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, October 2, 2008

9 a.m.

Auditorium, Royal Canadian Legion #91

761 Station Avenue, Langford, B.C.

Present: Randy Hawes, MLA (Chair); Bruce Ralston, MLA (Deputy Chair); Robin Austin, MLA; Harry Bloy, MLA; John Horgan, MLA; Richard T. Lee, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Diane Thorne, MLA; John Yap, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Dave S. Hayer, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 9:01 a.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 12:20 p.m. to 12:58 p.m.

5. The Committee adjourned at 3:21 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, October 2, 2008

Issue No. 84

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 2009 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008

The committee met at 9:01 a.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'm Randy Hawes, and I'm the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. I'd like to welcome all of you here to what we believe to be an extremely valuable process. I'd like to thank you all for your participation in the process.

In preparing estimates for Budget 2009, the Minister of Finance is required to release both the fiscal forecast and a budget consultation paper by September 15 of each year. The consultation paper is required to provide a description of major economic and policy assumptions underlying that 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. We are required by legislation to report out by November 15 of each year. We are an all-party committee.

So far we've held public hearings in Kitimat, Smithers, Fort St. John, Prince George, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Penticton, Vancouver, Cranbrook, Nelson, Courtenay and, today, Langford. In mid-October we're going to be in the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley at four locations: Abbotsford, Surrey, Burnaby and Coquitlam.

Once we've completed the public consultation period, we will begin working on drafting our report. If you'd like to review the budget consultation paper, there are copies available at the registration desk at the back.

If you want to make a presentation to the committee, you can get information on how to do that on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. As a reminder, any input that the committee receives in writing or 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 extended the deadline for submissions to October 24.

Today we're going to hear from a number of presenters, and each will be given 15 minutes. We recommend that you try to keep it to ten minutes and allow us five minutes for questions. However, the time is yours. You can use the whole 15 minutes or any part thereof. I'll try to give you a little heads-up when you're at ten minutes, and I will give you another heads-up, if you go on, when you have two minutes left in your presentation.

Time permitting, at the end of the session we'll have an open-mike period. Each presenter there is given five minutes, and there are no questions.

I'll now ask the other members of the Finance Committee to introduce themselves, starting with Diane.

D. Thorne: I'm Diane Thorne. I'm the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

R. Austin: Good morning. I'm Robin Austin, MLA for Skeena.

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

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Bruce Ralston, Surrey-Whalley and Deputy Chair of the committee.

J. Rustad: John Rustad, MLA for Prince George–Omineca.

R. Lee: Richard Lee, MLA for Burnaby North.

J. Yap: Good morning. I'm John Yap, MLA for Richmond-Steveston.

H. Bloy: Good morning. Harry Bloy, MLA for Burquitlam.

R. Hawes (Chair): Not able to join us today is Dave Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead. Dave had an unfortunate accident with his back and is under medical care at the moment.

Joining us today, though, I am pleased to introduce our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd. With us also is Stephanie Hansen, who is manning the registration desk at the back. The staff of Hansard Services are also with us, Michael Baer and Polly Vaughan, who will record and prepare the written transcripts of today's meeting. This is also being broadcast live on the Internet.

With that, I'd like to call on our first presenter. That would be the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C. and Jennifer Charlesworth.

Good morning, and welcome.

[0905]

Presentations

J. Charlesworth: Good morning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for being present in this community to hear from the Federation of Child and Family Services and many colleagues within this community.

My name is Jennifer Charlesworth, and I'm the executive director of the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C. I've been in the child-, youth- and family-serving field for 30 years, and while I don't claim to be an expert…. Don't ever believe that there is such an animal in this sector. It's too complex. I do claim to have a little bit of insight, having worked within the government context and the non-profit and community-based sectors.
[ Page 2010 ]

Today I'd like to provide you with a very brief introduction to the federation, only as a way of setting context for the constituents that we're talking about. I'd like to make you aware of two intertwined issues that I think are important to pay attention to as you draft your budget comments and recommendations, and those are the financial and human resource sustainability of the community services sector in British Columbia.

Given that we only have a short time together, I will be putting out quite a bit of information but basically skimming the surface of the waves. We'll be submitting a written submission that provides you with clear documentation and facts.

Briefly, the federation was established in 1982. That makes us 26 years of age. We are the provincial voice for community-based agencies in the child-, youth- and family-serving area. We have over 120 members. Now, that's not all of the agencies in the province, but it is the majority, and it includes everything from one-staff-person agencies to the largest in the province with over $25 million budgets and hundreds of staff. We're in every region and most communities.

Our core mission is to enable excellence in services to children, youth and families. We do that in traditional ways, like education and training and networking, but we also do it in other creative ways. That includes applied research partnerships with post-secondaries and a number of innovative social entrepreneurships. We are entirely self-financing and do not take any grants from government.

There is a stunning array of services that get delivered in communities, and you know this. You know this from your own community agencies — everything from infant development through to developmental services for vulnerable adults with developmental challenges, from food security in community kitchens to residential treatment programs for some of the most troubled young people in the province.

It's a very broad area. A POLLARA research study that we commissioned with some of our partners indicated that 67 percent of the population has accessed some type of community service within their family over the course of a year — so a lot. Some of that is a drop-in parenting program, and other times it's when families are breaking down and there are very serious vulnerabilities.

As I say, you know these agencies within your communities. What you might not know is that even within our member agencies — and I say that's not all, but it's certainly a majority — it brings over $300 million into the communities. It's a significant investment of government resources. The funding is about 67 percent from government ministries and health authorities, with the remainder coming from federal government and 20 percent coming from community donations.

Sixty percent are accredited, which means they have met international standards of competency. I should note that government isn't accredited, although the Ministry of Children and Families is contemplating that. You can count on the quality of services provided by accredited agencies.

Some 7,000 people are employed just within our member agencies — 7,500 volunteers. Depending on what figure you use, it's about $5 million to $8 million of just volunteer time alone. Clearly, it's a vital segment of our communities, without which the aim of a just and civil society wouldn't be achieved.

This is a sector that you as government invest millions of dollars in, and I know that you are concerned about how wise your investments are. I want to speak to that notion of investment for a moment and talk about sustainability, because there's no point in putting money in if you can't sustain it and keep it vibrant.

Last year I came before the committee, as did four or five of my colleagues around the province, to talk about an issue that we had documented in collaboration with the Ministry of Children and Families about the concern that the non-wage portion of funding — that's the operating, keeping the lights on, keeping things going, keeping food in kids' bellies and that kind of thing — had not been addressed and increased for between three and now 11 years in a number of agencies.

[0910]

I wanted to thank those of you who were on the committee last year, because one of the recommendations you put forward in your committee was that this be taken a look at and given serious thought. That meant a great deal coming from a committee of this stature. Unfortunately, it wasn't addressed in the budget.

So we are back here this year to talk briefly about that but also to talk about an arising impact from that not being attended to, and that is the human resources sustainability.

Before we do that, though, I just want to acknowledge efforts. I always believe in recognizing strengths when we have them. The minister and the chief financial officer for the Ministry of Children and Family Development have tried to work with us. We came up with some stopgap solutions, shall we say, some of which have been helpful. They were able to find small contributions of between $10,000 and $25,000 for our accredited agencies to alleviate the burden of additional administrative requirements that the ministry was setting.

They agreed to take a look at the contracts and see if they could be renegotiated to reflect the additional challenges. Unfortunately, their staffing capacity has prevented them from doing that in many cases, so we're still in the same situation as we were last year. We're also taking a look at trying to figure out ways that we can reduce some of their reporting requirements without compromising quality, but that's still underway.

There's also progress that has been made at a government level with the government non-profit initiative.
[ Page 2011 ]
You might not have heard about that yet, but stay tuned. I believe there will probably be information coming to caucuses in the fairly near future. It's a partnership between senior leaders in the non-profit sector and government, taking a look at the relationship between these parties and really acknowledging what we call the third sector.

You're following and also forging new ground in Canada and building on some excellent work that's been done in other jurisdictions, notably New Zealand and the U.K. on this new initiative.

So we are enthusiastic and supportive, but we've also got our feet on the ground and know that there are some challenges. I wanted to apprise you of those. The basic problem for many agencies, as they say, is between, now, a four- and 11-year period of time in which the non-wage portion — 20 percent of the cost to run organizations and agencies — has not been addressed. That's rent, that's hydro, that's fuel, that's office supplies, and that's telephone — all of those kinds of things.

You know that costs have risen. You know that in your own life and in your businesses and in the sectors that you're involved with. So agencies have had to absorb those costs in other ways. First, they tried to cut costs wherever they could, so things like they've deferred necessary maintenance and capital improvements. They've figured out that maybe they could not provide some cellular coverage to their workers, even when they are out in the field. There's a number of things they've tried to do to reduce costs.

Secondly, they went and tried to figure out how to raise more money. There have been significant efforts made to increase the number of community donations and increase resources being brought in from the federal government and other sources in order to complement.

But they're at the point — and they were at the point last year as well — where they've done the moving around and finessing of the budget that they could do, and they're now looking at withdrawal of direct services. That means that many of the goals that we share and the aspirations that we share aren't going to be able to be fulfilled.

This is also at the same time that many agencies are seeing a change in their client profile. They are more difficult. We're talking not about just kind of a general population — do nice things to kids. We're talking about kids in families with severe issues, what we call co-occurring disorders — mental health, addictions, violence. Very, very difficult scenarios.

It's not a great option to start withdrawing services, as you can appreciate within your own communities. Some of you, I know, are in communities that are struggling a great deal, especially when we start to factor in some of the issues for aboriginal children and families.

Basically, if you imagine two pieces — we've got the agencies, and we've got the staff. What's happened is that the agencies, in struggling to maintain sustainable operations, are having to put more and more pressure on their staff. Staff have been absorbing that and doing more with less, but we've now run into, in this last year, a very significant issue that I wanted to alert you to.

[0915]

What that is, is what we call our labour and skill shortage, and it is looming large. You know that, because there is an awful lot of work that the provincial government and the public service are doing to try and address the recruitment and retention challenges. We only have to go across the Rockies to Alberta to know how bad it can get, where they're actually closing whole institutions and putting kids on the street because they don't have the staff.

We've been trying to address that with a recruitment and retention initiative that we're doing with many of our partners and in collaboration with government. But one of the things I wanted you to be aware of is that in ignoring the sustainability issue, in not figuring out creative ways of addressing that, what we have created is in essence a perfect storm.

The gap between what agencies are able to do to support their staff to do the work and the staff is growing. We've withdrawn clinical supervision, we've withdrawn professional development training, we've asked them to subsidize their vehicles in order to go on outreach visits to families, and we've done a number of things that are adding the stress on.

In this sector, staff are getting an average of $18 an hour. That's with a degree — at least an undergraduate, often a graduate degree. They have continued to work in this field despite getting significantly less than other sectors, because it's meaningful work. But what has happened is we have squeezed it so hard, because agencies are struggling so much, that we are seeing an unprecedented withdrawal of services from staff out of this sector. They're leaving entirely. Our post-secondary recruitment in this field is declining, so we don't have the people coming up.

I'm here to suggest that one of the things I would like you to consider is that the sustainability issue is a critical one to consider if we are going to avoid the looming crisis of human resource sustainability in this province in the community services sector.

I'm not here to say, as I did last year, that we need X million dollars to fix it. Last year I suggested $20 million. If you put a figure to it, it would be higher, obviously. However, what I am here to say is that I would like this carefully considered, and I hope that some of the information that will be coming out of the government non-profit initiative will assist your deliberations as well.

I think, in essence, we need to begin to understand and create a new relationship between the government sector and what I call the third sector, because it's critically important to the well-being of all of our communities.

I know we've got very little time, but I did want to say that I appreciate your time, and I also appreciate that
[ Page 2012 ]
this is a complex issue. Trying to bring in sustainability was tough enough, but now bringing in this other piece adds some complexity to it.

I am open to questions, and if I can help through that or the written submission, I'll do that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much for your submission.

J. Horgan: Thanks, Jennifer. It's good to see you again. I appreciate your diligence in bringing these issues to government through this committee.

I'm wondering. We're in Langford. That has not happened, to my knowledge, before. Could you give us a snapshot of what the impacts on retention of staff and underfunding and escalating costs are having in this region — from, say, here to Sooke or up to Nanaimo?

J. Charlesworth: Yes, definitely. It's one of my favourite areas, because I've been involved with the West Shore Child, Youth and Family Centre and the Sooke Child, Youth and Family Centre.

Essentially what we're seeing is that there is a declining participation in the labour force in this area. For example, if you take the Boys and Girls Clubs, the Sooke Neighbourhood House, Capital Families — all of those agencies within your jurisdiction, John — they are finding that it is difficult to retain staff. They are losing staff, often within a three-to-five-year period of time. They are having great difficulty recruiting new staff, so vacancies will exist for between three and six months.

It becomes more acute in certain areas, in things like occupational therapy and physical therapy and those kinds of therapeutic endeavours; autism; behavioral folks. That becomes more difficult to recruit. Vacancies would be towards the six-month lag. But even with the front-line child and youth workers, they're finding it increasingly difficult to recruit.

What that means is wait-lists increase potentially, or you've got a situation — as they say, the perfect storm — where the fewer workers are trying to do more. They're cutting back on the depth and breadth of services, the number of visits, and probably putting band-aids on as opposed to really dealing with systemic problems.

R. Hawes (Chair): Well, Jennifer, we are out of time, but thank you for your presentation. It's very enlightening. As we did last year, I'm sure we'll be taking a good look at your presentation, so thank you very much.

[0920]

The next presenter is the Victoria Women's Sexual Assault Centre and Makenna Rielly.

Just to the members. After the presentation, if you want to ask a question…. Because of the layout of the table here, it's hard to see us. So if you could just stick your hand out a little bit more so I can see you, that would be a good thing.

Welcome, Makenna. The floor is yours.

M. Rielly: Thank you for time to allow me to present to you today. My name is Makenna Rielly, and I am the executive director speaking on behalf of the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Victoria.

Sexualized violence in B.C., as in the rest of the country, is pervasive and a vastly underreported crime. It has far-reaching effects into the lives of survivors, their communities and the justice, health care and education systems. Sexualized violence affects a vastly disproportionate number of women, girls and other vulnerable populations, demonstrating a prevention and intervention imperative to keep the conversation on the table about safety and security for females and vulnerable people of our society.

For 26 years we have been committed to increasing public understanding of the impacts of sexualized violence and have been working to prevent this violence. In this past year we have accompanied 107 recent assault survivors to hospital and provided support and counselling to over 1,604 individuals. The victim service worker has seen 735 clients. The crisis line has taken 1,168 calls. Our prevention program for youth reached over 1,845 youth and 389 adults.

We receive 47 percent of our million-dollar budget from government contracts from the Ministry of Community Services and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We have established a diversified fund development program and have established partnerships with other agencies in order to provide the needed services. It is from this experience and knowledge that I speak to you today.

We are experiencing some current shortfalls. We are here to request a one-time funding for one FTE for one year. We have a request to help with core funding for Project Respect and Respect Revolution, and we have a request for some assistance with our current moving costs. In your packets you will actually find a briefing of each request and either background detail or even a budget and an expense sheet.

Currently the Women's Sexual Assault Centre has a wait-list of one year for individual counselling services. We are requesting assistance to help clear this list, as our current practices allow us to maintain a balance of women requesting services and will allow us to provide more immediate and responsive service.

Currently adult female survivors of sexualized violence wait one year to receive stopping the violence counselling services in Victoria. Every year approximately 100 women are placed on the list for individual counselling and remain up there for one year due to the backlog of requests for services. This has many costs.
[ Page 2013 ]

The personal cost of the trauma of sexualized violence is one of the most difficult human experiences to navigate. Unresolved trauma manifests in pervasive and extensive wounds to the whole self.

Trauma survivors often struggle with forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships, loss of trust in their own abilities and capacities, a profound feeling of being unsafe in the world, difficulty making self-protective choices, somatic manifestations of sustained stress reactions and sustained central nervous systems or underactivation resulting in mental health problems. Basically, unresolved trauma causes tremendous personal and interpersonal suffering.

The societal costs are just as enormous. There have been two studies in Canada which have estimated the cost of violence against women in terms of social services, educational, criminal justice, labour, health and medical costs. The estimate of three forms of violence against women — sexual assault, women in abusive relationships and child sexual abuse — is $4 billion.

These costs show up in many places: increased emergency department visits; primary health care expenses from long-term somatic and emotional mental health manifestations of trauma; social service, mental health and addiction systems costs; and many more indirect costs that are linked to traumatic experiences.

[0925]

Based on our updated methods of case management, we are able to intake clients at or above the rate at which we currently receive requests for service. However, we currently have a backlog of approximately 70 clients who have been on the wait-list for up to a year. We require funding for a full-time stopping the violence counsellor for the period of one year to allow us to return to a zero wait-list and to provide the kind of immediate-response services that survivors of sexualized violence require.

The second issue that I'd like to address is one of prevention. One of the main definitions of primary prevention is that it works to change the attitudes, values, behaviours and social conditions that allow violence to occur, including poverty, privilege, abuse of power, sexism, racism, discrimination based on ability, victim blaming and the silence surrounding violence.

Project Respect is the Women's Sexual Assault Centre's program aimed at preventing sexualized violence by challenging the factors that lead to this. The program engages youth aged 14 to 19 in a multifaceted program acknowledged as an effective prevention project by the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence, the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses and the B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance and Counselling Programs.

This program has been proven effective with rural and urban youth in school settings and community-based programs. Part of this program engages groups of youth to conduct prevention activities in their schools and communities. The program is currently funded through United Way, gaming proceeds and other small grants. However, we typically need to raise $70,000 through the generosity of individual donors. The budget is included in your briefing packets.

Initial startup funding was provided with the hopes that educational programs in schools would be able to pay a stipend for the training. At this time they cannot afford to make a donation, so we provide the services without reimbursement. To effectively reach large numbers of youth and engage them in preventing sexual violence, some core funding is required. Therefore, we would recommend that ministries provide core funding for ongoing proven prevention projects such as Project Respect.

The third issue that I'd like to address is that we have had an administration shortfall as a result of our moving expenses. When the Vancouver Island Health Authority purchased the St. John building, we were informed that our lease would not be renewed. We appealed to the community for assistance to find a new location, and we found suitable accommodations at the Central Building on View Street. In your information folder you'll find the list of costs that we are currently incurring in our new location.

Although the building owner generously paid for most of the remodel costs, we still incur many expenses, and our rent has been increased by 57 percent. The total cost for our move so far is $68,723.10.

If there are any leftover reserves at the end of the fiscal year or any way that we could have some assistance on these costs, we would request that there be consideration to assist our agency to recover some of the funds lost due to the cost of our recent move.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to share our priorities with you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Makenna.

J. Horgan: I had, after last year's presentation, the opportunity to tour the Pandora facility and get a more detailed tour, and I very much regret that I'm only learning now that you moved.

The $68,000 is an enormous hit for your budget. Is there any thought of going back to the gaming branch or to other existing funders to see if they can contribute significantly to this move? I mean, if it was brought upon by VIHA, I might suggest you go back to VIHA and ask Mr. Waldner if he's got any spare change lying around, because that's a huge hit for you guys.

M. Rielly: It is. The community has responded, and we have received some donations, because there has been some publicity through the media. At the same time, the overall costs, the infrastructure…. Basically, the administration part of our budget…. As the speaker
[ Page 2014 ]
before mentioned, we do attempt to be as frugal as we can. The new cost of the rent, the 57 percent increase, is something that our fundraising will have to focus on.

J. Rustad: I just want to start off by thanking you for your presentation and also for the work that you do. It is critically important work in the community and often goes unrecognized.

[0930]

I actually have a question around the capital costs as well. I'm just wondering if you have gone through and put in requests for a capital gaming grant to help cover off those core costs of the move. The second part is with your general funding. How much is your administration versus the program component — the core costs versus the non-core costs — within your budget?

M. Rielly: Basically, we attempt to keep our administrative costs at 10 to 12 percent, and we're going to have to re-evaluate that with the increase in the rent. I have not gone to Gaming with my presentation yet, but it is definitely a point of contact that we'll have to pursue.

J. Rustad: I'd encourage that, because that's one of the components in Gaming that they try to respond positively to.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about Project Respect. I'm impressed by the content of the program. Where is it offered? It seems as though it's offered through schools or community centres. Maybe you could just talk a little bit more about that. I'm also interested in what the reach of the program is, based on your current funding — whether it's simply Victoria or is it Greater Victoria region or lower Island.

M. Rielly: It is Greater Victoria region. We have one coordinator and two educators, and they contact the schools. Many of the schools now contact us because our reputation has increased. We go into the schools and conduct presentations. The program is Yes Means Yes, and it's a program to address the stereotypes of sexuality. Also, the focus is to make sure that both partners that are engaged sexually, or attracted, are absolutely sure that both people want to be involved.

The presenters go into the students' classrooms. They spend about two hours. They present materials in a way that the students are open to the materials. We find that the program is very successful. We're invited back. We actually do campaigns where the students themselves take the materials and present it to their fellow students. Last year at Victoria High School there was a whole assembly, and the students put on a production for their classmates. It was very well received.

We also want to expand the program. We've gone through the province. We've been invited to other school districts and agencies — educational settings. We're hoping to start more programs to get more teachers on board as ambassadors to the students so that the students, if they are struggling with a question or problem, can talk to that teacher, and that teacher would have the skills to be able to provide the necessary information for the student.

R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. Are there any transition houses you are working with? Also, can you see if there is a possibility of combining some of the counselling services together?

M. Rielly: The transition house and the Mary Manning Centre…. Mary Manning takes the children, anybody under 13, who have experienced sexualized violence. So we make referrals to them if we happen to get a younger person who is giving any details that they are in trouble.

We work with the Men's Trauma Centre, because we do have men contact our agency. So we will refer them to the trauma centre, although our crisis line…. If they need to meet with someone, they are welcome to come into the centre.

Then we do work with women's transition houses as far as…. We do cross-over. Sometimes sexualized violence is related to domestic violence or homelessness, so we do have a relationship with them.

Our counsellors are, basically, highly qualified, and all of them are master levels, and they do work with sexualized violence and trauma. So we have the crisis counselling, and then we also have long-term counselling for sexualized violence.

[0935]

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Makenna. Your presentation is very understandable, so we'll be giving it very good consideration.

M. Rielly: All right. Thank you so much.

R. Hawes (Chair): The next presenter is Barbara Schultz.

Welcome.

B. Schultz: Well, thank you for touring the province and listening to the public as we give our input. Thank you very much.

My name is Barbara Schultz. I'm a mother of four boys — two typical needs teenagers that are 14 and 15 and two special needs boys that are ten and a half and 12 years old.

I'm here today to speak about funding for education both for children that qualify for special education and for the children that are possibly falling through the cracks. These children are considered to be vulnerable,
[ Page 2015 ]
and if they don't get help and support when they are young, they will often fail in life.

The 2007 report on the state of early childhood learning by the Canadian Council on Learning found that more than one in four Canadian children enter school with a learning or behavioral problem that threatens his or her future success. These children that need support and that aren't properly funded grow up being a burden on our society as they drain the social assistance, justice and/or penal systems.

I am presenting as a parent observing what the education system looks like for the children, but I hope to be heard today as the voice for all these children and families that can't be here.

As I explain the key areas where I think funding needs to be in place, I want you to think of funding education as an investment. The government should probably continue to support housing and social issues that are currently existing, but in the end, I think B.C. will have a far richer community by investing in the young now. I truly believe that if we put money into the education system now, in 15 to 20 years we'll have savings in social assistance, in drug and alcohol addiction and in the justice and penal systems.

Currently there are three levels of funding for special education. Level 1 includes dependent handicapped and deaf-blind, where the schools receive supplementary funding of $32,000 per child. Levels 2 and 3, I believe, are grossly underfunded. Currently a level 2 child that is blind or a child that has autism or a child that has a moderate to profound intellectual disability gets only half of the level 1 funding, or $16,000.

The level 3 category is classified as intensive behaviour interventions. I question how this current level of $8,000 is supposed to provide intensive support. These children are described as having extremely destructive behaviours in most environments and behaviours that are consistent and persistent over time.

In order for the education system to fully embrace inclusion, more funds are needed for B.C.'s children with special needs. Special education funding hasn't even been going up with the inflation rate. As a matter of fact, if you look back to almost a decade ago, the province was spending more money on special education than in the current budget. They were spending $422 million versus the $284 million now.

The children qualifying for special education in most cases need one-to-one support to be fully included in the education system. I believe these children should be funded not less than $32,000, and this would mainly provide the staff that would be necessary to support the children.

It would also be prudent to look at increasing funding to include other supports, like the specialized equipment, books, staff training and specialists — like your speech, occupational and physical therapy.

Not all children that are designated with special needs qualify for this supplementary funding. Some special needs children — including those that have learning disabilities, mild intellectual disabilities, students who are gifted or students requiring moderate behaviour support — do not qualify for this supplementary funding. I believe that we need to look at increasing the funds to the basic allocation and to direct this funding for special education to support these special needs of the children.

As we are seeing the education system move towards early intervention by embracing the full-day kindergarten — and we've seen the results of early intensive intervention for children with autism — it's apparent that B.C. should increase funding to properly support our children with special needs at an early age.

Now I'd like to just take a look at the practical applications — what a typical day looks like for our special needs children. One of our children, Bradley, has autism. Children with autism have deficits in social and communication skills. Social interaction is occurring continuously at school. Children are constantly communicating with their peers and teachers, both verbally and non-verbally, all day long.

[0940]

Children with autism spectrum disorders require constant support to ensure that social and communication scenarios are being taught and understood in addition to all the academic requirements. Children with autism typically are unable to transfer this information from one scenario to another. Only upon repeating and structuring this social information are these children able to make sense of the world. This support that children receive at school will stay with them to provide them with the necessary life skills to be successful in life.

I have another example of Bradley at the end of a school day. One day he noticed his shoelace was undone, and of course he stopped. The rule is that shoelaces must be tied up. The only problem was that Bradley stopped right in front of moving cars to do up the shoelace. He didn't realize the imminent danger, but he certainly recognized the rule regarding shoelaces. So you can see how it's so important that they understand the priorities.

Often the diagnosis that children receive does not reflect the amount of special needs these children have. This also falls in line with testing children — or adults, for that matter — not only for their IQ but getting a functional assessment. We have personally seen children struggling in the education system, and it may take years for a child to be assessed or to meet the criteria to get the support.

Possibly the government should look at funding children that are borderline special needs by relaxing some of the guidelines to ensure that these children aren't falling through the cracks, or perhaps increasing funding in education to hire more teachers to lessen the class size, thus enabling the students, even those that are currently
[ Page 2016 ]
struggling in the system, to be able to maximize their potential. Perhaps the government could spend money on recruiting more teachers to educate our children instead of spending money on the salaries of the senior public servants.

Now I'd like to take a look at our other special needs child, Matthew. He has ADHD, requires behavioral supports, has Tourette syndrome and has a mild intellectual disability — an IQ less than 70. A child with all these diagnoses faces numerous challenges in the course of a day.

The mere start of a day is difficult for these kids. Gathering books, water bottle and homework for a day can be hard. This involves planning. First of all they have to think: "How am I going to get this out of the knapsack? Oh, wait a minute. Where is the knapsack? I can't locate my knapsack. Now I'm frustrated." He might burst out, get angry or even hit you. "Oh, now I hear the bell ringing. " Well, there are hundreds of kids storming in. Now this child is on sensory overload, and he hasn't even got into the classroom.

How is the teacher expected to deal with this child for academics and behaviours and at the same time balance that with teaching the other 29 students in her classroom?

The onus on the teacher, I believe, is unrealistic. After hearing about what a child with a mild intellectual disability looks like, it's very difficult to understand how a child with moderate to profound intellectual disability — like at a level 2 — is supposed to achieve and pursue excellence in all aspects of their education if they aren't supported one to one with an assistant. The concern for safety is very real for these children that are at level 2 as well.

The current level of funding of $16,000 does not cover the expenses of a full-time assistant. Children with special needs and with learning disabilities are not able to process information well and, hence, have difficulties in many aspects of their lives. Typically, these children need help academically. Most likely, they need help in organizational skills, prioritizing issues, coping and social skills. These children very often have difficulties making friends. The supports offered to children with learning disabilities may come in the form of 15 minutes three times per week.

I think it is important to increase the funding to education for special needs children and to understand how these children with learning disabilities require help throughout the day for them to learn skills to be successful in life.

Other children that don't qualify for special education supplementary funding are those that require moderate behaviour supports and, by definition, are children that demonstrate behaviours that have a very disruptive effect on the classroom learning environment. Again, I believe this is an unrealistic situation that a classroom teacher is expected to contend with. These children surely need added funding to ensure that all students are receiving their desired educational and social needs.

Often typical classrooms nowadays will have several children with learning disabilities, behavioral challenges and special education children. These children will vary in their learning styles, challenges or deficits and in their individual needs.

[0945]

I believe funding should be increased to support children with special needs, whereby two or three children that are not receiving the supplementary funding are supported by one full-time learning assistant in the classroom. I believe it is too onerous on a classroom teacher who already has this large classroom size, with several special needs children, to effectively teach everyone.

Children qualifying for level 3 support in special education are also of great concern. Firstly, I believe that children who have already qualified under this category have met many of life's misfortunes and challenges. Some of these children are in foster care, may be known to police and possibly exhibit some undesirable conditions. For example, they may have already faced drug or alcohol problems. So I do believe we need to increase their funding as well.

Without properly supporting children with special needs, many are destined for life's failures — possibly unemployment, homelessness, drug or alcohol addiction or even jail time. Until you live with these problems on a daily basis, you may find it difficult to understand how tough life is for the children and our families.

In concluding, I appreciate the time I've had to present to you some of the issues that I'm very passionate about, and I would like to see the budget for 2009 include increasing the funds to special education supplementary funding at the level of $32,000 per child, to be supported 1 to 1, as well as funding for special needs children to be directed from the basic allocation.

This funding should include more specialty staff supports; funds to allow learning assistants at a ratio of 1 to 3; and money for classroom teachers to ensure smaller class sizes, thereby enabling the teachers to facilitate programs for special needs children, as well as all the children, to excel. This funding needs to be increased and then maintained at rates equal to inflation.

If we start taking care of our precious children and educate them with the necessary supports, then we will have people less dependent on social assistance in B.C., and we can be proud to have today's children grow up to become productive members of our community.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Barb. You are right. Those of us who don't live with kids with those disabilities can't put ourselves in your place. I'm sure we all empathize. Your passion is pretty obvious.
[ Page 2017 ]

J. Rustad: Thank you very much for your presentation. I used to be a school trustee for three years, prior to becoming an MLA, so I spent a fair bit of time in discussions around special needs and classroom composition.

Part of the budgetary challenge, of course, is that a component of what was previous funding on special needs is being wrapped into the per-student funding, which is why you see that some of those numbers are different.

But the question I have for you is…. Often one of the challenges we had in the school district was that in the first month or two, or sometimes even longer, of the school year, assessments were done. I'm not talking about for the severe special needs but more for the borderline ones. Every year that process would have to be repeated before the allocation of funding, and that was a fairly lengthy and expensive process.

So I'm just wondering: have you run across that? And if you have, what would your recommendation be with regards to how to, perhaps, streamline that process — get in a position where those resources could be allocated more towards supporting the student in the classroom as opposed to having to go through that assessment process in the first couple of months of each year?

B. Schultz: Yeah. I actually haven't personally had much experience with that, because you can see that the needs of my children…. We actually wound up going through the medical system because, initially, Matthew was thought to have some medical conditions. So we actually wound up getting all of our psychoevaluations and everything via the medical system. So honestly, I haven't had the personal experience.

But I do agree with you, John. I do believe that there has to be more of a concentration on…. Especially when the kids are younger. I don't know, but my understanding is that under about grade 3, possibly these children should just be not so much assessed but have sort of a more relaxed assessment by the teacher. I recognize it's then trusting the individual teachers. I think one formal assessment, yes. But I think that they definitely need to get the support in right away as opposed to spending it on assessing.

J. Horgan: Thanks very much, Barb, for your presentation. My question, and you partly answered it in responding to John…. You initially accessed government through VIHA, you're participating with MCFD, and now the boys are in the education system. So you've got three silos of funding. What do you think about the notion of funding and services following children from the initial assessment right through, rather than having to…?

[0950]

I appreciate that teachers can make those decisions on an individual basis far better than bureaucrats can, when you get into the education system. But before you get there, you're engaging with government at three different spots and having to deal with three different explanations as to why the boys need what they do need, and you know that better than anyone else.

B. Schultz: Agreed. We've obviously had our diagnoses when the kids were younger, but Matthew didn't get diagnosed till just as we were hitting the school point. And that became very difficult, because then it was deemed…. Medically, he obviously needed support, and we were going to eventually start getting it from the MCFD.

I mean, to then have to go through all the rigmarole at the education level is really tough. Yes, it should just be streamlined so that if one has it deemed that they need the support, then it could just carry through. That would be nice.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay, Barb. I want to thank you very, very much for your presentation. You've given us lots of food for thought and maybe some food for making some recommendations.

The next presenter is the British Columbia Construction Association — Manley McLachlan.

Welcome, Manley. You're no stranger to this committee.

M. McLachlan: Right, and happy to be here again.

R. Hawes (Chair): The floor is yours.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You get frequent-flyer points.

M. McLachlan: Great. Again, we're pleased to be here in front of this committee and appreciate the opportunity of participating in this process.

I know that many of you are familiar with our organization. I'm just going to briefly outline who we are. We now represent very nearly 2,000 companies here in British Columbia involved in the construction sector. We've seen significant growth in our membership, and I'm pleased to say that we now are the single largest integrated member association within the Canadian Construction Association. We feel that we've got a very comprehensive grass-roots connection to the industry.

I want to emphasize the fact that we are not a labour relations organization, that our members are all employers. We represent both union and open-shop contractors. In fact, our membership is representative of the industry. About 30 percent of our membership works under a collective agreement. The balance are working in an open-shop environment.

I want to state at the outset that we continue to feel that the economic environment here in British Columbia is a direct result of the excellent fiscal management of this government, and we applaud them for the good work that has been done.

Construction continues to be the most important sector, given the fact that nothing happens until some-
[ Page 2018 ]
thing gets built. Today, with over $168 billion in major projects under construction or in the design phase of this province…. That fact alone emphasizes the importance of the industry.

Just a note. When I was here last year, that number was at $148 billion. So we continue to see, at least over the last year, continued confidence in investment in this province.

Ensuring and enhancing the economic security of our province and ensuring our competitiveness is of primary importance to our members. To that end, I'm going to bring some caution to this table today.

While many in the industry deeply appreciate the business environment that we've enjoyed to date, I think it's more than prudent to consider the signs that have appeared recently on the near horizon. The imposition of the carbon tax and the LEED criteria have many in the industry wondering how best to position their businesses as we embrace climate change initiatives. There is uncertainty as to how the costs associated with those processes, which in many cases are unknown, will impact business.

We've recently seen a number of private sector projects delayed or cancelled — as I say, in recent weeks. We are experiencing, or seeing, a contraction in the immediate demand for some trades. That's despite there being more work on hand at the moment than at any time in recent memory. We are beginning to feel tension and concern where there was none in the past.

Of particular interest in the current construction market is the fact that private sector capital projects, in terms of actual spending, are almost equal to public sector spending. Historically, this relationship is generally in the order of 20 percent private, 80 percent public sector. And we are seeing a shift now away from private sector projects. The shift now by the industry is away from private sector projects to essentially re-engage in the pursuit of public sector projects.

[0955]

Now, we believe this is relevant to government planners on a variety of levels. While this may be good news to some agencies which have seen fewer bidders in the past on their projects, we're anticipating that this renewed interest in public sector projects will create an even larger demand for government to review the ongoing procurement practices of those agencies across the board.

We've stated in the past that we felt government needs to focus on ensuring that public construction is undertaken by its agents and its agencies in a manner that utilizes existing standard construction policies and procedures. Standard practices and procedures translate into good business. At a time of growing demand for and participation in public sector procurement, we find many agencies ill-equipped to manage the rigours of good procurement practices.

Now, coincident with the current state of the construction market and the ongoing demand for capital spending on public sector projects, we have seen — and I think it's acknowledged — a significant downsizing of staff levels in the provincial government. This downsizing and ongoing demographic pressure — i.e., retirements — has resulted in the fact that we have many new and relatively inexperienced people entering the field. Many parts of the provincial public sector are utilizing construction procurement methods, quite frankly, without understanding the ramifications of the individual processes.

Additionally, many agencies have departed from accepted industry practices, forcing bidders in some instances to source bid results through freedom-of-information requests, which add extra costs at all levels while casting doubt on the legitimacy of their processes. There has been a growing trend by public sector buyers to include additional conditions in construction proposal calls and contract documents.

These initiatives have been undertaken with the intention of transferring more risk to the industry. But while a number of these measures may be defensible as good business practice, many others are creating the perception of tilting the playing field, such that some contractors have declined to bid on projects where the conditions are perceived to be onerous or unfair. The unintended consequence of this is that with less competition, prices have been driven up and are putting more pressure on capital project budgets — frankly, delivering less value for money for taxpayers.

The capital asset management framework is a comprehensive document that is intended to provide assistance to public agencies in finding the best capital management practices. The capital asset management framework was introduced in 2002 and contains the following four foundation principles: fairness, openness and transparency; competition; allocation and management of risk; and value for money and protection of the public interest. Those four principles are embedded in industry practices, and we support those principles in every respect.

Industry has been communicating with the provincial government regarding construction procurement issues since the asset management framework was introduced and recently participated in the drafting of the capital procurement audit tool. We have, additionally, been working with the Ministry of Finance in developing a working group to engage in a public-industry approach to addressing ongoing issues.

We would encourage the government to ensure that sufficient resources are available to its ministries to build a consultation framework between government and industry; to create and distribute appropriate procurement tools and sample documents that have been referred to in the asset management framework; to entrench those principles of transparency and fairness,
[ Page 2019 ]
including the use of standard documents; to build an education and training regime for public sector buyers of construction services, including guidelines regarding the circumstances in which to consider various methods of procurement and the required conditions for success; and to empower the Ministry of Finance to enhance oversight of capital spending within the provincial government and the agencies whose projects it funds.

Of note, the recent developments in the United States. Again, we're all experiencing concern and, no doubt, anxiety over the direction that whole issue is going to take and the impact it's going to have here in Canada and B.C.

I think one of the lessons we're all going to learn out of that is that the root cause of the issues in the United States will lie in the lack of oversight. So the emphasis that we're encouraging government is to focus their attention on their oversight capacity and, in fact, their policies around oversight. To that extent, we would also encourage government to review the report that was provided last year by the construction and housing industry advisory committee to the competition council.

[1000]

There were five recommendations made within that report that are all relevant today. I just want to make a quick note on outsourcing. In past years we've focused on recommending the outsourcing in construction services. We're still very much in favour of such action, and we'd like to take this opportunity to stress the need for government to be on the alert against creating arm's-length public agencies or government services that look like a good idea initially but end up competing with unfair advantage against the private sector.

We also would provide continued support of infrastructure development. Continued improvement of infrastructure in our province should remain high on the list of priorities. A very quick note in that regard is that we would urge caution in the application of the P3 model.

While we recognize that the P3 process is one that works for government and the government's needs on major infrastructure projects — and many of our members are deeply involved in those projects — we are seeing a growing dilemma in that we see potential benefit to the P3 delivery projects, but we're concerned about the impact on what we call the local industry.

In that regard, we would encourage the government to address this with Partnerships B.C. to include an evaluation criterion in their process for determining successful concessionaires that rate the proponents' utilization and engagement of local industry. Currently, that's not a consideration.

Additionally, we would recommend caution in the application of the capital standard and resist the bundling of projects to rationalize the use of a P3 in whatever circumstance. We have had some assurance from Partnerships B.C. that we're not about to do that. However, we note in Alberta that they recently bundled 18 schools into a P3. Our concern is at the direct local level, where many small to medium-sized companies at the local level rely on those types of projects to build their companies and expand. When it goes into a P3 envelope, many of those local companies are excluded from the process.

We also want to ensure that we have enough young people entering the trades. We need a strong apprenticeship culture to nurture those new entrants, and we want to note that the construction industry is strongly supportive of the Construction Industry Training Organization, currently established to oversee apprenticeship training to the majority of construction trades, which represent approximately half of all apprentices.

This organization has garnered the support of the entire industry, and it should be well funded by government to ensure the success of the programs and the growth of well-skilled tradespeople.

The Construction Sector Council's most recent report has identified the continued demand for over 50,000 workers that will be required over the next eight years. We can't take our eye off that particular ball. If we do experience some contraction in the industry, we still are going to see some 20,000 people retire from the industry over the next short period of time. Those are our highly skilled, highly productive people who do on-site training, and that is an ongoing and significant concern for us.

Just to wrap up, the industry is complex and intricately tied to our economy, and as such, we believe that our recommendations will assist not only our industry but also the economy in general.

We thank you again for this opportunity to provide these recommendations. I've summarized them in the back of the report. I won't go through them individually. We trust, as we have seen in the past, that this committee does appreciate our input. We trust that if there is further explanation required, that will be pursued, and we would gladly provide that. Thank you.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Manley. I remember your presentation from last year. I wanted you to expand just a little bit on the local content in the P3 process, because I know you've gone out publicly on this as well. It does seem to be, from the tone of your comments, an increasing concern of your members.

Secondly, what's your assessment of the effect of the recent turbulence in capital markets on the ability of some of these global P3 firms to get the necessary financing to initiate projects?

M. McLachlan: Certainly. I don't pretend to be an economist, so my reaction is based on what I read. I think the biggest single issue is going to be access to credit. Clearly, there will be an impact if the credit
[ Page 2020 ]
markets in the U.S., the international credit markets, contract in any way.

[1005]

There is a report as early as this morning saying that interest rates will very likely be adjusted up as high as 10 points. That clearly will have an impact on, I guess, the budget lines and all of the estimates around how these partnerships are put together. I think that will translate at the local level as well, quite frankly. So the biggest impact I think that we need to watch is the impact on availability of credit.

To the first part of your question, as I say, we are in a bit of a dilemma, quite frankly, because we recognize the P3 process as one that's beneficial to government. It is a legitimate and in many instances appropriate approach to long-term funding, a long-term establishment of infrastructure, which we sorely need here in Canada. The concern is around the impact of those projects, and it's primarily around the notion of bundling, if you will. The impact that those projects have at the local level….

Many companies have strong bonding capability and financial capability, but they simply don't have the resources to cover what we call the pursuit cost. The concern that's emerging now that more and more companies are looking to the public sector for their project opportunities…. The question is: have we got an adequate way to address the local industry in projects that appear at the local level?

For instance, a school that's being put into any community…. Typically, those projects have been the bread and butter — the growth factors, if you will — for contractors in that community. The very nature of the P3 project indicates that you've got to get in early, you've got to be a part of the process, and you've got to be there over the term of the project — which, quite frankly, challenges the capacity of many companies.

Our suggestion is relatively simple. The one criteria factor, when proponents are responding to a P3, could easily be the inclusion of: how are you engaging that local industry? In other words, what's your approach to local industry? How are you going to engage the local contractors?

Our understanding is that…. Well, we know that's just not part of the process to date, and we think it could accommodate some of the concerns.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thanks, Manley. I know John has something, but we're out of time, so he's going to ask you a quick question and ask you to submit it in writing.

J. Rustad: Yeah, and if you could respond in writing, that would be great.

Because of some of the challenges financially that we're facing, some of the uncertainty, I'm concerned about debt-to-GDP levels and debt reduction as well as capital spending. What I'd like is a response from you with regards to what you see in our debt-to-GDP levels. Do you think we should consider raising that, or do you think we should hold the course — and how that may impact in terms of capital spending?

M. McLachlan: Okay, I can get that back to the committee.

J. Rustad: That would be great.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thanks very much, Manley.

The next presenter is the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association — Deryk Norton, Harvey Williams and Felicia Oliver.

Welcome.

D. Norton: I'm Deryk Norton, a board member with the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, charged with the responsibility of looking at legislation and government relations issues. To my immediate right is Felicia Oliver, the current president of our association, and to her right is Harvey Williams, the past president of our association.

Our association has about 6,000 strata owner members on Vancouver Island, and it's an all-volunteer board. Our association has been around since about 1973, almost as long as we've had condos in the province. We have provided a lot of education programs and information services to our membership. In the course of doing so, we have heard about a number of limitations of our current strata legislation that concern us — so much so that we prepared a discussion paper earlier this year which we made widely available to all strata owners in the province, mainly Vancouver Island but elsewhere as well.

[1010]

We had a series of public meetings in response to that and, as a result, developed a report, which is attached to this letter. I'm not going to go through it, but it's there for your information. That report carries the title Beyond the Sales Pitch: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability in B.C Strata Developments. It's been out there in the public domain for about five months.

The reason we're here today is because this committee is hearing from various members of the public about input for the next provincial budget, Budget 2009. We just wanted to relate concerns in that report to the provincial budget.

We find that the previous speaker was a fairly appropriate lead-in to the first line of the letter that is before you, and that is: "As the B.C. economy continues to grow and more housing is added" — as a result of the construction boom we've been experiencing in recent years — "an increasing proportion of that housing is strata housing." It contributes a considerable amount of money to the tax base of the province through the property transfer tax and other taxes.
[ Page 2021 ]

You may be aware already that there are over 460,000 strata units in the province, and they represent about a quarter of all taxable properties. In the Lower Mainland it's about half of all taxable properties, as it is in the city of Victoria. We estimate that there are probably 600,000 voters living in strata units in the province.

In the course of doing that report we were reminded of a government commitment that was made in November 2003, and that was to review the Strata Property Act. That commitment was made by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Gary Collins. We were also reminded that that commitment has yet to be fulfilled by the present government.

It's almost five years since that commitment was made and ten years now since the Strata Property Act was updated. Even though there's been a considerable amount of experience over ten years, particularly with the many new construction developments we've had in the province, there hasn't been any change of any significance to the Strata Property Act.

Other provinces, such as Ontario and Alberta, have moved ahead and made significant amendments to theirs, but we remain with what we had as a result of the legislation that was passed in 1998 and brought into effect a couple of years later.

Concerns we've highlighted here in this letter are about the current legislation. These relate to the lack of transparency and accountability, including a lack of any requirement to ensure that the financial position of the strata corporation and the condition of its common property are accurately disclosed to owners and purchasers; the lack of a publicly available authoritative source of legislation interpretation to enable strata owners to operate their strata corporations according to law; dispute resolution mechanisms that are basically inaccessible, too expensive, too complicated and too uncertain as to the processes for the average strata owner, without the help of a major law firm, to work his way through.

There are also concerns about the lack of prosecution of developers operating contrary to law and pitifully low standards for licensing and discipline of strata property agents. There were regulations brought into effect in January 2006 requiring strata property agents to all be licensed. Basically what they have, though, is that as long as the agent files the proper financial reports and keeps his hand out of the till, it's okay with the Real Estate Council of B.C.

There is no code of ethics, and there are all kinds of issues. I get an e-mail a day now on this stuff. One of the main issues that keep coming up is the conduct of the strata property agent. We don't have any code of ethics or conduct for them.

The current Minister of Finance has implied that a review of one issue, dispute resolution, may be imminent. He did that in a letter to our association a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, a review restricted to dispute resolution would treat only the symptom rather than the disease. In our consultations with strata owners and other strata owner associations, it was very clear that many disputes arise because of serious legislation deficiencies.

[1015]

Better legislation could provide dispute prevention, where there would be much less need for dispute resolution. For example, better legislation could provide for a higher licensing standard for strata property agents whose incompetence or unethical conduct is a direct cause of many disputes among strata owners. A review that is narrowly focused on strata resolution would come nowhere close to meeting the needs of strata owners.

The reason we're before this committee regarding budget is that we propose that Budget 2009 include the resources needed for a major and public review of the strata legislation.

We believe there should be such a review to focus on producing legislation and regulations that protect the interests of strata owners. By public, we mean that there should be a meaningful opportunity for strata owners to provide input before any bill is drafted and to react to a bill before it is passed by the Legislature.

By major, we mean a review that has adequate time, advisers and other resources to hear from strata owners across the province and to develop detailed recommendations to improve the Strata Property Act, the Real Estate Services Act, the Real Estate Development Marketing Act and the regulations under these statutes. We propose again that Budget 2009 include such resources needed for such a review.

R. Hawes (Chair): Well, thank you very much. Just glimpsing through your report, it's pretty clear you've done a tremendous amount of work here. I happen to live in a strata complex, so I'm kind of on side with a lot of what you're saying.

D. Thorne: Thank you, Deryk, and the rest of your group, for your presentation. Some of us — in fact, probably most of us at the table — have met with you before and so are aware of these issues and the report, which is fantastic.

I congratulate you on the editorial that was in The Province either this past weekend or the weekend before, which referred to your report and certainly seemed to indicate agreement with what you've been saying in here.

I'm wondering right now…. I know the background of this, so I'm just interested in this particular line. You say here that the current Minister of Finance has implied that a review may be imminent. You mean Minister Hansen, the new Minister of Finance?

D. Norton: Yes.
[ Page 2022 ]

D. Thorne: Can I just ask you to update the committee on that — any discussion you've had with Minister Hansen, and what kind of indication he's given and how imminent do you mean, actually?

D. Norton: Well, in a letter back in early July…. We haven't had any discussions face to face with the minister. They don't seem to be accessible to us, quite frankly. But in correspondence, in his response to our concerns, he did imply that there may be some review of the dispute resolution provisions of the legislation in the offing, without being specific about it in terms of the scope or the timing of that review.

Our concern is, as I said, that to narrowly focus amendments on dispute resolution would be treating the symptom rather than the disease.

D. Thorne: The letter that he was responding to from you had a broader request…

D. Norton: Oh, it did, yes.

D. Thorne: …but the answer from the minister was narrowed down to dispute resolution but did not indicate any time line.

D. Norton: That's right. He didn't rule out things beyond that, but the way it was worded sounded like that's the only thing they had in mind at the moment.

D. Thorne: Okay, so it was more of a general answer.

D. Norton: Yes.

R. Lee: Thank you for your presentation. You identified quite a few — I think up to five — major areas that need some improvement. Have you put forward your own ideas on what kind of improvement would be necessary for the betterment of the strata owners?

D. Norton: Yes, Mr. Lee, we have. I realize you may not have seen it previously, but in that attached report there are some proposed solutions for a number of these issues. We don't claim to have the…. We consulted widely with strata owners on Vancouver Island where we have our membership base and included people whether they're members or not. We heard from them on the issues and some proposed solutions.

[1020]

We also consulted with some associations in the Lower Mainland such as the Canadian Condominium Institute, Vancouver chapter, and the Pacific Condo Association in the Surrey–White Rock area. They share a lot of these concerns. They've heard them from their members as well.

But we don't claim to have a monopoly on the proposed solutions. We have ours. There may be better ones, and I'm sure there are more than the 30 issues we identified from our public meetings. There's probably one in every second section of the legislation, and there are about 260 sections.

That's why we think it needs to have a major review and a major overhaul, but we do have some specific suggestions which you'll see in that report. If you go through issue by issue, we put proposed solutions in there for each one. It could well be that there are better ones than we have.

R. Lee: But are there any major conflicts between the developers and your proposal?

D. Norton: Well, I think one of the problems is that under the current…. Real estate development, since you mentioned developers…. Under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, if the developer is involved in fraudulent misrepresentation to a purchaser, it's left up to the empty-pocketed purchaser to sue the deep-pocketed developer regarding that misrepresentation.

The superintendent of real estate doesn't consider themselves empowered to do so. Perhaps they should be, but there may be other ways of dealing with it as well, through changes in other pieces of legislation. That's an example where there is conflict between strata owners and developers.

There are a lot of areas here where there's actually harmony between the interest of strata owners and other parties in the real estate industry. For example, realtors don't like to be named in lawsuits. If something goes bad on a real estate deal, if there's something that wasn't disclosed that the buyer's lawyer thinks should be, he'll name the realtor along with a whole bunch of other parties.

We're thinking there's probably an interest in realtors improving the disclosure provisions in the legislation, just as there's an interest in the owners and the buyers having improved disclosure. We see there are some areas of common ground, but we think there's an area where we don't find that the real estate….

The realtors are the appropriate body — the Real Estate Council, which is essentially a governing body of realtors and maybe four public members basically deciding on the standards and the enforcement of the standards of strata property agents.

We think there should be some other agency — for example, the Homeowner Protection Office — that could do a better job. It would be more independent of the real estate industry and would have more credibility with strata owners than the Real Estate Council currently does under its rather narrow standards for enforcement of strata property agent licensing.

R. Hawes (Chair): I have a quick observation. When you mentioned the empty-pocketed strata owner versus the deep-pocketed developer, I think one of the big
[ Page 2023 ]
problems probably is that sometimes you're dealing with the empty-pocketed developer who has maybe lost money on his project. That may cause some difficulty in some cases.

D. Norton: In cases brought to my attention, it's not the empty-pocketed developer. He's got the money, and running.

R. Hawes (Chair): My question would be…. You've mentioned several regional associations. I don't think there is any overarching provincial strata owners association. Would that be correct? A body where all of the strata owner associations kind of put your collective thoughts together in a provincial organization.

D. Norton: There hasn't been an overarching umbrella body that has worked on this to come forward to government. We did put out feelers for an organization called the Condominium Homeowners Association to dialogue with us on the subject. They didn't appear interested.

However, the Canadian Condominium Institute, Vancouver chapter, and the Pacific Condo Association were, so we've been working with them.

[1025]

There is an organization that has carried the name the B.C. Strata Home Owners Association, but it's just in the formative stages, and it's very focused at the present time on the issue of the strata property agents and the need for more oversight and discipline — that part of the problem.

The reason we come to government is that government passed the legislation that set up strata property law in the first place, and we don't think it comes anywhere near to providing the consumer protection that's needed for the strata owners. This is a direction we're heading. More and more homeowners are going to be in strata properties, and we need to make these situations more livable, where these issues come up that I've described to you.

R. Hawes (Chair): Well, I want to thank you very much for your obviously very thoughtful and work-intensive presentation. You've obviously put many hours into this. I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but I'd be very surprised if something doesn't find its way into our recommendations. So thank you very much for your presentation.

Next we have the Victoria Real Estate Board — Tony Joe and Jim Bennett.

Good morning, Tony and Jim. Welcome.

T. Joe: Good morning. Thank you for having us. My name is Tony Joe. I am the president of the Victoria Real Estate Board. Beside me is Jim Bennett, who is our government relations coordinator and staff member at the Victoria Real Estate Board.

I would like to begin by saying that the Victoria Real Estate Board very much appreciates the opportunity to meet with this committee in advance of the next provincial budget. Like many others in the business community, realtors are generally pleased with the government's fiscal performance in their second term. We are particularly pleased with some of the newer programs and directions from the Minister of Environment and some of the housing initiatives introduced by the Minister of Social Development.

While our presentation this year focuses on both of these areas, no presentation on behalf of homebuyers in this province would be complete without a short reference to a revenue item known as the property transfer tax. So you'll also hear about our thoughts on this again this year.

First, though, I'd like to begin with some straight talk about the Victoria housing market. The statistics for September were released just yesterday. While it is true that the average price for single-family homes in greater Victoria adjusted from $584,000 in September of 2007 to just over $549,000 last month, we would like to make the following points, which have been emphasized through our own communications for several months now.

First of all, there's been much talk in the media about a downturn in the housing market, and while it is true that the number of sales has declined substantially this year and the number of properties available for sale has risen, overall prices have remained remarkably robust. This is a testament to the strength of the Victoria area and the Victoria real estate market.

It's also important to realize that comparisons with last year's market should be viewed with caution, given that 2007 was an exceptional year. The number of sales was up, and the number of listings was down. With this in mind, an examination of the median price, rather than the average, can often offer a more reliable benchmark.

Last month the median price for single-family homes in our market was $500,000, down just $20,000 from September of last year. There were 512 sales of all kinds last month compared to 632 in September 2007, so we're down about 20 percent. For comparison, there were 459 sales in September 1998. Last month the total number of properties available for sale stood at 4,754 compared to 4,147, again, in September 1998. Our main point here is that in 1998 nobody was panicking. We felt that the market was good, and the similar figures for sales and inventory demonstrate that.

In attachment 1 to our submission you'll find that prices today vary throughout our region, depending on community and sometimes distance of commute from the downtown core.

[1030]

I'm going to move on to helping homeowners deal with climate change. Last year our British Columbia Real Estate Association lobbied for the introduction of a
[ Page 2024 ]
provincial water action plan and more funding for flood management and protection in the Lower Mainland. As a result, Victoria-area realtors were particularly pleased to see, in Living Water Smart, the resulting water plan, that British Columbia will lead a voluntary water efficiency labelling system for water-consuming products. We include the family home in the definition of product.

To take this one step further, we would request funding in the next budget for the Ministry of Environment to launch a pilot project to label the energy efficiency of a private home. In California it's the law. The energy efficiency of a home must be disclosed at the time of sale. It's the same in New Zealand, and England is heading in a similar direction.

This isn't just rhetoric for a presentation. I'm pleased to report that the Victoria Real Estate Board went green in a big way this year. The first thing we did at the end of last year was that the board of directors struck a green task force.

We ordered an energy assessment of our own 18,000-​square-foot commercial building. We committed to an on-line course for realtors on home energy consumption, and they receive a certificate when it is complete. We launched a green newsletter for our 1,300 members.

I personally, as the president of our organization, went on local radio to promote government initiatives for retrofitting the family home. I also took the opportunity to have an energy audit, an assessment, done of my own home, as we wanted to learn what the process was like so we could advise consumers as to how this all works. We're planning a media tour to cover this process, and from there we want to share our findings and our learnings with the rest of our membership.

We toured sustainable building sites like Westhills here in Langford and Aquattro in Colwood that are making great use of geothermal technologies, and we met with Dockside Green, also in Victoria. These are high-profile developments on the world scale right now.

Later this year we'll be offering home purchasers a kit on how to take advantage of the energy retrofit initiatives available through LiveSmart B.C., and we're ready for the next step. That is to take on a pilot program for labelling homes regarding energy efficiency, if this committee will make the recommendation to fund it.

Our second recommendation to the select standing committee is to advise the Minister of Finance to go further with initiatives for energy retrofits of existing residential stock. We suggest you do not focus all initiatives on new homes only — as new homes only really represent one percent of the total housing stock — but do more for older existing homes, where there will be more significant energy savings from proper conservation measures.

Housing measures. We're going to turn to housing now. At the Victoria Real Estate Board we operate in the community by five quality-of-life principles. One of these principles is that we support housing for all in the community.

Some of the things we've done include supporting the legalization of secondary suites whenever a local government is reviewing that issue, and arguing for local and federal action incentives for the construction of rental accommodation. In greater Victoria it is generally true that we haven't seen a new rental unit built in some 25 years now. We've commissioned research on the special housing needs of women, and we've taken a very active role in the search for housing for our homeless population.

First, we would like to state that in order to make progress on the above topics, we work closely with B.C. Housing, and we think it important to recognize them and thank them for their attention to housing needs in our community. But they need more help from the provincial treasury.

Our housing recommendations this year include a plea for more rent supplements. In more than 50 instances in 2008, B.C. Housing has come to the rescue in greater Victoria and topped up the income assistance shelter allowances with additional funds so that homeless individuals could be offered accommodation at closer to market rents. We believe more funding in this program needs to be made available.

Secondly, we feel that the whole question of housing the mentally ill in our communities needs more attention in the coming fiscal year. Instead of delaying meaningful action at the local level by requiring health authorities to shuffle available funds and go annually to the Ministry of Health on bended knee, pleading for more support in the area, the next provincial government should provide and dedicate a funding envelope with an increased dollar amount for this segment of the homeless population.

[1035]

Thirdly, somehow a task force should be funded by the Minister of Finance in the next budget to review how to provide new incentives for young people to own their own home in British Columbia.

In closing, I mentioned at the beginning of our presentation that we would like to share some further thoughts with you regarding the property transfer tax. Last year the Minister of Finance took $1 billion out of the pockets of homebuyers through the property transfer tax, a tax that is the worst in Canada.

The tax formula is 1 percent on the first $200,000 of purchase price and 2 percent on the balance. It has been that way since the tax was introduced in 1987. At that time, of course, the average sale price of a home was about $70,000. I'm not quite sure anyone really thought that the prices would exceed $200,000, which is what that tax formula was based on.

We strongly urge you to pay particular attention to the forthcoming presentations from the British Columbia
[ Page 2025 ]
Real Estate Association, the Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and other real estate boards. They will be asking you to recommend a change in this formula that would see the 1 percent threshold raised from the current $200,000.

Thank you. Is there time for any questions?

R. Hawes (Chair): There is.

J. Rustad: Thank you very much for your presentation and, in particular, some of the issues that you focused on. I want to be fairly quick, because I know other people want to ask some questions.

With regards to the property transfer tax, some of the challenges that we're seeing with the economy leave some uncertainty. We've got to be careful in terms of our budget side of things. Do you believe that reducing property transfer tax is the most efficient way to be able to help taxpayers?

I'm a supporter of tax reductions. But for example, if the property transfer tax were to be eliminated, that's a billion dollars in revenue that government would have to make up somewhere else. If they were to be looking at doing something like that, would it be better, from an economic perspective and perhaps in terms of allowing people to be able to afford housing, to be looking at that kind of reduction on income taxes as opposed to the property transfer tax?

T. Joe: In regards to the property transfer tax itself, one of the things that consumers do tell us is that a reduction — or, obviously, a lot of people hope it would be eliminated — of the property transfer tax would help them with the purchase of their home. Not only that, but they'd be able to also purchase other things with the sale.

We do know that every house transfer creates about $23,000 worth of commerce in the community, whether it be furniture, upgrades, trades or whatnot. These are items that are naturally taxed, both federally and provincially, anyways.

Yes, we do feel that it will stimulate the marketplace and bring more dollars into the community as well, as a result.

J. Horgan: Thanks very much, Tony, for the presentation. I want to commend the board for its leadership on homelessness and social housing in Victoria and environs over the past number of years. I'm hopeful that your enthusiasm for climate change will have the same vigour.

That leads me to my question. On southern Vancouver Island, and in fact all across Vancouver Island, there's a dependence on electric heating. I'm wondering if your members, in highlighting the environmental advantages of electric heat over oil or gas heat, are finding, with increased costs and two-tiered rate structures, that they've had to amend their spiel when they're trying to move a home.

How do you deal with the preponderance of clean, green electricity being used on the Island now being priced to about the same point as we'd find for natural gas?

J. Bennett: It sounds like a question we should take a pass on.

We are working on this kit for purchasers. We haven't done this before, but it will be an energy conservation kit, which we're going to ask all of our members to distribute to purchasers one by one when they come forward to do a house transaction in the coming months.

Whether or not that kit will include advice on hydro rates, I'm not sure. If Hydro put something out on the conservation issue with respect to how you can save by using fewer kilowatt hours — I don't think this is where you were going with your question, John, but it's the answer you're getting — I think we would put that information in our package.

R. Lee: Thank you for your presentation. You raised the question that there has been no construction for rental accommodations in 25 years in Victoria. I think it's similar in other parts of the province.

[1040]

Some actually think that the Residential Tenancy Act has prevented investment in the rental market. What do you think? What's your idea? I mean, to get the rental market up again in B.C., construction of rental units….

T. Joe: This might be a two-pronged answer — Jim and I.

Obviously, the difficulty that we've seen in our marketplace, and it would be true in others as well, is that developers simply choose to build market condominiums where they can profit as opposed to provide rental properties.

We would like to see some incentives at all levels for people to build rental housing, because right now it appears there is basically a disincentive for developers to do so, which is the reason why we're seeing more market condominiums.

J. Bennett: I'll just add to that, saying, Richard, that I also chair the capital regional district housing action team. The board loans me to that position and has been doing so for the last few months.

I have spoken to two developers in the last two weeks who have told me directly that it's just to the point where they have difficulty making a profit on building a condominium in our marketplace. So they have stayed away from rental construction, because the spread in the profit capability of building strata units has been too significant.
[ Page 2026 ]

With the marketplace changes, costs rising, they are beginning to have a serious look at building rental units again. But the reason we put the reference in our presentation was because the developers have not yet firmly decided to do this on southern Vancouver Island. They're close. They need help from the province and from local government, I think, to make the final decision.

The more the province can do to encourage local government to remove some of their current regulations or to waive them, especially if these rental units might be below market…. Those are the kinds of incentives that I think we all need to be talking about.

R. Hawes (Chair): We're pretty much out of time. I have one I would just like to ask you about, and maybe you could, if you so choose, send some kind of a submission to us.

I'm working with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board on something to do about grow ops that have been taken down and repaired by the owner or whatever, thrown on the market. Realtors, of course, from their disclosure, often don't know. Unsuspecting buyers are buying homes that may have wiring problems buried in the walls or structural changes or all kinds of things. There are thousands of grow ops that have been taken down, and there's no record of them anywhere.

I know they're talking about a system of registration so that you'll at least know if you're buying a home that's been a grow op and a system of ensuring that those grow ops are rehabilitated and inspected and put back on the market, and the buyer can be assured that they're sound.

I don't know whether you have that problem here. I'd be very interested in hearing from you later if that problem exists and if you see a solution.

T. Joe: Thankfully, we've seen very few instances of such difficulties with transactions at our real estate board recently, although we don't doubt that this will exist and will rear its ugly head at some point. But absolutely, we'll chat about this a little more and get in touch with you.

R. Hawes (Chair): Good presentation. Thanks.

Next we have the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce — Shannon Renault and Bruce Carter.

While we are very concerned about carbon footprint in dragging you all the way from Victoria here, MLA Horgan has assured us that the drive, actually, is carbon-neutral.

B. Carter: We would have ridden our bikes if there was no rain.

J. Horgan: I'm sure Bruce rode his cycle.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): A further argument for the train connection, I'm sure.

S. Renault: I'm Shannon Renault. I do policy development and communications with the chamber, and of course, Bruce is our CEO. Thank you for including us in the budgeting process this morning.

[1045]

The greater Victoria chamber is the oldest business organization in the capital region, the second-largest in the province. We have over 1,550 business members representing 22,000 employees in our region, and we're happy to represent the voice of business on their behalf today.

Our presentation will focus on economic and tax recommendations, economic development and initiatives to address the areas of crime and public safety as a business concern.

First off, on the tax folio. With the introduction of the carbon tax, both personal and business taxes were immediately reduced, and there will be a further reduction of 5 percent to the personal income taxes on the first $70,000 of earnings in January of next year. This means that British Columbians will pay the lowest personal taxes of all Canadians for individuals earning up to $111,000. However, British Columbia could be more competitive at the higher end of the wage earnings scale.

High-income earners are often more mobile and sought-after skilled professionals that we need in British Columbia and, indeed, in Canada. Yet these same earners enjoy far more competitive tax rates in the United States where, we might add, they can now buy houses more affordably as well.

We are in a time when all competitive factors must be considered in our province's quest to attract and retain the best talent available. In the U.S. the highest tax margin applies on incomes over $300,000. In British Columbia the highest tax margin applies on incomes over $97,636, and equally as troubling is the fact that the highest income bracket in British Columbia is 4.7 percentage points higher than in Alberta. We could, and we should, be positioning our province as a much better location for highly skilled labour.

Our recommendation in Budget 2009 is to introduce reductions to the highest tax bracket and that those reductions continue to be examined in subsequent years. The provincial government should also increase the threshold at which the highest provincial tax bracket is reached.

The carbon tax. The provincial government introduced the carbon tax in the 2008 budget as a means of addressing the pressing issue of climate change. The business community is concerned as to how the tax will impact on different sectors. Nonetheless, we support the goal of the provincial government to deal with the issue of climate change in a real way, calling for changes in behaviour for both residents and businesses and inspiring innovation in technological advances. Yet the recent upheaval in the economic base of the United States has
[ Page 2027 ]
raised a number of concerns about the ripple effects in our own economy.

This time of economic uncertainty may not be the most propitious timing for furthering the goals of the carbon tax regime. We recommend that the provincial government proceed with caution with further implementation of the carbon tax and, prior to the next steps of implementation, conduct a program evaluation to ensure that the sought-after changes in behaviour are indeed occurring as a result of the tax.

Let's talk property transfer tax. Though this is a significant source of revenue for the provincial government, the property transfer tax is an onerous expense on homebuyers and one factor in the high cost of living, in urban centres particularly, across the province.

The cost of housing is the major consideration as companies compete for labour with other provinces. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan, provinces that also have healthy economies and with which we compete directly for labour, do not have a property transfer tax and enjoy a significant competitive advantage in the pursuit of talent.

The chamber acknowledges the changes that have recently been made to the tax, specifically the exemption of the PTT for first-time homebuyers on values up to $375,000. However, given that the average price of property in urban centres is well beyond that threshold, the change does not benefit the majority of buyers and does not assist in making the relocation package to British Columbia employment opportunities as attractive as it could be.

Many groups, as you've heard from our colleagues, are calling for a revision of the property transfer tax. We have specific recommendations, and they are as follows.

We would like the property tax to be amended to charge the 1 percent on the first $375,000 of the purchase price and have the 2 percent tier kick in thereafter.

We would like to see the province create legislation linking those 1 and 2 percent tiers directly to the first-time-buyer exemption level, so if that exemption level goes up, so does the shift in the 1 and 2 percent tier. We would like you to ensure that move-up buyers within our market are required to pay property transfer tax only on the difference between the selling price of their current home and the purchase price of their next home, based on the threshold of the 1 and 2 percent tax tiers.

[1050]

Okay, let's talk about economic development. Hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics is something that our tourism industry and many residents have been celebrating ever since the successful bid announcement. Now with the Olympics right around the corner, it's important to focus on the post-Olympic market capitalization.

As with any business, it takes money to make money. In order to receive long-term tourism benefits from the Olympics, and in pursuit of the goal of doubling tourism revenues by 2015, it is vitally important that the province increase its marketing efforts for tourism locations around the province. Our recommendation is an increase in the tourism marketing budget allocation to Tourism British Columbia and to regional marketing agencies to better capitalize on post-Olympic opportunities.

Economic development right here in our capital region. The provincial government supports economic development funding targeting every sector and every region in the province, with the exception of greater Victoria and the Lower Mainland. These exceptions, we believe, are based on the fact that these two areas have a significant enough population to be able to self-fund economic development efforts.

However, the capital region's overall population of approximately 340,000 is divided amongst a number of municipalities, as we know, which do not individually have the resources to adequately fund economic development. Indeed, many of them don't participate in economic development at all.

The Greater Victoria Development Agency is an industry-led organization. It was formed in early 2007 to address economic development in our region. The agency is currently funded by the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce and by the municipalities of Victoria and Saanich. The agency has received project funding from western diversification, as well as project funding from the provincial Ministry of Economic Development, which contributed $75,000 over three years for projects specific to marketing our region.

The support of the provincial government is appreciated and is being used to help develop a sustainable industry cluster. We would encourage the provincial government to increase their support to economic development in the capital region. Specifically, we'd like to see the provincial government double its funding to the Greater Victoria Development Agency to $150,000 over three years.

Crime and public safety, as our last topic. Petty crime is a high cost to business, with a number of businesses in urban centres experiencing consistent break and enters and a number of businesses having to hire their own security guards and services to deal with street issues related to drug addiction, mental health and homelessness. It's important to deal with the myriad of social issues that lead to what we see evidenced on our streets. It is also important to deal with the criminal issues that can be dealt with through minor adjustments to our current system.

Recently the provincial government has supported the introduction of the con air program in Vancouver, which was a program championed by our colleagues at the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Vancouver police department. With funding of $40,000 from the Solicitor General and upon arrest for B.C. infractions, the Vancouver police have been able to return a number of criminals to their home provinces to face outstanding charges there.
[ Page 2028 ]

These criminals had fled their own jurisdictions, as the crimes that they had committed at home were not deemed important enough for their provinces to bring them back for prosecution. They fled on what are termed non-returnable warrants, but now, as a result of the new con air program, they are being sent home, relieving Vancouver's streets of a number of prolific offenders.

The Solicitor General has now given $10,000 to the Victoria police department for its own program. Here we have returned close to half a dozen offenders, one of whom had close to 200 contacts with local police.

The con air program is an excellent program initiated by the business community, and it is sure to save tax dollars and time in our system. The chamber recommends that the provincial government extend the con air program to a provincewide operation and fund it more robustly in Budget 2009.

Finally, the community court in Vancouver is a second welcomed introduction in the compendium of tools available to deal with crime and to improve public safety. The community court is functioning and will provide offenders in street-level crime an opportunity, if they plead guilty, to deal with offences through a variety of social service interventions and by participating in community service. The system is far more effective, as it functions in a more immediate manner than does the regular court system.

[1055]

Our recommendation on this matter is that the provincial government expand this beneficial program to the benefit of Vancouver Island, as well as the interior of B.C. and other areas, with budget allocation for new judicial service delivery as well as the supporting social service and health care funding required to support the system in Budget 2009.

I thank you for your time and attention, and we're happy to take questions.

B. Carter: Just before we take questions, one of the things I wanted to add is that since this has been written, in economic development we've actually received additional funding from both the Real Estate Board and Queensbury properties as part of a process of getting industry to participate in funding economic development. We're just looking now for the province to continue to partner as part of that.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Shannon and Bruce, for your presentation. You cover a number of areas.

I'd like to talk about one that you didn't touch upon in your presentation but that I'm sure your members will have an interest in, and that's the increased costs of ferry transportation over the past number of months and an announcement this week that ferry service is going to be curtailed on certain days to try and save costs for the corporation.

What are your members saying about the transportation challenges that lead to our tourism sector, any manufacturing sector activity that we have and the sporadic nature of cancelling sailings to save a couple of bucks? What's that going to do to your members?

B. Carter: I think you've asked two questions, to be quite honest, John. One of them is what our members are thinking about the cost of transportation. They're scared to death. Everyone is concerned about what it's costing to land products in the province and on the Island in particular. Fuel costs are certainly an important part of that, regardless of the mode of transport. I think the biggest concern around B.C. Ferries is falling passenger counts, which is what has led to this reduction in service.

We're looking at that. We haven't come up with a policy position. I think it's safe to say that we're concerned, and we want to talk to B.C. Ferries about that. I was also surprised, to be quite honest, that there wasn't a little bit of consultation with the business community prior to seeing that announcement this morning.

So there's been a lot of discussion at our board table about that, and certainly it's a very new issue to us and one that we hadn't seen coming.

J. Rustad: Thank you for your presentation. When you're talking about tax competitiveness and that side of issues, I guess what I would like to know from you is: if we are looking at any further tax reductions or opportunities for tax reductions, would your preference…? How would you like to see that balanced between personal and business?

In the past it's tried to be balanced through the carbon tax, through the tax reductions that have been funded through that from a revenue-neutrality perspective by the government. How would you like to see balancing, if additional reductions are available in our budget?

B. Carter: Once again, a couple of interesting questions. Certainly, the reductions in the personal tax were at the right place, based on where the costs are being passed on, on the carbon tax. We don't question that at all. I guess where we're a bit challenged is we're trying to figure out revenue neutrality, and from the government's perspective it would appear to be revenue-neutral. I'm not sure that from the consumer business side, it is — whether or not that neutrality is there. That's why we'd like to have a look at that program and see how that's working.

Particularly when you look at the carbon tax, we're trying to get behavioral changes with two cents a litre, and we have weather changes that are causing a 13-cent swing in the price of fuel. I'm not sure we're getting what we're after.

I know your question was about business taxes and personal taxes and where we get that, and I have to tell
[ Page 2029 ]
you that I don't know the answer to that today. As I sit here in front of you today, I'm worried about the capital markets and whether or not we're going to be able to borrow enough money to be able to continue the operations of businesses and looking at that in the States.

It's probably one for a couple of weeks from now, I'm afraid.

J. Rustad: If you could perhaps give a written response, that would be great, because we have until the 24th — if you have any thoughts around that.

R. Hawes (Chair): We've got one minute, so it's got to be awfully brief, Bruce.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Your sister board, the Vancouver Board of Trade, said that they didn't favour a further implementation of the next step-up of the carbon tax until an emissions reduction had been demonstrated. Your recommendation appears to be a bit softer than that. Is there any particular reason why you differ with the position taken by the Vancouver Board of Trade?

S. Renault: I think you'll find that our position is very close to the Vancouver Board of Trade, and perhaps it's just a bit of semantics. We work very closely with the Board of Trade; we work very closely with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. We would certainly, along with our colleagues, advise caution, and we would like to see the tax implemented with evidence of its successful outcomes in terms of its goals.

[1100]

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Sorry, Richard, but we're out of time.

Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Ruth Montaldi.

Welcome, Ruth. You've waited quite a while.

R. Montaldi: Yes, I have.

Mr. Chair, panel members and ladies and gentlemen of the audience, my name is Ruth Montaldi, and I am an independent volunteer advocate for people on disability in the province of B.C. I am from Sooke. This presentation deals with citizens who require and receive monetary assistance from the British Columbia government. They receive B.C. income assistance benefits.

The B.C. benefits program is flawed. The monthly cheque comprises two parts, the shelter portion and the support portion. The shelter portion is flexible to a maximum of $375 a month per single person. This is most inadequate. The $375 must cover rent, hydro or other sources of heat and light, water, garbage pickup and, if possible, basic telephone service.

The province does not have adequate subsidized housing to meet the needs of its poor. People who receive B.C. benefits should have access to the subsidy program that is available to the working poor. Men and women who qualify for the persons with disability — PWD — program benefits are better off than employable income assistance recipients.

The basic support portion for the single PWD client is about $531 per month. This fund should cover food, clothing and other non-housing costs. Many PWD clients rely on the support portion of their cheque to supplement their housing or shelter expenses.

Recently I looked in the Times Colonist for a bachelor or one-bedroom suite. The least expensive, a bachelor, went for $750. Hot water and laundry facilities were included. Theoretically, a single PWD person receives just over $900 a month to cover housing and support needs. He would not be able to afford the bachelor suite. He would not have sufficient funds to heat the unit or secure basic telephone service, and he certainly would not have enough to feed himself adequately.

At present an income assistance recipient has access to a few grocery vouchers a year. Each voucher is worth $20. Clients who access these vouchers regularly are offered budget assistance. With the inadequate cost for housing as well as the increased cost for food, budget assistance is not necessarily the answer. Furthermore, the food bank program may not be adequate for all clients.

Increasing the shelter portion across the board is not the answer. Each person's case must be assessed based on need. The shelter amount should be tied to rent and utilities increases. In addition, the support amounts should be adjusted to reflect real cost-of-living increases, such as increased cost of food and other basic necessities. As a note, the rates are moderately higher for couples and families, but they are all inadequate.

[1105]

I'm presenting my own situation. This is my monthly budget. The majority of the support portion would cover my basic housing needs of $555 a month. I would use an additional $150 of the remaining funds to pay for additional telephone and entertainment costs. The entertainment costs cover television and Internet services. I require access to both of these services to assist me with the voluntary advocacy services that I offer.

I would appreciate my basic shelter costs to be covered. That would be $375 plus $180. I would be responsible for the insurance and the entertainment costs. Now, in my situation my pad rent is $450 a month. I own the trailer, and I do not have a mortgage. My hydro is presently $50 a month. My basic telephone is about $35 a month, and my garbage is about $20 a month. That makes up that $555, and there is a shortfall of $180, which has to come from my support payment.

On top of that I have an entertainment cost of $150, of which about $120 is for my cable and Internet. The other is for phone add-ons like the voice mail, call display and
[ Page 2030 ]
so on. The insurance that I put on my mobile home and contents is about $60 a month.

When you take the $180 that I use to supplement my shelter, I'm left with $141 for food and clothing per month. Water is covered by my pad rent. My food costs and cleaning products are approximately $230 a month, and I wait to get my GST and B.C. tax and whatever for clothing.

I'd just like to add — I haven't put this here — that when you adjust the provincial tax rates for income tax or whatever, the poor are not affected, because it's like a double tax. They probably don't make enough money to even have a taxable income. So if you are lowering taxes, the poor are still paying the same amount of money as the lower, the poor people and the middle-income and so on, but they don't meet the benefits of the tax break.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Ruth.

D. Thorne: That's certainly a dilemma, isn't it? It's a great presentation. I thank you for bringing it forward on behalf of all the people who can't present.

I'm looking at your second paragraph where you talk about the subsidy program that's available for the working poor. Are you talking about the rent supplement program?

R. Montaldi: Yes. SAFER.

D. Thorne: Okay, but the SAFER is just for seniors. There's also the general rent subsidy program, so both of those programs. Neither right now is available to anyone on income assistance or disability. So you would suggest that we need to look at that. If there was an alternative between that and just increasing the amount of the housing portion of the income assistance to tie it to an individual need, do you have a feeling which would be better?

R. Montaldi: I really would like the individual need. What happens often when you increase the amount for housing is that the landlords come in and say: "Okay, in three months your rent is going to go up."

Whereas if you have just a basic rate like this, then you have the client come in and say: "I've looked around. This is what I've found to rent." In my case it's only $180. This is amazing because my rent, because of forethought, is quite low.

[1110]

The $750 for a bachelor suite is also low. A one-bedroom in Sooke, for instance, might be going for between $900 and $1,200. That's for one person. Multiply that by a family and its needs.

The other thing is that for our hydro or natural gas or whatever, our rates increase but our shelter portion doesn't. So it needs to be added on. If Hydro comes down and says, "Okay, we're going to raise our rates by 4 percent," then there should be a corresponding 4 percent.

Certainly, I think the government can look in and make sure that our housing is weatherproofed and what have you. But the reality of the situation is that there is nowhere, especially in the Vancouver and Victoria areas, that you can get accommodation for one person, non-subsidized, for $375 a month — just is not.

R. Hawes (Chair): Ruth, can I ask you…? Currently, there are a number of persons with disabilities that are earning money on the side and are encouraged to do so. Do you have any thoughts about whether that should be increased — the level of earnings? I think it's at about $500 right now.

R. Montaldi: It's $500 per person and $750 for a family, a husband and wife.

R. Hawes (Chair): Any thoughts on whether that's adequate, or should that be increased?

R. Montaldi: You know, it depends. I like the idea that it was increased to $500. When I tell my clients, "You can actually work…." But what this application means is that you can't sustain yourself. So you're looking at the possibility of making up to $1,300 a month in order to still be on the disability program. After you've reached whatever the government gives you, plus the $500, then you are off the program. The difference is that if you have to go back on the program, you don't have to go through the hoops like when you first do.

Maybe in the north it might be better for higher amounts, because it costs a lot more to live in Prince George and Skeena than it does down here.

J. Horgan: Thanks very much, Ruth. As you know, every time I see you, I thank you for everything that you do. I'm delighted to be able to say that on record and streaming live on the Internet. So thank you very much.

What I wanted to touch on — we've talked about this in the past, and many of the members here are from rural areas, so they have challenges accessing services — is the challenge in the capital regional district for people living west of downtown. There's an assumption by public servants — and I don't mean any disrespect when I say this — that it's easy to get in and out of Victoria. If you live in Port Renfrew, it takes a bit of time. If you live in Shirley, Otter Point or Sooke, it takes a bit of time.

So could you advise the committee on the challenges that people west of Victoria face accessing services in downtown Victoria — the time it would take to go to an appointment if you have a disability and so on?

R. Montaldi: Thank you, John.

I can't speak to Langford and Colwood because the bus systems run pretty well. They're very regular. But Sooke is a whole different story. If you have an appointment at the
[ Page 2031 ]
Vernon Avenue office, which is the disability office here in Victoria, you take a bus out in the morning — and hopefully you get the express bus — but you don't have a bus back until early afternoon. So you basically have lost a day when you go in for an appointment.

If you live in Port Renfrew — and some of my clients live in Port Renfrew — you have to arrange to have transportation to Sooke to connect with the bus and then to come back. Now, the province knows that the welfare office was closed in Sooke just after Mr. Campbell became Premier for the first time, but we were then moved to an office in Langford. That office was closed.

People in the Sooke and Port Renfrew areas shop in Langford. That's sort of the big centre. Victoria is even larger. But the amount of headache, time…. It's about five hours. It's five full hours from the time you leave Sooke to the time you come back for your children or whatever. So you've lost a day.

[1115]

R. Hawes (Chair): Ruth, thank you very much for your presentation — very thoughtful.

The next presenter is the Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria — Ian Case and David Shefsiek.

Welcome.

D. Shefsiek: My name is David Shefsiek. I'm the executive director of Pacific Opera Victoria and chair of the ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria, which is an association of professional arts organizations serving the capital region.

On behalf of my co-presenter Ian Case, my colleagues, the artists we employ and the people of the region who benefit from our services, I'd like to begin our presentation by thanking the government of B.C. for investing in the arts and the value they bring to our province.

The increase to the arts funding in this year's budget was deeply appreciated. The $150 million BC150 cultural endowment fund is a bold and welcome initiative that places culture in the forefront and demonstrates the regard with which our government views the collective contribution of our sector in the continuing success of our province. We are keenly aware that this permanent fund complements the province's many other investments in arts and culture, including special funds to support creativity, leverage private support and catalyze innovation in communities large and small.

It's encouraging to know that we all share the understanding that the arts have the capacity and the responsibility to help the government reach its five great goals and make B.C. the best-educated, healthy, inclusive and prosperous region in North America.

Now, the arts have been a great subject of political discourse of late, and people of all political affiliations are ensuring that information is presented which properly positions the arts in Canada today. Highlights include studies that show arts and culture make up an important sector of Canada's economy, creating $48 billion per year in direct and indirect output, 7.4 percent of the country's GDP. The arts and culture sector provides one million jobs for Canadians.

The arts are proven to have a positive impact on individual and community health, including youth, the elderly and marginalized groups. We know that culturally rich communities attract creative people and that a highly creative workforce attracts business.

B.C. residents' spending on culture is four times the amount spent by all levels of government, and B.C. is at the forefront of the national artistic community, with the highest concentration of artists in any province and the highest growth rate in the country.

Again, we thank you for believing in the arts and understanding the value our sector brings. Today we'd like to offer three recommendations that will enhance our sector's ability to support the province's goals.

First, please continue to invest in the B.C. Arts Council. Working with data from the council, Arts Future B.C. projects that a provincial investment of $32 million per year to the B.C. Arts Council will provide the appropriate level of operating support for the sector at the time. Even with the infusion of the projected $5 million in earnings from the BC150 endowment, support of the B.C. Arts Council will reach only $19 million during the current year.

Support at the $32 million level would bring the per-capita investment to $7.30, the fifth-highest in the country, between Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Given the belief that we all share in the arts' power to reach the provincial goals, we believe that this investment will pay great dividends.

We'd also like you to extend the B.C. arts renaissance fund. The $25 million B.C. arts renaissance fund has had a major impact on arts organizations throughout the province. At my own organization, Pacific Opera Victoria, this program has leveraged significant private support for our endowment. Alongside the federal endowment incentives program, this matching program has helped increase endowment assets from several hundred thousand dollars to nearly $3.5 million, which provides annual earnings of $140,000 for program expenses.

Beyond that, it has generated interest in our other annual giving programs and fostered a renewed sense of private philanthropy that has enabled our company to secure the private funds to increase from three to four productions per year, providing additional employment for artists and opportunity for audiences. We urge you to extend funding to this important public-private initiative.

I now offer the microphone to my colleague Ian Case to offer our final recommendation.

I. Case: Good morning. My name is Ian Case, and I'm the general manager of Intrepid Theatre. I'm also the former chair of the ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria.
[ Page 2032 ]
The Intrepid Theatre produces the Victoria Fringe and the UNO Festival, an international presenting series.

[1120]

Most recently we have opened two venues in our region, the Metro Studio and the Intrepid Theatre Club. These venues have become valuable contributions to our region's arts and cultural infrastructure, and I wanted to talk about infrastructure from my personal experience in creating the Metro Studio.

We created the Metro in 2005. We had a space, we had a long-term lease, we had a handful of antique equipment that was 20 or more years old and a few rotten curtains, we had a vision, and we had a lot of willpower. We had nearly two decades of regional municipal reports which indicated a desperate need and a desperate demand in our region for a well-appointed, small-scale performance venue, but no one seemed able to turn those needs into a reality.

We developed a business plan, and when we were ready to raise the funds to make it all happen — there was a clear federal program that we could apply to — the municipality was taking capital requests. But there was no formal infrastructure program at the province, so we couldn't apply.

The Metro exists today because of federal, municipal and individual donations. But the project is not fully realized, because it lacks provincial investment. The last formal provincewide arts and cultural infrastructure program ended nearly a decade ago, and the province's infrastructure is starting to show the wear and tear and its age.

We're asking the province to show the leadership it did in the creation of the renaissance fund and in the creation of the BC150 endowment, in addressing the province's arts and culture infrastructure shortfall.

Last year's budget included major capital investments for the Vancouver Art Gallery and the Vancouver East Cultural Centre. These were really exciting and much-needed announcements. As a presenter and creator of alternative theatre, the Cultch is an iconic venue for the kind of work that I've committed my entire career to. But making infrastructure and capital investment decisions on a project-by-project basis cannot address the provincewide need.

We need a formal arts and cultural infrastructure program to address the needs in every region of the province. Let's make the job of government easier so that infrastructure decisions don't need to be made on a project-by-project basis. Let's invest much-needed dollars in ensuring that the future of arts and culture provincewide is supporting bricks and mortar, the equipment and the facilities that provide the foundation of so much cultural work in our province.

I would direct the committee members to a document called A Case for Investing in Arts, Culture and Heritage Infrastructure. This document was commissioned by the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and published in May 2007. It's on the ministry's website. This document provides a wonderful snapshot of the state of the infrastructure in our province today, and it's not pretty. It offers a perfect platform from which to launch a provincial arts and cultural infrastructure program.

Once again, we'd like to thank the committee for hearing our messages so clearly last year and making such a strong recommendation, and we hope that you'll make another recommendation this year. It was truly heartening to see that the government would respond to our stated needs and goals. We're asking the committee to follow through on its commitment to arts and culture in our province and taking our recommendation forward again this year. Thank you very much.

R. Hawes (Chair): Ian, before we go to questions, which will start with Bruce, could you just clarify in your request…? There's no dollar figure here. Do you have a recommended dollar amount?

I. Case: For the infrastructure program?

R. Hawes (Chair): Right.

I. Case: We don't at this time. I think what I'd recommend is looking back at the report, which indicates what other provinces are spending. We're looking at, I think, a $200 million investment in Alberta and $600 million in Ontario. So take a look at that report and use that as the guide. I think the province already has the research necessary to make those decisions.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I wanted to ask a question about the renaissance fund. In Vancouver we had before us in Stephen Drance, who is obviously an initiator and one of the pre-eminent arts philanthropists in the province. He stressed in his recommendation that the renaissance fund be extended, the importance of that funding mechanism for generating matching funding.

So I'm wondering if you could…. I think, David, you mentioned that in your endowment — the importance of matching funding. Sometimes it's easier through the Finance Committee to convince the minister to move if there's a prospect of matching funding.

D. Shefsiek: Yeah, I think everyone recognized that this is a shared responsibility between the public and private sector to make sure that our arts organizations are strong. And with this B.C. arts renaissance, it really helped develop major giving for arts organizations of all sizes and define major gift by the size of your organization.

But people really started thinking bigger when that matching option came to it. Also, it helped people start
[ Page 2033 ]
thinking further ahead instead of thinking about what that operating need is today and figuring out how you're going to make ends meet. It changed the discourse.

[1125]

It changed the idea that: okay, let's think ahead. Let's understand what the value of arts and culture is, let's recognize that arts and cultural organizations are being run effectively and efficiently, and let's prepare for the future by doing that sort of thing. Both at Vancouver Opera, where I worked before for six years, and at Pacific Opera Victoria it's had a very large impact on the company.

I stress that it's not only by building endowments. Those endowments offer some very large numbers that make great news. The offset…. We've raised $3½ million through these programs. They get $140,000 per year in perpetuity, which is great. The other thing that it does is really help the annual programs, because people start thinking: "Okay, the arts warrant this kind of contribution, and it is a private responsibility as well as a public responsibility. I care for it. I want to do my part."

I. Case: I point out that the same is true for infrastructure. Once we see an investment provincially, we're able to leverage increased funding federally, municipally and through individual donation.

R. Lee: On the infrastructure for arts and culture, do you also see private sector involvement there for, say, a joint project development and also community spirit or non-profit organizations?

I. Case: There's always been a role for the private sector and individuals to play in the creation of arts and cultural facilities, and that would continue. What we will see is that if there is provincial investment, there's an increased ability of the organizations in founding that infrastructure to actually leverage that kind of fund.

D. Thorne: I'm interested in the infrastructure issue and actually did not know about this and look forward to reading the report on the website. I'm assuming that people working in the arts like yourselves have had something to do with this being commissioned in the first place — no?

I. Case: Well, it came out of discussions that we had had with Jane Milner, because there was a recognition that we didn't have enough research on the sector in the province. A number of reports — I think five reports — were commissioned through the Arts Council and through the ministry to get a better sense of what's actually happening in the sector.

Understandably, I think, the sector is not funded adequately to be able to do that kind of research itself.

D. Thorne: So there's really no provincial coordination of what's out there or what's needed in particular areas, like in my area, the Tri-Cities area, for instance.

I. Case: That's correct.

D. Thorne: There's talk now of finally going ahead with the larger theatre at the Evergreen Cultural Centre. We think it's really, really needed in the Tri-Cities.

How is that all going to work regionally? We don't want to get into…. Like, economic development, municipally, can be a dog's breakfast — right? Everybody is kind of pushing against everybody else to get the business or to get the theatre. It's not always the most efficient.

Does it look like there's any movement toward some kind of coordination with this, or has anything happened since it was published?

I. Case: Nothing has happened since it's been published.

D. Shefsiek: And what we're asking you is for the leadership to do that. What happens on working with theatres is that many times they'll say: "Well, we've got to get all three levels of government lined up." If there's one of those legs of the stool missing, the other people can stop the conversation. So you really have to have those three things in place first in order to do it.

What we're advocating again, even more than the number, is a program, so people, like in your district, don't have to resort to going directly to government officials to try to get these things to take place.

I. Case: I think, truthfully, what we've seen is an off-loading of infrastructure to municipalities, and that doesn't allow for a true provincial picture of what's going on.

D. Thorne: No. That's great. I look forward to some action on this.

J. Rustad: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a bit of a passion around the arts, given that I met my wife through our mutual involvement in community theatre.

Would a program designed to be…? Perhaps with some sort of cost-sharing with municipalities that's set up, something like our Towns for Tomorrow grants or other grants, where there's a pool of money…. Communities could access it, perhaps a program that's in over a three-year period of time. Communities could apply for it and then have matching funds from the province to be able to assist in, perhaps, arts or maybe even sports facilities. Would something like that be what you were looking for in terms of managing that capital side?

[1130]
[ Page 2034 ]

I. Case: I think it could be a program that is attached to a matching requirement, or it could be a stand-alone program. I think what you'll find is that if it is a stand-alone program, it will still see those kinds of matching funds, because those projects can't happen without matching funds from the other levels of government. But matching or not, we'd be happy to see one.

D. Shefsiek: Generally, what happens on one of those building campaigns is that you get all three levels of government lined up, figure out the need and then get set for it with a private fundraising campaign, and/or a philanthropist comes forward with a large gift for which they try to go back to the government. Really, no theatre that I know of has been happening solely but through one area or the other.

I. Case: For instance, in the case of the Metro Studio, we were able to start that project because we had over $70,000 in in-kind donations, which were our rotting curtains and our lighting equipment, which enabled us to actually get in the door and open a venue and then work on the capital investment after that.

R. Hawes (Chair): I don't know if you have looked at Building Canada, for example, which is an infrastructure program — one-third, one-third, one-third; federal, provincial, municipal. But it's more for infrastructure like sewer, water, etc. I don't know if that would work. If there were an infrastructure program for the arts, that might be something you might want to talk to the federal government about also, to see if there's an interest in pursuing that.

With that, thank you very much for your presentation.

Next we have school district 62 from Sooke, and that would be Wendy Hobbs, David Lockyer, Brian Fox and Dianna Seaton.

As you're sitting, we'd like to recognize MLA Maurine Karagianis from Esquimalt-Metchosin, who is visiting today.

Welcome. The floor is yours.

D. Lockyer: I drew the short straw today, so I'll be presenting. I believe you have a document that we handed out.

While I am the presenter and the drafter of the initial document, it has the full support of the board and has been circulated and captures many of the issues that the board has raised with government over time. We have an opportunity here to recap them in abbreviated form. So thank you for that.

The first point, capital funding. We have noticed that the high cost of construction and the burgeoning liability of seismic have eroded the province's ability to add many new capital projects to the K-to-12 envelope. The capital envelopes have remained unchanged, despite the province's unprecedented surplus.

We believe that the province should move some of its surplus into improving capital plans for school districts and for the health sector. Massive resources are being spent on the Olympics initiative and infrastructure, but long-range educational and health needs also require the same sort of support.

The school district has a business plan before government currently, and it recommends the replacement of an overcrowded 1953 secondary school with two new secondary schools. The new schools will allow for more seats distributed in local neighbourhoods and will provide for more choice and opportunities for students in those neighbourhoods. Even though a large part of this plan would be funded by the school district consolidating and selling property, the new neighbourhoods of learning initiative that was announced by the government has further delayed these innovative plans.

Under operating budgets, we've had lots of pressure there. It's true the government says that school enrolments are declining and that the funding for K-to-12 education is increasing. Those are true statements. However, when you adjust the increased funding by the wage settlements, which are negotiated provincially, and the cost of inflation over time, this school district suffered a net loss in one year alone — this last school year — of $1 million in operating funding.

The government has articulated a stable funding formula, moneys that school districts can count on over time. However, for the last three years changes have occurred midyear which have drastically reduced the school district's available resources. The most recent example is the removal in December '07 of the GAAP funding. In our district the reduction was $530,000, and it occurred after 95 percent of the school district's annual budget was committed.

Another example is the continual erosion of the $45 million holdback, and this has been in place for the last five years. Rather than being held as a contingency buffer, this fund is continually being used to provide for midyear government announcements, such as distributed learning funding support. These are announcements that the school district isn't consulted on but are announced midyear.

[1135]

School districts are constantly being criticized for large surpluses. The cash surpluses in late June are held by school districts primarily for commitments that occur immediately in the new year, July 1. As well, school districts may have the majority of their annual facilities grant funds shown as a surplus on June 30. However, most of the work occurs over the summer, so it's likely that the majority of the funds would be held in trust at June 30.

Treasury Board staff make comments regarding school district surpluses without an understanding of how school districts operate and of what these surpluses might be used for.
[ Page 2035 ]

The lack of understanding of the workings of school districts occurs within the Ministry of Education as well. We used to have staff drawn from the field that would be in there as special advisers and taking on assistant deputy roles — people that had experience in the school districts. They'd be able to advise the senior staff that certain things should happen or couldn't happen because of the implications. We don't have that luxury now of having trained people from the field in the ministry itself.

Under capital assets — and the neighbourhoods of learning initiative again. A few years ago this government gave school districts the right to manage their buildings and sites. The per-student funding that happens now makes it financially irresponsible to carry half-full schools if there's another school nearby. The closure of small neighbourhood schools will actually fund an operating deficit.

What we have done — and we have financial papers that can prove this — is that…. By consolidating two small half-full schools into one, you can save $530,000. It's half a million dollars. So if you have a projected deficit in the upcoming years, then you can actually fund the deficit by closing schools, and that's the way the per-pupil formula is designed. This has led to school closures and to the lease and disposal of school sites.

The government also made it attractive for school districts to put together business plans for consolidating and collapsing sites to purchase new sites or build new schools. However, the recent announcement of neighbourhoods of learning has suspended these discussions. What are school districts to do if they can't close half-full, redundant schools?

There is a need to replace aging school buildings with more environmentally friendly buildings that can be used by the community as well. Will the government be subsidizing school districts to keep these schools active, to support some new initiatives such as full-day kindergarten, early learning and other government-initiated social programs that fall outside the present K-to-12 mandate and funding?

These pending changes in direction are not just disconcerting, but they undermine the stability of school districts within the communities that they serve. Neighbourhoods of learning came about without consultation with the affected parties.

Under wages. K-to-12 wages at all levels are provincially controlled. Union settlements are bargained provincially, and government guidelines are set out for exempt staff. However, other government sectors in municipalities are able to set their own wages based on market criteria and are not governed. Many exempt school district business staff are moving into municipal and other government sectors for as much as a 50 percent lift in wages for a comparable job.

The Ministry of Finance operates by different rules, and they are attracting school district staff with higher wages for comparable jobs. Vacancies for key positions at all levels are very hard to fill with competent personnel. By the time the Public Sector Employers Council recognizes that there is a problem, school districts will be stretched to fill key positions. We believe that there is a problem in the K-to-12 executive wages in B.C. when provinces like Saskatchewan pay 30 percent to 50 percent higher.

The government recently raised the deputy and assistant deputy ministers' wages 40 percent to 50 percent in order to attract and retain — and those were their words — qualified personnel. The same argument, we believe, applies in the K-to-12 sector today.

Under accounting changes. We were recently informed by our auditors that the province has moved…. Right after moving to GAAP, the generally accepted accounting principles, at considerable expense to the K-to-12, new initiatives such as the international accounting standards are also being considered. They will have an even greater impact, we believe, on staffing and training.

What we're asking for here is that the financial practitioners in the educational field be consulted on new accounting standards initiatives. There will be considerable financial impact to school districts for staff time, staff training and implementation of new standards.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Dave, Brian, Dianna and Wendy for coming to the committee today. I know that you would have preferred to talk about the outstanding outcomes in district 62 and the work that happens in classrooms right across this area, rather than these issues.

[1140]

I want to focus on the growth in the area. The government speaks quite often and correctly about a decline in enrolment in many districts, but that's not happening in our community. In fact, we're static, if not increasing, in many areas.

With the change announced recently with the neighbourhoods of learning, it's my understanding — and I want you to confirm this — that the hours and hours and hours of planning and the disappointment in school closure discussions that have gone on across the region are now for naught, because you were working on a strategic plan that would assemble assets that would allow us to put schools in place to meet the needs of our growing communities. And now that's out the door. Is that correct?

B. Fox: The answer to that is that we're not sure. We think that there will be some other communication required, particularly with communities, that will hinge on positive outcomes from the community. We believe the community will be supportive. But it's another process that slows down the options of getting that school, all those schools, sooner than later.
[ Page 2036 ]

J. Horgan: With respect, if I could, a brief — and Randy, I know that you don't like to do this, but…. Belmont high school, which you touched upon in your opening remarks, is over 50 years old. It was built, I believe, to satisfy 1,200 students, and we're well in excess of that now. What projections do you have for growth in the secondary level, and what impact will that have on Belmont in the years forward?

B. Fox: The growth will be maintained. It will not shrink. In actual fact, Belmont is a compilation of two schools, a junior high and a senior high, that were joined by a drawbridge, so to speak. The issue for us is that we have students that are choosing not to go to Belmont because of its size. It's the only option within the area. Other options that students are choosing would be to visit other adjoining districts.

R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. You mentioned about…. In December 2007 the GAAP funding was removed. My understanding is that the GAAP funding is one-time funding to help the boards of education move to a new system. So that's not permanent funding. Can you expand on it?

D. Lockyer: It was brought in, and we were given assurance that that would be structural funding that would carry on from time to time. And then they removed it in '07, saying that the funding was complete. But school districts had counted on it and had been given assurance that it had been in there for…. Well, it had been in there for six years. It wasn't one year only. Over time it was there for six years. We were told repeatedly that we could count on that money, and we did. It became half a million dollars in operating funding for our classrooms. It was removed.

There are two issues there — the fact that it was removed and the fact that it was removed well after the year was started. It's when government looked in to find funding for some of these other initiatives, and they said: "There's a piece there that…." For most school districts, they were fully funded. We weren't quite fully funded, and they reached in and took it when we needed it.

So it's the timing and the fact that they removed it, when we were given assurances that it would remain. Two issues.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Just to follow up further on the Belmont issue. Are you finding or hearing stories that students, because of the crowding at Belmont, are being forced to attend secondary school in other districts?

B. Fox: No. I think, to be fair, that it's a perception problem within the community. Belmont has a long, noble history in most cases, but some folks remember Belmont in a different light. That's now being passed on to other generations. It's also within the community. The community likes Belmont, but they like the idea of having two smaller high schools even better.

D. Lockyer: One of the problems, I think, that accentuates the Belmont issue is that we're not able to pour resources into it, because we've got this business plan. This school, regardless of what we do…. It would take $25 million to upgrade it to current building standards, and it would be a terrible waste to pour that into…. Some parts of the school are 1953. And it would still remain 1953.

It also prohibits us from spending money to provide the choices that are necessary there — the shop program, the vocational and industrial ed. Those are programs that…. We're hesitant to spend any real money there, because it would be wasted. We need to have two new secondary schools of a smaller type so that we can provide choice for the students. I think choice is one of the issues as well.

W. Hobbs: I would just like to add, because it wasn't on here…. Four years ago we were bought a school site in the Royal Bay. I've been a trustee for 12 years, and I have never seen where the government bought us a site and didn't give us the money to build a school.

[1145]

So it's sitting over there, vacant, and I think that's…. It wasn't on here, which we probably didn't think to…. But I think the panel needs to be aware that there is a site sitting there.

J. Rustad: Thank you. I want to ask one quick question and then a follow-up question.

R. Hawes (Chair): It won't follow.

J. Rustad: Sorry, I need to, because I'd lead to it.

What's the population of the secondary school currently that needs to be replaced?

D. Lockyer: It's 1,250.

J. Rustad: So 1,250. You're considering building two schools of roughly equal size?

B. Fox: We have 1,500 students in that school.

J. Rustad: Okay, 1,500 students. The reason why I'm asking the question is that I used to be a school trustee, and one of the big challenges is that once you get around 600 students or fewer in a secondary school, it becomes very, very challenging to be able to offer a variety of choices in courses. A school in the 1,500 range actually gives you far more flexibility in terms of being able to offer courses.
[ Page 2037 ]

I'm just wondering, in terms of your request for capital, why you would consider going that route, given that you would be duplicating a lot of the administrative costs, you'd be duplicating the maintenance costs, custodial, etc., as opposed to trying to refocus those funds on a single facility and being able to offer a variety of courses?

B. Fox: In addition to the crowding that's in a school that was built in 1953, we also have configurations within our district of middle schools that do not match within our own district, nor with the adjoining districts. We have 7-to-9 because we cannot fit those grade 9s into our high school.

The reason for the two high schools is that it would give us a reasonable configuration, grades 9 to 12. Each of those schools would be over a thousand students.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. Very clear.

Next, we have the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia — Dr. Tim Stockwell.

Welcome, Dr. Stockwell. Your presentation from last year, I think, still resounds in all of our minds.

T. Stockwell: You're the same committee?

R. Hawes (Chair): Many of us.

J. Rustad: With a few exceptions. I'm new.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): We'll initiate the new ones.

R. Hawes (Chair): Yeah. And as I recall, I think we did include a recommendation…

T. Stockwell: You did.

R. Hawes (Chair): …in our last…

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Yeah, we did.

R. Hawes (Chair): …that perhaps we need to reinforce.

T. Stockwell: Thank you very much for another opportunity. This is on behalf of Dr. Perry Kendall — Dr. Perry Kendall is the provincial health officer — and the Centre for Addictions Research, to put some proposals to you once more that were put up last year. We were encouraged to do this again because you responded positively to some of those proposals last time around. Unfortunately, in the budgets the Minister of Finance didn't adopt it, and we were advised that they were pretty preoccupied with implementing a carbon tax at the time.

This proposal, in essence, unlike some of the others you've been having, is how to raise money rather than how to spend it. It's to focus on an issue of great public health and safety concern in relation to British Columbians and the situation at the moment in a liquor distribution system run by a government monopoly that the higher-alcohol-content varieties of beverages, particularly beer and coolers, are cheaper than the lower-alcohol varieties.

We've done extensive research at the centre on the prices at the moment in government and private liquor stores. I should say that I'm going to speak to this presentation clipped to the back of the formal written submission, which might be a bit more digestible in a short period of time.

In essence, it's to propose using the powers inherent at the moment with the government alcohol monopoly to adjust pricing of alcoholic beverages, to encourage consumption of lower-alcohol-content beverages and to also raise the small amounts of money to put towards much-needed addiction treatment prevention programs in the province.

These ideas have worked very well in Australia, where I was working until a few years ago. You might find it surprising that you could learn anything about how to deal with drinking problems from Australia. There is a well-known culture of heavy drinking there.

There's a picture here of a well-known Australian sportsman that you'd never have heard of because he plays cricket, not hockey. He's featured breaking a record there. The record is drinking 52 beers on a flight between Perth and London Heathrow. It's celebrated in the weekend magazines, so great excess can sometimes cause creative responses and effective solutions.

A bit of background about alcohol in B.C. I apologize. You heard this last year, some of you. Alcohol abuse does cost British Columbia $2.2 billion per annum in terms of health, crime and loss of productivity. Contributing to that are 15,000 hospital episodes and nearly 2,000 deaths related to the use of alcohol.

[1150]

It's well accepted in prevention policy responses to this problem internationally that taxes on alcohol shouldn't just relate to the marketplace, but they should take account of the health, social and economic costs of the product because it's no ordinary commodity, and that using price as a lever to influence consumption and not just allowing the marketplace to determine prices is a very effective and proven strategy.

At the moment the marketplace in B.C. has encouraged the production of cheap, high-alcohol-content coolers and beers which are very popular, particularly among young people, and that's of great concern.

Some data we didn't present you with last year — this is a bit of an update; some of this is new, which hopefully strengthens the case — are an analysis of the direct economic costs to government as opposed to the benefits.

The costs in terms of health care and enforcement were estimated in 2002 at $910 million, whereas the direct economic benefits in terms of revenue and tax were
[ Page 2038 ]
only $847 million. I say "only." It's still a large amount of money, but it's dwarfed by the costs, and that's very conservative. That's just the direct cost to government. The indirect costs are estimated at a much higher level of $2.2 billion for the province.

The rationale behind why this would work. Many people think: "How would affecting the price of alcoholic drinks change anyone's behaviour? People who drink too much are going to drink too much, anyway." But in fact, these are population-level problems. Most people who drink at some time drink to excess, and many of us are unaware that even drinking a little bit above regular levels, or quite small levels regularly, can increase your risk of a number of diseases, like cancer.

There are some charts on the second set of pages just showing…. It's relating the amount drunk per day on average — for example, on the top right-hand one in relation to cancer. The more you drink per day on average, the greater your risk of a variety of cancers starting from the mouth all the way through the digestive system and out the other end. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cancers related to alcohol use.

Similarly, injuries, whether violence-related or road trauma…. The more drunk by an individual person on a particular occasion, the higher the risk of those occurring. That's been well established. And at the population level, the higher the sales of alcohol in a state or a province, the higher the number of fatal road injuries that will occur.

If you go to the next page, there are some specific recommendations that we want to put up once more.

Firstly, to ensure the prices in the B.C. liquor stores, government and private, reflect the alcohol content of the drinks, which they do not at the moment.

Secondly, that the mechanism of applying a markup, which influences what the government does before they distribute the liquor through the stores or to the private liquor stores…. There's a markup price they apply to the wholesale price. And they are totally able to influence that and determine what it will be. We recommend that not only should it reflect alcohol content, but it should be indexed so that there should be markups and minimum prices that are indexed at least once a year.

Then finally, we recommend again the idea of a harm-reduction levy — a nickel a drink. If just five cents was added to the price of every drink sold in British Columbia, that would raise $96 million per annum, which could be used towards addiction treatment prevention programs. We know that public opinion is against raising the price of liquor for obvious reasons — because most of us enjoy it — but it's actually very well disposed towards a small increase that could be used for something they could relate to, some tangible good.

There are some examples from the charts here of how prices work, so if you look at…. Imagine a standard drink of alcohol. In Canada that's 13.6 grams of alcohol. It's about a bottle of beer or a good-sized glass of wine or a measure of spirits — a standard drink. We're looking at beers at different prices in the chart there. It shows that for standard drinks, 7-percent-or-more-strength beers on average, the price pre–sales tax is $1.50. For the less-than-4-percent, it's $2.57, which is completely the opposite way round if you want to give an incentive to choose the lower strength.

It's hardly any surprise that there are only three varieties of beer available in B.C. with a strength below 4 percent. In Western Australia, where I worked…. Well, actually in Australia, there are about 38 to 40 varieties, and they comprise 15 percent of the beer market by ethanol content, 40 percent by value. The market in B.C. is 0.1 percent. It's hardly surprising, given that range of price incentives.

[1155]

The situation is even more perverse for coolers. If you go to the next page, where it shows that not only the price for standard drink is inverse…. So it's the lowest for the 7 percent coolers. It's not surprising that they comprise the bulk of the market. Nearly 80 percent of the cooler market is 7 percent varieties, and only 1 percent is less than 5 percent strength. Per litre of drink, regardless of alcohol content: 5 percent coolers, $8 per litre of drink; 7 percent, $5.40 — completely the wrong way around if you wanted to encourage more responsible consumption.

Basically, we want to put to you that you have the capability to make a huge impact on the public health and safety of British Columbians. Through raising additional revenue, it would reduce alcohol-related death, injury and illness. It would encourage the local industries. Spinnakers Brew Pub, I think, is one of the few places in Canada that makes beers less than 4 percent by strength. They really welcome this proposal that there might be a tax break for lower-alcohol-content beers.

We know it's well accepted by the public — both raising a small tax for this purpose but also adjusting prices by alcohol content. So I put it to you that there are not many policies that could boast all of those credentials. You raise money, you save lives, and you're going to be appreciated for it.

It's also shown to work in Australia. There's a picture of Ayers Rock there, which is part of the Northern Territory. A five-cents-a-standard-drink tax was introduced there. At the centre I used to work at we evaluated the first four years. There were 129 fewer alcohol-caused deaths in that small territory and nearly 1,400 fewer hospitalizations — an overall saving to that jurisdiction of $124 million Australian, which are not quite as large as Canadian dollars but a substantial savings in health and economic costs.

I hope you'll be willing to consider this once more and recommend at least some of those proposals to the minister. Hopefully, he — this time — may be willing to listen.
[ Page 2039 ]

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Dr. Stockwell. I do have one question for you, and that would be this. With respect to the nickel a drink you're proposing, I'm assuming you're talking about that, then, basically at the consumer level — that the dispenser of the drink is going to have to collect and remit the tax. Is that what you're suggesting? Or is it a figurative type of a tax you're suggesting that's maybe put on at the distribution level?

T. Stockwell: I think it could be put at any part in the distribution process. Probably the most efficient way, because there's an existing system for collecting revenue, would be that the provincial markup…. Five cents would be added in the markup to each beverage, and then the earmarking would go to a particular fund.

There are lots of models for doing this. Many countries have created special funds for this purpose, either solely for alcohol or more broadly for health promotion.

R. Austin: Thanks for your presentation. It was very interesting. I came to this country from Britain where, when I left, most beers were considerably under what we even call low-alcohol beers, or light, here. Light here is 4 percent, and regular strength is 5 percent. In Europe and most countries they actually have beers that people sip that are 3 percent.

Aside from just trying to do this structural change, which I think is a very good idea, do you not think we should also be encouraging beer manufacturers to change our standards in this country so that we can manufacture beers that are under 4 percent? I mean, 4 percent already gives you quite a buzz. So if we went to lighter beers…. In the United States, I believe, they have beers that are 2½ percent. As part of this strategy, it would be better to try to actually make low-alcohol beers.

T. Stockwell: I completely agree. The beers that sold really well in Australia were around about 3.2 to 3.5 percent. They had some 2.5 percent ones, but the ones that really took off….

Giving an incentive to the manufacturers…. There was a tax break. Suddenly there's a $10 difference. They call it a slab of beers. Thirty tins would be $10 cheaper for the 3.5 percent than the 5 percent strength. And that gives an incentive all the way up the line from the people making it. It became drinkable. A lot of those low-strength ones, if you like beer, are not very nice to drink. These ones are really very palatable. I tried to order some for a study at UVic, but the liquor licensing people wouldn't give us a permit. It took six months to order, and we didn't bother.

They're already manufactured. I don't want to promote Australian goods, but they could be made here in Canada and in B.C.

[1200]

J. Yap: Thank you for your presentation — an intriguing proposal. One of the things that I think citizens are generally concerned about with the new tax is that it be targeted — and you're proposing it be targeted — towards dealing with addictions. Have you any thoughts on how this would be structured so the tax would not over time simply become part of general revenues and just be another tax?

T. Stockwell: I think….

J. Yap: Perhaps from the Australian experience.

T. Stockwell: Well, one model…. There was a foundation established with…. In excess of $125 million was collected in beer tax one year, and there was a sort of procedural change. That was used to set up a foundation, which was…. It had to go through parliament. There was a piece of legislation to permit it to come into being. The Prime Minister selected the people to serve on the board — I was one of those people — and we had to distribute those moneys, and they were added to over time.

I think if you set up a structure, it becomes visible publicly, and it's popular and seen to be doing good, then it's probably very hard for government to take the funds away.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The brewers are well represented across the country, and I think here the representative for the brewers is Mr. D'Avignon. First question. Have you met with him?

Second question. If you were to institute this policy, it wouldn't lead to changes in the prices for beverages of higher alcohol content such as cognac or vodka or anything like that. Is that correct?

T. Stockwell: It could do. We didn't want to put out such a specific proposal that every of the several thousand recommended price…. I mean, there are several thousand varieties of drink by taste and quality and price. We just wanted to recommend the principle. Obviously, the devil is in the detail, and there would be a lot of working out to be done.

I'd say the priorities are drinks favoured by younger people, and coolers and some of the high-strength beers and ciders. There are some examples of wines and spirits that sell for like 70, 80 cents per standard drink. I'd put it to you that that's about the price of Coca-Cola and milk and orange juice, and it probably isn't appropriate. I'd target those minimum-, low-, and high-alcohol content ones first. There's no requirement.

But in terms of talking to the brewers, some of the local manufacturers I discussed this with — very supportive…. Those who only make the high-strength stuff are against it, obviously. Somebody would have to be hurt by this, because you're switching things around. You're favouring one product against another.
[ Page 2040 ]

It's also consistent with a national alcohol strategy that was developed by Health Canada in consultation with five industry groups and brewers, who were nationally represented on that. They took a bit of persuading, but they bought the idea of a revenue-neutral solution, and they were happy with that. So they paid the same tax overall but less on their lower-alcohol products and more on the higher-alcohol products.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Stockwell. It's intriguing, and your presentation, as last year, is just as intriguing.

T. Stockwell: Good. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

R. Hawes (Chair): The last presenter before we break for lunch will be Don Startin. Welcome.

D. Startin: MLA Chairman and members, I notice that I'm just playing Don Startin today. Well, I did tell the select standing committee Clerk on their voice mail that I actually represent…. My presentation comes from Greater Victoria Seniors branch 191, British Columbia Old Age Pensioners association and the South Island Health Coalition. When I first registered I had to hedge my bets because these two organizations were most happy for me to be doing it, but they hadn't checked out what I was going to say.

[1205]

Since 2002 seniors care has deteriorated disastrously. In 2004 I stood before this committee and stated that I was disgusted with the state of home support provided by VIHA, and I still am. I regret to have to tell you this.

The 2004 report of this committee quoted my definition of home support. I will remind the committee of this: "Home support should include housekeeping, meal preparation, bathing, grooming, emotional and psychological support…. And, absolutely vital, community health workers should care for the same person on a regular basis. The workers can then monitor the client's health and morale and have corrective action taken if any deterioration is observed."

Unfortunately, the committee did not put in my next sentence, which was: "This will cut down on trips to emergency and hospital admissions." Ladies and gentlemen, very little has changed since the committee presented the 2005 budget report to cabinet. This government, in our opinion, isn't listening to its own MLAs or the citizens who submit briefs to the committee. I remind you that you and the government work for us. Now get on with providing proper home care.

VIHA can't be trusted to run home care properly. The Health Minister must lay down strict regulations to ensure that home care complies with the above definition. Right now all people in home care are getting is assistance with dressing, bathing, grooming, undressing and medications. They may get three or four different workers coming every day. However, Beacon Community Services, who administer home care in this area, tell me a client usually gets the same person doing the same job each day.

If I might interpose — I'm not reading from my exact brief — you figure out three or four people trundling through your home each day if you're a frail senior.

Beacon tell me they get many requests for housekeeping and meals. They aren't allowed to provide them. The eligibility criteria for home care border on farce. Unless you need help with bathing, you can't get home care. Beacon confirmed that. This is a fair statement.

To our shame, B.C. is one of two provinces that charge for home care. According to Beacon's figures, home care costs a client $34 an hour, of which $17 goes to the worker and $17 to Beacon.

We believe that because this government has a doctrinaire approach to providing services, which is a "let private enterprise do it" model, the present system is designed to pinch pennies and not provide good home care.

We now come to residential care. The government has set up large numbers of assisted-living beds, mainly in conjunction with the private sector. The quality is good. I have been in one of them, and I couldn't complain. My wife and I go out to visit an old lady once a week, and we have considerable experience. But they're far too expensive.

A significant portion of seniors who need them can't afford them and have to struggle with inadequate or no home care. These are the seniors who are liable to end up in hospital taking up a much-needed acute care bed, of which a critical shortage still exists.

For every 100 acute care beds on Vancouver Island, 13.3 are filled by patients requiring a complex care bed, because they are too incapacitated to go home or to a complex care bed that doesn't exist. That's a very high figure. I got that from VIHA, so it's not my figure. It's not something I've come up with.

[1210]

Contracting out complex care cases is a cheap way out. It is next to impossible to provide proper complex care and make a profit, unless the patients are independently wealthy. In the recent Conversation on Health put on by the government, the people said they wanted publicly run, publicly financed and not-for-profit health care. They aren't getting it, which explains citizen unrest in Duncan and Kamloops when Cowichan Lodge and Ponderosa Lodge were shut down.

The government must give up their private enterprise policy and provide our in-need-of-care seniors with what we, the people of the province, have told it that we want. It must also instruct the Auditor General to institute a full inquiry into seniors care in the province and appoint a seniors commissioner to stand up for the rights of seniors.
[ Page 2041 ]

A brief word on poverty among seniors. I have not got the facility to say what percentage of people living in poverty are seniors and which aren't. But in my work as a volunteer seniors advocate in 2006 and 2007, I found a large number of my clients' problems stem from poverty. I had the classic client, who had to choose between proper diet, medication and paying the rent.

This committee should recommend raising the provincial seniors supplement, significant improvement in free access to legal aid and going all out to build subsidized housing. The B.C. Housing Management Commission currently has 17,000 applications for subsidized housing on its books, many of which, of course, come from seniors.

Regrettably, we have some seniors in prison. I was unable to reach anybody in the prison system to really confirm this. I did my best. But in closing, I would like to urge the committee to recommend to cabinet that the province cease the iniquitous practice of double-bunking inmates in our provincial jails and building prisons from funds earmarked for housing.

I worked both in the federal and provincial systems of the prison service. Believe you me, if there are any sort of flashpoints or discontent, you're going to get double whammy if you've got double-bunked inmates. It's not a healthy way to have human males cooped up. They shouldn't be in double bunks.

I'm attaching an appendix A — I don't have time to read it all — a copy of an excellent article by Susan Duncan of the Kamloops Daily News entitled "Our Seniors Deserve Much Better Care." This will round out my remarks, mainly on complex care.

That concludes my submission, ladies and gentlemen.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Don.

Are there any questions?

J. Horgan: Thanks very much, Don, for your presentation. I wanted to touch upon residential care, particularly your comments around the Cowichan Lodge and the response from the public to that decision.

I'm wondering if you have any evidence for the committee about how that decision was communicated and what the response from patients, family members was at that time.

D. Startin: I went to — I believe it was — Parksville to talk to VIHA about this. Of course, they had backtracked at that stage. When I said that certain decisions around seniors care border on farce…. When they said they wouldn't shut it down for a year, they left only 30 people in there.

[1215]

VIHA wouldn't tell me how many people in the Duncan general hospital were there in acute care who should be in complex care, just down the road maybe. All I was given was that figure of general percentage, you see.

If there's a good, working old folks home somewhere, I don't think seniors mind if it's a bit old and fly-blown, and neither do their siblings or adult children who are having them in there. They like to see that they're properly and lovingly looked after. Our feeling is that TLC is what is missing here.

R. Lee: We know that in health care, prevention is very important. In a senior population, what kinds of programs would you like the government to enhance to help a healthier population of seniors?

D. Startin: Well, as I said, when seniors become frail, to the extent that they need help in the home…. And I've been thinking a bit about this, because here I am grumbling to you, ladies and gentlemen, and I think that maybe it's more flexibility needed at the Beacon level.

I'll tell you a classic example. I was speaking to a lady on the bus. She was a middle-aged lady; she wasn't a senior. She said: "I came out of hospital, and all I needed was a little help with vacuuming because my back was crucifying me." But because she could bathe herself, she couldn't get any help.

Now, maybe a senior who needs help should be given an hour a day or whatever their allotment is, and there's flexibility in what they get. If somebody needs bathing and meddies, well that's fine. But if they need some meal preparation or they need something else, you know, of all those five things, give it to them.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The Ombudsman has initiated an inquiry into seniors care, but you mentioned that you thought the Auditor General should initiate an inquiry into seniors care. Are you concerned that the Ombudsman's investigation won't be adequate?

D. Startin: I am. One of my poor seniors had a history of…. A tragic life this lady had led. She couldn't get justice from anybody. Her concept was that she'd been really screwed up royally by health care over a number of years and that she should get some justice. All the Ombudsman is allowed to do if there's a complaint about a government agency is to check whether process has been violated.

To take a simple case, I read in the Ombudsman's propaganda that a gentleman had a complaint to the Ombudsman that he hadn't got his proper compensation for an injury, I believe it was — something like this, you know. The Ombudsman rep went down, they checked the whole thing out, and yes, the government agency hadn't paid this guy what he was entitled to. They told him to pay it — absolutely clear-cut, no problem.

But we feel that there's a systemic problem pretty much from top to bottom, right from the minister down
[ Page 2042 ]
to VIHA and, to some extent, Beacon. Beacon and similar agencies just work very much within their allotment of funds and the regulations, as laid down by VIHA.

I think that the Auditor General is the man to do it.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much, Don. We've heard your submission. It's pretty clear — very compelling. Thank you.

With that, we're going to recess now for lunch until 12:50.

The committee recessed from 12:20 p.m. to 12:58 p.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): Our first presenter this afternoon will be from the Pacific Centre Family Services Association — Mitzi Dean.

Welcome, Mitzi. Just in case you didn't know, I'll repeat…. These are 15-minute presentations. We recommend that you try to take ten minutes and allow some time for questions, but the 15 minutes is yours. You can take as much time as you want. I'll tell you or give you a high sign when you're at ten minutes. Then, if you choose to go further or if your presentation is longer, I'll give you another high sign when you have two minutes left.

The floor is yours.

M. Dean: My name is Mitzi Dean, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to present to you today.

I want to talk to you today about three issues of paramount importance in our community. These are the need for counselling services, especially in the areas of mental health and addictions; the need for support services for youth; and the unique context of our communities in West Shore and Sooke.

I'm here today as the executive director of the Pacific Centre Family Services Association, and this is a position that I feel privileged and honoured to hold. I can speak from experience and knowledge and from our legacy of having delivered counselling and support services for 40 years.

Our mission is to enhance and promote the quality and dignity of life and individuals, families and groups within the community. We support and promote healthy patterns of living, and we work with the community to enrich the quality and life of its members. We are committed to maintaining and fostering an environment that embraces and promotes respect for cultural and human diversity.

We're dedicated to maintaining outstanding services for the people we work with through education, counselling and creative programming. We have premises in Victoria, Colwood, Langford and Sooke, and we feature nine programs.

[1300]

These are affordable counselling; individual and couples counselling; alcohol and other drug program, which is counselling for adults; community outreach, prevention and education for youth; employee assistance and fee-for-service counselling; Project Breakthrough, which is parenting mediation; Project Parent, which is an intensive parenting program; stopping the violence, which is a counselling program for women; urgent short-term assessment and treatment, which is mental health counselling; and a youth and child counselling and expressive therapy program for children who have experienced child sexual abuse.

Through these programs we serve over 800 individuals in any given year. We work collaboratively with other agencies, community groups and funding bodies as well as with relevant ministries. We use established models of intervention and performance management tools, and we evaluate the outcomes of all our programs.

While the outcomes indicate the successful impact we have in our community, we are keenly aware of the high levels of need. All of our programs operate at maximum capacity and have a waiting list for services.

This high level of demand that we experience at PCFSA reflects general trends among the population. For example, at any one time nearly one in six of the workforce is affected by a mental health condition such as depression or anxiety, and this proportion rises to one in five if alcohol and drug dependence is also included.

The longer-term effects of stress and mental health issues that are not addressed may result in further health and social problems — for example, substance and alcohol misuse, reduced productivity, irritability, susceptibility to other disease and illness, dysfunctional relationships and other unhealthy behaviours. And there are very few services available. Even our affordable counselling program, which is the only professional counselling service available at a subsidized rate in the region, is under threat due to inadequate funding.

Additionally, in the last few years there has been significant growth in the prevalence of alcohol and other drug use in Canada. For example, from 1994 to 2004 rates of current use went up from 72 percent to 79 percent for alcohol and from 7 percent to 14 percent for marijuana.

Locally, we have seen substantial increases in program activity, particularly in this area. Between 2004 and 2006 the number of participants in our alcohol and other drugs counselling program increased by 350 percent in Langford and by over 100 percent in Sooke, for example.

Mental health issues and substance misuse are also prevalent among our youth population. In any given month over 75 percent of the inmates of Victoria's juvenile detention centre have mental health issues. There is a high level — i.e., 60 percent — of street-involved youth who are dealing with depression and high levels of substance abuse, possibly as a self-medicating strategy. Over one-third have lived in foster care or group homes.
[ Page 2043 ]
These young people clearly need health services, and we also need a prevention strategy.

PCFSA has been delivering youth services for decades, working towards recovery, risk reduction, harm reduction and healthy lifestyles. I am the chair of the capital regional district's youth matters subcommittee, and we're engaging with youth across the region to explore their views and needs and experiences in relation to service delivery.

Pacific Centre Family Services Association also recently sponsored some research exploring the voice of young women in the community. A strong message emerging from the research, and indeed from the Sooke youth forum, is that youth want a safe and supported place to be within their own community. This is clearly a gap, and it is accentuated amongst West Shore and Sooke communities.

Evidence indicates that the youth in West Shore and Sooke communities are participating in high-risk activities to a greater extent than their counterparts in other areas of the province. These high levels of antisocial behaviours are indicative of other concerning issues. For example, there's a correlation, as we know, between high-risk behaviours and childhood trauma and neglect.

Some of the key issues facing young people in West Shore and Sooke communities include childhood trauma and disproportionately high rates of child sexual abuse; sexual exploitation and associated violence, drug use and abuse; substance abuse and misuse and a disproportionately high prevalence of marijuana and alcohol use amongst youth; one of the highest rates of school dropouts in the province and one of the lowest rates of graduation; unplanned pregnancies; high rates of sexually transmitted diseases; and a whole range of personal issues affecting youth, such as depression, anxiety, anger, grief and loss, and associated symptoms.

[1305]

The youth tell us that they value the services that we provide. In their own words, they have said: "I like to have someone to talk to and get away from my foster home"; "I really enjoy that I can trust my counsellor and that I can express my feelings"; and "I had someone to talk to that could understand me."

Yet there has been a reduction in provision of services for youth in West Shore communities over the past five years. Our community outreach prevention and education program used to be able to refer youth to other services, but now we have to prioritize giving direct support to the youth referred to the program. The old youth centre no longer exists.

Of course, there is a substantial level of demand upon all areas of social services across our province. The impact of changes in funding allocation and sources is affecting us all in the non-profit sector. Indeed, as I speak, the Victoria Family Violence Prevention Society is having to dissolve.

Earlier this year they approached us at Pacific Centre Family Services Association to ask us if we could work towards preserving the family violence project programs. We are working at this transition. In fact, just last night we ran our first group work session with men who had previously used violence in their family relationship.

But the future business plan for the programs inevitably will result in fewer services being available across our community, in order for any of these programs to be viable and sustainable.

We currently operate waiting lists for all of our programs. In fact, we have had to close intake — i.e., stop taking referrals — for our alcohol and other drugs program — entirely stop since August of this year. We simply do not have sufficient funds to employ the staff to respond to the level of demand.

While we serve Canadians nationwide — for example, yesterday we were dealing with a suicidal student from Ottawa — the issues on south Vancouver Island, in the West Shore and Sooke communities in particular, should be highlighted and should be focused on in planning for communities across the province.

The majority of our services are delivered in West Shore communities and Sooke. This is a rapidly growing area where the population has increased by 13 percent from 2001 through 2006. Yet the provision of services has not developed at a comparable pace. This trend is increasing and will thereby add pressure to the limited resources in this area.

For example, the population forecast for the year 2026 indicates a 92 percent population increase over and above the 1996 census figures in West Shore communities.

To conclude, Pacific Centre Family Services Association wants to continue serving our communities for many more decades. One individual said of our counselling program: "My counsellor was a life-saver." We are an established and experienced organization with professional knowledge and understanding of our communities and their needs. We want to be able to respond to the needs of the youth, particularly those engaging in risky and harmful behaviours, and the adults, especially those with mental health and addictions issues.

On behalf of our program participants, community members and partners, for the health of our communities, we ask that the unique context and needs of our rapidly growing and developing communities are considered with understanding and accurate intelligent information in planning across the province of B.C.

We have the ability to help our community, but we need the resources to enable us to achieve our vision.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Mitzi.

I would like to acknowledge His Worship Stew Young, the mayor of Langford, who has joined us in the audience. Welcome, Your Worship.

We'll go to questions for you, Mitzi.
[ Page 2044 ]

J. Horgan: Thanks, Mitzi, for the presentation. I think, again, it highlights the challenges we have in a growing community to meet the needs — not just the infrastructure needs and the economic needs, but the social needs.

You've touched upon the importance of counselling and intervention with young people when they run afoul with the mainstream. I'm wondering: with population increases such as that and reduced budgets, how do you propose to cope?

M. Dean: It's a real challenge for us as an organization. One of the priorities for us is to continue developing our collaborations — for example, in working across the whole of the capital regional district, making sure that we develop networks and a strategy that addresses the needs of youth in local communities and across the district.

[1310]

As I mentioned in my presentation, we work with other non-profit organizations and agencies and local service providers to make sure that we can maximize the benefits and the input and the expertise of all of us. We work extremely hard at managing the budgets that we do have and at applying for funding from the whole range of sources that we can possibly secure any additional funding from.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Mitzi. Very good presentation.

Next we have the Communities for Commuter Rail — Rohan Rupf.

G. Pearce: Actually, Rohan couldn't make it. It's Geoff Pearce that is here.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. I'm here representing Communities for Commuter Rail, which is not affiliated with any political party. It's non-partisan.

It has representatives from five city councils in this part of the region — a councillor from Victoria, a councillor from Langford, mayor of View Royal, mayor of Esquimalt and a councillor from Colwood. It also has representatives from the Island Corridor Foundation, Southern Rail and B.C. Transit. The CRD planning department has been actively involved in our committee, and some of the developers representing some of the larger development projects in the area.

Further to the budget consultation paper, we see a vital initiative to assist government in retaining B.C.'s enviable economic health. We wish to express our thanks and appreciation for the opportunity to provide input into the future of our region, our island and our province.

In the press release issued by the Finance Minister, we note that you're seeking advice from ordinary British Columbians. We wish to say that we encounter very few ordinary British Columbians in our dealings with the community. On the contrary, we seem to experience the extraordinary nature of our residents — not only the variety of their interests and lifestyles but the passion and depth of the things they contribute to B.C., a place that so many other Canadians wish to call home. I say this only to invite the committee to consider that the advice you hear today comes from extraordinary British Columbians and to treat the advice as such.

Vancouver Island, specifically southern Vancouver Island, is in urgent need of a viable, clean, healthy transportation system, and in this strategy we're looking to the province to take a leadership role in addressing this. Our group believes that the road to the healthy future is in fact not a road at all, but a railway. In our case we're interested in the southern portion of the railway for a commuter train service from Langford to Victoria.

The recent history of rail initiatives on Vancouver Island is quite diverse. There's a diverse ownership: management, many municipalities, first nations, residential and commercial interests. Freight, passenger, tourism — all of those things will add to the rail viability.

The legion here is located on Station Avenue, appropriately named, right across the road from E&N Railway. The future downtown rail station is right across the street from you. There's a small VIA Rail station now, but if we get the commuter rail going, it's right across the street from where you are at the front door of the legion.

We're very proud of having a rail line in Langford and on Vancouver Island. It's a historical part of Vancouver Island, and we want to see it enhanced and revitalized.

What is needed now? We need immediate attention and support for the Langford-to-Victoria commuter rail leg while being supportive of the larger Island Corridor Foundation rail initiative. We need financial support for infrastructure and for commuter rail operations.

[1315]

We need a firm redirection of the Victoria regional transit commission's efforts, and we would like to see an independent arm of that commission to direct commuter rail services using the West Coast Express rail model that serves Vancouver to Mission on the north shore of the Fraser. That's an excellent model that we see for commuter rail here.

Initially, our studies indicated $16 million. Now we're looking at $25 million to upgrade the rail. We've had some further refinement of some of those costs for commuter rail, and that includes upgrading the rail as well as buying initial railcars, rail equipment, to run a commuter rail.

Why is it worthy of funding rail? There's a whole series of points that I could refer you to in the handout. Viable rail transit and transportation options will support enhanced, denser forms of development and will mitigate pressures for rampant development in the natural and agricultural areas. The CRD regional growth strategy indicates that they wish to enhance travel choices and mobility. Rail service will integrate
[ Page 2045 ]
land use and transportation better than any other mode of transportation.

Road traffic congestion is increasing in Langford, Colwood and View Royal, because the communities are growing faster than the transportation infrastructure is being improved. Transportation infrastructure will drive land use decisions. For example, the Langford official community plan strongly supports higher densities around a Langford commuter rail station.

The implementation of this rail initiative will significantly delay or potentially even eliminate the need for an upgraded interchange of McKenzie Avenue or improvements to the Malahat if we can get a viable commuter rail operating. Those costs are less than some of those other highway improvements.

The commuter rail initiative forms the backbone of a regional transportation strategy in the West Shore and part of the whole capital region. Rail will make a powerful and positive impact on the province's stated greenhouse gas reduction targets. Rail is much cleaner than bus and much, much cleaner than cars.

Our fifth point. With the state of the current infrastructure, a rail solution can be in operation in approximately a year. This would be an incremental service. It'll start small and grow. Initially a train would go in and then out every hour. Then, as we have more passenger traffic, we can go to double-decker cars. We can increase the length of the trains. So initially you would start with two or three passenger cars, but then you can easily expand that. Then ultimately you'd get trains going back and forth — one from one end, one from the other, crossing in the middle.

Those are the ways we can handle the increased capacity as the demand grows and as the population grows.

The rail initiative is economically feasible at all levels. Transit has double the economic benefit to a city than a highway investment does, and there are a number of points that I could refer you to in the handout. The economic multiplier effects of a $25 million provincial investment in commuter rail on the E&N would be significant in creating new jobs in construction of higher-density residential and commercial development around commuter rail stations.

Employment affects income and affects taxation, which multiplies that initial investment many times.

In the handout you'll see a map outlining the route of the train. In Westhills, which is a new large community under development, the main focal point of transportation to and from that community would be commuter rail. Ultimately it's a population of 15,000 or 20,000.

Then the next station is downtown Langford, right where we are here — right across from the legion. Another one would be Atkins, serving Colwood and View Royal, and the fourth one at the Esquimalt navy base, right at the front gate of the Esquimalt navy base. The railway goes right by it.

[1320]

There's a working population at the navy base. The military has 4,000 employees; civilian, 2,000 — for a total of 6,000 workers at the Esquimalt navy base. Over half of those, approximately half — they've checked the postal codes — live in the West Shore. So 2,170 of those employees for the military live in the West Shore, in Colwood-Langford, and another 1,000 civilians. Over 3,000 people at the Esquimalt navy base live in this area. In addition, the Esquimalt graving dock has upwards of 1,000 employees and about 500.

We know there are at least 3,600 people working at the Esquimalt navy base living in this area. If we can get 20 or 30 percent of them out of their cars, we know we can reduce the traffic by 700 to 1,000 vehicles.

The last station is in Victoria, downtown across from the blue bridge, and that's where the major employment location is.

That's the conclusion to my presentation.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Geoff. I do have to say that I live in Mission, the end of the West Coast Express line. Today even the greatest naysayers that were around when it started are taking the train. It's been a big, big economic advantage to the city of Mission.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Geoff, very much for your presentation.

It strikes me and members on the committee that with the multi-billion-dollar announcements on transportation infrastructure in British Columbia, announced from this point forward to 2025, 2030, it's curious that a practical, reasonable, climate-friendly solution, such as commuter rail from Langford into town and then subsequently up the Malahat, wouldn't be high on a priority list.

As a former administrator working with other municipalities in the area, in your experience, have you ever seen such a non-partisan, bi-partisan cooperation to achieve a positive output like this?

G. Pearce: This is very special to have this, particularly when you get Langford and downtown Victoria representatives working together, and even View Royal and Langford people working together. There's a common interest here that everybody understands. It's really easy to see it. It is quite remarkable to see the good will around the table when all of those people sit down and make this a positive improvement to their community.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much. There's some interest in light rail in my community of Surrey, and there are a number of organizations that are
[ Page 2046 ]
promoting that as an alternative up the valley. One of the big costs appears to be cost of getting access to the railbed. I gather that's not a factor here, given that the existing rail right-of-way is available at no cost?

G. Pearce: The rail right-of-way is owned by the Island Corridor Foundation. They will probably be looking at some kind of rental charge. We've yet to really get down to the nub of that with the Island Corridor Foundation. But in many ways, they are us — municipalities. There are five regional districts that jointly own the railbed, and the four municipalities are part of one of those regional districts. There will be a charge, but we're confident that there's going to be a reasonable rate that will be available to us on that.

The other side of that is that they've got a fairly large right-of-way, so we can get a lot of parking on the right-of-way — park-and-ride, drop-offs, bus. We're going to be integrating with B.C. Transit bus service to these rail stations. It's really important that we work very closely with Transit and with the local municipalities in having all those infrastructure improvements available near those station sites, and the rail property is part of that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Geoff. It is really great to see a project like this that has so many hands and that's almost like a grass-roots-type movement. Congratulations on your progress to date. I'm sure this will be a very big topic in our discussion.

G. Pearce: Thank you. I appreciate your time.

R. Hawes (Chair): Next presenter is Anne Moon.

A. Moon: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you. I've brought a little help from my friends. We're going to have a copy for Hansard, so you might want to save your ears.

We are, of course, the Raging Grannies. I want to stress that we're not asking for stuff for us. We've had our time in the sun. We're asking for our grandchildren.

A Voice: I don't think your time in the sun's over yet.

A Voice: I don't think it's over yet, either.

[1325]

A Voice: And also, we heartily endorse the last speaker.

Some Voices: Yes.

A Voice: That's one of our missions.

A. Moon: Oh yes, we've done our bit to try and save that train.

Raging Grannies:

If we ran the province….

Grannies know we're better at this than you.

We know how to spread the money round

so everybody gets his due.

We've been keeping budgets

since most of you were mewling in your pram.

We know what priorities to meet,

while other things are merely jam.

To start with, everybody needs to have a home,

not just a crowded shelter cot.

Homelessness is a governmental crime.

Time for you to get up off the pot.

You must fund social housing.

Don't leave it to the cities or the towns.

You must cough up a healthy startup fund.

Then the local folk will come around.

Remember social spending

needs more than roofs and windows and a door.

It helps with health and getting free from drugs,

The stuff that keeps the poor folk poor.

You've given in to private companies

without checking how they spend their dough,

so health care, child care, housing and the roads

are in a state of woe.

Sorry if we're candid,

but we grannies don't have time to sit and wait.

We want a better future for our kids,

a better life for those who're on the skids.

We know you can do better than you did,

but you'd better not procrastinate.

We're watching.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much. We got your point. We got your message, and no one is going to ask questions, because they would have to sing the questions, and we couldn't stand that.

Interjections.

R. Hawes (Chair): Oh, okay.

J. Horgan: Okay. I just want to know where I could get one of your hats. That's all.

A Voice: You can make your own.

J. Horgan: Ah, there you go.

R. Hawes (Chair): And now for something completely different — Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia and Phil Hochstein.
[ Page 2047 ]

P. Hochstein: Now, that's a tough act to follow. My presentation will seem boring and trite compared to theirs. I'll have to line up my speaker order in a better way.

As most of you know, my name is Philip Hochstein, and I'm the president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of British Columbia, or we're better known as ICBA.

ICBA serves and represents B.C.'s construction sector. Our members are active in industrial, commercial, institutional, multifamily construction. In other words, we build the schools, hospitals, shopping malls, roads, bridges, mines, high-rise towers and everything in between. In fact, our members are involved in virtually all major capital projects in British Columbia.

Though we build large projects, our businesses, our members and our industries are small, and our members are directly impacted by provincial government policy, whether it's fiscal, economic or labour. We pay close attention to what government is doing, including the budget process.

I'd like to commend the government for this open and inclusive process for seeking input into our province's budget. I can't recall a similar process by previous governments, and you should be commended for doing that. Thank you.

Today I want to talk about two key areas that impact our province's competitiveness and, by extension, the construction industry, our labour force and our provincial infrastructure.

[1330]

Before I talk about these, I just want to emphasize how important competitiveness is to the construction industry. We are a service industry in a small, open economy. That means we must rely on the competitiveness of all other industry sectors to create opportunities for jobs in the construction industry.

That's why ICBA has been very supportive of the provincial government's personal and business tax cuts since 2001. We believe that putting more money in the pockets of consumers and businesses helps make us more competitive in terms of attracting both labour and businesses to the province and also in stimulating personal spending and business investment.

With the financial markets currently in turmoil, it is more important than ever for government to stay the course and to continue to develop even more policies that keep B.C. competitive and resilient to the challenges and opportunities we face going forward.

B.C.'s labour force. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing most nations today is developing a labour force of sufficient size with the right skills to continue to grow the economy and sustain our standard of living. In this area we face a number of challenges. Our workforce is rapidly aging. Notwithstanding some recent minor improvements, our immigration system is still stuck in the past, being gatekeepers rather than recruiters, and we have too many barriers to labour mobility within our own country.

Despite a very highly educated workforce, Canada's labour productivity is among the worst in the developed world. That means that per hour worked, we produce less than our competitors. As an example, despite its recent troubles, our nearest competitors in the United States saw labour productivity grow at almost four times the rate of Canada in 2007. To make matters worse, we work less than our competitors and lead the world in strike days per capita.

In the past the weakness of the Canadian dollar and record bull markets masked our lack of competitiveness in the labour area, but a near-par dollar and tightening economic conditions are exposing our weaknesses and will negatively impact our standard of living if we don't take action. In our industry, for example, our low productivity adds costs to construction and exacerbates the housing affordability crisis in British Columbia by driving up the amount of labour needed to build.

What can the provincial government do to help us combat these huge issues? A good first step is to break down barriers in immigration and mobility within Canada for workers with the skills we need to build our economy. ICBA is a strong supporter of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement with Alberta. Our government showed leadership in developing this agreement to minimize barriers to trade and labour mobility that have long existed between the two provinces.

Our view is that bigger, more flexible labour markets can clearly be part of the solution. It was encouraging to see TILMA followed by a renewed push from the federal government and provincial Premiers to achieve pan-Canadian mobility, and it was intriguing to read recent media coverage suggesting that an important agreement between Canada and the European Union, encompassing at least some degree of labour mobility, is in the works.

But the most promising opportunities to access an expanded labour market lie to the south, rather than to the east. While much of the responsibility for this rests with the federal government, we also believe the province has a role to play in making other Premiers, U.S. Governors and the federal government work to enhance greater labour mobility with the United States. We are heartened to hear that some talks in this area are underway.

As I mentioned earlier, British Columbia and Canada suffer the highest numbers of days lost due to labour disputes of any industrialized country — and low labour productivity relative to our competitors. In other words, we work less, and when we do work, we don't work as hard or as smart. We believe that one of the key roles of the province in this area is to have a labour code that supports the competitive, healthy economy for workers and businesses.
[ Page 2048 ]

It may surprise you to hear that Canada is the only major industrialized country where provincial labour code laws force workers to join unions to practise certain professions like teaching and nursing. In 2006 a landmark Swedish case heard by the European Court of Human Rights found that it was a basic human right for all Europeans to decide whether they wanted to join a union to practise their profession. Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and all our other competitors also see the choice of union membership as a human right.

This may all sound so esoteric, but here's where the rubber hits the road. Because governments in the rest of the world don't legislate monopolies for unions, the unions have modernized their approaches and become more responsive to the needs of the economy and of their members.

[1335]

Union-management government employee relations are actually better in the rest of the world because market discipline has been introduced into the system. Strike days are much less than in Canada, even though in some countries union density is higher.

As evidence of how these reforms have worked, none of the measures that Margaret Thatcher took to increase democracy within unions were reversed by the Labour government of Tony Blair. In B.C., where bitter regular withdrawals of essential service by public sector unions have become the status quo, we need to look to European unions as a model for how to create a labour code that creates a healthy labour climate for all parties involved.

Finally, I'd like to talk about the importance of investment in infrastructure. ICBA believes that our current economic competitiveness is enhanced through efficient movement of goods and services. We therefore support the Gateway project as a positive investment in our province's future. We were also encouraged by the government's planned investment of $14 billion in transportation infrastructure, as this is a positive sign that there will be construction activity beyond the Olympics.

While the construction sector is healthy, there is no doubt that the market has cooled somewhat from the frantic pace of the last few years. While the provincial government was astute in holding back on some major infrastructure projects while the market was overheated, now would be the perfect time for the public sector to launch new capital projects.

In other words, the B.C. construction industry has the capacity to take on new public sector infrastructure projects. Let me add that it's now a buyer's market instead of a seller's market in construction. As the government looks to set its fiscal priorities in the years ahead, we believe infrastructure-building should continue to get attention.

To conclude, ICBA believes the Liberal government has done a great job managing our economy for the last eight years. They've got it right on the big-picture issues like lowering taxes, investing in infrastructure and working to reduce barriers to trade and labour mobility.

As we enter the next budget cycle in tightening world economic conditions, ICBA believes we should focus even more on those priorities. Lower taxes mean more money for workers to spend as they see fit. The timing could not be better for government to invest more in infrastructure. With the economy slowing, construction pricing is getting sharper and sharper, and such investments will keep workers working and growing our economy.

Fewer barriers to trade and labour within Canada, and between the United States and us, will help us to compete with the European Union and other jurisdictions that have long recognized the reality of the world economy. We need to take a look at our labour code and get in line with the rest of the world. The old-style confrontational model of labour relations has gone the way of the dinosaur in the rest of the world.

We would like to see B.C. take the lead in Canada in establishing a code that gives unions back to the workers instead of the ideological labour bosses. The rest of the world has taken this step and never looked back. If we don't, we will get left behind in an increasing global and competitive labour marketplace.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you for the opportunity.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Phil.

R. Lee: We heard this morning that in the rental construction market actually in the Victoria area, there was no new rental unit constructed in 25 years. I believe this is similar in greater Vancouver and other areas in the province. How can the construction sectors…? What will it take the sector to construct more affordable housing rental units?

P. Hochstein: Rental housing is a problem in Victoria, I assume, and certainly in Vancouver. There are a lot of condominiums, for example, that are unoccupied, that are being rented out. I'm not sure how well they're counted in the stock of rental housing when it comes down to it.

Really, it comes down to creating incentives to build those projects. The economic return on a rental property just isn't sufficient to attract the capital. If you want rental housing to be built, you have to create an economic incentive to do that, because the money will go to where there are better returns. The returns in rental housing are just not good enough.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I was interested in your comments on labour productivity, because there is, as you're I'm sure aware, a big body of literature on productivity. Generally, the expert opinion seems to suggest that productivity is comprised of investment of capital,
[ Page 2049 ]
technological research and government law and regulation as well as individual worker input.

[1340]

I think you may have inadvertently left the impression here that labour productivity is simply a function of worker effort, which I don't think is an accurate definition of productivity.

P. Hochstein: I think you're right. Productivity is made up of sound investment in capital and equipment and labour and labour education and training. I didn't mean to give that impression, and I'm sorry if I did.

Also, the fact that our productivity isn't very good compared to the rest of the world means we have to look at all of those things, not just capital and machinery and equipment. Certainly one of the big differences has been the labour regime under which people work in other countries, compared to ours.

J. Yap: Thanks, Philip, for your presentation. Your comment about more, not less, public investment in infrastructure to step up now as we head into these economic times…. You're of course aware that we have about $168 billion, I think, at last count, in progress in public works. Are you including those in mind, or are you saying we should see or facilitate even more investment?

A follow-up question. Your point about labour mobility and entering into discussions with other jurisdictions in provinces and U.S. states. Have you thought about using PNWER, Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, as a forum for promoting this?

P. Hochstein: In terms of the latter question, no, I haven't used that thing. We will look into the ability to get that done. The TILMA agreement, where it broke down barriers and made sure that the credentials in one province were recognized in this province, is good enough. You know, those were very, very important moves — very astute and very helpful in terms of doing that.

I think that is really spreading across the country, and I think that's good. I think B.C. and Alberta deserve credit for….

J. Yap: And Saskatchewan.

P. Hochstein: And Saskatchewan. They deserve credit for leading that, bringing people on. I'll look into that other organization.

What was the other question? About infrastructure spending. What we're suggesting is…. I would accelerate infrastructure spending that's on the books but not yet being put out, for two reasons. One, I think you get much more value now in terms of your construction dollar. Frankly, we're going to need the work. You'll need it today, because the construction industry is the last one into a recession and the last one out. When you're building a highrise and you're ten stories up, you aren't just going to stop. But you're not going to build a new highrise until you're sure the economy has turned around. So we're the last in, last out.

R. Hawes (Chair): We're pretty much out of time. I know John Rustad had a quick question. He didn't want an answer from you here. Maybe you could give us something in writing.

J. Rustad: If you could give it in writing, that would be great. First, I'm on PNWER, and labour mobility was something that we had discussed. So information on that would be great.

With regards to our debt-to-GDP ratio, there's some discussion that accelerating capital projects may put us in a situation where we've seen continued decline on debt-to-GDP ratios. This could create some challenges there, given the environment. So I'd like your thoughts about that level and what we could perhaps do to continue to have robust capital expenditure programs.

P. Hochstein: Okay, I'll do that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thanks, Phil, for your presentation.

Next presenter is the Sooke Teachers Association and Patrick Henry. Welcome, Patrick. The floor is yours.

P. Henry: I'm speaking to you in two capacities, first and foremost as a veteran teacher within the district. I've been in this district about 18 years and have been teaching at Camosun College and here for over 20 years, and in other districts as well.

I speak to you also from the position of the listening post of this particular local. As president of the local, I am not just the mouthpiece but also the ear of the local. I hear their concerns day after day after day. I speak to most of over 500 teachers in the course of a year, listening to their concerns.

I have a presentation here, which I'm not going to read. What I've tried to do is distil what I can — the main ideas of the four issues that I want to recommend. I'd like to provide whatever background I can, which I believe lies in between the lines.

[1345]

I've tried to order these in priority as well, both with respect to provincial focus…. They're issues which I'm sure you will hear, if you haven't already, are reflective of the concerns of the federation and, I'm sure, of many of the locals around the province.

The first one deals with class-size composition language. Right now school districts across the province have just completed their consent-consult meetings. Those are required by legislation. The consent is necessary in those classes from grade 7 and under that exceed class-size limits as prescribed in Bill 33. Consult is neces-
[ Page 2050 ]
sary for any grade where there are more than three special-needs students.

The issue of consult is one that's continuing and increasingly burning with teachers across the province. BCPSEA has even adopted a change in their stand towards the consultative process. This year is the first of three when BCPSEA has issued templates to the districts to use in the consultative process with teachers whose classes are not in compliance with the legislation. In the past there have been places on those forms for teachers to register their approval or disapproval of that class profile as being appropriate for learning.

This year there's no place for teachers to do that in the consultation. Also in the consultation there's no place for the teacher to sign that they've actually taken part in a consultative process. There's no line for a signature. There's no space for administrators to provide a rationale for the over-sized classes or the excessive numbers of special-needs students in violation of legislation. So there's no rationale, there's no feedback for teachers, no indication even on the forms that the teachers have taken part in a consultation.

I think that this leads to something that I'd like to repeat through each of my four recommendations that speaks to a level of disenfranchisement — alienation that leads to apathy on many levels for many of the stakeholders in the education system in our province.

The best solution that we've spoken of — and I say "we," teachers across the province — is a restoration of the class-size limits and composition language that was in there before 2002, at which time the government made many changes to legislation affecting education, including the dissolution of an agreed-upon, negotiated, fairly bargained collective agreement with the government. That was dissolved when legislation was imposed in Bills 27, 28 and 33 to remove those bargaining terms and to impose language upon teachers in the classroom.

My second recommendation refers to the bargaining rights within the locals. There was a time when there were bargaining rights within locals, which were taken away by legislation to perform all bargaining that involves funding at the provincial level. The BCPSEA was created in 2002 in order to carry out those negotiations with the B.C. Teachers Federation at the provincial level. Any negotiation that involves funding, any discussion, any bargaining that involves funding, is in the hands of BCPSEA, effectively emasculating the trustees in each of the districts around the province and taking away their right to be active and effective exponents for the electorate with each of their school districts.

Again, I'd have to refer to the apathy that this breeds within those, not just among the trustees who feel that their power has been taken away but among the electorate as well within each of those districts who feel that their voting powers really have less meaning locally, where their only chance to effectively influence the conditions of education in their district are at the ballot box with provincial elections once every four years. And again, this is a contributor to the disenfranchisement and alienation that people feel around educational issues.

The third recommendation…. I'm speaking of targeted funds. Targeted funds were set in the past on many levels, not just for special needs — I've focused on special needs —but things like technology and other issues in the classroom where groups needed special attention, and that attention was guaranteed through targeted funding that came from the ministry to those groups. I've isolated especially these findings because it is a priority with teachers across the province.

When you look at the first graph at the top half of the page, my third recommendation, you'll see that even though there seems to be some stability in the assignment of special-needs status, there has been some drop over the last years of this study. It's not because there are fewer special-needs students. In fact, there are more special-needs students, students with needs that are particular to themselves.

[1350]

The drop is a sign of the lack of testing and the lack of identifying these students. Any teacher will tell you that in addition to the IEP students — that's students on an individual education plan — there are always those who are unidentified, not yet tested. The testing process really has to start earlier, as the graph demonstrates.

The other graph on the bottom half of the page refers to graduation rates among different groups of students. Again, one concern of ours is the very low number of those students who have behavioral needs and, of course, the lower number of those students dealing with special needs.

We believe that a greater attention to those students with special needs is absolutely essential, increasing the benefits in any cost-benefit analysis of our educational system. The apathy, the alienation that is spread within those students who feel that their needs are not being met is only going to contribute to making them more at risk of leaving the school system before they graduate.

That disenfranchisement, alienation, that leads people to leave the system actually is potentially creating a burden for us all, where those people leaving the system before they're ready become consumers of other social services as a result — whether that be through employment insurance or through legal issues that have to be attended to because of bad decisions they make, and so on.

There are myriad reasons why these people that end up leaving school before graduation end up being greater consumers of public services. This is clearly a factor in any cost-benefit analysis of what we could do with respect to funding for education targeted at those special needs students.

The last recommendation refers to the future. Right now there's a great drop in the number of people who are entering the profession in North America — then
[ Page 2051 ]
leaving the profession within five years. There is an increasing number of people who are getting out of the profession, both in the United States and Canada.

There are many reasons for that, but what's more important is the result that it has. There are jurisdictions within the United States where they've had to dumb down the training and qualifications process for teachers, where teachers' abilities and teachers' scope are compromised considerably just because of the lack of the number of people that are attracted to the profession.

If you look at the two graphs, you see the confluence of what I've referred to as a perfect storm where, following the 2010 Olympics, within three years we have an increase in the number of school-age children within the province, coinciding almost exactly with a baby boom bubble of teachers who are retiring from the profession.

Given the five-to-seven-year spread necessary to adequately train a teacher through the post-secondary programs offered at university, this is something that has to be addressed very soon. Otherwise, we could be facing the very real possibility of a shortage of fully qualified, adequate teachers for the classrooms.

Unless more attention is given to the profession and to education provincewide, there are going to be fewer incentives for people to get involved in the profession, as it is right now.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much. I think your presentation is pretty clear.

J. Horgan: Thanks, Patrick, very much for coming to the committee today. I wanted to talk a bit about the overall funding formula that came in, in 2002 and in my opinion had a profound impact on how districts and boards manage class size and class composition. That's been passed on to educators to manage in the classroom.

We had the school board in this morning, talking about these and other issues. It's my sense, speaking with trustees and teachers and students and parents, that there is a consensus that the funding formula is a profound problem, and it needs to be addressed if we're going to manage the issues — in fact, all four of the issues that you've put forward.

I'm wondering if you could comment on any suggestions or solutions that the Sooke Teachers Association would have about how we adequately fund not just special needs but mainstream education as well.

P. Henry: Well, I don't have too many recommendations for trustees, because their hands are effectively tied. I've often referred to them as the Mayan messengers, where the funding formula necessary for districts to get funds in order to build new schools is such that they will end up wearing all of the stink left behind from closing schools.

The funding formula forces districts to make the hard decisions, and then they end up carrying the political baggage as a result, in spite of the fact that it's the funding formula that causes them to maximize school populations, close schools before they perhaps should be and, in so doing, creating a political landmine for the trustees locally. That funding formula has to change for sure.

[1355]

I think that the decision to put all funding decisions into the hands of BCPSEA should be revisited as well. Some of those funds, if not all, should be released to local school boards to give them more of their elected power to make funding decisions with greater scope within their district. As it is right now, anything that involves funding is referred directly to BCPSEA for negotiation, and school boards are limited only to those issues to discuss or negotiate that are not binding financially.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Patrick. That's a poignant presentation.

The next presenter is the Island Corridor Foundation — Doug Backhouse, and Jack Peake of the Cowichan Valley regional district. I wonder what this presentation could be about.

The floor is yours. Welcome.

D. Backhouse: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am the executive director of the Island Corridor Foundation, and I'm going to talk briefly about a project for rail renewal on Vancouver Island.

I'm pleased to have Jack here. Jack is not only a CVRD board member but on the Island Corridor Foundation board as well, as is Mayor Graham Hill, who is in the audience behind us.

The material that's being passed out to you just now is a summary of a business plan, business proposition, that was prepared for rail renewal on Vancouver Island.

Just as a bit of background, the Island Corridor Foundation is the owner in fee simple of the rail corridor on Vancouver Island. It runs from Victoria to Courtenay and from Nanaimo to Port Alberni. The foundation exists for the long-term management of the rail corridor for the benefit of communities on Vancouver Island. In other words, it's a community-owned corridor.

The foundation was created in February 2004, at a time when the rail was in difficulty on Vancouver Island. The board includes representatives from all five of the regional districts and from first nations. So that's the organization that I report to.

The gift was concluded in February 2006, and since that time the board has worked carefully to find highest and best use for the corridor. When the board accepted the gift, it also took on the responsibility to prepare a business case for rail renewal on Vancouver Island, and that's the information that's being presented now.

The work is being prepared in collaboration with Southern Rail, which is our rail operating partner. If you're
[ Page 2052 ]
on Vancouver Island and hear the train whistle, that's not the Island Corridor Foundation; that's the rail operator. The foundation is doing what it does best, which is managing land, and the operator is safely moving the trains back and forth on Vancouver Island.

We talk about rail on Vancouver Island. We talk about four different kinds of rail. We talk about freight, passenger, commuter and tourism rail. The passenger rail is the existing VIA service, which runs once a day. Commuter rail I know you've heard about in other presentations. There could easily have been tourism presentations, because there are some wonderful tourism products being developed in the mid- and north Island.

Everything that I'm going to talk about from this point forward relates to freight, and the reason that it relates to freight is because that's where the business case is. That's the due diligence that the foundation and the operator have done, and that's where the real business objectives lie.

Just a couple of numbers quickly. Today on Vancouver Island there are about 1,200 cars of freight moved every year, and the operator has projected opportunities to increase that business 18 or 20 times — up to 22,000 cars a year.

Now, you should ask yourself the same question the board asked itself. And when I make presentations similar to this one, people ask: "Why does this make sense today when it didn't make sense ten years ago, when this was a failing proposition?"

In addition to a variety of comparatively minor business reasons, there are three structural changes that have occurred, which make this a viable proposition now, that didn't exist as recently as two or three years ago.

[1400]

The first is that we live in an era of $100, $110 and $120 oil. Ten years ago, in 1998, a barrel of oil was $11. I can't find anybody who thinks that we're headed back towards $11 oil. So that's a shift in transportation that affects not only Vancouver Island, not only British Columbia. That's North America–wide. So there's a huge move back.

The second structural change is a historic change based on the new ownership. Up until two years ago, if you had freight on Vancouver Island and you wanted to move it to any North American or international market, you had to use CP. If CP wasn't interested in making that freight movement, it didn't happen. So the line was effectively demarketed over that way.

Today if you have freight on Vancouver Island, you have four class 1 carriers — CN, CP, Union Pacific and Burlington Northern — so you can negotiate a competitive deal. If you're moving wood products from Vancouver Island, 35 percent of the cost is related to transportation. So there's an opportunity to make Vancouver Island very competitive.

The third item is the concept of carbon pricing, which is evolving more or less daily. Our consultants tell us that with the kind of freight capacities we're talking about, there's an opportunity to create somewhere between a 400 and 700 kiloton carbon credit from this. We intend to use that benefit and that cash flow as partial funding for this process.

One thing that the foundation needs to make clear to everybody about rail on Vancouver Island. There is an inflection point for rail on Vancouver Island that will show up in the next six, eight, ten or 12 months. That is, there is a business case for rail on Vancouver Island based on a modernized railway. There is an opportunity to become part of British Columbia's Gateway and to be connected to that project and to North American markets.

There is not a business case for the rail status quo on Vancouver Island. Either we're going to modernize this, or we're going to stop rail on Vancouver Island. The foundation is trying to be quite clear about the options that are in front of us. The specific request, the specific idea that we're talking about right now, is the rail renewal on Vancouver Island.

The information you have talks about a $103.8 million upgrade in rail on Vancouver Island. Where does that money come from? The foundation wishes to get to a point with a rail operator where the sustainable maintenance of the corridor can be passed over to a rail operator. So we've challenged the rail operator — in this case, Southern Rail — to go through, and they've gone through — tie by tie, rail by rail, signal by signal, culvert by culvert, bridge by bridge — and done a full and detailed assessment of the current condition of the railway.

The result is a capital infrastructure deficit of $103.8 million, and that's the money that's required to upgrade the corridor. Once again, that's Victoria to Courtenay, Nanaimo to Port Alberni. So it does cover most of the populated area of Vancouver Island.

The sources for that money. We're anticipating a tripartite partnership that would include the federal government, the provincial government and local communities. We've had quite a good response federally from the director general of the Ministry of Transport, who has said that they have program funding that supports this, but you need two things in order to trigger that funding. You need matching private dollars, and you need this to be identified as a provincial priority.

We believe that we have the private funding in place. What we're talking to the provincial government and to you today about is having the province as a partner in this project. We have made a commitment that we would prepare a business case. We believe we've done that.

We have met with the Ministry of Transportation. We expect to work with the Ministry of Transportation on a full multiple-account analysis for this, and the expectation is that to the extent that there is a true, full, bona fide business case, this is a project that should be funded, because it makes good economic sense and exists as part of an integrated transportation plan for Vancouver Island.

[1405]
[ Page 2053 ]

We have worked hard to communicate this idea with communities up and down the Island. We have support from all of the 14 municipalities; five regional districts; first nations; business organizations; tourism organizations; elected individuals at the local, regional, provincial and federal levels. We think this is a good idea, and we think the time for rail renewal on Vancouver Island has come again.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

Jack, you had something to add to it?

J. Peake: I just would like to emphasize a couple of points. First of all, the $103 million, which divides up into three components of $35 million…. The $35 million, then, is payable in $7 million instalments over a five-year period. So the actual funding contribution is much easier than the $103 million, which might scare somebody.

The other part I wanted to talk about for just a second is the huge and key support that municipalities up and down this Island have given to this project, not only by being part of the Island Corridor Foundation but by giving up their property taxes on the corridor as it passes through their community.

Every municipality and regional district has forgone property tax revenue where this corridor runs through. That's substantial in some folks' communities, especially the larger places. So for us that was just a very clear picture of how much the community and the municipalities and regional districts support what we're doing here. This is a Vancouver Island–supported project. Even those folks who are outside the rail corridor itself have lent it their stamp of approval.

These are two things that I think should help you deal with the financial impacts and possibilities here.

R. Hawes (Chair): Do you have anything from the federal government yet in terms of a commitment?

J. Peake: We have two or three communications from them that have advised us, one more time recently, that they have the money in the Building Canada fund and that they need the province to step forward and agree to do this.

J. Horgan: Doug and Jack, thank you very much. I'm doing my part. Maurine Karagianis and I were walking the rails before lunch, and I'm certainly prepared to give this back if we can reduce the provincial contribution in any way at all.

I want to thank you both — particularly you, Jack — for your perseverance on this file. I want the committee to understand that the previous presentation from the Communities for Commuter Rail, which had an approximate price tag of $25 million…. A portion of that $25 million would be rolled into the $107 million capital cost for the railbed improvements. I don't want the committee to go away thinking that we're piling on and piling on and piling on.

The capital costs for the renewal would not just address the freight challenges that are at the forefront of Southern's mind and the Corridor's mind, but it would also assist Communities for Commuter Rail trying to get cars off the roads in southern Vancouver Island and eventually up the Malahat. Is that a correct assessment?

J. Peake: Absolutely. The $103.8 million that is referred to in this document here covers the entire corridor. So any funds that are put into the proposal to do the commuter rail from Langford, Colwood and Westhills in is part of that dollar figure. We're not duplicating money here. It's just that there are numbers that fit inside that package.

J. Horgan: Just a supplementary, Randy?

R. Hawes (Chair): We don't have time. We have some other questioners.

J. Horgan: It's on first nations, though. It's very important that we deal with our reconciliation and accommodation.

Have all first nations along the corridor bought into this?

J. Peake: By and large, they have. We still have folks who are hedging their bets, but by and large, they're all there.

R. Lee: What would be the ridership and also the pricing of the tickets along the rail? And what kind of revenue from freight and passengers?

D. Backhouse: I think they're good questions. The $103.8 million that we've spoken about is based on a freight business case. There's an opportunity for all of that to be funded through the freight business. The passenger rail is a more integrated and more complex process.

We're working with B.C. Transit right now on a fully integrated transit program that would tie in with B.C. Transit, with buses and rail, etc., so that those are more tightly integrated. Those numbers will come up in time, but I don't think they exist accurately today.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I heard the CEO of the Southern Railway speak recently in Surrey. He seems very optimistic about the likely success of this venture. Could you just explain what the nature of the tie-in is with Annacis and what causes his optimism?

D. Backhouse: Thank you for the question. I touched on that quickly when I talked about neutral access.

[1410]
[ Page 2054 ]

What happened is that Southern Rail…. The customers on Vancouver Island are part of Southern's existing customer base on the Lower Mainland. So that value proposition, their successful business on the Lower Mainland, will be applied to Vancouver Island.

What they do is provide centre-beam railcars for…. The easiest example is forestry-based customers, who can then go to CP and to CN, and they can get competitive bids on those freight movements. So the value proposition is that a car with wood fibre can be loaded in Port Alberni, it can move to the Lower Mainland, and it can carry on to Chicago or Toledo or wherever it's going. It doesn't have to be reloaded. It's handled once, and it moves right from end to end.

J. Peake: Could I just add something to that for you, Bruce?

The practical aspects of operating a railway are something I'm very familiar with. Currently the barge goes in to Tilbury Island, and the rail corridor that serves the Tilbury Island barge slip is controlled by Burlington Northern railway, with subleases to CN and CP.

So Southern Rail then has difficulty trying to use that service without paying these other operators to run across. The Annacis Island barge slip means it's entirely Southern Rail's operation. They then have their own personal connection to all those four railways, so you smooth out not only the dollar situation but the process itself.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay, thank you very much for your presentation. It's well received.

The next presenter is the Malaspina Faculty Association and Dominique Roelants. The floor is yours. Welcome.

D. Roelants: Thank you. My name is Dominique Roelants. I'm a member of the board of Island Savings Credit Union, which is a billion-dollar corporation with its head office in Duncan. I'm also the chair of the B.C. College Pension Board, one of the 100 largest pension plans in Canada.

I have a PhD in computer science. I have a small law practice, but predominantly, I work at Vancouver Island University as an instructor in computer science. I also serve as second vice-president of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. I'm here today representing faculty, although I may take a couple of liberties from other experiences I have.

I've been a professor at Vancouver Island University for 25 years. In that time I've seen a lot of changes, but I've also seen a lot of repeating patterns. The mid-1980s was the restraint era. Programs were cut, and capacity was reduced. To no one's surprise, except perhaps the Social Credit government of the time, large wait-lists developed, and students couldn't get into the courses and programs they needed.

The result was an expansion of the system with the introduction of the university colleges. The expansion came with more money, and students were able to get the programs they needed. But as the economy got worse in the late 1990s, many people in the local community decided they needed to go back to college or university. That happened around the province. They needed that education to get back into the workforce.

Because the capacity of the system hadn't changed, huge wait-lists developed. The current government, then campaigning for their first election victory, promised to increase student spaces by 25,000. While it is fair to say that Vancouver Island University is delivering more student FTEs now than it did in 2001, the number is not as big as the government had hoped.

Why is that? Well, some things happened in the early part of this decade that the government had control over, and some things that the government had no control over. Those things affected enrolment at Vancouver Island University. Specifically, government deregulated tuition fees, and as a result, tuition fees at Vancouver Island University doubled in less than two years.

At the same time, student grants were cut, and the economy actually started to improve. As a result, many people were able to make a choice: go and work at a reasonable-paying, low-skilled job or, alternatively, attend post-secondary education, complete a university degree and get a better-paying job but face a very large debt burden.

People, sadly, chose the route of going with the low-skilled jobs, and now that's coming back to hurt. These jobs are disappearing. The lumber industry on Vancouver Island is collapsing. We've had a number of bankruptcies in the mid-Island region. As a result, in the mid-Island region people are going to need post-secondary education so that they can obtain the skills necessary as our economy restructures.

[1415]

At Vancouver Island University we saw a significant increase this year in the number of students. Unfortunately, because the post-secondary education system was not delivering those 25,000 new spaces, the provincial government announced a reduction in the budget of 2.6 percent in March of this year.

The impact on Vancouver Island University was devastating. At the end of the day, while there were no permanent faculty laid off, that was because of voluntary severance, a significant number of early retirements and the loss of a number of temporary teaching positions. The final result was that in September of this year we had significantly fewer sections and significantly fewer options, and sadly, wait-lists started to come back.

The impact of the increase in students and the decrease in funding is, not surprisingly, the return of wait-lists, and my expectation is that they will be getting substantively worse next year unless we do something to restore
[ Page 2055 ]
funding to post-secondary education. Effectively, what I've seen over the past 25 years is a cycle where there are cuts to post-secondary education, sadly, at the time when the province needs that investment the most.

As a result, I would make the following recommendations. One of them is increasing student aid, the grant program. The second is a significant rollback in tuition fees. The third is an increase in per-student funding to at least equal the 2001 level in real-dollar terms.

In order to understand why I make these proposals, I'd like to tell you about some of my current and former students and the impact these budget cuts have had on Vancouver Island University.

Because of high fees and the lack of adequate student aid, I've had many students get grades that are far lower than they would otherwise get. They get those grades because they have to work a lot of part-time or, alternatively, even some full-time just to be able to pay for their university and pay to support themselves during that time.

The result is that some very, very bright students have gotten some mediocre grades, and those mediocre grades have cost them opportunities in the future — lost opportunities for scholarships and fewer job opportunities because they didn't do as well as they might have.

The funding cuts have had other impacts on students. As I mentioned earlier, I teach computer science at Vancouver Island University. Over the past two years my department has had two faculty members cut. What that means is that there are fewer options for the students. As a matter of fact, last week I had a fourth-year student come to my office and complain to me about the lack of alternatives, the lack of options that she had for finishing her degree.

I raised the example of computer science because it's my own personal experience, but it is the experience of other faculty in terms of what they're able to offer the students, and it's certainly the experience of other students. When they go trying to get alternatives or electives, they are left with very few choices, and now they're starting to not even be able to get into them, because there's not enough space.

It is, I think, important at this time that the government turn that situation around. Many of you are from the baby boom generation, as am I. Many of you benefited from inexpensive post-secondary education, as did I. It is only fair that we provide that benefit to our children.

I reiterate. The government should significantly roll back tuition fees, the government should increase per-student funding so that it is at least equal to the 2001 levels in real-dollar terms, and they should improve the student grant program.

While education is very important — this is one of those liberties that I'm planning to take; I'm going to move off of education — one of the issues that often tops the list of people's priorities is the allegedly high tax rate.

No doubt you have already heard proposals about lowering income taxes. The rationale for such a position would include the argument that high marginal tax rates — that's the amount of tax you pay on the last dollar earned — kill personal incentive and stifle productivity.

While I do not want to debate the merits of this claim, I would ask you to think for a moment about what the highest marginal tax rate is in British Columbia and who's paying it. You're probably thinking that it's around 43 percent, and you're probably thinking it's being paid by the people who earn over 121 grand. Sadly, you're wrong.

The highest marginal tax rate is actually 100 percent, and it is paid by the poorest in our society. If a person on social assistance manages to get a part-time job, for every dollar they earn, their social assistance is reduced by a dollar. In effect, their marginal tax rate is 100 percent.

[1420]

If you actually believe the argument about high taxes stifling productivity, then how do you think a marginal tax rate of 100 percent works in terms of producing incentive for people on social assistance to go out and find a job?

My suggestion to the committee is that the rules about earning income while on social assistance must be changed so that this disincentive is eliminated. I submit that making that change would be a money-saver for the government, and it would go some way to reducing poverty in British Columbia.

I submit that making this change is a matter of justice, and that's the final issue I'm going to deal with — the issue of access to justice. I became a lawyer three years ago, and I've done some family law work, including some pro bono work. As such, I have some experience with our court system and with what people face when they enter into our court system.

It's fair to say that the legal aid system in British Columbia is inadequate. The resources provided are too low. The vast majority of B.C.'s legal aid budget goes to criminal defence work. Very little is left for women whose rights are often ignored in our system.

While many family law disputes are settled, sometimes the abusive husband wants to keep fighting and use the court system to continue the fight. As we all know, if one member of the couple gives up their career, it's typically the woman. As well, statistics show that women earn on average substantially less than men. As a result, it's typically the man that can afford to hire a lawyer, and the woman is left to defend her rights with little assistance.

Rights under family law are significant. Justice demands that all people have access, fair access, to those rights. As such, I submit that the government should restore legal aid funding to the level it was at in 2001 and ensure that women have access to legal aid if they need it.

While there are many other issues that are important, I would ask the government to provide opportunities for the future. Restoring funding to post-secondary education, reducing the marginal tax rate facing the poorest of our citizens and providing access to justice for women are all proposals that help people to plan for the future.
[ Page 2056 ]

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation.

J. Horgan: Thanks very much, Dominique, particularly for branching into areas outside of your capacity at the "artist formerly known as Malaspina" faculty. We heard from a students union yesterday, and there are striking similarities between the perspective of faculty and the perspective of students when it comes to meeting the skills shortage and retooling our workforce for the economy of the future. I'm wondering. With the new label on your institution, do you believe that's going to be a bonus or a detraction from achieving those goals?

D. Roelants: Well, the sad thing about the new label is that it didn't come with any new money, as we all know.

But there's actually a worse part about that, and that is that Vancouver Island University and Malaspina University College appeared to bear little resemblance to each other, so a large part of the communications material that we had on stock as Malaspina University College is worthless.

There is a substantive transition cost that Malaspina, now Vancouver Island University, has had to eat. It didn't get any funding to cover that kind of expense either. While the change to somewhat of a level of university status may be appreciated, the catch is that the financial consequences were not.

R. Hawes (Chair): I'd just offer…. Well, first I have a question for Dominique, and that would be just for my own edification. The average tuition paid by a student to attend, say, on a full-time basis at Vancouver Island University…. What would you say the annual tuition fee would be today?

D. Roelants: Including student fees, it would probably be about $4,000. The interesting thing is that between the time that we were students and now, it has actually been a real increase of about 500 percent.

R. Hawes (Chair): I guess the only comment I'd also make on the transition…. I live in the Fraser Valley.

The transition from the University College of the Fraser Valley to Fraser Valley University was sought by every community in the valley and was sought by all of the students. They said right from the start, "We know there's no money; we don't ask for money; just make the conversion," because the value of having a degree from the Fraser Valley University versus University College of the Fraser Valley, they felt, was much, much worthwhile. The student body felt that and continues to feel that.

You know, it's interesting that there are different viewpoints throughout the province. Certainly in the Fraser Valley, it's a welcome transition.

[1425]

D. Roelants: I'm not disputing that at the end of the day, students and faculty appreciate the transition. I'm not disputing that. The catch is that at least in the instance of Vancouver Island University, there are substantive transition costs that perhaps didn't exist with Fraser Valley University College to Fraser Valley University, because at least it's still recognizably Fraser Valley.

Vancouver Island University from Malaspina University College…. The connection is harder to see, so you can see how the communication material would have to be retooled. Not so much at Fraser Valley.

R. Hawes (Chair): Good point.

R. Lee: In terms of, say, the completion rate of university students. It seems that in the last few years the job market is so good, and a lot of students by choice actually stop studying and work. In your experience, how many students are in that situation?

D. Roelants: That actually has been quite common in my discipline, computer science, because after you've managed to do a couple of years, you have some marketable skills.

There are some strong disadvantages to the student over the long term of doing that. They substantively reduce their career opportunities in the future. They miss a lot of skills that are very important for a solid computer science practitioner.

You're right. There are people who will leave, especially if tuition is exceedingly high and there are no grant programs in place. The pressure to leave is substantively higher. That's why I make the proposal that we ought to do something about that.

R. Lee: What I mean is by choice. It's not because the tuition fee is high. It's by choice that they would like to work.

D. Roelants: But the choice is impacted by the fact that it costs a lot more money to go to university now than when we went.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Dominique. It's very similar to presentations we've heard across British Columbia.

D. Roelants: Thanks for your time, and hopefully, we'll hear positive results.

R. Hawes (Chair): The next presenter would be Mayor Graham Hill from the town of View Royal.

Welcome, Your Worship.

G. Hill: What a pleasure it is to be here. I have some understanding of what public hearings are like. They're
[ Page 2057 ]
not my favourite pastime. To see you sitting here is a real pleasure, and I thank you for this. I salute you, in fact. This is hard work, so thank you for being here.

I am a stand-in because the plan was that we knew you were going to hear a considerable amount about rail and transportation and the importance of that. The person who was going to speak to you today was to be our director of engineering services, who was going to simply provide a municipal point of view of matters of transportation, what it means to us and the implications of what rail is for that.

I don't want to burden you with those documents because what was to also happen was that he was going to stand here and give you a slide show of simulations of what traffic changes might have been. I'll talk about that just briefly.

Unfortunately, Emmet lost his wife, and yesterday was her funeral. So the challenge has been to come and address you with good information to help you make choices and to filter in what we believe is important from a municipal point of view — from families, from communities, from business, from the implications to our environment.

If I might, I'd like to just very briefly…. You don't have to do this. But in View Royal we have done considerable work to understand the issue of transportation. We have very significant plans and standards established. What we have done is use that basis, and I can share that with you if you wanted to riffle through it. But take it from me. It is a first-class understanding of the issues around our community.

To introduce myself, my name is Graham Hill. I'm not here as the chair of the capital regional district's select committee on transportation. I'm not here as a director of the Island Corridor Foundation. I was a founding member of that group and a cohort of Jack's and others. I'm here as the mayor representing those folks who are going to speak to you of the community we have involved.

[1430]

View Royal is an isthmus. It connects the dominant parts of the Saanich Peninsula and Victoria to the rest of the Island. Rolling through it are the corridors of the Trans-Canada, the Island Highway, hydro, gas, sewer, water and data communications. It is a congestion point in which we can see and know what is happening when we look at what's happening to the traffic patterns.

Today's automated traffic lights capture in digital form what is happening across those intersections. We are in a strong position of knowing what is happening.

The images that you have in front of you are microsimulations — and they are just snapshots, because we couldn't present the dynamic form to you — that illustrate individual vehicles travelling across the roadways. In one model there's a white car sitting on the rail lines. There is a substantial difference between the numbers of vehicles on the roadway — real — and the passenger traffic that could be diverted from that.

We need to put you into a position of understanding. At peak commute hours in our small community 2,000 vehicles per hour traffic density are crossing through our major intersections. Think of that on two lanes — 2,000 vehicles.

The dominant portion of that at our commute period of time goes from the West Shore, where you are now, through that isthmus to the Department of National Defence gateway. Some 60 percent of the employees of the Department of National Defence, we're told, live on this side. Many of them drive their single-vehicle cars, and the amount of congestion is clearly evident from what we have seen.

We actually watch, on our simulations and traffic counts, buildups of traffic density from the Admirals Road intersection — many of you will be familiar with that — through to Colwood Corners, stop by stop. It's blocked.

For us, when we look at the challenges around there, we're looking for the alternatives that materially take that on. Part of the problem is the McKenzie intersection. The McKenzie intersection is a $30 million capital investment to fix. Also, it only moves the problem further along the road. Some of it will drift off, and you'll get some reduction there.

But allow me to say that when you listen to the Island Corridor Foundation and the alternatives that it provides as virtual asphalt, please consider what is happening to the township and the town of View Royal. Virtual asphalt, mobilized, will draw down traffic over the hump — the Malahat — will draw down traffic from the Trans-Canada and will draw down traffic from connecting the people from where they live to where they work.

The significance of that in greenhouse gases, we have modelled, is tangible. The significance to our community is real, and the cost avoidance is very significant. We can get several additional years out of existing asphalt without having to go down that route.

So my pitch — and here I am, standing as Emmet — is: please be aware of the significance to a community, to households, to the businesses, to the greenhouse gas issues that are evolving because of traffic congestion and that there is an alternative that can be mobilized.

Now, you've heard all the business cases and the challenges and the opportunities of working with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit. We believe strongly that this is a very vital and….

While Jack Peake didn't say, the municipal contribution, by way of forgone taxes, to the Island Corridor Foundation is annually half a million dollars. In our communities, small as we are, that's not trivial cash. That's a significant undertaking and recognition by those communities that this is real and that the common sense of the common man is at play here.

So my pitch to you, looking at this from the point of view of a community, is that the wellness, the greenhouse gas issues, the cost avoidance, the mobilizing of
[ Page 2058 ]
an alternative corridor — a real corridor — that can be drawn through that are real.

[1435]

What has View Royal done? We've put in miles of pedestrian sidewalks. We've put in miles of trails. We have the rail trail coming from the blue bridge up through Goldstream and connecting with CVRD and the Trans-Canada. It's going to be opened in 2010. That's a $12 million–plus investment.

We have all kinds of activities going on in our planning and services, and a breakthrough potential exists: mobilize the rail.

I'd be delighted to take some questions, and I hope I haven't put you to sleep.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Your Worship. First, our deepest sympathies to your engineer. It's always sad when we hear about tragedies like that, which fall on people. But you did an admirable job — very eloquent.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Graham. Please pass on my condolences to Emmet. I imagine the grief is unbearable at this time.

Committee members had the opportunity to see this presentation on a big screen with moving parts. It's most impressive. Graham, my question to you…. We've discussed this a great deal, and I've seen and listened to you speak on your passion about addressing climate change.

As we move into the era of municipalities being carbon-neutral, how do you see your work as a mayor with your council…? How do you see this as a contribution? It can't really be calculated. You've got all these cars coming through your community. By putting forward the proposals and working with the communities for commuter rail, what you're doing in View Royal is saying to the broader community: "We don't just want to reduce our greenhouse gases as an administration; we want to reduce the amount that is created within our boundaries by getting cars off the road."

Maybe you could expand on how that would play with carbon-neutral communities.

G. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Horgan. We've signed the charter. We signed up with the province right from the get-go. We have a sustainability committee. We are actively engaged with the capital regional district and their plans for carbon-neutral — and, in fact, improvement on that. We're working vigorously with our liquid waste and sewer organizations.

The significant element of transportation here is that 93 percent of the traffic originates from outside of our community. They are stacked up along that roadway, John, and they are producing gas along that roadway that is significant to the overall climate change endeavours.

So from us, what we're looking at and from our contributions, we are urging and have made some representations already at the RD that they include our particular interests strongly inside that plan.

We don't see ourselves as standing alone in this. We see ourselves as one of the federation of the regional districts. We see ourselves working with Colwood, Langford, Esquimalt and Victoria, particularly in the West Shore. Our numbers that we're looking at there…. They will mirror what Doug Backhouse said earlier. These are not trivial changes. They are real and tangible.

I know, John, that this is the other side of the House from you, but I need to salute — and it doesn't particularly agree with the philosophies you might have…. But if I can salute the carbon-tax approach…. I am a person who salutes the courage and guts of that. I know the circumstances, but I also salute that this needs to be done.

We need to do this. If there was ever a target where that justification could exist to benefit the communities that are contributing to that tax, then the Island Corridor Foundation and the Island rail is an opportunity presenting itself. It's begging. The common man and his common sense is shouting at us, guys: "Do it."

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Your Worship. Just one point, I think. I live in Mission. I'm at the end of the West Coast Express. The one thing that I have not seen in your presentations, any of them, that's very evident in my community…. The commuters are coming home after an hour or an hour and a half sitting in traffic. The tension in the household is unbearable. But the train, where people can have a nice cup of coffee and a relaxing ride home and gear down, has probably saved a lot of marriages in my community. So you might want to think about that.

G. Hill: Well, if I could, sir, I would take advantage of that and use it, if I might.

R. Hawes (Chair): It's all yours.

G. Hill: Are there any further questions, gentlemen and madam?

[1440]

R. Hawes (Chair): I think your presentation has been very, very clear, as have the others on this topic. Thank you very much for your work on it.

G. Hill: Thank you. The Island Corridor Foundation, Mr. Chair, produced a series of "mail in to the Premier" cards. It's an opportunity for persons to put their names on and say: "Mr. Premier, we support the Island Corridor's interests." And there are some numbers and background. What I'd like to do is leave at the table, for those who'd like to pick up a copy for information and action, a measure of those cards, just for the hell of it.
[ Page 2059 ]

R. Hawes (Chair): Perhaps you might see our signatures on a different form, which would be the report that we're going to be producing.

G. Hill: Yeah. I understood that. Thank you for this, but it's for information only.

R. Hawes (Chair): You're welcome.

Now, that does conclude our registered presenters that were under the 15-minute category. Now we will commence the open-mike portion of the meeting. These are five-minute presentations. There are no questions.

The first presenter, Hayes Stewart Little and Co. and Tara Benham.

Welcome, Tara.

T. Benham: Good afternoon. I'm Tara Benham. I'm a chartered accountant with Hayes Stewart Little in Victoria.

It's a pleasure to be here today to share my thoughts about the 2009 budget. In my presentation I would like to provide an overview of our region to provide some context for you. I will follow this with some specific recommendations for the next budget.

As you are no doubt aware, this region felt the impact of the downturn in the forestry sector. However, both the south Island and the capital regional district, in particular, continue to generate economic growth and new jobs.

A recent report by the chartered accountants institute found that construction has been a major economic driver. In 2007 it added 3,000 jobs to the Island's economy. Residential and non-residential construction was substantial. Forty projects totalling $4.7 billion were underway in Greater Victoria last year and included the golf, hotel and residential development at Bear Mountain in Langford; the Dockside mixed-use development; and the Bayview residential development. Another 32 projects totalling $6.3 billion were proposed.

The combined value of development last year in the entire region, with both proposed and under construction, was second only to that of the Lower Mainland. The variety of jobs reflected both the expanding population and investor confidence.

While the capital's economy is ticking along, we must be ready for the impact of the softening global demand for commodities as the U.S. economic slowdown reverberates throughout the globe. We have seen exports in B.C. decline, both as a result of the U.S. economy and also due to the higher Canadian dollar.

In terms of the provincial budget, we know that the province cannot control commodity prices or exchange rates. However, the government can certainly enhance our competitive position and provide strategic investments that can assist our economic and fiscal position. Government has the ability to improve our competitiveness through tax policy. An example of this is the last provincial budget, where the capital tax on financial institutions was eliminated. This was a very positive step towards strengthening our financial services sector and attracting jobs and investment.

Similarly, government has the ability to make more positive changes. I would suggest that increasing the small business tax threshold can help our small business sector grow and prosper. In Alberta the small business tax threshold was raised in their last budget to $500,000, which is consistent with Ontario and Saskatchewan. It would seem appropriate that B.C. match other jurisdictions and also increase our threshold.

Similarly, government has the ability to make our businesses more competitive through simplification of tax administration. In B.C. the simplest way to achieve this is sales tax harmonization. Small businesses currently struggle with the administration around two separate sales taxes, the PST and GST.

[1445]

Lack of harmonized sales tax translates to higher costs for businesses in two ways. First, B.C. businesses require a separate bookkeeping, reporting and remittance for GST and PST, creating unnecessary costs for accounting and administration. In addition, businesses deal with two sets of auditors, enforcing compliance at the federal and provincial levels. And second, the provincial sales tax paid on the purchase of inputs for businesses is not a tax credit like the GST, thus imposing an additional cost.

I would recommend that the government seriously consider the harmonization of the provincial sales tax with GST. The first step would be the initiation of a study on sales tax reform that could look at the cost benefit of such a move.

That concludes my presentation. Thank you for the opportunity.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Tara. This is a presentation we have heard in other communities as well.

T. Benham: I suspected so.

R. Hawes (Chair): Our next five-minute presenter is the Elders Council for Parks in B.C., and that would be Colin Campbell.

Welcome, Colin. You have five minutes. I'll tell you when you have one minute left.

C. Campbell: That's very kind of you. Thank you.

My name is Colin Campbell, and I'm representing the Elders Council for Parks in British Columbia. As retired employees from Parks Canada, B.C. parks, regional parks and NGOs who have supported parks, we are keenly interested in ensuring that the parks systems that we have helped to establish and have looked after have a healthy future. I wanted to thank this committee for
[ Page 2060 ]
listening to the presentation that we made last year. It is often easier to speak than it is to listen.

Last year, after highlighting the gap in provincial funding for our greatly expanded provincial parks system, we asked you to include the following statement in your final report, and you did:

"Our expanded provincial parks system of 893 parks and protected areas needs an immediate infusion of funds in the amount of $30 million annually. This will provide the immediate care and attention necessary to restore the ecological systems that function within parks and begin to create a management regime to manage our parks and protected areas scientifically to world-class standards. This will ensure their long-term health for the economic, environmental and social benefit of current and future generations."

You went further. You stated in your report that the committee believes that the Ministry of Environment must play a central role not only in addressing B.C.'s climate change goals but also a much stronger role in wildlife conservation, regulatory enforcement and parks management. And you recommended that the government consider increases to the budget of the Ministry of Environment to bolster wildlife conservation, park infrastructure and regulatory enforcement.

You had an impact. The government decided to allocate $1.7 million in new funds to help operate 125 new parks and protected areas. This is an important precedent. We appreciate that. You listened. You recommended and were heard. Thank you. It's progress. We're moving forward.

Of course, this response remains a little shy of the needs. There is a balance of $28.3 million that still needs to be allocated. As we head into an election year and consider funding priorities, the Elders Council would again ask the committee and its members to advocate for a government investment in parks of around $30 million annually.

Three years from now we will be celebrating the centenary of the establishment of the first provincial park in British Columbia. Now is the perfect time to make this investment to protect these valuable assets and to realize their potential for the benefits of British Columbians. This will be good for your children, your community and your province.

What are some of the results you might expect from this investment? More park jobs available around the province for urban and rural communities. A reconnection of communities with the parks system through a serious of reintroduction events. Construction of new eco-friendly infrastructure to increase park visitation and tourism and demonstrate green technologies.

New marketing strategies to attract both domestic and foreign tourists to all corners of British Columbia. New opportunities through partnerships with the Child in Nature program and the evolving Parklands Community Cooperative to attract children and youth to become engaged in park stewardship and to get back actively into the outdoors. New partnerships with universities and others to learn more about the management techniques necessary to provide stewardship of our valuable ecological heritage.

[1450]

Enough park staff to ensure that there is environmental enforcement and that park boundaries are respected. New interpretive programs perhaps provide an opportunity for first nations to tell their story and for all of us to learn about these last world-class remnants of naturally functioning ecosystems. More first nations parks comanagement agreements to build first nation relationships with local communities. Opportunities to use newer metropolitan parks as gateways to educate ourselves about climate change and foster a new appetite for healthy family recreational activities in parks. Better marketing of parks to better profile the amazing supernatural experiences that await the park visitor from home or abroad. These are some of the possibilities; you'll likely have more.

Your constituents love this fabulous province. In the last ranking of what British Columbians love most about B.C., B.C. parks came away the clear winner. Why not take this winner, celebrate and protect its natural wonders, create new opportunities and in 2011 bring the province together in a full-scale celebration of the system that you as politicians of different political stripes have all worked so hard to create. The public would love it.

We, therefore, ask this committee, once again, to recommend a new annual $30 million investment package for our expanded system. This would not only secure the long-term well-being of the system, it would also be a popular election announcement that would substantially benefit every community in B.C. — a visible investment that would keep on giving, a magnificent environment and economic legacy for our children.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity.

R. Hawes (Chair): You've done well. Thank you.

The next presenter is Peter Daniel.

I'll try to let you know when you're down to one minute, Peter.

P. Daniel: Thank you. I hope you don't have to.

The rail line on Vancouver Island was constructed as a condition of Confederation. CPR bought the line and all the land and mineral rights from the Dunsmuir family in 1905. The company thrived and expanded the rail line to Courtenay and Port Alberni. Then in the 1960s, CPR made it a company policy to get off Vancouver Island.

Rail operations were designed since then to fail, and high freight rates and poor passenger service delivery were the order of the day. The latest attempt to shut down the line in 2001 by RailAmerica, the owner of the middle of the line at that time, was frustrated by former Minister of Transportation Judith Reid and Cowichan
[ Page 2061 ]
band Chief Harvey Alphonse. They stared down CPR and RailAmerica.

I've been involved since that time. For the past seven years I've provided time and funding for studies undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers and others to structure the new ownership so that the rail system could be rehabilitated. A group of five of us included a local lawyer, the Cowichan band, one local businessman and an Alberta company. Together we assisted in financing the studies on structure and directed negotiations with the CPR and RailAmerica for a turnover of all of the rail assets on the Island to the Island Corridor Foundation.

We structured the formation of the foundation with its members being regional districts and first nations on the line. We directed securing charitable tax status for the Corridor Foundation, and my company undertook the valuation of all rail assets and lands owned by the CPR and RailAmerica. Eventually, CPR and RailAmerica conveyed all the lands and assets to the Corridor Foundation for a charitable tax receipt.

Once that ownership transferred, a competent rail operator needed to be found. Together, my company and Brian Smith, former provincial minister and chairman of CNR, undertook to search and find Southern Rail, a B.C. private company and sister company to Seaspan. Southern is the ideal operator for the rail corridor. They have a long-term vision and are well capitalized. The Island rail system is a fit for their Canadian companies.

The rail line, as you are well aware from other presentations you've got today, is in a severe state of deferred maintenance. Southern is operating on a short-term basis and will operate the freight and potentially commuter and scheduled passenger operations, providing the rail line is upgraded to accommodate new rail service.

[1455]

Together, Southern and the Corridor Foundation have undertaken detailed studies on the work required and the cost of undertaking this work. Those costs are $104 million for the entire line.

The Corridor Foundation is asking the province to pay one-third of this cost and for the federal government to pay one-third of this cost. They will cover one-third of this cost themselves. Work would be done over five years, so each contributor would be required to fund $7 million per year over five years.

When upgraded, Southern will operate under a long-term, 60-plus-year lease agreement, with the Corridor Foundation as the landlord, and, among other things, will maintain the assets in good workable condition, operate all rail services on the line and pay rental to the Corridor Foundation for track access.

The new businesses on Vancouver Island will be concentrated, first, on freight service. Southern will provide a seamless service via Seaspan to its neutral yards in Vancouver. There is no other facility on the west coast of North America, from Mexico to Alaska, where all four major rail freight carriers access a single rail yard. This will provide for Island shippers to access all major rail carriers at best rates and will encourage the growth of freight on Vancouver Island.

Heavy and hazardous freight will be attracted to move by rail and not plug the Island highways. Rehabilitated rail lines will make the opportunity for scheduled passenger and commuter services attractive. Southern, together with VIA, will investigate new routings and frequency of offerings and commuter service on the south Island. These will be fully explored. This is an initiative that Victoria regional municipalities are very interested in, and some are placing the question of provincial and federal funding for rail rehabilitation on the upcoming municipal ballots in their communities.

I commend the province to fund this unique initiative when asked by the Corridor Foundation. Getting large trucks off the Island highway system and getting commuters out of cars is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially, which is a provincial initiative.

You'll be receiving further information on this important opportunity from municipal, regional and first nation governments in upcoming weeks and months. Please respond positively to their request and endorse this necessary funding.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Peter. You're right on time.

The next is Victoria Men's Centre — Keith Harris.

Good afternoon, Keith. As you know, it's five minutes. I'll try to give you a heads-up when you're at one minute.

K. Harris: I appreciate that.

I won't be reading…. I'll be referring to the handout which I've given you. Usually I'm in the opposite situation, asking people to drop in on me. But I will go through it. I don't mind being interrupted if you have a very quick question.

I'm the president of the Victoria Men's Centre. I've been involved in helping out with drop-ins and, I suppose you could call it, crisis management for about the last 15 years. We've been operating on a very, very tight budget. We used to have a physical centre on Oak Bay Avenue for a year or so, and then we've been working out of the James Bay resource on Michigan and currently are allowed free facilities in the Begbie building at Jubilee Hospital, which is a little bit tenuous.

We have a telephone and an Internet help line, which I operate as much I can, because I have a full-time job. This is done as a part-time measure. We present referrals and, generally, help out mostly fathers in crisis situations in separations and divorces. There really isn't anything else similar that I know of in Victoria.

As an example of what is being done internationally now is that in Australia…. You'll see at the bottom of the
[ Page 2062 ]
current services that I have a reference to their national 24-7 help line, which has been operating for two to three years. The number of calls they've had is in the millions, I believe.

[1500]

I'm here to tell you who we are and how we try and help. It's a very multicultural situation. We have people from most of the languages of Canada, most of the situations. There's a huge problem in dealing with divorce or separation, especially for new Canadians whose command of English is difficult. The technical vocabulary is, of course, that much harder for them. We've managed to have some success in sort of lowering the tempo of these situations, which unfortunately do help….

We're aware that the coroner in Nanaimo has actually recommended funding to a similar organization because of a tragic situation where things got out of hand and there were absolutely no resources for the individuals to go to.

I don't want to make a long presentation. I didn't really have an awful lot of time to prepare this, but all the contact information is down here. I'll sort of blow our trumpet, if you like. We have a unique skill set in that we do know an awful lot about the father side of the thing, which is less often looked at than perhaps other situations. We're frequently used for research purposes, in university dissertations and hearings and that sort of thing. We've often consulted with the provincial government.

We're obviously seeking some funding, not a great deal but just to stabilize and have, preferably, a permanent facility which can be used as a drop-in and provide better support for many of our people. We don't necessarily limit it to fathers. We've had what we call second wives and grandparents — a lot of grandparents. Some women and their children have come as well. So I think we offer a very valuable public service, but it's very hard to make ends meet.

I think probably I'll just leave it there. Thank you for hearing me at such short notice anyway.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Keith.

K. Harris: Unless you have some questions?

R. Hawes (Chair): Well, we don't really have time.

Next we have the University of Victoria Faculty Association — Leslee Francis-Pelton. Welcome, Leslee. As you know, these are five minutes, so I'll let you know when you're at about four.

L. Francis-Pelton: Okay. Hopefully, I've got it timed right for you. Thank you for this opportunity to make this presentation as you consider your recommendations for budget priorities for 2009. As you already know, my name is Leslee Francis-Pelton. I'm the president of the Faculty Association of the University of Victoria, representing almost 800 faculty and librarians.

We've got great concerns about the impact of the 2.6 percent rollback in funding that the post-secondary institutions were given this year. The full effects of this rollback won't be felt until next year at the University of Victoria, because UVic decided to fund the deficit for this year out of reserve funds.

In the meantime, though, faculties have been asked to prepare plans to show how they will address the budget cuts coming next year. There are effective hiring freezes at the university, and the hope is, of course, that some faculty and staff members will voluntarily leave so that their positions can be left vacant, thereby reducing costs. However, this does not preclude layoffs as well, as faculties are forced to make difficult decisions when asked to address the budget shortfalls.

I know we have already experienced loss of both faculty and staff positions due to voluntary departure as well as layoffs as faculties anticipate these budget cuts next year. This disappearance of positions will in turn lead to a further erosion in educational quality either because class sizes will have to be increased or because some courses or even programs will no longer be able to be offered.

At some universities here in B.C. the damage is already done. At UVic, if we were to get back the $4.2 million that was lost this year due to rollbacks, we could forestall the damage that will come in the spring of 2009.

[1505]

Higher education, particularly university education, requires multi-year commitments on the part of students if they are to make reasonable choices about their educational futures. We should be in a position to give them certain guarantees about the costs of programs, the availability of courses and the level of support services. For the past few years we were reasonably confident we could do this, but when the university budget reductions were announced in the spring, it once again appeared that we will have to lurch from year to year waiting for government funding announcements.

This instability trickles down to the students in so many ways. Not only is this educationally unsound; it's fundamentally unfair to be continually changing the rule of the game for the students.

The public post-secondary institutions need stable, multi-year funding. The first step towards this would be to index the average per-FTE funding by the rate of inflation. This doesn't get all the way, because the price universities pay for specialized goods and services tends to increase faster than the general rate of inflation, but it would be a very good start.

We also know that many groups have advocated for substantially increased support for graduate students through scholarship programs and other means. We strongly support any move in this direction.
[ Page 2063 ]

An aspect of graduate student support that has not been adequately addressed is support for graduate students of aboriginal ancestry. According to the 2006 census an aboriginal person is 4½ times less likely to hold a master's or doctorate degree than a non-aboriginal British Columbian. This is, of course, due to the fact that aboriginal young people do not finish high school and make the transition to post-secondary education at anywhere near the same rate as non-aboriginal students. At present there are only about 300 aboriginal graduate students in British Columbia.

For those aboriginal British Columbians who have the ability and desire to go on to graduate education, many do not have access to band funding, because master's and doctoral education is not seen to be as important as certificate, diploma and undergraduate degree programs. Because of limited funding for post-secondary education overall, this means that aboriginal graduate students are often left to their own devices to raise the necessary funding to enter and complete graduate studies.

Given the incredible loss of talent these funding limitations represent, we propose that the government of British Columbia establish the Premier's aboriginal graduate fellowship program. This program would provide 150 fellowships per year valued at $25,000. This would give a total cost of about $3.75 million annually.

Not only would a fellowship of this size allow aboriginal graduate students the opportunity to enter and successfully complete graduate studies at a much higher rate than the current case, but such a fellowship would also demonstrate B.C.'s leadership in Canada in developing the talent of the next generation of aboriginal leaders.

We appreciate being given this time to outline some of our concerns and recommendations for you. We will submit these to you shortly in a written form. We also commend you to the attention of the forthcoming written submission from the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C., which will deal with these issues and others in more depth than we were able to do in our five-minute presentation here.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much. You've done very well too.

The next presenter is Royal Roads University and Dan Spinner.

Welcome, Dan. I'll try and give you a heads-up at one minute.

D. Spinner: Just throw something at me — right?

The first thing I want to say, for committee members, is that we're not here to ask for money. That's not part of our presentation. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that Royal Roads is a different kind of university. You might have heard some of these elements last year from our president. I am Dan Spinner; I'm the vice-president of the university, in charge of the foundation.

I'm not going to read through the entire material, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to highlight it, and if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Royal Roads was created under its own university act in 1995, and one of the things it requires us to do is relate to our particular community, serve people who aren't normally served by universities and also work with the Pacific Rim. So we have a very specific mandate, different from any other university in British Columbia.

The result of that is that we have, for example, what you would call adult students or what we call learners. The average age of a graduate for Royal Roads from a master's program is 40 or 41 years old, so we're not in the 18-to-24-year-old business. About 75 percent of our students are graduate students, and 25 percent are undergraduates.

[1510]

Royal Roads is designed to serve people in the workplace — let them come back, let them figure out how to do it. There's a concept we call in our education system the blended-learning model. What that means, Mr. Chairman, is someone can keep their job and still do their master's or their bachelor's. In fact, we're working on a doctorate program as well.

Of course, in today's economy, and maybe even given how it is this week, it's very crucial for people to be able to get education without having to step out of the workforce. Our blended-learning model allows people to come to the campus for a short time, get to know their teammates and their colleagues, go back on line, and then come back again.

One of the ways you measure graduate success in Canadian universities is retention rate. The average retention rate in Canadian universities for graduates is about 64 percent. It's hard work; it costs money; people have lifestyle issues; etc. Ours is 96 percent. So we figure we're doing something right.

The reason I'm not asking for money is because Royal Roads was designed to be funded differently and to work differently with its community. We only get a block grant from the provincial government with small incremental increases, and a result of that is, we think, a pretty good value proposition for the province of B.C.

Our graduate student cost is about $6,800 a year, compared to $20,000 per graduate student in all the other B.C. universities. That's because we're on line, because we're effective and efficient. Of course, we're right down the road, as you know.

A couple of other highlights for you. We do not run deficits, we have a strong balance sheet, and we work a lot with partners. In fact, a couple of them are in the room today. We have a partnership agreement with Peter Daniel. We have partnership agreements with other developers and other businesses throughout British Columbia.

We're forced by the nature of our funding base, which as I've said is quite different, to be entrepreneurial. It isn't a nice idea to be entrepreneurial; we need partners. We need
[ Page 2064 ]
to work together, whether it's with the city of Colwood, where we're located, or with local businesses or businesses in China. Those partnerships produce an awful lot of opportunities for us as well as for the province of B.C.

As an example, you might have heard last year that we do a lot of work in China. We do the work in China because when we went to China a decade ago, we said, "What do you want?" not: "We're going to tell you what you need." They said, "We'll tell you what we don't want. What we don't want is another western university coming to teach in English. We want you to bring your intellectual property, translate it into Mandarin and teach in China" — which is what we do.

We are demand-driven, not supply-driven — a crucial concept, very different for a university. What does the market want? What do they need? How can we add value to the community and to the marketplace? That program in China is enormously successful. We teach in eight provinces. We have 3,000 graduates. We have over 1,000 students a year there, and we can do as much work as China wants us to do.

I'm happy to say, by the way, that the Chinese students who are now all MBA grads are finally coming back to us and saying: "What was that sustainability stuff you were trying to talk to us about?" They're really finally getting interested — they have to — in the issues of green.

Of course, Royal Roads was working on sustainability before it was popular or a buzzword or a concern recently. We teach it, and we have a school of environment amongst all our other schools.

A couple other final comments. Because we're demand-driven, not supply-driven, our partnerships turn out to be critical to us. Royal Roads does not have traditional faculties. We only have interdisciplinary schools — school of leadership, school of business, school of communications. That means that we get out of the silo mentality of traditional faculties and universities, and people have to work together — a practical university working to do its bit.

Our only budget recommendation would be on the sustainability side, Mr. Chairman, to look carefully at life-cycle costing. We're doing a whole project to get off the grid by 2018. Thanks to the provincial government, we're building a new academic building. It was announced last year for $15 million, and we thank you for that. It's going to be very green.

We're building the Robert Bateman centre, which will be a LEED platinum–plus, plus. Costing these projects only on the basis of their initial capital costs doesn't take into account the life-cycle impact. We would recommend that you consider that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Dan. A very nice presentation. We appreciate that you weren't asking for money too.

The next presenter is the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association and Guy Dauncey.

G. Dauncey: Good afternoon, hon. Chair and MLAs. My written presentation will be coming in later, so no notes to give you now.

My name is Guy Dauncey. I'm president of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association. Our leading concern is around solutions to global climate change and the energy future of our province, since most of the causes of climate change come from energy-related stuff.

I was privileged to present to you last year. Out of the 25 recommendations we made to you, I'm happy to note — looking back in my notes — that six have been accepted in one shape or another. So that's a pretty good track record — right?

This year there are three main topics I want to address. The first is around the carbon tax. It's urging the current government to stay the course with the carbon tax. It's really important that we have a price signal on carbon.

[1515]

I've just written a major chapter on carbon pricing around the world for the book I'm working on at the moment. In Sweden they brought in a carbon tax in 1991. Now, the context is that British Columbia's carbon tax is $10 a tonne. Sweden's carbon tax is $150 a tonne and increases the price of gas by 35 cents a litre.

Between 1990 and 2006 their economy grew by 44 percent, their carbon emissions fell by 9 percent while having a growing population, and Sweden made enormous progress in developing district heating systems, bioenergy from forest wastes and biogas from sewage and animal wastes. They keep the income for use for general revenues and to support post-carbon technologies.

They've become the leading country in the world by using the revenues from carbon tax to give people a price signal that says: "How do I stop burning oil and gas in my home? How do our local regions use the available energy in sewage and in forest waste?"

Linköping, the town, is running its buses on biogas from forest wastes and also from smuggled alcohol. When people try to smuggle alcohol in from Denmark and Norway, which have lower taxes, they grab it all. Instead of throwing it away, they turn it into biogas and run the buses on it. So they're getting pretty creative because of the carbon tax.

Stay the course is the message here. When I was in Britain in the 1970s, whenever the price of gas went up, people complained for three weeks, and then they just got used to it. The price of gas increased by the equivalent of $300 a tonne this year, as the price of oil went up and down again.

The whining is not the same as a coherent political message, except when, with all due respect, a political party gets on board and tries to drive that message for political gain, to say that we should not do the carbon tax because they think there's public merit in it. The underlying message of attacking the carbon tax is to tell
[ Page 2065 ]
people that climate change doesn't matter, that it's not really a problem and that we can all go home.

That's a very serious problem, because climate change is so unremittingly serious. The IPCC estimated a 20- to 40-centimetre sea level rise by the end of the century. The scientists have generally said that they were missing out stuff, and the IPCC themselves said that this is not counting the melting of Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheet.

A news report that came out recently said: "Sea level rise overestimated, may only be two metres by the end of this century." A two-metre sea level rise in the Lower Mainland puts our entire transport infrastructure in total — for shipping, for railways, for airlines — under two metres of water.

What is the cost to us of putting a seawall around the entire Lower Mainland for a two-metre sea level rise? What are future generations going to say to us if we don't act on this now? We need every possible tool there is to drive our progress forward on this.

The other side to it is — and I find that whenever I give presentations, this is a very coherent argument: where is the price of oil and gas going, given global supplies? Only upwards.

Sweden is planning to eliminate all dependency on oil by 2020, within 12 years, and not because of climate change. They say: "How do our businesses operate when we can't afford to pay for imported oil? Norway has got its own oil. They're home and dry. We have none." So they're vulnerable for purely economic reasons.

So we need to be planning how we unhook our whole economy from dependency on oil and gas so that our businesses can keep operating, our commuters can carry on travelling, our towns can keep operating and we have continuity. I've done the analysis that we can get a fully post-carbon society with existing technologies.

Some other subsets of this…. We need to reduce the government's dependency on fossil fuel revenues. Right now we get $2 billion a year of royalties from the oil and gas revenues. You can't cut it immediately. It's got to be phased out so that we're no longer dependent on the equivalent of, you know, income from smoking, which means we want to encourage people to smoke more.

Start a 10 percent phase-out, a 20 percent phase-out, and put the income instead into a fossil fuel legacy fund, as Norway is doing. Norway's fossil fuel legacy fund is $365 billion, which they use to pay themselves pensions — for every Norwegian dog and cat around the planet — for as long as they live, even if they live in B.C. They've been wise with their legacy fund. We should do the same and use that money to do the transition for B.C. to a post-carbon economy so that our economy can continue to flourish during that time.

We also need to green the transportation budget — direct funds away from highway expansion, new bridges and new roads into railways, into buses, transit, cycling, pedestrian systems and stuff like that. Because the more there are roads, the more people drive; the more bridges, the more they drive. It all goes backfire.

[1520]

Finally, give equal financing to the electric vehicle infrastructure, as we're doing to hydrogen. Hydrogen actually is not going to happen. We're funding it. It's not going to happen. The whole of the North American auto industry knows it. They're all bringing plug-in hybrids, electric vehicles. Denmark, Israel and Britain are all planning to have complete strategies to go electric — Denmark and Israel in particular, with a thing called project Better Place, electric refuelling infrastructure with powering posts all over the place.

We can be doing the same, and that is the way to go on this one. End of story.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Guy. You've obviously tried to cram a lot of information in a very short period of time. Your passion kind of comes through there. So we'll look forward to a written presentation. Thank you very much.

Are there other presenters? No.

There being no one else that's coming to the open mike, we will adjourn this hearing, and we will reconvene on the 15th of October in Abbotsford at 9 a.m. So those of you who wish to come to Abbotsford and enjoy the hospitality, we'll see you there. Otherwise, we're adjourned for today.

The committee adjourned at 3:21 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