public post-secondary education.

Someone asked me if coming before your committee was a worthwhile exercise, and I said: "It certainly is." I want to give you one example. Two years ago we came and said that there was a barrier to post-secondary adult basic education. The committee, in its wisdom, made a recommendation to government that said that ABE tuition should be eliminated.

[1615]

Sure enough, the budget in 2007 eliminated that tuition, and we thank you for that. That's the kind of forward thinking that we want the present committee to engage in.

What does TRU need? Well, we need to have the funding level that permits us to fulfil our mandate. We need to have the infrastructure and the research capacity to attract the graduate students that the Thompson Rivers
[ Page 1851 ]
University Act requires us to have and to meet our core obligations for undergraduate programs, for developmental programs and for trades programs. In order to achieve these goals, the faculty association believes that TRU must be funded at a level consistent with our status as a university.

In 2006, I asked this committee to urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Perrin review of TRU funding. Dan Perrin engaged in a review of the post-secondary education funding system. The implementation of those recommendations, which would be to fund TRU at a university level, would go a long way to meeting our needs as an institution.

The primary question facing your committee, in our view, is: how should B.C. use its budget surpluses to improve access and affordability within our public post-secondary system? I think it's a very basic question of government priorities. Certainly, the government has a very compelling reason to restore the level of funding to our system from the 2001 level, and unless we increase our provincial participation in that funding, I think we're going to run into some serious economic problems in the future.

I've left your committee with some specific recommendations. I know that you will look at them carefully, and I hope they will be part of your report to, I suppose, the Minister of Finance. I thank you for listening to me, and I'll take any questions that you'd like to give me.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much. You've done very well on your time. There is time for questions. Do we have any questions?

J. Horgan: Thank you, Dr. Friedman, for your presentation. We've heard from other post-secondary institutions about the 2.6 percent reduction last March and April, and as legislators we — at least I did — sat in the Legislature and watched the Minister of Advanced Education say that that didn't happen.

So are we quibbling? Are we talking about apples and oranges? How can you have the minister responsible say, "Funding has never been higher; everything is good," and those that receive the funding saying: "Well, we had a reduction"? In fact, the data that you're providing and others have provided demonstrate that we don't have the funding in place to meet the mandates that have been given.

Can you help me understand how that came about — that the minister said it didn't happen, yet those who received the cut say it did?

T. Friedman: I think there is a difference between a cut to the core base grant…. And that has certainly happened — a 2.6 percent decrease in the base block grant to the institutions.

I don't want to speak on behalf of the minister, but I think there were additional funds made available for targeted programs. Thompson Rivers University is fortunate that…. We were the beneficiary of a very small percentage of that money, but we did get some of that money. I'm talking about targeted programs to improve our nursing program and other areas that the government felt were priorities.

However, the cut of 2.6 percent on top of the loss of inflation protection has meant that we now have larger class sizes. We don't have the ability to expand or even to maintain our capacity. We're likely to see a big increase in enrolment over the next few years, and that's not possible unless the basic grant is kept up to date.

J. Rustad: I just want to thank you for your presentation. Post-secondary education is something that's near and dear to my heart as well. It's certainly something that's needed to fuel our economy in the future, given the skills needs that are there.

I want to ask for you to actually put yourself in our shoes for a second with regard to funding and post-secondary education. The post-secondary education system has seen the largest expansion it has undergone in 20 or 30 years. Funding has increased since 2001 by about 40 percent in terms of the overall budget for advanced education. Part of that, of course, is for the expansion.

[1620]

The question I have for you is this. We have significant demands in health care. We see the demands in education. We see the demands in the environment, for social programs, for policing, for safety, etc. We're in a situation where we only have so many dollars. I just had a quick look at the ask that you have here, and it's pretty significant. I can understand the need that you're describing.

How would you manage the balance, in terms of the programs that we have, with the increase of funding that we would have available, as well as balancing our need to be competitive in terms of attracting people to our province? We have to be in a situation where we have net migration to be able to feed the economic engine that we have in this province.

It's a very difficult balance, so what I'm asking is: if there wasn't enough money to be able to fully fund the requests that you had, as well as other programs, and to be able to maintain our competitiveness on a tax base, what would you consider doing? Would you be looking at suggesting that we should look at perhaps raising taxes or being far more risky in terms of our budgeting and coming closer to the line? How would you propose that we should manage that?

T. Friedman: Well, certainly B.C. has been fortunate to have a large surplus. I think we're not talking about raising taxes here; we're talking about how we can best use that surplus.
[ Page 1852 ]

Your question is an excellent one. Our answer is that education itself is not just for the benefit of those students who come and take degree programs and then go out and get jobs. There's a spinoff effect that not only helps the students and their careers but helps the communities which our universities are in.

It also helps to focus on the way that education can help social issues in our province. The example of ABE tuition is a particularly telling one. The more people who get basic educational skills, the less likely they're going, first of all, to draw on the social welfare system in the province. We believe, even in the short term but certainly for the long term, that an educated populace is healthier, more committed to public service and able to make a living for themselves and, of course, to increase the tax base for the province.

R. Lee: First a comment, quickly. My understanding is that 2.6 percent cut is actually redefining the part-time students and full-time students. Basically, it previously counted as full-time students. That's what they are, part time. I think there's some of the confusion there.

My question is on the university funding. You think TRU should be funded as a full research university. How much research is done here compared to, say, SFU or UBC?

T. Friedman: No, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that TRU should be funded as a research university. We're clearly a university that has a regional mandate. But part of that mandate is that we must have faculty conducting research to support our undergraduate and graduate programs. There's no doubt that UBC is in a different category. But what the government has failed to do is fund us even to the point of us being able to fulfil our mandate as a regional university.

R. Hawes (Chair): I know that we're over time, but just very quickly. Do you have a graduate program at TRU? How extensive is it?

T. Friedman: We currently have three graduate programs running. We have one in natural resource science, one in business administration and one in education. I know that the education program is very successful. We have a lot of public school teachers in our district that need the upgrading. That's what our mandate is — providing those opportunities.

Business administration is doing quite well. We're still in the early stages of the program. Our natural resource program is one of the few in Canada, and we're hopeful that we can attract not only B.C.'ers and Canadians but also international students to that program.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Thank you. Your submission is well received, and certainly you can be assured that it'll be discussed fully with this committee. Hopefully, we'll come out with some great recommendations.

We have Domtar Pulp and Paper and Bill Adams next.

[1625]

B. Adams: Thank you to the members of the committee for coming to Kamloops. We know that these hearings can be long and cover a wide range of policy matters.

In the time we have today, I would like to share some good news about the future of the pulp sector in Kamloops and talk about a few things that have gone right this year.

I'm sure you all recognize that the forest industry in Canada is facing some major challenges and could be described as sort of the perfect storm — the reduction in housing starts in the U.S. and the Canadian dollar and how it challenges manufacturers in Canada. As a major forest sector employer and economic partner in the Kamloops region, Domtar hasn't been immune to these challenges.

The B.C. pulp industry is undergoing significant structural change. You'll note, obviously, that some of the mills in British Columbia have actually shut down this year and last year. The mills that survive will be able to compete in the global market. It's a very, very competitive industry, and we do compete with manufacturers in all corners of the world.

We believe that the Domtar pulp mill here in Kamloops is positioning itself to emerge as a world-class facility. We have invested over $350 million in the last 15 years to ensure that we maintain our competitive position. The Kamloops mill is also very fortunate in that we're located in the Kamloops region.

Although we've seen the impacts of the mountain pine beetle and what it's done to the timber supply, we're blessed with a fairly diverse species in our region. We recognize that after the pine beetle has run its course, we're still going to have a very viable, secure fibre supply. That helps provide some of the confidence we need to continue making investments and ensuring we do have a long-term supply.

We've been working very closely with the 30 or so value-added forest products operations that operate within the Kamloops region and working with those in terms of fibre supply and biomass supply. We've been preferentially harvesting the mountain pine beetle and ensuring we can obtain the maximum economic value for these affected forests in the short and medium term and leaving some of the healthier species for the longer term.

In order to attract investments needed to refurbish the Domtar mill, we must secure a long-term energy purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro in the upcoming bioenergy call. We hope our competitive bid is one of those that are successful in the process.

A refurbished Kamloops mill would go a long way in securing the 2,000 or so direct and indirect jobs that are directly related to the manufacturing of pulp here in Kamloops. We know that the refurbishment would
[ Page 1853 ]
support the province's green energy plan by increasing clean, renewable energy generation and by increasing the utilization of the region's biomass resources.

We produce a value-added specialty pulp, and our shipments through the Pacific gateway to Asia are a major factor in our growth. We also recognize that the refurbishment would improve our environmental performance by reducing particulate discharge by 60 percent. We feel that the project would help the B.C. government meet its Asia-Pacific climate change and economic development goals.

We're not there yet. We still have a number of hurdles to overcome. But we would like to congratulate the government on several initiatives that have helped move the mill's long-term security forward. These would include the bioenergy initiative.

We recognize that pulp mills in jurisdictions which recognize the value of bioenergy are going to be…. That is the framework in which pulp mills that are going to exist and be competitive will have to exist — in jurisdictions that value the bioenergy attributes.

[1630]

We also recognize the government for helping form the B.C. Pulp and Paper Task Force. It's been a major step forward in helping the industry work together on common issues for the benefit of the economic well-being of both the companies and the communities they operate in and also in seeking to reduce the greenhouse gases and air pollution. That's an honourable direction for the government, and industry applauds that.

The B.C. Pulp and Paper Task Force commissioned a study called Future Development of B.C.'s Pulp and Paper Industry. It was partially funded by the provincial government in 2007, and there were a couple of significant or interesting outcomes from the study findings.

One of them was that the overall asset quality and technical standards of the pulp mills that are located in the B.C. southern Interior were among the top 50 percent in reference to mills worldwide in producing northern bleached softwood kraft, which is the pulp that we produce here in Kamloops.

The other aspect was that both the northern and southern Interior B.C. mills have a significant cost advantage in delivering to China. In fact, the report went on to say that the Interior mills were in the top quartile, the top 25 percent, of northern bleached softwood kraft mills worldwide in delivering to that market.

In addition, Domtar is committed to protecting the air quality in the Kamloops region as part of our project. We've also made steps to significantly reduce our bleaching agents in the pulp-making process; made significant reductions in greenhouse gas emission intensity — in fact, since 2002 we've reduced them by 22 percent; reduced our odour compounds by 70 percent; and reduced our effluent volume of pollutants by 20 percent.

The aspect of a strong economic industry and continuing our improvement in environmental performance is a key value of Domtar, and it should be of the government.

Our message to the committee is: please keep the pulp sector in mind as you are building next year's budget. We have a long history in B.C. and intend to remain here a lot longer. The Domtar mill can be a competitive mill in the global marketplace, and we need to continue to work together to make this happen.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Bill. That was a good presentation.

R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. As Parliamentary Secretary for the Asia-Pacific Initiative, I always hear about demand for the product, for pulp. What is the capacity in your firm, say, and the capacity in B.C. to increase exports?

B. Adams: If you looked at the B.C. softwood industry — northern bleached softwood kraft — it's about 25 percent of the worldwide market. At one time there was sort of a fairly even split between North America, Asia and Europe in terms of where those mills were exporting to. The competitive nature of the industry has seen a significant shift in focusing on Asia as a market.

Certainly, the fastest-growing region for pulp buying is China, and many of the mills have shifted a significant portion of their production to China. I wouldn't want to comment exactly on what percentage of B.C. pulp actually gets to China. I don't know the exact answer, but there has been a significant shift in the last ten years and more specifically in the last five years to focus on that market, because we are more competitive, and it is a growing market.

R. Lee: I think my question is on the capacity for increasing exports. Right now probably 50 percent of what we export to China is pulp. We export 45 to 50 percent, but still the demand is there — right? So how much can we improve in terms of capacity locally?

B. Adams: You do have to be somewhat careful of not putting all of your eggs in one basket, so there is sort of an upper limit in terms of what percentage of your production you want to export to China.

[1635]

There are some significant transportation constraints right now also. At one time the bulk shipments were a major portion of shipments to Asia, and now it's almost exclusively containers. There is a significant constraint on pulp suppliers in B.C. wanting to ship to China. Certainly, we would benefit from existing infrastructure improvements, and in freight capacity going from British Columbia to Asia — to be able to increase that.
[ Page 1854 ]

At the current volume of pulp being exported, you're already seeing some transportation constraints that need to be addressed. That may be slightly different depending on the region — whether you're shipping it from Prince George or Castlegar or Skookumchuck or Kamloops.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Bill, for the presentation. I have many, many questions that I'm going to have to ask you off line, because we only have a few minutes.

With respect to forest product companies transforming into energy companies as a result of the transition from production of wood products to becoming a biomass energy company, how is Domtar going to address that going forward? You're seen as a pulp and paper company. With the bioenergy call, you have an opportunity to see not just revenue but environmental improvements. How does that square with your core business?

B. Adams: At the mill in Kamloops we have always had a focus on both pulp and energy production. In 2004 we started up a new condensing turbine, which actually made the mill energy self-sufficient, one of the few mills in British Columbia that actually had the self-generation capacity to be self-sufficient. The bioenergy call project would actually allow us to increase the utilization of those assets.

We've always been very comfortable being an energy and pulp company. The challenge was that…. At one time nobody cared where the electrons came from — whether they came from renewable energy or coal. But that is a value change in society and certainly in British Columbia. The recognition of that by the government and the instructions of the government in terms of directing B.C. Hydro to do a bioenergy call allow the mills to increase the value of the energy that they produce.

The other challenge that we're having is the unintended consequence of value in bioenergy. If you provide an incentive that's high enough, you can short-circuit the lumber mills, you can short-circuit the pulp mills and you can take the biomass resource and convert it directly to electricity.

A study that was done recently and incorporated into the Pulp and Paper Task Force was that by creating forest products first, and pulp and paper and then, as a residual, creating energy, you create 13 times the number of jobs as you do direct-converting biomass directly to electricity. I think B.C. Hydro, in its wisdom, has understood this, ensuring that they don't completely distort the market with the bioenergy call.

But back to your original question. Really, we're very comfortable, and I think the companies who understand the importance of producing both pulp and energy are the ones that will be successful in the future. That's the investment direction they're going to have to take. The ones that are either not able to or that, in my opinion, choose not to will have a challenging future to remain competitive.

J. Rustad: First of all, thank you very much for your presentation. I just have one other question.

It's great to see that Domtar is embracing the idea of bioenergy as well, but one of the concerns I have for the pulp industry is actually the demand on fibre and what that will do on the land base and for various production facilities, whether that's for lumber, pulp, energy or other potential products. Do you see that as being a potential challenge for your operations, or how does that kind of fit in terms of your company's goals or strategies around taking advantage of bioenergy?

[1640]

B. Adams: Again, we've always been a large bioenergy producer. We've always had a strong partnership with our sawmills and other manufacturing facilities in our region, where we buy chips, sawdust and bark. Our strength is partnering with those mills and buying all three forms of the residual. At the end of the day, we have to ensure that our suppliers are practising sustainable forestry so that we do have a long-term future.

One of the things that has changed significantly is that we at one time relied entirely on sawmill residuals. Given the shutdown at the Kamloops sawmill, the Okanagan Falls sawmill and a number of other mills that are on curtailment, affordable pulp logs are a major concern not only for Domtar but for the other Interior mills.

We've been fortunate that the government is actually starting to make some additional pulp logs available, in looking at the market and understanding that pulp logs are going to be a critical part of the pulp mills' future.

Going forward, we're looking at continuing to buy the residual materials from all the sawmills that have continued to operate, but we probably will have a permanent presence of pulp logs in the Kamloops region as part of our future fibre supply as well.

We would continue…. In fact, we're doing a number of trials on bringing forestry slash into the Thompson, and just basically the forestry slash piles that you see on the roadside. We've started to do some trials recently where we're bringing that in as a fuel source, and we do see that as a new, permanent source of biomass that the mill will rely on going forward.

J. Rustad: I'm seeing that in tests with other facilities as well, so thank you for that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Bill. I know there are 2,000 people in Kamloops and many, many more thousands throughout British Columbia that want you to just keep the lights on and keep working.
[ Page 1855 ]

Next we have Thompson Rivers University Students Union. We have Kyle Bowman and Alex McLellan.

K. Bowman: Before we start, I just want to apologize. Our executive director will be taking a couple of pictures, just to prove to our members that you came to talk to us and we came to talk to you. They like photo proof.

We want to start by saying hello. I'm Kyle Bowman. I'm president of the students union at Thompson Rivers University, and I'm here to talk to you about the priorities of the students and families in the Kamloops region.

The Thompson Rivers University Students Union is the membership organization at TRU. The students union represents approximately 7,000 members, and I would like to thank everyone on behalf of those members for the chance to provide our input into the province budget priorities here today.

All too often, when talking about post-secondary education, we forget that full-time- equivalents, student spaces and the many other terms we use are actually real people and that policy decisions have a dramatic effect on their day-to-day lives. In fact, for many members, it is the difference between succeeding and falling through the cracks.

At the students union we are reminded of this on a daily basis as we see the real impacts of post-secondary education policy as we interact with our members. Today we are here to be the voice for those members and to express concerns about two things: (1) the growing lack of affordability for post-secondary education at Thompson Rivers University and in British Columbia in general, and (2) student debt and the rapid pace at which it is climbing in British Columbia.

Students are enduring financial hardships, and many young people are finding it difficult and are no long able to access post-secondary education as a result of the unprecedented increases in the cost of education over the last five years.

[1645]

If a student has a $25,000 loan, they will pay $15,000 in interest, so these students who rely on financial assistance pay $40,000 for their education. This is assuming that the student has the ability to pay the loan over the 114-month amortization period.

Students, families and young people need to be assured that the 2009 British Columbia budget will bring renewed investment from the province in order to provide accessible post-secondary education to the communities being served by Thompson Rivers University and to all of British Columbia's communities.

In order to ensure that this is possible, we have brought a series of recommendations today that we think will help the province of British Columbia to achieve this goal. These recommendations are absolutely in line with the fiscal capabilities of the current British Columbia government and will go a long way to improving the lives of students across the province.

I'll hand it over to Alex now.

A. McLellan: Good afternoon. My name is Alex McLellan. I'm the vice-president in finance for the Thompson Rivers University Students Union. I'm here today to propose a number of specific recommendations to make post-secondary education more affordable and to decrease the debt burden that students take on in order to attend post-secondary.

Our first recommendation is that the government allocate funding in the budget to reduce tuition fees by 10 percent. For some context, we've got some information about tuition and ancillary fees at Thompson Rivers University.

In the past six years tuition fees at TRU have increased 291 percent, and in the same period ancillary fees have increased 598 percent. Thompson Rivers University has the highest tuition and ancillary fees of any of the special purpose universities in British Columbia. Students in Kamloops are paying more than their peers at any of these other institutions. Tuition and ancillary fees at TRU are barriers to accessing post-secondary education.

Statistics Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and researchers in the U.S. and across the globe have all produced research illustrating the effects of tuition fees as being the number one barrier to accessing post-secondary education. In fact, one American study has found that for every $1,000 increase in tuition fees, low-income people were between 16 and 19 percent less likely to acquire a post-secondary education.

A similar study was done in 1999 at the University of Western Ontario, which found that participation by low-income earners dropped by 40 percent after tuition fees doubled there.

It's important to remember that students who are enduring these hardships are not just numbers, and they're not just statistics. These students are the people who are needed to fill the more than 70 percent of new jobs in B.C. that will require post-secondary education of some form. These are students that British Columbia needs in order to solve the skills shortage in our province.

More than any other previous generation, the young people of our province need a post-secondary education to be successful. They cannot achieve this success if they are unable to complete their education due to being saddled with an average $30,000 in student debt upon graduation. I'm sure all of us can agree that $30,000 of debt is not the jump-start in life that a 22-year-old needs.

Finally, a fully funded 10 percent reduction in tuition fees would cost the British Columbia government just $98.9 million in 2007. This investment represents just one-quarter of 1 percent of overall public expenditures and would immediately reduce the cost to individual students across the province by hundreds of dollars.
[ Page 1856 ]

The average student at TRU would save approximately $400 as a result of such an investment. Public interest polls have been conducted, and one in July 2006 conducted by Ipsos-Reid found that 80 percent of British Columbians support the idea of reducing tuition fees.

Further, 81 percent of British Columbians believe that students are taking on an unfair burden of debt to pay for their education. We believe it is clear that students are behind this recommendation and that British Columbians in general are behind this recommendation, and we are here today to encourage our elected representatives to also get behind it and reduce tuition fees by 10 percent for September 2009.

The second issue regarding post-secondary education that we'd like to raise is the restoration of provincial funding to 2001 levels adjusted for inflation. Over the past seven years rollbacks to the system have greatly affected the services provided to students. They have impacted students that have participated in the system since 2001. There have been cuts to the student services that are offered by institutions and a corresponding dramatic increase to tuition and the ancillary fees that we spoke of.

[1650]

This off-loading of costs onto the backs of students is unacceptable, so we have come here today to ask you to restore funding to the system and allocate the resources in the human capital of British Columbia.

Our third recommendation, the one that we feel is the most urgent, is the elimination of student loan interest in British Columbia for 2009. Student loan interest increases the cost of education to those British Columbians who need financial assistance the most. Graduating with an average student debt of $30,000 leads British Columbians to make very difficult decisions about starting families. It greatly diminishes their purchasing power due to this debt load.

The Campus 2020 report has noted that there are 88,000 British Columbians with provincial student loans. In following the lead of Newfoundland and Labrador, we can decrease interest to prime and significantly help those 88,000 students and former students. As mentioned, student loan interest hurts disadvantaged populations most.

For example, women, whose wages on average are significantly lower than men's, are disproportionately affected. A female borrower can expect to take seven years longer to repay her loan than her male counterparts.

High interest rates combined with high tuition have also had a negative effect on potential students. People who are making the decision on whether or not to attend post-secondary education often make the choice not to in regards to debt aversion.

The elimination of interest on student loans will ensure that potential borrowers will know exactly what they will be expected to pay back and will ensure that those populations who take longer to pay back loans — due to gender pay gaps, for example — are not punished by greater interest payments.

A fourth recommendation is that government allocate funding in the 2009 budget to create an upfront and needs-based B.C. grant program funded at the same level as the former B.C. grant program. In 2004 this $80 million B.C. grant program was cut, and many students came to our office in tears after the announcement, because they knew that they would no longer be able to complete their education without this source of funding. Four years later many of these students are no longer here, and they were never able to complete their education.

These students and thousands of others across the province brought their stories to the B.C. government, resulting in the creation of the loan reduction program. While this program does offer financial aid to many of the most needy students, we find that it is not as effective as a grant program.

It is important to note that students are responsible with their limited money, and they need to be able to budget at the beginning of the year, when they incur most of their education-related costs. However, under the loan reduction program, students will not know how much of their loans will be reduced until the end of the year, and low-income students will still not be able to afford the upfront costs of education.

The most efficient and simplest form of student financial assistance is upfront and needs-based grants, which target the neediest students and reduce their upfront costs, allowing them to budget effectively for the year. The new grants program must be funded at or above the same amount of the B.C. grant program that was in place previously, especially in light of the fact that tuition fees are more than double what they were six years ago, when the B.C. grant program was initially created. These tuition fee increases have effectively reduced the capacity of the grant program to ensure access.

In addition to not effectively reducing financial barriers, the loan reduction program has not included graduate students. Often these are students who already have significant student debt through their undergraduate studies and are badly in need of assistance in order to complete their education and become leaders in their fields. For the sake of meaningful access to all levels of post-secondary education, both undergraduate and graduate, a B.C. grant program must be restored.

In closing, this government has repeatedly stated its goal to make B.C. the most educated jurisdiction on the continent. We certainly feel this is a worthy goal. If we are to achieve it, we require significant investment in our post-secondary education system through undergraduate, graduate and vocational training. It will require that we ensure that all people who wish to study in British Columbia have access to education regardless of their income.
[ Page 1857 ]

We are confident that our recommendations today will move the province towards this goal. Reducing tuition fees will save students hundreds of dollars and open the door to many people who currently can't incur the upfront costs. Restoring funding adjusted for inflation will restore student services and alleviate the stress on administrators to balance budgets. Balancing these budgets has often resulted in increases to tuition and ancillary fees that we spoke of earlier.

Eliminating interest on student loans will save former and future students money, ensure their financial success and ability to participate in the economy, and increase access due to the elimination of debt aversion as a factor.

[1655]

Finally, providing a fully funded system of grants that includes graduate students will reduce upfront barriers, attract the graduate students that we need and ensure that students with large student debt already are able to continue their education.

We feel that all of these recommendations are well within B.C.'s fiscal capacity and are in urgent need of implementation to secure the long-term health of our province. We'd like to thank you again for the opportunity to provide input.

Also, on a last note, we'd like to thank this committee for its recommendation to eliminate tuition fees for adult basic education last time around. It was a great step forward for students.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Alex and Kyle.

J. Horgan: Thank you, gentlemen. We've certainly heard loud and clear from your organization and others across the province about affordability and access.

What I wouldn't mind asking you about is other costs, ancillary costs — student housing, food, transportation costs — which are escalating as well and which never seem to get into the discussion when we're talking about post-secondary education. I know that most of this will be anecdotal, but it helps us as legislators to better understand the challenges you're facing here in Kamloops to meet those daily costs as well as meet your academic needs. So could you comment on that briefly?

A. McLellan: Certainly, those are costs that students are incurring, but I think that in making priorities, those are costs that are increasing at the rate of inflation, most generally. In relation to that, tuition and ancillary fees, as we've mentioned, have been increasing at 300 to 600 percent over the last five or six years, which is significantly higher than the rate of inflation. So in making priorities in the educational issues that we choose to target and the priorities of where government can make its greatest impact, we feel that those are the areas that would be best to serve.

J. Horgan: But the debt aversion that you spoke about — I certainly understand that. But it's not just the cost of the tuition. It's not just the cost of the books. It's the cost of getting all of this done that discourages people from completing degrees, at least in my experience, and we're not hearing that from students.

You guys are — rightly, perhaps — focusing on the costs that government can address, but there are additional costs that…. The story is only half told when we focus strictly on what we can help you with, and it doesn't help us understand the overall cost of education in 2008. That's all.

J. Rustad: I'll try to be as brief as I can. I want to throw a scenario to you. You've completed your education, you're looking for a job, and you're in Kamloops. There's a job in Kamloops, and there's another job in Vernon that could pay you $4,000 a year more — similar jobs. Which would you be interested in?

The reason I ask that question is that as a province, in 2001 we saw a lot of our students leave our province because we were uncompetitive. Taxes were that much higher that we were paying that much more, and that was the net loss on a yearly basis to individuals because of taxes.

You have to find that right balance, where you need to be able to have a strong economy and a competitive economy so that young individuals like you, when you graduate from university, have those opportunities to build that future and to be able to locate here as opposed to other communities. So given that, we've had a 40 percent increase in funding for post-secondary education. We've got enormous demands in other services such as health care. We've been able to do about $10 billion worth of capital infrastructure, paid for through surpluses.

How do you judge the value and the balance there to be able to remain competitive and keep our taxes low so that when you graduate, you can have good jobs in the area and are able to keep the majority of your income, along with those needs in post-secondary? The reason I'm asking is that our job, when you're looking at a surplus and how to allocate the dollars, is to try to find the best balance so that you can provide the services as well as keep that sort of competitive.

So I just wanted to ask you. In terms of the priorities, where do you see education, as well as those other things, fitting?

A. McLellan: Actually, this reminds me of the question that you asked of the TRUFA representative, and I feel he had a very strong answer for that, so I'd like to just kind of reflect what he had to say about that.

A lot of — actually, all of — these recommendations are well within the capacity of the B.C. government to achieve. It represents quite a small portion of public expenditures. But it's important to note also that it's
[ Page 1858 ]
about priorities and that an educated population will certainly increase the ability to have purchasing power go up as well as increase tax base through higher revenues. It doesn't necessarily mean that we need to have higher tax rates, but we'll have a more healthy, more involved and more wealthy population to derive that from.

[1700]

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much. We've received your message. We're out of time.

Now, I think the — Deb McClelland from the chamber of commerce is not here yet. Would that be correct?

We have just a minute now. We have what would have been an open-mike presenter at the end. That's Michael Crawford with the Council of Canadians. If you want to take your five minutes right now, rather than later….

M. Crawford: That would be great. Thank you very much.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Michael Crawford. I want to start by thanking you for coming to Kamloops. We always look forward every fall to welcoming your hard-working committee to Kamloops. Normally, I think, we have a few more delegates or delegations or presenters than we've seen this year. When I heard that that was the case, I thought I'd come over and share my two cents' worth with you.

I'm a member of the Council of Canadians and have presented to this committee previously as a member of the council. Additionally, I'm the federal NDP candidate in this election.

I wanted to tell you a little bit about my experience knocking on doors. I've knocked on an awful lot of doors in this riding over the last two years — almost 8,000 doors we've knocked on — and in that time I've been listening to the residents in this riding. I've been putting together a few notes about what their concerns are, and I'd like to represent them to you today, if you don't mind.

I'm mindful of the fact that I have only five minutes here, so if somebody could give me some indication when I've almost….

R. Hawes (Chair): I'll let you know when you've got a minute left.

M. Crawford: A minute left. Okay, I'll speak quickly.

You know, people are concerned that governments are ignoring them. It comes out in a number of different ways, but mostly it comes out when people are talking to me about their wages staying stagnant or seeing their wages in decline and seeing the cost of everything else go up and up and up. And people, I think…. Well, I know; people are telling me. They're looking to government now to step in and make living more affordable for them and more affordable in a number of ways.

Seniors are telling us that they need home care. They want to stay in their own homes. I think it's to the province's advantage, to the taxpayers' advantage, that we keep people in their homes for as long as possible. In order to do that, they need home care.

Mothers are telling me that they're quitting their jobs, that they're abandoning their careers because they simply can't find secure, affordable child care; it's not happening. They feel abandoned by governments. They feel that governments want them to get out there, participate in their careers and so forth, but they're feeling as though the governments are doing very little to help them with that. They're particularly perturbed with the federal government, thinking that that $100 a month barely covers the cost of diapers, let alone pays for any reasonable, secure child care.

And your gas tax. The provincial government's gas tax has really caught the public's attention in this riding, particularly in the rural areas where there's no alternative to taking your vehicle out on the road, coming into town, commuting for work, travelling to doctor's appointments and so forth.

People are very upset in this riding about the gas tax, or what they're calling the gas tax. They're thinking it's just a really serious hit increasing their costs of living at a time when they really can't afford that, and they think that that's extremely unfair. They don't have that opportunity to jump on public transit out in Clearwater, 100 Mile, Savona, Westwold. It's not happening, it's not available, and they're feeling betrayed and ignored by government. They're looking to government to be responsible and responsive.

[1705]

I think people's faith in government is at an all-time low. The number of scandals that we've seen federally and provincially is really catching people's attention, and they're telling us in no uncertain terms that they're looking for government to be honest and to have some integrity and to be credible. They don't see that provincially. They don't see that federally.

They're looking for a premier and they're looking for a prime minister that has their best interests at heart and is ready and willing to tackle corporations and keep the cost of living down.

That's the message I wanted to bring to you from the folks I've talked to across the Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo federal riding. Thanks for the opportunity for doing that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you.

We'll perhaps recess for five to ten minutes until the next witness arrives. Are there any other open-mike presentations? We could ask for that now.

Seeing none, we'll recess for ten minutes till the next witness arrives.
[ Page 1859 ]

The committee recessed from 5:06 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. We'll call this committee back to order. Our next presenters are Doug Wittal and Patsy Bourassa of the Canadian Home Builders Association, Central Interior.

Welcome. The time frame is 15 minutes. We'd love it if you could take ten minutes on your presentation and allow us five minutes for questions, but you can take the full 15 minutes on your presentation if you wish. I will tell you when you hit ten minutes. If you choose to keep going, I'll tell you when you have two minutes left.

D. Wittal: Thank you.

Chair, MLA Randy Hawes, and hon. MLAs, it is my pleasure to speak with the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services today. My name is Doug Wittal, and I am the president of the Canadian Home Builders Association, Central Interior. I am here with my executive officer Patsy Bourassa.

The Canadian Home Builders Association, Central Interior, is a very active group of 175 residential builders and contractors from the interior region whose mission, in part, is to educate our members and the general public in good building practices. Two key areas that our association supports are affordable housing and green building technology and techniques.

Our proposal to you today is twofold, and it relates to a small reallocation of funds from the property transfer tax — PTT — collected on the sale of homes in B.C.:

(1) that the government raise the threshold at which the property transfer tax rate changes — it should be increased to offset the tremendous increase in the cost of purchasing a home;

(2) that government allocate a small percentage of collected PTT to go towards builder and consumer incentives to build or renovate homes that are green.

The provincial government has been the beneficiary of a very robust housing market for the past five years with regard to B.C.'s property transfer tax. In 2002-03 the government collected $330 million in PTT, and that went into general funds. This has been increasing annually. This past year the government has collected over $1 billion in property transfer tax. This revenue is directly related to the sale of homes in B.C.

To our first recommendation. We strongly recommend that the government raise the threshold at which the property transfer tax rate changes. It should be increased to $400,000 from its current $200,000. The current formula for property transfer tax collected is 1 percent of the first $200,000 of a house sale and 2 percent on the rest.

This formula was created in 1987 when the PTT was introduced. At that time the median price for a home in B.C. was $121,000. Now the median price of a home in B.C. is $440,000.

Also, in 2002-03 approximately $330 million was collected, and this number has been going up annually. Last year over $1 billion, again, was collected in property transfer taxes by the province. We estimate the impact to government in raising the threshold will be approximately $165 million. Based on what the government collected last year, government will still collect in excess of $850 million.

In the last two budgets government has listened to our argument and has increased the threshold at which PTT is charged. It has been raised, but it is not enough. As the price of houses has continued to rise, the tax, again, became regressive. With our proposed reduction this year, it will still result in substantial funds collected.

There's another side to this. The sale of a home in B.C. generates approximately $40,000 in spinoff sales — for example, appliances, drapes, carpets, legal fees, etc. By reducing this tax, it will encourage more purchases and keep our housing stats at a high level.

[1720]

This reduction will also enable some consumers to get into a mortgage. The additional cost of PTT prevents some people in B.C. from qualifying for a mortgage. The federal government has seen this issue as a significant one and recently announced a proposed $5,000 tax credit to first-time homebuyers to allow them to offset some of the high costs to get into a home.

To our second recommendation. We propose that government allocate a small percentage of PTT collected to builder and consumer incentives to build or renovate green homes.

The Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. has developed and coordinates the Built Green B.C. program. This is a voluntary, builder-driven, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly initiative that trains builders and rates homes for their green aspect in levels. We currently have 165 Built Green B.C. builders in the province of British Columbia and 27 right here in our own region.

One of the government's major pushes this year is to promote reduction of carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. By tying the PTT to the levels of Built Green B.C., we're able to reduce the price of the home and put the money saved into greening the home. This reduces the carbon footprint and creates a continuing payback to the homeowner by saving money in ongoing energy costs. This will also help the government meet their greenhouse gas reduction prices, helping B.C. residents adapt to climate change and reducing B.C.'s carbon footprint measurably.

The government, in several departments, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate, inform and influence our residents' environmental choices — for example, cabinet climate action secretariat, Small
[ Page 1860 ]
Business and Revenue, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Ministry of Environment. Built Green B.C. is a ready-made program that is measurable, attainable and gives tangible results. Earlier this year the Minister Responsible for Housing, MLA Rich Coleman, acknowledged the value of the Built Green B.C. program and announced funds to assist our association to promote the program to the building and consumer communities.

In 2008 we built over 1,500 Built Green B.C. homes to the gold-level standard, which is equivalent to the amended B.C. building code EnerGuide rating level 77. This will result in a reduction of 3,750 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the equivalent of removing 165 cars from B.C. roads and highways. If this process were tied to a reduction of PTT, it would increase its positive result even more.

The home-building industry across Canada is one of the only industries that is having a positive, tangible effect on our environment. Between 1990 and 2004, due in part to CHBA's leadership, research and program input and implementation, the housing sector, which enjoyed a healthy growth during this period, had the lowest rate of our end-use energy growth of the major industry sectors — industry, transportation, industrial and commercial buildings — this during a period when Canada's population grew by 15 percent and our nation's GDP went up by 48 percent.

The Canadian housing sector is one of the few areas of the Canadian economy that is on track to meet Canada's Kyoto commitment, a reduction of 6 percent below 1990 emission levels by 2012. By the end of 2005 the housing sector had achieved a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from operating energy use of minus 4.5 percent. This reduction happened while the number of dwellings used in Canada increased by 25 percent — that is, 2.5 million new homes were built. B.C. was well up in the mix.

[1725]

This achievement reflects both the increasing energy efficiency of new homes and equipment and improvements in the efficiency of existing homes through upgrades and renovations. The timing is perfect for positive incentive programs at the provincial level to be implemented to speed up the process.

We appreciate having the opportunity to present our ideas to an interested, open committee, a business-friendly government, and we extend an invitation to the appropriate departments to discuss our proposal in more depth in the future.

Time, as we know, is of the essence. We thank you for all your time and attention.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Doug, for a very good presentation.

Before we take questions, I just want to acknowledge that MLA Claude Richmond is in the audience — the MLA for Kamloops. Claude, thank you for coming and attending.

With that, we'll go to the questions.

J. Horgan: Thanks, Doug, very much for that presentation. I get very excited when I hear talk of Built Green B.C., LEED standards and so on. While I'm getting excited, many, many people are getting confused.

I know that the Canadian Home Builders Association is on the cutting edge here. For self-interested reasons, you want a product that the public will not only enjoy but benefit from in the future. That's all to the good, but I think the broader public…. When we look at the property transfer tax, and that's…. The elegance of your presentation was that you looked at a pocket of money that is being yanked out of your sector and put to general revenue rather than being taken out of the sector and put to a purpose that would meet government goals and societal goals as well.

I really, really appreciate that, but as someone who's paying attention, I'm confused by all of the different standards, the lack of uniformity across the country — or even across the province — in terms of how builders, developers and others are meeting the challenges of climate change by building green.

I'm wondering, to get to a question: how can we, as legislators, take the work you're doing, take the work that's happening within government with respect to the amendments to the building code, and say to the public that we're going in the right direction — that this just isn't a money grab but is somehow going to help us in the long term? Because as I say, I'm interested, and yet I'm still confused.

How do we break that cycle so that the public has some confidence that we are heading in the right direction and that we're not just putting labels on things?

D. Wittal: Obviously, it's consumer education. I think one of the biggest things that have failed in the past…. If we go back a few years to the R-2000 program, where we tried to implement that, which in essence is an enhanced green program…. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had put in money. The provincial government had put in money. All these different governments were putting in different money, and everybody was getting different views. The consumer was totally confused.

That only lasted for a year or two, and then they quit handing out the money. Then the consumer was unclear in what direction they should go.

I think what's different in today's market is that it's pretty clear — the greenhouse gases that we have to cut. We have to reduce all those, and we have to just keep pushing the green. I think the consumer is already better educated without saying one word about Built Green. We're already 50 percent ahead of where we started.
[ Page 1861 ]

P. Bourassa: If I could just add to that too. One of the reasons why the Built Green program is moving forward is because of the federal and provincial push. Because of the Kyoto accord, this has become a global issue.

As Doug had mentioned, another…. So I mean, they're halfway there. They're reading. They're paying attention. They're wanting to do something.

The other good thing about the Built Green program is that it's a levelled program. So they can start a little bit and work up, whereas the R-2000 program was a totally high-level platinum.... You had to go either all or nothing. That didn't work for a lot of people. It was too early, and the timing was wrong.

Now the timing is right, which I think is why MLA Rich Coleman did give money to promote the program.

[1730]

The other thing that you mention, of course, is that everybody knows about LEED because LEED has been around a long time. They've not been in the residential housing business, but they've been around a long time, and finally — after how many years? — people are understanding what LEED is, sort of, at a very high level.

The Built Green program is just for residential builders, and it was developed by builders, whereas the LEED program is mostly for commercial buildings — doing very good work there. I know they are looking at doing something for residential building, but the bottom line is that this program is well established. It was done by residential builders for residential builders. It's been picked up nationally, and it's been moving forward.

People are coming to see these homes, and they are picking them up, and they're interested. Even though they cost a little more, people are starting to buy them.

R. Hawes (Chair): I have one very quick question for you. We've heard in a number of the places that we've been so far — and we hear it constantly — about the skill shortage. I know that the homebuilders have partnered with colleges, high schools, all kinds of trade schools throughout British Columbia to turn out carpenters — framers, window hangers, door hangers, etc. I just want your thoughts on whether…. First, can that be expanded into other trades — electricians, plumbers, etc. — with the same kind of partnerships under the homebuilders association?

That's the first thing. The second thing is: how beneficial has it been to move over from the old Red Seal program to the new certification program?

D. Wittal: On the first one, in terms of other trades doing it, I believe the school here, Norkam Secondary, is going to be the first school around that will be a full trades technology school. There'll be drywallers, paper lathers, cement finishers, radio technologists. It just goes on and on.

That will be the first school around where they're learning that right from grade 10 to grade 12, and they'll be getting their ticket, or well on their way to their ticket, before they graduate from high school. Then that just melds itself right into the typical university programs to expand on that course. So that's extremely exciting news, and that's been accepted very well lately.

The second part, in terms of the Red Seal. Those modules aren't…. It's not really out in the true fashion right yet. You know, we can't really comment on that. But the direction that they're going in that I think is just phenomenal. It's just a step in the right direction that the industry has to take in order for trades to get on par with the technology sector.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. This will go into our consideration, and hopefully, we'll come back with something for you.

D. Wittal: Thank you so much for listening to us.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you for working on that green program. It's great.

The chamber of commerce would be next, and I don't think they're here yet. We have one more open-mike presenter, and that would be Fawn Knox.

Fawn, you have five minutes. Welcome, and proceed.

F. Knox: My name is Fawn Knox. I'm just talking as a citizen of Kamloops. But I'm on the board of directors of the Kamloops Food Bank. I just wanted to bring to your attention that our board president, in line with all the other food banks across Canada, for the Canadian national food bank association…. We took a snapshot in March of 2008. He has got a very short document, and I will be sending that on. We reviewed some of it last night.

First of all, I'll say that there are over 4,000 individuals that we are feeding in Kamloops now, and 1,800 of those people are under the age of 19. We also learned over the course of the year that we have increased about 22 percent. But what struck me the most, when all our clients were interviewed, was that 1 percent of them were in social housing.

[1735]

What it said to me is that if we had more social housing — and of course now I hope it's built green — that would make quite a difference. When you're at the mercy of a renter or the landlord and so on, this is one of the factors where food seems to be the first thing to go, and then they are at the food bank again.

Quite often we have people that are food bank users for four months on average in the year, and then they move on. They've got a job, and then oftentimes they do come back. But we try to build capacity at our food bank in that we have other programs with the idea that we're trying to wean them off the food bank, and they want that as well. Many of our clients are asked to volunteer at the food bank, and many of them are happy to do that.
[ Page 1862 ]

And that's it. Thank you.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much. I'm not seeing the chamber of commerce. I guess we'll ask the Clerk's office to contact the chamber of commerce and see if they want to put in a written presentation, since they were on the list. I don't know if they're unavoidably detained.

Seeing no further witnesses, we'll adjourn this hearing. We are going to reconvene in Penticton on Tuesday the 23rd at one o'clock in the afternoon. So any of you here that happen to be in Penticton, please drop in and have a listen.

With that, we're adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

[ Return to: Finance and Government Services Committee Home Page ]

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

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada