Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 81 — Wednesday, October 14, 2015 (HTML)

Blackcomb/Cypress Room, Marriott Vancouver Airport Hotel
7571 Westminster Highway, Richmond, B.C.

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; Claire Trevena, MLA; John Yap, MLA

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

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


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	1987
G. Davison
M. Milne Martens
K. Rogers
R. Campbell
A. Sutherland
M. Gleeson
J. Groves
R. Tavender
J. Donaldson
J. Pratt
L. Woodrow
K. Peacock
B. Streeper
L. Ackerman
R. Fraser
C. Griffith
S. Mathias
G. Royer
A. Elias
R. Smith
I. Mackenzie
P. Holden
S. Demers
H. Jhaj
K. Palmer Isaak
D. Smith
S. Ismail
J. Winter
R. Botterell

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Scott Hamilton. I’m the MLA for Delta North and Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

We’re an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with the mandate to hold provincewide public consultations on the next provincial budget. The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper that was recently released by the Minister of Finance. The committee will issue a report by November 15, 2015, with recommendations for next year’s budget.

We’ve had to modify our planned schedule of in-person community meetings this year, as the Legislature was called back for a fall session that began on September 28. In order to accommodate as many presenters as possible, we’re holding public hearings in communities across the province through in-person sessions or via teleconference, video conference or Skype.

British Columbians are also invited to participate by sending in written, audio or video submissions or completing an on-line survey. You can make a submission or learn more about the consultation in general by visiting our webpage at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. We invite all British Columbians to make a submission and contribute to this important process. For those of you in attendance today, we thank you for your participation. All public input will be carefully considered by the committee as it prepares its final report to the Legislative Assembly. Just a reminder that the deadline for submissions is October 15, 2015.

Today’s meeting will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. If time permits, we’ll also have an open-mike period at the end of the meeting. Five minutes are allotted for each presenter. If you wish to speak, please register with Stephanie at the information table in the back of the room.

Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services, and a complete transcript of the proceedings will be posted to the committee’s website. All of the meetings are also broadcast as live audio via our website.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Good morning. Carole James, MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hello. Spencer Chandra Herbert, MLA, Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I will take the liberty of introducing our member for Abbotsford-Mission, Simon Gibson. He’ll be joining us a few minutes late this morning.

Also assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial, to my left, and Lisa Hill and Stephanie Raymond, from the parliamentary committees office. Ian Battle and Alexandrea Hursey from Hansard Services are also here to record the proceedings, as I mentioned earlier. Thank you very much. We’ll get our morning started by welcoming Dr. George Davison, Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C.

Dr. Davison, good morning. As I mentioned, ten minutes. I’ll try to give you a hi sign with a couple of minutes left so that you can conclude your thoughts.

G. Davison: Okay. I’ll tell you now it’s going to be slightly more than ten minutes. I rewrote it last night.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. It’ll just cut into your question period time, that’s all.

G. Davison: Okay. Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to speak to the committee about priorities for the 2016 provincial budget. Thanks for putting on this extra day. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to be here.

For 45 years, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators and its predecessors have provided educators in B.C. with a provincial voice. We now represent over 10,000 faculty and staff who work and teach in 18 of B.C.’s colleges, universities and institutes.

Our members come from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds. They teach everything from liberal arts programs to trades training. They’re dental hygienists, nurses, librarians, researchers and law professors. Our members are active in community outreach programs at their institutions — programs designed to bring the
[ Page 1988 ]
opportunity of post-secondary education closer to the communities in which these public institutions operate. We also represent teachers in several private sector post-secondary institutions — eight locals and 400 teachers we’ve organized — who also provide quality education, mainly to international students.

I want to cover a number of areas in my time before the committee this morning, starting with some comments about the overall investment that the provincial government makes in post-secondary education. As you know, the largest single investment that the government makes comes in the form of a provincial operating grant. Every institution receives one, and it’s tied to the ministry’s estimate of student enrolments, course offerings and a range of other factors.

I know you’ve heard this from some of our member locals, students unions and institutions themselves over the past few weeks, so you will have heard more than once that these operating grants are no longer adequate to meet the underlying cost pressures facing post-secondary institutions in B.C.

When measured on a per-student basis and adjusted for the impact of inflation, real per-student operating grants to public post-secondary institutions have been in a steady decline over the last decade and a half. Our analysis of provincial budgets in the Ministry of Advanced Education service plans show that real per-student operating grants have dropped by 20 percent since 2001.

In the same time, tuition fees have more than doubled, and student debt is at a record high. The Canadian Federation of Students estimates that the average student debt load in Canada is about $30,000. You’ve heard from them that interest rates on repayment of loans in B.C. are the highest in Canada. I don’t have to tell you how that hurts B.C. students, given our high cost of living.

As educators, members of our federation are deeply concerned about shifting the financial burden onto students. What we’re seeing in our classrooms is that, as tuition fees and the accompanying student debt rises, so does the level of stress, anxiety, even depression amongst our students.

When students have to worry about finding their way through a very bureaucratic system and affording tuition and other costs, it’s more difficult for them to study. Many have to work one or two part-time jobs. Some work full-time, and we’re seeing that it’s taking longer for students to complete their programs.

When I started teaching in B.C. in 1988, the province provided 80 percent of institutional funding. Tuition represented about 10 percent. Now it’s over 30 percent at most institutions, and when international education is included at some of the bigger ones, tuition revenue equals or surpasses the government grant.

This shift raises serious concerns about access to our public post-secondary system, which in turn has significant implications for students and also for the growth and success of our province. Since everyone is saying that up to 80 percent of new job openings will require post-secondary education, if the province doesn’t provide for accessible, affordable post-secondary institutions, there won’t be a workforce with the necessary education to meet those requirements.

Young workers think this is a plot to keep them in school, burden them with debt and then not deliver on the province’s promise of a decent job at the end. They’re told they’ll have multiple careers before they retire, that house ownership is nothing more than a dream.

I just came back from two weeks with the Canada-Caribbean Emerging Leaders Dialogue, headed by her Royal Highness Princess Anne. It’s the current version of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study tour that will celebrate its 60th anniversary next year. Sixty representatives from business, government, labour and civil society met to talk across our respective silos and build leadership skills.

At Carleton University, where I graduated in 1978 with a master’s degree, my group was given a presentation by the alumni association on a program that links recent grads with new grads. It’s a creative way to network and build on the old adage that it’s not what you know but who you know.

We’re quite concerned that the government is making problematic assumptions about what the educational needs and jobs will be. The minister has talked about targeted funding for 60 top jobs, as outlined in the 2014 skills-for-jobs blueprint. Several presentations that you’ve already heard have recognized the very real need for strong communication and critical thinking skills, for problem-solving and analytical skills — skills which are learned and refined in programs like the liberal arts and social sciences.

The government’s proposal for re-engineering focuses on an anticipated growth in resource-extraction industries, which is shortsighted in so many ways. Even if we were able to ignore the increasing harm to our natural environment that such policies produce, how can we ignore the overall effect on our society and economy of putting our proverbial education eggs into a single resource-based basket?

Students need choices of courses, of programs, of potential jobs. Not all students want or are suited to trades education. More choices mean more opportunities, and diversity among our students will lead to more diversity across British Columbia.

I used to call institutions like my own, the College of New Caledonia and Northwest Community College — sister organization in the north — comprehensive community colleges. They are no longer that, as rationalization has forced offerings on trades and health sciences in the former — focused on those offerings — and cut university credit offerings dramatically in the latter. Students in the north have much less choice than they did.

The global economy is becoming more knowledge-intensive. There was a piece in the paper yesterday about Nanaimo, where several high-tech start-ups have been successful. If we make post-secondary education more difficult to access because of underfunding, B.C. is at risk of not creating the skills, knowledge or learning opportunities that we need for economic success.

I also want to talk about how funding cuts over the last year are affecting the post-secondary system in B.C. Last year, members of our federation spoke about the cut of $22 million to English language training for domestic students. This was driven by a change the Harper government made, but unlike other provinces, B.C. did not make up the funding. This year, the post-secondary system lost another $6.9 million — funding that was used specifically to keep adult basic education programs tuition-free.

Now, ABE has been a political football for years. In the late ’90s, the NDP made it tuition-free. The minister of the day, Paul Ramsey, told me that no one in particular was pressing for this, but Premier Glen Clark was impressed, on a visit to Vancouver Community College, by the transformative impact of adult basic education on students. It got them in the door, and it changed their lives. The government made ABE tuition-free.

When the Liberals came in, tuition was put back on. It was removed in 2008. Then–Minister of Advanced Education Murray Coell said: “We are helping people upgrade their education so they can take advantage of our growing economy and enjoy rewarding careers.” That all changed last December, when the government announced that students with the means to do so would be expected to contribute.

Tuition is still free in the K-to-12 system for those who haven’t graduated. But if you have a Dogwood or its equivalent from anywhere else, you have to pay, whether it’s in K to 12 or post-secondary.

We know that almost 80 percent of students who take ABE programs have a high school diploma; 77 percent are upgrading to prepare for further studies and need to refresh old high school courses before they can go on. About 25,000 students access ABE programs at 18 public post-secondary institutions.

We saw the impact at a forum at the Croatian Cultural Centre last February. As predicted, since tuition fees were reinstated, enrolment numbers have dropped by as much as 45 percent at some institutions.

Instead of encouraging students to access post-secondary, the government has erected barriers; $1,600 per semester in tuition fees is a barrier. At one college, tuition fees are as high as $800 per course. Several institutions have set them at $550. You usually have to take three courses for a full load.

Those students who take ABE programs are frequently some of the most vulnerable: 58 percent are women; 20 percent, parents; 18 percent, aboriginal. It does not make any economic sense to make it harder for those who need it most to access even basic education. It limits opportunities to pursue more rewarding careers, to earn a higher income.

With declining enrolments, already cash-strapped institutions face even greater cost pressures. Twenty-five thousand more working British Columbians could easily pay more in income taxes than the $7 million cost of free tuition.

ABE students aren’t eligible for student loans — only university students are — so the burden falls on the grants system. There are several problems with this. You’ve heard it before, but it bears repeating.

When the government put $6.9 million into an adult upgrading grant, it made eligibility for that grant based on household income — $23,000 a year, about $13.27 per hour for a single person. A student under 22 who lives with both parents — and most students under 22 do live with parents — isn’t eligible for a grant if the parents’ combined income is over $36,000.

The application process itself is a barrier, a cumbersome and often overwhelming administrative burden on students who may already struggle with literacy. Worse, they have to reapply for it every term. Many faculty have been helping students fill out the forms because there’s not enough institutional support. There are attendance requirements to keep the grant, another barrier for vulnerable students.

Finally, it also appears that there’s a social stigma to applying for the grant. We’re hearing stories of some students struggling to find the money on their own, rather than applying for the grant, because they feel somehow embarrassed to need to access student aid.

One of the site visits at the CCELD in Barbados was the University of West Indies campus at Cave Hill in Bridgetown. From 1963 to 2013, tuition for post-secondary education in Barbados was free. In the last few years, the enrolments were relatively steady at close to 9,000 students.

In 2013, the government, apparently without any consultation, introduced tuition. Last year, enrolments dropped by 20 percent. This fall, enrolments have dropped another 32 percent, down to about 4,700. Tuition has cut access almost in half and made post-secondary education unaffordable for many. We’re seeing the same effect on ESL and ABE in British Columbia.

I’ve seen earlier presentations by institutions who are concerned with funding, especially for capital infrastructure needs, about surpluses that they can’t use, about administrative pay freezes and the difficulty of recruiting good people to B.C.

These stories are true. Some buildings are crumbling. Use of surpluses is much more stringent here than it is in other provinces, and pay is much lower in B.C. than other provinces. I would like to mention a little-known
[ Page 1990 ]
fact about the growth in administration in B.C., relative to faculty and staff, in the last 14 years. We’ve seen administration numbers increase by 46 percent and overall pay — 92 percent.

When resources are scarce, decisions have been made to divert dollars from the classroom to run the increasingly complex institutions we work in. I’m not saying it’s bad. I’m just pointing out that that’s how resources are being used.

As educators, our greatest concerns are our students — how we can help them to grow and thrive in classes and beyond. We believe strongly in the value of public education. As such, we’re deeply concerned by what appears to be a growing trend of declining accessibility and affordability of our public institutions.

I know that your committee’s recommendations last year included much of what we’re asking for this year. But as the funding crisis reaches a critical point, we’re once again asking for some specific priorities:

(1) The reinstatement of tuition-free adult basic education programs at all of our post-secondary institutions and the $6.9 million moved into an envelope of funds designated specifically for developmental programs.

(2) A direct and ongoing commitment of at least $22 million to support provincially funded ESL programs delivered by B.C.’s post-secondary institutions.

(3) Improved funding support for students, both in terms of a revitalized student grant program and for student services to ensure that students can complete programs and degrees in a timely way without the burden of a heavy debt load.

(4) A funding formula that better responds to the cost pressures faced by B.C.’s post-secondary institutions. Specifically, we once again recommend a comprehensive review of funding to address regional inequities and core funding needs for the entire system.

Finally, a recommendation that doesn’t cost: more consultation with those of us in the system. Among our 10,000 members, we might even have some good ideas to offer.

We have one minute for questions. I’m going to have to take every single one of them on notice. If you could respond to this at a later date.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wondered if you could share a little bit more on the reasoning behind calling for a comprehensive review of regional funding inequities. We’ve heard it from a number of colleges and universities, but it would be great from your overarching view for FPSE.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m going to have to take that on notice. If you could respond to the committee before the 15th of October with the answer to that question.

D. Ashton: Doctor, thank you for your presentation. I greatly appreciate it. Just quickly, you gave us some figures about costs that have increased. But one figure you didn’t give me is salaries. Can you let me know about the salaries over the same period of time, please, just in numbers? I just need some comparative figures.

Seeing none, thank you, Dr. Davison. I appreciate your time. Sorry we didn’t have time for a more fulsome question period, but you warned me ahead of time.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I understand. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Have a good morning.

Good morning, ladies — Maggie Milne Martens, Corine Willems and Madeleine Sauvé.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll give you the same spiel. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left to conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions. That works for you? Great. The floor is yours.

M. Milne Martens: Members of the select standing committee, thank you very much for hearing us today. My name is Maggie Milne Martens. I am a parent of three school-aged children attending public school in Vancouver. With me today are Corine Willems and Madeleine Sauvé.

We represent a larger group of parents from public schools across the Lower Mainland that share a deep commitment to the values of public education and have grave concerns for its future. Together, we formed the parent advocacy network for public education to connect parents between schools for the purpose of promoting and preserving public education at both a local and provincial level. In your handout, there’s a list of the schools represented, and this number is growing.

I would like to address the committee today on matters of both finance and governance, as they are related as they pertain to K-to-12 public education in B.C.

Free, accessible and equitable public education is a basic human right. It is declared in the universal dec-
[ Page 1991 ]
laration of human rights in article 26. This right has also been affirmed internationally by the CMEC, the Canadian Ministers of Education Council, in the report to the UNESCO convention against discrimination in education, which asserted that all Canadians had access to free public education. Not only that, but in Canada, freedom from discrimination extended also to the quality of education received.

Within our own province, these democratic values and rights are clearly spelled out in the preamble to the B.C. School Act, which reads:

“AND WHEREAS the purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable all learners to become literate, to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society as well as a prosperous and sustainable economy.”

This is a social contract between the citizens of this province and the government to which authority and moneys have been entrusted to ensure its protection and its provision. It is the government’s responsibility to uphold these values, regardless of its political alignment. Yet the laws and financial decisions being made by this current government are undermining free and equal access to quality education in B.C. and are therefore in contravention of that social contract.

How has this happened? Let me briefly indicate some of the policies, the related funding decisions and the resulting inequities that are an increasing reality in the public system.

In terms of policy, in 2002, the provincial government introduced measures that altered the funding for public education from a school- and needs-based formula to a per-student-based formula. With Bill 34, choice legislation encouraged schools to compete for their market share of students and, additionally, encouraged school boards to generate funds through the international marketing of knowledge capital.

With respect to funding, while annual funding to education has increased, the allocation for public education has not kept up with inflation, increases in contract agreements, nor rising operational and maintenance expenses. In terms of per-student funding and percentage of GDP, B.C. has actually fallen dismally behind the rest of Canada.

Structural underfunding is forcing school boards — who are bound by law to balance budgets — to increase class sizes, reduce programming and cut support staffing, resource workers, counsellors, librarians, specialist teachers, and the list goes on. The reality experienced every day in public schools across B.C. is that present funding is insufficient to meet the needs of all learners.

As a result, parents who are able are increasingly pressured to spend inordinate amounts of time fundraising or to pay out of pocket to provide their children with the most basic educational resources. These include playground equipment, access to art and music programs, art supplies, musical instruments, school readers and digital technology.

A case in point: just in the first month of this school year, I have written a cheque totalling $106 for basic school supplies. I have paid $200 for my child to participate in their Grade 7 school-away camp. I have been asked to consider a direct donation of between $25 and $100 to PAC funds, and I have been asked to purchase a $30 Entertainment book and sell more of these to my friends and family to make up for shortfalls.

The government is off-loading its fiscal responsibility onto the backs of parents. This is creating inequity between have and have-not schools. In Vancouver, this inequity has contributed to a gross population distortion, with anxious parents travelling across the district to access wealthier school catchments or to flee buildings that are seismically unsafe.

This migration of students is undermining the social cohesion of neighbourhood communities and also the democratic principle of inclusiveness, which is fostered by student diversity within schools.

This is creating a situation in which public education in poorer neighbourhoods, with reduced funding and a concentration of need, is now exacerbating rather than mitigating socioeconomic disadvantage.

Not only this, but in the June 8 special adviser’s report to the VBE, via EY, which was commissioned by the Minister of Education to “find efficiencies, improve revenues and make better use of facilities,” it is these same schools in neighbourhoods with lower socioeconomic status that are disproportionately identified for immediate school closure. The cost for these children and families will be staggering indeed.

Clearly, access to quality public education in B.C. is no longer free, and it is no longer equal. It is undermining the democratic principle at the heart of the B.C. School Act.

However, the message that we are receiving from the government about equal access to quality education is completely different. The first week back at school, I received a letter in my child’s backpack — I have it right here — from Mr. Bernier, the new Minister of Education, introducing parents across B.C. to the progressive concepts behind the new curriculum being launched this fall. It is full of superlatives and presents the new curriculum with its hands-on, personalized learning approach as evidence of the government’s commitment to ensuring that each one of our children gets the education they need to be successful. The word “successful” is, in fact, repeated five times within this letter.

However, I wonder who exactly will be providing the materials and resources necessary for implementing this new curriculum. There seems to be a massive discrepancy between the vision in this new curriculum and the fiscal austerities being imposed on public schools by the provincial government. Let me highlight with one example.

The core competencies of this new curriculum are: communication; creative and critical thinking; and the
[ Page 1992 ]
exploration of personal, cultural and social identities. Where are these competencies taught most effectively? Through education in the arts.

Yet in B.C. schools, government underfunding has decimated arts programs and virtually eliminated them at an elementary level. Moreover, no space allocation is given to the arts in elementary schools, under the government’s stringent area standards, which they introduced in 2008. And now in Vancouver, the 95 percent capacity goal for the district, as recommended by the aforementioned special adviser’s report, would mean the closure of all existing arts spaces, which are called “surplus” spaces in the report. This is indeed troubling, given that exposure to the arts is shown to significantly mitigate poverty differentials — to increase academic performance, graduation rates, employment outcomes and civic engagement — particularly for children at risk.

How, then, are underfunding and corporate efficiency models compatible with the educational priorities and the progressive vision of this new curriculum? How are they consistent with the democratic principles that are the basis of the B.C. School Act? If this government is truly committed to the success of all students and the new curriculum is to truly benefit all B.C. children, then the government must demonstrate both a financial commitment and a change in its policy priorities.

In conclusion, access to quality public education should not be limited to those whose parents can afford to subsidize it. It should be free and accessible to all children in their own communities, regardless of socio or economic means.

Therefore, we ask the government to, firstly, reconsider the market-based policies that are exacerbating inequalities within the public education system and renew a commitment to creating equal educational opportunities for all children.

Secondly, increase overall funding to provide quality public education that supports the needs of all learners, regardless of race, sex, religion, economic condition or ability.

Thirdly, be committed to the timely provision of safe and educationally appropriate spaces of learning in existing school neighbourhoods that allow ample space for the cultivation of the arts and the implementation of the new curriculum.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for that presentation. I might have time for a couple of questions. I’m going to start with George.

G. Heyman: Thank you for a thoughtful and passionate presentation. You mentioned the various fundraising requests that go to parents. I’ve certainly heard the same thing from parent advisory committee members in my constituency.

You also mentioned the issue of equity and inclusion. Obviously, some families are not able to respond to the requests for funding for any number of programs that used to be considered part of the curriculum. Can you just talk for a moment about what the impact on the students whose parents can’t afford those fees might be and if there’s any attempt by other parents to make it up? What sort of divisions does it create, from your perspective, amongst the student body?

M. Milne Martens: Yes, I can answer that. In Vancouver, the policy is that if any parents cannot, obviously, pay for, say, school fee supplies, then that is covered by the school board. But we’re not talking about basic school fee supplies. We’re talking about digital technologies. We’re talking about arts and music programs.

What we’re seeing happening is that there are schools where there are parents who are wealthy enough to subsidize the system, and those schools are receiving arts and music programs. Those schools have computers in their classrooms. And the more that parents are crossing catchments in order to access schools in these wealthier neighbourhoods — these, again, are parents who have the ability and mobility to do so — we’re getting this increasing inequity between schools.

In a 2014 survey, the amount of money per student that was raised in some schools was as high as $194 per student per year, and in other schools it was zero. So if you look at what is being bought by these, which are resources, the accumulative impact of that over years is staggering.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just want to thank you for the footnotes, and thank you for raising the issue of arts education — something that is often ignored or forgotten. I just wanted to ask you if you could extrapolate or expand on your call for a committed, timely provision of safe and educationally appropriate spaces of learning for arts. What are you looking for, exactly, with that recommendation?

M. Milne Martens: One of the things that has happened, obviously, with the seismic issues, is that the schools that are replacing the schools that are being torn down are 35 percent smaller than the original schools. The only space allocations given are for enrolling classrooms. The implication is that, I guess, everything can be done in a classroom. These classrooms are smaller than they were previously, so for subjects like visual arts or drama or music, they are inappropriate spaces. Right?

I know that at the Vancouver school board, they are trying desperately to create spaces for those things to happen, but that means cutting classrooms even smaller. And so the learning environments are not conducive to fostering those things, which are actually fundamental and also in the universal declaration of human rights as a human right.
[ Page 1993 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present. We do appreciate your thoughtful….

C. Trevena: Very quickly, thank you very much for your presentation. I have two questions on notice. One is your Vancouver-based network. Are you getting interest from other areas to participate, to get involved and lobby for their areas?

The second one on notice is talking about…. I agree with Spencer. Thank you very much for raising the idea of arts and the importance of a broad education. Do you have any figures on the number of music programs that are still being offered in school — how many band programs that are still being offered in the schools you’re representing?

M. Milne Martens: I don’t have those exact numbers. I have done a count, and I think it’s about one-third of the elementary schools in Vancouver that have some access to band and strings. But of course, those have been cut again this year.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If you would like to take the opportunity to compile those and if you can get them to us before the end of the day tomorrow, because that’s the cutoff, they can form part of the public record and that will more accurately answer the question.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We don’t have the time. I’m sorry. But thank you very much. We’ve got lots of good information here, so I appreciate it. Thank you for taking the time, ladies. Have a good morning.

Okay, we are just trying to raise our next conference call. Our Graduate Student Society folks aren’t here yet. We’ll just take a very brief recess while we get them on the line.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome Kenya Rogers from the Make Transit Work Coalition.

Thank you for being there, and thank you for being prepared a few minutes early. We do appreciate it. Kenya, you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll interrupt you with about two minutes to go so you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions. Does that work for you?

K. Rogers: Thank you so much, folks. My name is Kenya Rogers. I’m the director of external relations with the UVic Students Society, but I’m here talking to you today on behalf of the Victoria-based Make Transit Work Coalition, which includes Unifor 333 — the B.C. Transit bus drivers’ union in Victoria — and the Camosun College Student Society. Together we advocate on behalf of the needs of local college and university students as well as community transit users.

Between UVic and Camosun, we represent over 36,000 student members, the largest ridership demographic and stakeholder in the capital region. Our ridership demographic is larger than some municipalities in the capital region.

Student societies represent a quasi municipality or citizenry in the capital region, and we share core features of the municipalities: political representation, taxation that funds the public transit system and the financial and human capital required to represent the issues of our constituents.

Through the U-Pass, a universal bus pass, UVic and Camosun students contribute over $5.4 million to the public transit system annually. This contributes millions of stable, dedicated dollars every year to B.C. Transit’s budget. In recognition of the nature of our unique stakeholder status, the Victoria Regional Transit Commission recently granted students a non-voting seat on the commission.

However, continued underfunding for public transit in the capital regional district has negative impacts on B.C. Transit’s ability to move students, workers, seniors and folks with mobility issues around the region in a safe, efficient and reliable manner. Specifically, the major impacts of underfunding are bus pass-ups, limited late-night transit service, reduced service hours and limited funds for major infrastructure investments that would make the transit system operate more efficiently.

B.C. Transit can’t increase service hours to the levels needed until major capital investments happen, such as additional garages or buses. Compounded with these problems is the issue of gridlock on No. 1 Highway as people commute to the Western Communities. Without dedicated bus lanes or HOV lanes on these major transportation routes, B.C. Transit will have to continue to
[ Page 1994 ]
throw too many buses into the crawl in order to maintain service. The average speed of buses is simply slowing.

As of May 2015, the provincial government has effectively frozen B.C. Transit funding for the next three years. This is going to put further pressure on the already cash-strapped system in Victoria — pressure that will be passed down in the form of higher fares onto lower-income folks in the community who need access to safe, reliable and affordable public transit, and in the form of service cuts to a system that already can’t meet demands. In fact, we are currently in the midst of a fare review that will hurt the pockets of folks who are low income, folks who have mobility issues and seniors who need access to public transportation the most.

Today I have five recommendations that I would like share with you. The first recommendation is to amend the Motor Fuel Tax Act to increase the dedicated fuel tax applied in the region under the B.C. Transit Act by two cents per litre to support public transit systems development in the capital region. In 2013 and ’14, the Victoria Regional Transit Commission requested an increase to the fuel tax. We asked the provincial government to approve this request which will bring approximately $6.6 million in desperately needed funding. This request has broad support of municipal politicians and citizens and is more appealing than continued property tax increases.

When the local fuel tax was increased by one cent in 2008, it brought in $2.3 million in new funding to public transit in Victoria. This made an immediate and noticeable positive impact on service levels in the region, including the introduction of late-night bus service within two years. Victoria is currently at a 3.5-cent fuel tax, while Vancouver is at 17 cents. We recognize that Vancouver is a much larger urban centre, with different funding needs, but there’s definitely room for Victoria to grow to a fuel tax of 5.5 cents per litre. Such an increase is modest, reasonable and politically feasible.

The provincial government may even want to consider a graduated increase, phasing in at 0.5-cent increases per year over four years. As seen in 2008, a modest increase at the pump leads to greatly improved service in our bus system.

Recommendation No. 2. Remove the very modest lift, or effective three-year cap, on funding for B.C. Transit. Our public transit system is underfunded to begin with. Effectively freezing transit funding for the next three years will lead to cuts in service hours and the degradation of quality and reliability. Many of the positive gains made since the fuel tax increase in 2008 stand to be lost.

The Make Transit Work Coalition supports the government audit of B.C. Transit. It’s always good to identify opportunities for increased savings and efficiencies, but to cut funding for three years without the information from thorough audit is to put the cart before the horse. This funding cut assumes that B.C. Transit is mismanaging its operations, when that may not be the case or it may not be as severe as the government presumes.

Meanwhile, students and community riders will bear the brunt of the poor transit service that such a funding freeze will bring, and folks in lower socioeconomic backgrounds will be disproportionately affected.

Three, amend the B.C. Transit Act and the Carbon Tax Act to allow revenue allocation from provincial carbon tax to public transit funding. The funding mix for public transit needs to be diversified. There are a number of potential revenue streams that the government could bring on line to fund public transit. Currently the majority of funding for public transit in Victoria comes from a provincial operating grant, property taxes, a fuel tax and fare revenue.

At the minimum, the provincial government should amend legislation to expand the funding mix to including revenue collected from the provincial carbon tax. Around the world, B.C.’s revenue-neutral carbon tax is widely seen as a success story. There are a number of initiatives that could build on this success and ensure the tax doesn’t become regressive and that it effectively works to reduce climate change.

The carbon tax brought in about $1.2 billion in 2013-14. Rather than putting all this revenue into tax cuts, a very modest portion could be allocated to funding for public transit. In this scenario, the government could live up to its philosophical mantra of respecting the taxpayer as well as its stated commitment to improving public transit in British Columbia and reducing the impacts of climate change.

Four, after October 19, 2015, step up provincial government lobbying efforts to get the newly elected government of Canada to commit to a large-scale, long-term dedicated investment in funding for public transit. The long-term trend in Canada has seen the federal government off-load the majority of its responsibility for urban infrastructure funding, including public transit, which in turn is off-loaded from the province onto municipalities. As a more diverse funding mix is needed for public transit, this, too, should include funding from all levels of government — municipal, provincial and federal.

Although the federal government does provide one-off funding for major capital projects for public transit in B.C., it doesn’t provide the dedicated stable federal funding that’s needed for transit to operate efficiently and reliably over the long term. Other countries, such as the United States, do so through their federal transit administration.

Five, amend the B.C. Transit Act to move from an operating grant based on contingent funding to a dedicated operating grant. Until the funding freeze, in comparison to other provinces, the provincial government put an above-average amount of money on the table for public transit in B.C. But the majority of this funding is contingent on local municipalities matching funds
[ Page 1995 ]
through property tax hikes.

The mayors who sit on the transit commission do not want to raise property taxes overly high, because it’s not popular with their constituents and hurts their chance of re-election. So every year when the transit commission approves B.C. Transit’s annual budget, there’s a limit as to how high commission members will raise property taxes. In this scenario, money from the provincial government always gets left on the table. This is money that could be used for the service hours needed to end ongoing issues such as bus passes.

Contingent funding makes for an unpredictable and unstable annual budgetary process for B.C. Transit. They never know how much money they’ll have to work with from year to year. This prevents B.C. Transit from being able to implement a rational, planned, predictable, stable and forward-thinking transit system for the region as envisioned in its transit future plan.

We ask that the government introduce stability into our transit system by providing a dedicated block of funding that isn’t contingent on the level of local funding.

In conclusion, students in UVic and Camosun have a long history of working with local public transit stakeholders to improve the quality of transit for all public transit users in Victoria, not just students. Issues such as bus pass-ups and expanding late-night transit are not strictly student issues. They affect all riders in our communities.

We have a vested interest in improving transit in the area of the region, and we share this interest with B.C. Transit, members of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and community members. The promotion of public transit is a core value to student societies.

For us, public transit is not just about getting students to and from campus. It’s about sustainability and designing transportation systems that make our cities greener, cleaner, easier to move in, more livable and economically vibrant. It’s also about transportation access for people with mobility issues and access for people with limited financial means.

We’ve seen that public transit is a priority for the provincial government, as evidenced by such major commitments as the $14.5 billion provincial transit plan announced in 2008. Students and the public transit users of the capital region district want to see a return to this level of commitment by the provincial government. Such a renewed commitment will ensure that our city and all cities in B.C. have the public transit infrastructure needed for an affordable and environmentally sustainable mass transportation system that makes our cities livable and economically vibrant engines of growth.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Excellent. You timed that perfectly, Kenya. An excellent presentation as well. I do have a couple of questions from the committee.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your presentation, Kenya. I’ve got a few questions. I’ll be quick on my asking because I know there are other people who’ve got questions.

One is the discussion at the moment of the increase in fares. There are three options on the table, all of which would include increased fares for students and for seniors. I wondered if you could quickly address the expected impact of that, as you perceive it, on ridership.

The second one is whether you have any statistics or figures about the use of public transit following the U-Pass — when students have had a U-Pass, whether they continue using public transit — whether you or anyone else has been studying what happens after graduation.

Thirdly, you talk about the Highway 1 problems and the need for the dedicated bus lanes. Are you also looking, in your coalition, at other options outside, basically, the existing bus network and other public transportation options there?

K. Rogers: Oh, the fare restructuring. What we’re seeing with that…. Fortunately, for students who are enrolled in either Camosun or UVic, we do have a U-Pass system. For the time that we are enrolled in school, our funding will not be changed. However, what it really does affect is the youth pass. The youth pass is increasing significantly in those fare restructuring models.

We know, statistically, that if students are engaging in the transit system from a young age, they’re much more likely to continue to be riders into their adult lives. My concern there is that we are possibly restricting the access for youth to be using the public transit system, which will then affect ridership as they enter adulthood. So yeah, that’s a problem.

C. Trevena: A bit of what you just said — whether you’ve got any statistics on the move from the student U-Pass into continued use of public transit, if there’s any study been done about this.

K. Rogers: What we’re seeing right now with our membership is that while you have a U-Pass for the time that you’re enlisted in classes, the second that you’re not enrolled in any classes, you no longer have a U-Pass. That means that students are actually quite shocked because all of a sudden they’re paying almost four times the amount to keep their bus passes, say, over the course of a summer. It’s a huge issue on our campus.
[ Page 1996 ]

I know that we notice an increase in terms of actual fare evasion in the summer months, because it’s not a realistic thing for students, and it’s also quite shocking, once the U-Pass is out. I think that it deters students from using the public transit system if they are not enrolled in classes and have a U-Pass.

E. Foster: Thanks, Kenya. When you speak to us as representatives of the province and our lobbying to the Finance Minister…. You talked about increasing the transit tax on fuel sold in the greater Victoria area. We’ve been quite clear that those decisions will have to be made by local governments because the local people are going to have to pay for it.

Have you lobbied greater Victoria or the capital regional district on this issue?

K. Rogers: The fuel tax, yeah. What we’re seeing right now in terms of the municipalities — what their constituents are coming back with — is that they would rather see a fuel tax increase than the continued increase of property taxes. That’s where that conversation is coming from. It’s what the municipalities sitting around at the table, representatives of Victoria Regional Transit Commission, are saying, from their constituents — that the fuel tax is the way that they would like to go.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Kenya. I guess, from a personal perspective, I see that as the low-hanging fruit. It never ceases to amaze me whenever I go to Victoria how much less we’re paying for gasoline over there than we are in other parts of the province. That might be a grand opportunity for you to lobby both the regional district and the local governments to take a very serious look at that.

Regardless, thank you so much, Kenya, for a very good presentation — appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with the committee. Have a good day.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Next I have Mr. Richard Campbell, the British Columbia Cycling Coalition.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’ve started you a few minutes early, so I appreciate you being more than on time getting here. It must have had something to do with the cycling routes.

I’ll just give you the heads-up. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you the high sign with about two minutes to go, and you can conclude your thoughts. Then we’ll go to the committee for questions. You’re welcome to intrude on that extra time, but it just cuts into question time. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

R. Campbell: Fantastic. Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to address you this morning. I’m Richard Campbell, the executive director of the British Columbia Cycling Coalition. We’re the provincial organization, and we work to improve cycling for transportation, recreation and tourism.

Our vision is that everyone in B.C. — man, woman and child — will be able to choose cycling for their daily trips. As walking is very complementary to cycling and a lot of the infrastructure is very similar, we also strongly support walking as well, as we do transit. We find that a lot of people don’t just use one mode of transportation. They use what is best for a particular trip, especially if they have the choice. Cycling and walking already are popular activities in the province. They have substantial potential to grow and thus provide B.C. residents with more affordable transportation choices and economic opportunities.

With sufficient investment and policy support, walking and cycling can become practical options for many more people, leading to significantly improved fitness, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and reduced congestion and traffic fatalities. Investing in cycling will benefit the economy by increasing tourism, reducing health care costs, increasing worker productivity, attracting talented workers and reducing the societal cost and the human cost of traffic fatalities and injuries.

There is broad public support for cycling improvements. In the B.C. on the Move engagement survey, 72 percent of respondents supported enhancing cycling infrastructure. Cycling is popular as well. Almost 70 percent of British Columbians ride a bicycle at least once a year, 42 percent once a month, and 25 percent at least once a week. Also, people want to cycle more, with around 65 percent indicating that they would ride a bike more often if there were separated lanes that protected them from traffic.

According to the 2011 household survey, 42 percent of commutes are under five kilometres, a reasonable cycling distance. There’s even a potential to increase that with more use of electric bikes. In the Netherlands, the average trip distance by electric bike is almost ten kilometres, while regular bikes average about 6.3. In B.C. communities, 65 percent of commutes are under ten kilometres, making them practical for use by electric bicycle.

To speak to some of the points that the last speaker was making, in European countries, typically, transit com-
[ Page 1997 ]
muting is only slightly greater than that in B.C. However, cycling rates over there are much higher than they are in B.C. This is an indication that there is much more potential for cycling and walking.

From the Metro Vancouver Regional Cycling Strategy Implementation Plan — this is what they found there. They say that while transit will continue to be the best investment for long distances within the region, many short trips can be more cost-effectively accommodated with cycling investments. In fact, “nearly two-thirds of all trips in the region are less than eight kilometres — a comfortable cycling distance for many — but only 2.2 percent of these trips are made by bicycle. By increasing cycling mode share, TransLink can free up capacity on the transit system to accommodate the growing shift from automobiles to transit” — and do so at far less expense than major capital investments. This would also apply to other regions in the province.

Now, where significant investments in transit have been made, cycling has increased dramatically. In the city of Vancouver, between 2008 and 2014, daily cycling trips by Vancouver residents almost doubled, increasing from 50,000 a day to 100,000 per day. In the Central Okanagan, daily cycling trips increased by 43 percent from 2007 to 15,000 in 2013. Whistler’s bicycle commuting mode share was 8 percent in 2011, an increase of 31 percent from 2006.

Other places are making dramatic commitments to increase cycling. Paris, the host city of the climate summit in December, is planning on increasing cycling from 5 percent to 15 percent of all trips by 2020, through investing in cycling paths and other measures to encourage cycling.

To accomplish all this, one of our high-level recommendations is we encourage the province to implement comprehensive, active transportation that includes mode share and GHG emissions targets reduction, infrastructure funding, improved standards, increased maintenance, education, promotion, motor vehicle speed controls and changes to the Motor Vehicle Act.

This strategy would complete the commitment made in the 2008 transit plan of the province to implement a cycling strategy. Many of our peers — including Oregon, Washington and Ontario — do have provincial cycling strategies. We think that’s something that’s badly needed.

This strategy would build on and complement ambitious regional plans. The Metro Vancouver regional cycling strategy predicts that buildout of the cycling network in Metro Vancouver is expected to increase cycling from 1.8 percent of all trips to 10 percent at a cost of $850 million. The capital regional district pedestrian and cycling master plan predicts cycling network buildout will increase cycling from 5.9 percent of all trips to 15 percent of trips at a cost of $275 million.

We wanted to figure out how much this would cost the province, so we’ve done a bit of extrapolation here and predicted the cost of building out cycling networks in the communities around the province would be about $1.8 billion and could result in a mode share of about 12 percent for cycling — up from about 2 percent today.

Now, it’s also important to note that this does not currently include upgrading provincial roads and highways, at least in Metro Vancouver. We’re not sure…. And as you are probably aware, there are some real problems on provincial roads and highways. Fortunately, the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge was just upgraded, and we’re really happy about that.

However, there are some other facilities that are particularly bad. There’s an overpass in Richmond that’s way too narrow. And the railings — people can catch their handlebars. A father from Richmond caught his…. Something happened, and he died in front of his son — a really tragic injury from infrastructure that could be prevented.

The Lions Gate Bridge. We’re glad that the causeway is being upgraded, but a fatality occurred in order to do that.

There’s a really horrible road from Port Alberni to Tofino. There was recently a gentleman from Ontario who died. This is a road that I have used, and a lot of people who cycle a lot use. It’s really quite terrifying.

There are lots of good reasons. We encourage the province to really work on enabling everyone to cycle. We would like the networks and all this to be done in about ten years. In order to accomplish that, we strongly recommend that the provincial government accelerate investment in cycling and walking, investing a total of $10 billion over ten years to help the people of British Columbia realize the benefits of cycling and walking sooner rather than later.

This could be done through a variety of means. Of course, the carbon tax is certainly an opportunity. Increasing that would be a great way to both reduce carbon emissions and provide people with choices — again, reducing carbon emissions. Of course, there’s reallocation from the existing transportation budget. A tax on sugary drinks, as recommended by some health groups, would be an option. And cancel the tax cuts for those earning over $150 million a year. This could go to cost-shared funding, healthy and safe routes to school so that kids can cycle.

Of course, cycling tourism, we feel, is a huge option. In Oregon, they realize $400 million a year in economic benefits from cycling tours. In Taiwan, they’ve invested $1 billion in cycling infrastructure. Korea has also done a great job. One of our program managers is over there. They’re cycle touring with their one-year-old child. That’s certainly something we cannot recommend people doing in B.C. yet, but hopefully, in ten years we could do that.

Another one of our key recommendations. Currently there’s no PST on bicycles, but there is PST on electric bicycles. Electric bicycles can provide really enhanced mobility for people who have trouble cycling or peddling. It
[ Page 1998 ]
also helps everyone go longer distances. So we strongly recommend removing that.

We also recommend having a rebate on electric bikes, as there are already rebates on electric cars.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You’re welcome to continue. It just cuts into question time. If there are more thoughts you want to share with us.

R. Campbell: Those are certainly the key…. Certainly, investments in marketing and education are important. As well, transit is obviously important, but I’m sure a lot of speakers have already spoken to you on that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Terrific. I do have five questions here and less than five minutes, so I may have to take some on notice.

There are a couple of things. Before I start this, I have no issue with the bicycles at all — as long as they don’t get in my way.

Some of the comments you made about Thailand, Taiwan, Korea and so on, which are all correct…. You’ve got a small area and a huge population to pay the bill. In the area that I live in, we paved — I don’t know how many — 60 kilometres of road this summer, and all of them have wide bicycle lanes on them now. There are no gravel shoulders left. They’ve all been paved. So the province is certainly supporting cycling.

This is the request I have for you. Bicycles are vehicles on the road. Please work with your members and have them use the highways and the streets as vehicles as opposed to driving across crosswalks, driving over lawns and on sidewalks, especially in Victoria. The city of Victoria has done a great job. Every year they’ve included more bicycle lanes, and I’m still jumping out of the way to get out of the way of bicycles.

R. Campbell: Well, certainly, sidewalk cycling is something that we discourage. One thing that has proven to be very effective is the protected bike lanes. In Vancouver, on Hornby and Dunsmuir, the amount of sidewalk cycling has dropped by 80 percent since the implementation of the bike lanes. We also have our Bike Sense Manual.

We would like to do more on educating people. We also need support from government and municipalities for the resources to help us educate people on bikes more.

By far, the most effective means is the protected bike lanes. That’s one of the other reasons why we want the province to accelerate their investment in municipalities — so we can get these facilities on the ground soon, in ten years as opposed to 30 or 40 or 50, which it will take at current levels of investment.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You know what? I’m going to have to take every other question on notice.

D. Ashton: I just want to say thanks. Keep up the good work. Check out what we’re doing in the Okanagan, especially the communities…. You heard what MLA Foster said. That’s taking place through the entire Okanagan, with those protected byways that you’re after.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your work. I’m very pleased that most of the cycling organizations in the Lower Mainland are found in Fairview.

Two quick questions. One of them is: can you update us on the progress of cycling education programs such as those proposed by Right to Bike? Also, if you have any information from other jurisdictions about increased tourism as a result of investment in cycling infrastructure, that would be useful to us. I don’t think it’s a sine qua non, but obviously, the Finance Minister always likes to know what’s in it for the economy and B.C.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’re going to take those two questions on notice. If you can get back with an answer to the committee before the end of the day tomorrow. Okay? So if you could take those two away with you.

M. Morris: Just a couple things to also keep in mind that I wouldn’t mind hearing your response to. You talk about reallocation of transit tax money and increasing the carbon tax to pay for the bikes. You talk about the infrastructure costs — $1 billion and $10 billion over ten years. It’s a big dollar item for us. So maybe give some consideration to what contributions bicyclists can make from the tax structure. People pay tax on gas and for using their vehicles and whatnot.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your presentation, Richard, as one of those who cycles about nine kilometres each way for my commute. Thank you for the suggestion on the electric bikes, on the PST.
[ Page 1999 ]

My question is the priorities. We’ve still got real problems for people cycle commuting in urban areas. You’re talking about cycle tourism — people on the road to Alberni, to Tofino. I’ve got to say it’s one that I would never, even as a regular cyclist, consider doing, not just because of the hills, but because of the danger of it.

I’m wondering where the priorities would be — to increase urban cycling or to be looking at investments on the provincial highway network to increase the tourism and the long-distance commute side.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m just going to wade in, in the last couple of seconds here, just following on the theme that Eric brought up. And you mentioned that gentleman — the tragedy between Port Alberni and Tofino.

In wine country, Sonoma county particularly, they publish a cycling route, cycling maps. And like they have ski hills, they have levels of complexity and danger and so on. Some of those roads in Sonoma county cyclists shouldn’t even be on — period. I mean, not that they shouldn’t, but they are so narrow, so windy, so dangerous that they shouldn’t be there.

It goes back to the education that Eric was talking about, and if there’s any opportunity to educate membership. You know, this fellow was from out of town. He was unfamiliar with the environment, the road, etc., and its conditions. It was a tragedy. But maybe if he had known ahead of time that this might have been some place that he shouldn’t have been, it might have gone some way to help the situation and maybe not occur.

R. Campbell: In the Okanagan, the province is working on a cycling tourism signage strategy. Hopefully, that can include that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): That’s great. Okay. It’s good to hear. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I appreciate you taking the time.

Next, we have the Insurance Bureau of Canada — Aaron Sutherland and Michael Lee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good. Just as you’re getting settled, I’ll let you know that you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a wave with about two minutes to go. Conclude your thoughts, and then we can go to the committee for questions, if they have any. The floor is yours.

A. Sutherland: All right. In the interests of time, my presentation, which you’re getting in front of you now, doesn’t get into a lot of detail. Those are included in the submission. So as I’m speaking, if you have any questions — I know we’ve got time at the end — also feel free to throw them at me just mid-presentation. If there’s anything we don’t get to, it’s in our full submission, so we can go from there.

I’m Aaron Sutherland. I’m the government relations manager with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. With me today is Mike Lee, our manager of stakeholder relations.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada — just starting on page two — is the national trade association, representing 90 percent of Canada’s home, business and auto insurers. We represent more than 13,000 jobs across this province. We contribute more than $234 million in taxes to the provincial treasury.

We really feel we are a key contributor to the provincial economy, not just in terms of taxes and jobs but, also, in the role we play in transferring risk away from individuals and away from businesses to let them focus on what they do best, which is growing their business and, in turn, growing the economy. But we also play an important role in disaster recovery — being there to help individuals recover when disaster strikes, and we feel that gives us a unique perspective into the key risks we see facing this province going forward.

That really is the focus of our submission. It’s on how B.C. can reduce the risk facing it, adapt to the new climate reality that we face and really build our resiliency to ensure that we’re best positioned to continue to grow and prosper in the future.

In essence, in Budget 2016, we’re looking for a focus on earthquake preparedness, severe weather adaptation and wildfire risk reduction. And naturally, being part of the auto insurers, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that if there’s time at the end.

First, earthquakes. If there’s one thing you take away today, I hope it’s just a better understanding of just how real this risk is, because it’s inevitable. The experts tell us there’s a 30 percent chance of a severe earthquake striking this province in the next 50 years.

We’re on the Pacific Ocean’s Ring of Fire, and the other Ring of Fire countries — places like Japan, Chile, New Zealand — have all been hit by major earthquakes in recent years. You think of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. You think of Chile earlier this year, or you think of Christchurch, New Zealand in 2011.

But here in B.C., we haven’t had an event like that since 1700, and we’re overdue. Since it’s been so long, we really have no historical memory of it. We don’t have that
[ Page 2000 ]
voice in the back of our minds that says: “I need to be prepared next time. Never am I going to let that happen again.” And so we really make preparedness a low priority. We feel this really needs to change.

For our part, to better understand what the impact of this type of event would look like, we commissioned AIR Worldwide — they’re an international risk modelling firm — to look at what would happen if a severe earthquake struck 75 kilometres off our south coast. The results were eye-opening.

They projected economic losses of $75 billion. Now, of that, $20 billion would be insured, meaning the overwhelming majority — $55 billion — is going to land at the footsteps of government and of taxpayers in this province.

We also know that when disasters strike, people are looking to the government and have the expectation that the government will be there to take care of them. But in that type of event, we know governments are going to be overwhelmed. The success of our resiliency in that instance is going to rely on the partnerships that we build now, and it will rely on us all coming together following that type of event — as individuals, as communities and as part of a larger community in this province.

To really do that, we feel that there needs to be a culture of preparedness in this province. That’s really where the crux of our recommendations here focus.

Your government recognizes this. You undertook a great consultation in 2014 that really provided a valuable framework for action going forward. That’s what we would like to see represented in Budget 2016 — increased investment in activities to promote awareness of the earthquake risk we face and the need to be prepared and, also, acting upon the recommendations of the earthquake consultation report.

You’ve got an eager partner in IBC. We’re ready to do our part to prepare this province, and we’re looking for the province to provide their leadership. We feel your government is best positioned to take that leadership role and really drive that culture of preparedness going forward.

That’s sort of the biggest risk we see facing the province. Looking at other ones…. It’s sort of a potential one that’s out there in the future, but one that we’re facing right now is severe weather. Our industry is seeing firsthand the effects of climate change. We’re seeing steady and significant increases in property damage due to more frequent and more severe storms — things like the storm that hit the Lower Mainland at the end of August, early September, which caused over $30 million in property damage. Things like the floods we saw earlier this year in Cache Creek and Kamloops or the wildfires in the Okanagan. I know that MLA Ashton will have some familiarity there. I was up in Penticton right around then, and you couldn’t even see across the lake. I was blown away.

If you look at slide 6, you can see that as recently as 2008, losses from severe weather totalled around $100 million, $200 million. With the odd blip, they averaged right around there. But beginning in 2009 and every year since then, losses due to severe weather have been at or above $1 billion annually. That really indicates the impact these types of events are having on individuals right across this province and across this country.

This is only expected to rise, going forward. As experts tell us, there’s going to be increased precipitation, increased frequency and increased severity of storms. It’s going to be happening more often, and it’s going to be more severe.

While we welcome the government’s efforts to combat this and to tackle it using their new climate leadership plan to address climate change, we really feel the key to any strategy has to be adapting to the new climate reality that we’re facing now.

So our recommendation here isn’t one of those exciting ones. It’s the tried-and-true thing you have to tick off your to-do list. It’s really investing and revitalizing infrastructure you currently have. Here, we see it being that invisible infrastructure that’s underground. It’s your sewer and stormwater infrastructure. We’re looking in Budget 2016 for increased investments there and, also, for assistance to your municipalities in this regard, particularly those small and rural municipalities that may not have the capacity to do this on their own.

Going to slide 8, the last risk I want to talk to you about comes from wildfire. It’s really where B.C. is feeling the full effect of climate change. It’s in our forests. We’re seeing warmer winters, drier springs and hot summers, and it’s spelling a recipe for disaster. This year, as you guys would well know, we’ve lost over 3,000 square kilometres to forest fire. Last year it was 3,700, and going back to 2004, we’ve seen some of the highest rates of forest loss ever in this province due to fire. Battling these is costing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and it’s increasingly impacting our communities.

This year we saw devastation in Rock Creek, with over 30 homes destroyed and half a dozen other buildings, and we came dangerously close to losing some of our best wineries in the Okanagan. I’m a big fan of Church and State, their Syrah, so it was pretty scary seeing the flames getting so close to that winery.

Here, we’re really recommending not that the government just increase investments in getting that message out, informing British Columbians of the risk, but also really promoting the adoption of FireSmart practices. The $5 million the Premier announced at UBCM to the strategic wildfire prevention initiative was a great first step. We’d like to see that sort of thing be made annually so that you can plan and really promote the adoption of those practices by communities and homeowners.

With all the recommendations we’re putting forward here, we don’t expect change to come overnight. We know this is a long-term commitment here, but we’ve
[ Page 2001 ]
got to start moving on it. We’ve got to start moving in that direction and start really building that culture of preparedness in this province to adapt to the new realities that we face.

Given that I think I’ve still got a little over a minute left, I’d really be remiss if I didn’t mention auto insurance. My organization — it’s, as well, I’m sure, a view shared by some of those around this table — believes that competition promotes higher productivity and greater variety and, ultimately, can lower costs. Yet the reality with B.C. auto insurance in this province is that there is no competition. There’s only one game in town, and it’s ICBC.

As a result, drivers in this province face some of the highest auto premiums in the country. They really receive some of the lowest benefits if they do get into an accident, and they continue to express extreme dissatisfaction with ICBC’s services. The insurer is rated dead last in western Canada in consumer satisfaction by J.D. Power and Associates.

We really believe this is because there’s no competitive impetus for the insurer to do better — no pressure to innovate. And where there’s supposed to be, on the optional side, the playing field is so lopsided and stacked against private insurers that competition simply isn’t a reality.

The government has recognized this. They’ve committed to addressing it through legislation. They’ve tabled the legislation, but it has yet to be proclaimed. I’ll just sum up by saying that until you do, and until the government makes competition a reality in this province, B.C. drivers are going to continue to be the ones that suffer. Private insurers stand ready to compete, to the benefit of B.C. drivers. We just need to know that there’s a level playing field before we do so.

With that…. I think I’m at ten minutes, so I’ll turn it over for any questions you guys may have.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Sutherland. I do have a very long list of questions, so I can almost guarantee we’re going to have to take some on notice and get you to come back with the answers in writing before the end of the day tomorrow.

E. Foster: Gentlemen, thank you very much. I’m just going to jump down to the wildfires. After the ’03 fires and the Filmon report, there were quite a few recommendations made. Now, some of the stuff has been moved into provincial building code, and a lot of it has been adopted by most municipalities in the interface fire regulations as far as building materials and so on for homes. I know, certainly in the Rock Creek fires last year, those homes had been around a long time prior to that.

Have you lobbied local government? A lot of the building code stuff is under their umbrella. Have you talked to them as well?

A. Sutherland: Absolutely. We talk to everyone we can get in front of on this issue. So we lobby federally as well, in the federal building code for resiliency of this type of thing. We really rely on the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. They’re sort of the experts here. We say, “What are they saying about this?” and what measures do we need to take in the building code to address this? We just forward that on. That’s the position we take.

You’ll see it in our submission here. It really focuses on the wildfire side, on things like when those sparks that travel through the air land, on things you can do for your siding and your roofs to prevent that from actually spreading to your home.

We’ve certainly talked to municipalities. I know there’s the new B.C. Building Act, which will standardize a lot of that. I’m not sure if that means we’ll be talking to them less and the province more. All I can say here is that we talk to everyone and anyone we can get in front of.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I wondered how involved the Insurance Bureau gets in the actual education portion. I think you’ve identified it well.

One of the challenges, particularly with things like earthquake preparedness, is people look at it as so catastrophic that they do nothing, that they kind of get frozen in time. The most practical programs I’ve seen have been that “here are the few little pieces you can do” to start helping people build towards it — the programs that happen in school around earthquake preparedness, etc.

I wondered how directly you’re involved in providing some of those materials or putting some of those educational programs together.

A. Sutherland: Yeah, absolutely. We’re title sponsor of the Great B.C. ShakeOut, which is tomorrow, incidentally — 10:15 tomorrow. I hope we’re all getting under our desks and practising the earthquake drill.

On the education piece, you hit the nail on the head. People think it’s so overwhelming, they don’t even know where to begin. That’s really the piece we take in all our messaging and everything we’re doing to get it out. We talk about how it’s as simple as just having an earthquake kit. That’s things like having water and food for 72 hours, which should really be the bare minimum, because we’ve seen from flood events and things in Alberta and in our neighbours that that should be the bare minimum. It’ll likely be more than a week. Just the simple things like that. That’s the physical piece.

We also talk about a financial piece, which earthquake insurance, obviously, is one piece of. We would like to see the uptick of that increase, as well, to make sure that should this happen, we’re transferring that risk away from government and from homeowners and putting it
[ Page 2002 ]
on the private side, where we think it’s best positioned to rebuild, following.

J. Yap: Thanks for your presentation. A 30 percent chance over 50 years, to me, sounds like a pretty substantial risk. But for some people, 50 years is a long time. For some, their eyes glaze over: “What can I do about it?”

Have you looked on a global basis for those jurisdictions that have similar risks and the types of best practices in getting the attention of people to understand the risk and take action?

A. Sutherland: You’re entirely right. It’s something we’re always looking at.

We looked to Natural Resources Canada for that 30 percent number. It’s trying to hammer that home. It’s really a one-in-three chance of this thing happening. When you look at other jurisdictions…. I mentioned Chile, New Zealand, Japan that have seen this. They all face the same level of risk. It’s just happened there.

J. Yap: So are they better prepared than we are, on average? I’m just curious.

A. Sutherland: It’s hard to say. Japan certainly is the standard, but they have a lot of room to grow as well. Again, they have that historical memory. They’re seeing these things all the time. They’ve had so many recently that they really have that impetus, like “We need to do something about it here.”

The struggle we face is just…. We believe British Columbians don’t see this as a realistic risk in their lifetime, and that’s something that we’re working as hard as we can to change.

S. Hamilton (Chair): The next three are going to have to be on notice. Keep in mind that “Yes” and “No” are perfectly acceptable answers.

S. Gibson: I found this picture on the front very comforting, given that my wife and I live on the top of a hill in Abbotsford.

This is a practical question, and it can be yes or no. If we had a large earthquake…. Your insurance agencies, for the record…. A $20 million earthquake. You can say on record that you can pay out all those, and if everybody had $75 billion of coverage, you can pay those out. Is that your comment? I’d like to hear that.

A. Sutherland: It’s a bit more complicated. The $20 billion? We can pay that out.

S. Gibson: If we had an earthquake here — yes or no — you guys can pay out a $20 billion…. The people that have $20 billion of insurance. You have no concerns that you can pay those out?

A. Sutherland: It’s when it starts to get above that…. And the other ones are not insured. It’s a bit of a longer…. I’ll provide a more fulsome update to that in writing, but suffice to say that if you have earthquake insurance, you’re covered.

S. Chandra Herbert: We’ve had report after report after report warning us about the threat of earthquakes. I know you’ve been working this file now for a number of years. I just wondered whether or not you might consider creating a bit of a report card on key aspects that the B.C. government and local governments have done well on and where we’ve failed, in terms of this.

Arguing that we need to do more, we can all say: “Yes, indeed, we need to do more.” But the specifics sometimes help, so that each year we can say: “We’ve made progress here. We haven’t here.” I don’t want to wait another ten years to get a report to say that we’re pretty much where we were ten years before, which is kind of what we found out with this most recent report.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I could remind you that the deadline for submissions is tomorrow at the end of the day. If you could get something to our Clerk’s office prior to then, it can form part of the public record.

A. Sutherland: Absolutely. Thank you, guys, for making the time. I know this was sort of an added day, added on. We really appreciate being here.

S. Hamilton (Chair): It’s all right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Have a good day.

Actually, for the benefit of the committee, we have a cancellation. The 11:35 Tri-City Transitions Society has cancelled, and our Coast Capital friends aren’t here yet. I’d like to invite Dr. Mychael Gleeson up to present, if you wouldn’t mind, please.

Good morning. I think you’ve been here a few times before. But I’ll remind you about the ten minutes for the presentation, and I’ll give you a heads-up when there are a couple of minutes left. You can conclude your thoughts, and then we can go to the committee for questions.

M. Gleeson: I would like to thank the committee Clerks and the elves in that office who put another day on. Otherwise, I would have been phoning you with a phone-in paper on the office phone.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, the entire committee had to agree to that day as well.
[ Page 2003 ]

M. Gleeson: I’m here, surprisingly, to talk to you about legal aid and our need for legal aid and restoring legal aid.

What we need to do is to look very carefully at what’s happening to our youth population. Last year, I did a study where I interviewed 100 kids — and because they’re under the age of 19, I can’t talk about them in detail — because my own kid graduated from high school. What a mess that was. Don’t have teenage girls.

After going to grad, I found that all of my patients were in the park. They had the grad at the arena, but my patients were in the park because they didn’t graduate. So I left my kid in her very pretty dress with the cute boyfriend — who I hate — and went over and spoke to my people in the park, who were drinking beer, smoking pot and talking about why they didn’t graduate. That became this report.

What we don’t have in place and what we’re hearing from social workers is that there is a huge gap in the number of foster homes that we need for needy kids and the number of homes available.

My assistant and associate Michael Thompson said to me that last year, I hadn’t made the point clear about child poverty and the need for legal aid. If you’re a legal aid person, as I am, and a psychologist by trade, when I stand in a lineup of homeless people, addicted people, I don’t see people who are having trouble with society. All I see is potential patients and workload that will be unfunded because legal aid isn’t there.

The fact that I am now meeting youngsters who are 19 and 20 years old, who have graduated from the foster care system and have absolutely no exit plan in place…. My parents bought me luggage when I left university. Then they sold the house. It was a clear message that if I didn’t get employment, I was not coming home. My mother actually rented a van for my younger brother. She was taking no chances.

There are no exit plans for these kids. There’s no one buying them that first Value Village nice sweatshirt or T-shirt or open-collar shirt or that nice V-neck thing that you wear when you go and apply for a job.

There’s no one sitting down and talking to them and saying: “Don’t wear your ear buds at a job interview.” There’s no one saying to them: “When you go to the thrift store and you can’t afford it, go to the lady behind the counter and say: ‘I can’t afford it.’ She’ll put it in a bag and send you away with it.” Don’t go to a job interview with your lunch, which is a PBJ — let me translate: peanut butter and jelly — in a bag with it dripping out and say: “Well, if I don’t like this job, like I may not come back tomorrow, you know.”

These kids aren’t prepared. Those are the kids who have had traumatic experiences in their family. We’re not talking about the floridly psychotic, who are my favourites. We’re not talking about the kids with such vast mental disorders that they come to my office and go from room to room to make sure that no one’s there, that check for listening devices.

I had the New Westminster city police phone me to tell me that a young person who had attended at my office was concerned because my black Labrador retriever was recording the conversation. It sounds funny — it’s an Archie Bunkerism — but that kid was serious. That kid is ill, and there’s nothing that we can do to help that kid.

You say to me: “Okay, what the hell has that got to do with legal aid?” It has everything to do with legal aid because that kid is going to be in the court system. All of those lawyers who do pro bono work…. They are magnificent, and they are hard-working. They’re all going nuts, and many of them are turning into people who drink far too much booze. I understand why. They are not able to say: “I’ll phone up a psychologist. I’ll get a report.”

That lawyer’s getting $650 an hour. I’m getting $137. That lawyer can’t phone up and get a medical report. So you go into court, you have a lovely judge who has graduated from UBC, articled with a good firm, set up a nice practice and now is on the bench. And I go in there in my Value Village clothing and no briefcase, because it was stolen out of my Volkswagen, not my Bimmer, and I try to explain what my client needs.

We can’t do that anymore. Lawyers don’t have access to psychologists because there is no legal aid, and they’re not going to pay me out of their own pocket. Trust me. They’re not going to do that. And so without that, it’s grand that I make money publishing, but it’s grand that I don’t have all of that work to do. It’s sad that kids aren’t being represented. The floridly psychotic go into court. They get the short shaft because the poor judge has no idea what to do with this individual.

I go out to the forensic hospital to have a meeting or to meet with a client. It’s like an alumni association meeting. I know them all. They’re still there. Their lawyers didn’t know what to do with them during the appeal process. There wasn’t a medical on file. There wasn’t a psych evaluation.

Currently, Mr. Harper has decided that he will discuss a file that’s out there. Mr. Harper has not been advised well. It is not a criminal hanging out at the forensic. This is a gentleman who was not criminally responsible for a heinous crime. It’s a terrible crime. The file is an ugly, ugly file, but that man was not criminally responsible for that act, and the judge who heard that did not have a psych evaluation.

We don’t have legal aid. I’m not hand in glove with the lawyers who used to do that work. Bob Shantz passed away August 8. The ripple of that has deeply affected my office because he was the go-to guy.

Bob Shantz had call display, and he still took my calls. We would go to lunch in Maple Ridge, and he would take me somewhere nice. When he was in New Westminster, in court here, I took him to Wendy’s. I wanted him to know that my people eat for $1.89, and I’m there with them for $1.89. When the junior bacon cheeseburger
[ Page 2004 ]
went to $2.18, I explained to my guys: “No longer are we having the bacon, folks. We’re the junior cheeseburger deluxe.” That’s the reality.

All of you will go to a very nice lunch that you’ve worked very hard for. You’ve got the education. You’ve got the family. You’ve all married well. You probably have nice kids. Most of you have spaniels…

My people are homeless. I had a guy who had to go to court, so he tethered his dog in my carport, which was fine, except that it drove my three Labradors nuts. Then he came back — nice guy, very drunk when he went to court; be that as it may — and he looked at me, and he goes: “I have no idea what happened in court.”

I get on the horn, and I phone the court. The registrar, who also has call display…. Why did he take my call? Be that as it may. He took my call, and he said: “Yes, I remember the matter of Mr. So-and-so, but I can’t tell you what happened. You’re not his legal counsel.”

He’s an adult. No one else is taking care of him. I am either his mother, his lawyer, his doctor or the person who takes care of his dog. We don’t have legal aid. When I retire in two years — well, actually, 14 months — there is going to be no interface in my office with the legal community. With the Shantz death — Shantz and I were together; he took my phone calls for 35 years — there isn’t that balance.

The judges don’t know what’s happening. I get phone calls from lawyers — young lawyers, 12-year-old lawyers — saying to me: “I have the such-and-such case. What do I do with it?”

I did Pickton with the Rt. Hon. Richard H. Vogel, who was Deputy Attorney General, retired. Dick passed away on the 28th of August. My lunch buddies are falling. Dick used to say to me that what we don’t have is a clear definition — what is “insane” medically versus what is “insane” legally. Until we take that gap and put it together, we’re not going to be able to know what we’re dealing with from the bench. Thankfully, Dick never got to the bench, because then I’d never be allowed to talk to him.

Dick would say to me: “You’re representing Mr. So-and-so,” or “You’re representing Child So-and-so.” What I would do is I would ring Dick, I’d go and pick him up, and we would go to Wendy’s, and Dick would hold court. All of my magnificent patients would come over, and they would shake his hand, and Dick would honour and do the Queen Elizabeth wave. He would talk to them, and he’d say: “Help these people.” And I’m going: “Dick, give me money, and I’ll help these people.”

There is no money. He’d say: “Well, get a grant.” Are you nuts? I can get a grant if I want to raffle a car, but I can’t get a grant for a homeless guy who has two dogs, who is going to a meeting and had to borrow shoes from the guy who lives in the basement of my house. You can’t go to a meeting with social workers if you don’t have shoes. So I waited until the guy who lives downstairs was groggy and said: “Hey, can I borrow your workboots? Okay, thank you.” Give the boots to Francis. Francis goes to the meeting, comes back, picks up the dog and returns the boots.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Dr. Gleeson, we’re a couple of minutes into the question time. You can keep going. I love listening to you, but it would just cut into questions. It’s up to you.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to ask you: how much do you think needs to be put back into legal aid to make it work?

M. Gleeson: If we went back to the 1991 standards, I would be ecstatic. I’m not looking for bags and bags of cash.

In 1991, there was funding, and I’ll tell you how it worked. If there was a custody access report that I required…. In today’s dollars, it’s 7 grand. In 1991, you had a lawyer ring you up and say: “Look, I need a custody access report. I’ll give you 500 bucks for the report. I’ll give you 25 bucks for interviewing me. I’ll give you 25 bucks for appearing in court.” That was the rate book, and you did that, and it worked.

No, none of us drove Bimmers. Well, my friends drove Bimmers. People who did legal aid didn’t drive Bimmers, but kids were represented.

This bracelet — extremely expensive. It’s actually a bathtub stainless steel chain. An 11-year-old and I have a deal. He is wearing half of it — $1.89 a metre at Lowe’s. We have a deal. Each of us will wear this chain until his parents resolve their divorce. He wants to make sure he can stay in touch with me, because he doesn’t know where he’ll live. He doesn’t know which parent he’ll go with.

I said: “Where do you want to go?” “Well, if I go with my dad, he’ll never let me see my mom, and if I go with my mom, we’re moving to Kelowna and I’ll never see my dad.” “Have you spoken to the judge?” “No one will let me.”

Surprisingly, there isn’t a custody access report that the judge will see. The judge will never meet this remarkable little fellow — who is engaged to a 63-year-old psychologist who lives in New Westminster — and that’s sad.

I said to this kid: “You have to have grandparents.” He goes: “Well, it’s like two soccer teams. There’s my dad’s
[ Page 2005 ]
family. There’s my mom’s family. If I talk to my mom’s family, they tell me what a bastard” — technical term — “my father is. If I talk to my dad’s family, they tell me what a bitch” — technical term — “my mother is. I can’t go anywhere, and so I come to you.” So off we go to Wendy’s — a $1.89 burger — and we have soda pop, and we try to solve it. The bottom line was a bathtub-chain engagement so that this kid has a connection. And that’s sad. It is tragic.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I’m really glad we got a day so you could come and talk to us and give voice to so many people and remind us all of those voices.

You mentioned specialized group homes. Those specialized group homes — I just want to know if you could touch on that for a moment. It’s been, obviously, a big issue over the last while.

M. Gleeson: There have been two deaths for lack of exit — a youngster who went through a window and a youngster who met up with a knife. There have also been two overdoses that haven’t hit the press. The kid got the drugs from the drug cabinet in the group home — not a wise idea.

Not only do we not have the exit plans, what we’re doing in education is removing the faculty of education from the faculty of social work at UBC, and at SFU, divorcing the faculty of education and the criminology. Historically — I’m very old — it mingled so that if you were in education, you also found out about criminology and what happens to kids and what we can do with our borderline and fringe-line kids. What can we do as educators to include those youngsters, to give them the skills?

All of you read to your kids. I’m sure all of you were read to as children. Your parents knew how to care for you. The parents of my kids don’t have a clue. They think they’re doing well if they get home at night.

My poor kid has to live with a neurotic psychologist who does legal aid and checks on her all the time. My kid goes into the bathroom for an hour, comes out, charges her phone and goes back into the bathroom. I’m out of touch. But I know what my kid is doing. Other people don’t. I drive my kid when she’s going to meet someone. I want to know who my kid is with. I want to know if that’s a home where there’s legal marijuana wafting out of all the windows and doors. I want to know if my kid is in a home where there are values that I can’t cope with, like maybe they don’t own a dog. Maybe the cat doesn’t have stripes.

I have parents who have no idea. I interviewed a guy the other day, and he said he had two kids. I said: “What grades are your kids in?” He says: “Three and five.” I rang up the family. I said: “What grades are you guys in?” “Eight and nine.” Dad hasn’t really been in touch for a while.

My father used to open my transcript when it came to the house. He goes: “This is my house. You’re my kid. I’m opening your transcript. And by the way, you’re not doing well in statistics. Do we need to talk about this?” “No, Dad. We’re not going to talk about this.”

It’s a different era. The parents that I deal with don’t know how to care for their kids. We’re not talking about kids going to Handsworth School who don’t have Adidas shoes. I’m talking about kids who don’t have shoes.

In September of each year, Burnaby school board must post my phone number as so-and-so, you know, wherever. Sally James — no relation to you, Carole, I’m sure — has arrived at school. She doesn’t own underwear. Out we go to Walmart. We have to clip the tags out of the underwear, because unless we do, her dear mother, who’s an alcoholic, will return that underwear to Walmart to get the money to go to the beer and wine store.

Kids and shoes. There are always bags in my house with shoes in them. You take the bag, you seal it, you put two whiffs of any kind of Raid in it to make sure that the shoes don’t have bedbugs or something in them because they come from a thrift store, and then off they go to kids. Their parents won’t buy shoes. The welfare cheque comes, and you see the trail of all the guys going to the beer and wine store.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Dr. Gleeson, I’m sorry. We went way over time, but that’s okay.

S. Hamilton (Chair): No, it’s not your fault. I’m sure the committee didn’t mind one little bit. I had that latitude to let you keep going. We do appreciate you taking the time to share those thoughts with us. The committee always does. It’s always a pleasure.

The tragedy is: we’ve lost four kids, four 19-year-old kids — beautiful kids, kids who had possibilities, kids who didn’t meet the lawyers who knew the psychologists who talked to the judges.

One very quick short story. Many years ago, Judge Lorne Clare, now deceased…. Fabulous guy. Loved Lorne. I rang his wife, and I said: “Does Lorne have any old clothes?” She said, “Yeah, he’s getting a little chubby. We’ve got a box in the basement. Come and pick them up.” So I go over there and pick them up.

About six months later one of my favourite crazies — technical term — got in trouble for a B and E. He was heard in front of Judge Lorne Clare. Lorne listened to the guy. My guy’s floridly psychotic — broke into a place because he thought that there was food. So he broke into the place, got caught. I dress him up. Lorne Clare is on
[ Page 2006 ]
the bench. He waxes eloquent. He actually teaches my guy some stuff. As he’s leaving, he goes: “Terry, really nice threads.”

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Gleeson. We do appreciate your time. Take care.

Next, if I could call up Mr. John Groves, Coast Capital Savings Credit Union. Actually, one of the observations that was made earlier this morning was that we went all day yesterday without hearing from a credit union.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We were quite surprised. We’re a little bit…. Credit union withdrawal.

S. Hamilton (Chair): It’s all good. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes to go, and you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions.

J. Groves: That sounds great. I’d like to start, first of all, by thanking everyone for having me here today and also apologizing for not being able to share prepared remarks. There were a couple of typos, and we want to make sure that we have the correct version. We’ll be sending that later today.

S. Hamilton (Chair): That would be great. As long as it’s before the end of the day tomorrow.

J. Groves: It will be by the end of the day today. They’re pretty minor, but I wanted to make sure that everything was done correctly.

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It’s a pleasure to be here and a great opportunity for me and for Coast Capital Savings. My name is John Groves. I’m the vice-president of public affairs and communications for Coast Capital.

As you know, as you’ve referenced, many of my colleagues from credit unions across B.C. have been to a number of these hearings to tell you about the great things that they’re doing in the community, and I hope to talk a little bit about what we’re doing for you here today.

As the second-largest credit union in B.C., we see ourselves as quite a significant player within the credit union movement and do our best to try to play a leadership role where appropriate and also to be cooperative and act in partnership with our colleagues as well. It is a very important aspect of the system that we cooperate and work together.

Our roots at Coast Capital trace back to the 1940s, when a lot of the larger banks were charging very high fees and many people were having difficulty getting loans. Credit unions were established in communities across the province to make banking fairer and accessible to everyone. That’s something that we hold very, very dear.

If you fast-forward 60 years, in the early 2000s, there were three leading credit unions that came together to form what is now known as Coast Capital Savings. As that named entity, we’ve been in existence for more than ten years, but our roots go back 75 years. We’re actually celebrating our 75th anniversary this year, and our founding credit union was founded in 1940. So we have a very long and proud legacy here in British Columbia. Since our inception, we’ve grown to become the second-largest credit union in B.C. and the third largest in Canada, in terms of asset size.

We have a combined asset size of $13.3 billion assets and over $15 billion assets under administration. We’re the largest credit union in Canada, based strictly on membership size. It’s something we’re also very proud of.

Our members benefit from a wide variety of banking services. We have a brand-new head office, located in Surrey, that we’re actually in the midst of moving into right now. I’m still at the old head office. We’ll be moving in next week. We’re very pleased to be able to continue to deepen our roots here in British Columbia and have a head office that we’ve opened up. We’ve got over 50 branches from across Metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island.

Many of you may have heard that we’re looking into becoming, potentially, a federal credit union. Some of my colleagues have met with some of you to discuss this and what it might mean for British Columbia. I wanted to emphasize here today, though, that if we were ever to become a federal credit union, we’d remain committed to and based in British Columbia as part of the vision that we would have if we were ever to pursue that.

As I mentioned, we’re moving to our new head office in Surrey. I don’t think there could be, probably, a stronger indication that we want to keep our roots here than in investing in that head office.

We do see federal expansion as a potential way, however, to grow a made-in-B.C. financial institution on a national scale and help create a new tier of financial services providers across Canada. We think it would enable us to achieve economies of scale, provide more benefits to our members, enable us to generate more revenue to invest in our communities and also, ultimately, contribute to the provincial economy through job creation and more taxes that would be put into the provincial economy.

Our commitment to the credit union sector would remain well intact and strong. We want to remain part of the system, even if we did become a federal credit union.

I thought I should talk a little bit about our community investment. We’re committed to communities, like all credit unions. At Coast, our commitment is to do-
[ Page 2007 ]
nate 7 percent of pre-tax income to communities. Last year, that was $5.7 million that we contributed into local communities. We’re very proud of the impact that we’re able to have. We have a strategic focus on our community investment, on helping youth — we define youth as aged 12 to 24 — in the areas of health, financial literacy, social connectedness and education.

We’re very passionate about the issue of bullying. We’ve been a presenting sponsor of Pink Shirt Day for the past three years. We have grants to community groups that also help with bullying prevention — a $20,000 grant that we made recently to the Canadian Red Cross for the violence and abuse prevention program Beyond the Hurt. It’s a program that’ll be implemented in schools across Metro Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Victoria and involves grades 10 and 11 students who are presenting bullying-prevention workshops to elementary schools in those areas.

We’re going to help train 108 youth facilitators, drawn from many of the high schools in those regions, who are going to deliver those workshops to grades 6 and 7 students over a two-year period. The ultimate goal is to reach more than 3,000 students by the time the program is implemented.

It’s just one example. There are others I could talk about of the types of things we’re trying to do in the community.

Our employees are really critical to our success. We feel they really go above and beyond to enhance the financial well-being of our members. Really, unlike some of the banks, who have shareholders that they answer to, we provide service and are ultimately accountable to our members too. It’s a really critical distinction, something that we’re proud of.

We have nearly 1,700 employees and in 2014 were recognized as one of Canada’s top ten most admired corporate cultures by Waterstone. That was for the second time that we achieved that.

I can tell you personally that it’s a tremendous place to work. Our brand externally is all about simple financial help. Our employees reflect our values every day, with the goal of improving that financial well-being, as I mentioned.

A quick little story about an example of what that actually means for people’s lives. There was a young couple who was interested in turning around their financial affairs and came in for one of our money chats. It’s a simplified way of providing financial advice and guidance to our members. A year later they came back.

They were so pleased with the impact that had on their lives and said that they really had charted the course for financial success for the future — which you may have heard others within the financial services sector talk about. The thing that really was remarkable was that it had such an impact that they asked whether or not they could get married in one of our branches, because they felt so passionate about Coast Capital. So they did. That really gives you a sense, if nothing else will, of the impact we’re having on people’s lives.

J. Groves: Honeymoon? No, we didn’t have the honeymoon. But, you know, maybe that’s the next thing we’ll try for, a honeymoon in one of our branches — over the long weekend or something like that.

In B.C., as we all know, small business is a very significant part of the growing economy. Credit unions, collectively, are the largest lender to small businesses. With over 98 percent of businesses in B.C. being considered small, we are contributing quite significantly to that.

At Coast, we have over 47,000 small businesses that we service. That’s one out of ten small businesses in the province. We have about $3 billion in business loans and financing, so that’s something we’re proud that we’re able to contribute to the local economy.

In my remaining time, I guess I just wanted to talk the small business tax exemption. I know you would have heard from colleagues across the province. I wanted to thank the committee for the recommendations to government over the last couple of years that the current income tax rates be maintained. This is a temporary deferral that’s been put in place.

We estimate at Coast that when you combine the federal as well as the provincial tax implications if that deferral is not made permanent or not extended, it’s about $7 million. It will fluctuate year over year. Our net income, for a reference, last year was $62 million, so it’s a very significant impact on operations.

Ultimately, it’s not just about Coast Capital and our strength and stability and ability to grow; it’s our ability to continue to provide loans to those small businesses I was talking about, to our members, who want to get married in our branches so they can build that financial well-being for their future, and about our ability to continue contributing the amounts that we have in the past to community.

We would certainly hope that the committee would consider that as an ongoing recommendation — to extend that deferment.

I guess, with that, I will close out my remarks and just thank everyone again. Happy to take any questions you may have.

Before I go to the committee, I’m wondering if those folks took their honeymoon in Zurich.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wondered what percentage of your profits Coast Capital puts back into community. I’ve heard different ranges.
[ Page 2008 ]

J. Groves: Yeah. It’s 7 percent, the target, of our pre-tax profit. It’s a little over $5 million, depending on the year, that we put into the community. It’s quite a significant amount, certainly.

S. Gibson: I had the privilege of working for one of those three founding credit unions for eight years, in a somewhat similar position to your own.

My question is regarding…. You mentioned going federal. As you know, we’ve had a number of credit unions approach us as we’ve been doing this, and we did a bit of a circuit in the Interior as well. My concern is — and some other credit unions have the similar concern — that as you get larger, you become more amorphous and you’ll lose some of your community sensibility. I’m not advocating little, micro credit unions. I think that’s not an option anymore. But I’d like you to speak to that. I do sometimes worry about that — credit unions sort of become, really, de facto banks.

J. Groves: Uh-huh. I think it’s a valid concern, but it’s one that we think, if we were to become a federal credit union, wouldn’t have that impact at all for our operations or for our members or for our employees. I did talk a little bit about our history of growth as a credit union to become one of the largest in B.C. We think that we’ve been able to maintain our credit union values and keep true to our roots as a community-based organization that’s committed to providing that financial well-being and strengthening communities out to our members and strengthening communities across the province.

I think that as we grow, rather than abandon those or have a negative impact on that, it would enhance our ability to do just that. We talked about community contributions of 7 percent of our pre-tax income. If we can grow and increase our income, that means more money for communities not only in B.C. but for communities across the country.

We believe quite passionately, in our value proposition, about providing that financial well-being not only for our existing members but for new members. That’s an important thing that we think is not only good for more British Columbians but is good for all Canadians.

If we’re able to become a strong second-tier national credit union that could provide an alternative to the banks while maintaining that grassroots character and that adherence to our local values, we think that’s a good thing for everybody. I think it can be achieved, and it’s something that is really important to us — that we don’t lose that character — because it’s extraordinarily important for, I think, everyone that works at Coast. It’s important for our board and our members in the community as well.

C. Trevena: Mine is a little on the line of Simon’s — the question of loss of contact with the smaller communities. I know that there have been some credit unions…. In my own constituency, the credit union pulled out of the smaller communities. We actually got Vancity into remote communities. So you’ve still got credit unions. It’s just not the local one. I’m wondering about how you actually do keep that.

The second thing is, as I understand it, you’d be the only federal credit union. If we’re talking about the tax deferral, what legislation would you be under in other jurisdictions? Which other jurisdictions would you be working in? Would it be literally every province? Or have you targeted provinces that you want to be expanding into?

J. Groves: For the first one, certainly, one of the things that credit unions have, I think, a proud history of is providing bricks-and-mortar banking services to smaller communities where the banks aren’t located. There are several dozen, if I recall correctly, of those communities in B.C. alone where we’re providing that, and many more across the country. That is an important thing that we continue to do.

I’m not sure of the specific situation that you’re referring to, but if we did grow, our intention would not be to withdraw or pull back services from communities that we’re currently in. In fact, we’re looking to expand not only, potentially, outside B.C. but definitely within B.C. We’re looking at opening a branch in Kelowna, which we recently announced. We want to continue to grow and provide those services, not retrench at all. It’s not sort of an either-or kind of thing.

As for the values and whatnot, I touched on that a little bit earlier. As for federal expansion, I don’t think we’re at a stage right now where we could say that there’s a particular community or a province that we want to go into. We still have to continue to do our homework and complete our assessment of that option.

We need, ultimately, if we were to ever become a federal credit union, to have a very robust dialogue with our members. We think, first of all, it’s the right thing to do. We’re a credit union. We’re owned by our membership. They should play a very significant role in that. Then also, we have to have a vote in order to become a federal credit union. That vote would determine. We need a two-thirds majority to do that. I think it’s unclear as of now where that might be.

The implications for the tax would depend, I think, in part on where we would go, but as a federally regulated entity, the provincial implications would be changed, I think, depending on where we go, if I understand correctly.

D. Ashton: That was my question, whether the backstop would be Central 1 or stop at the B.C. border. So you’ve answered it. Thank you, John.
[ Page 2009 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Just from my perspective, we’ve heard a lot from credit unions, and you do a great job in the communities.

One of the things we heard on a fairly regular basis are small vignettes about small businesses in communities and otherwise that wouldn’t be small business. I’m kind of curious. You don’t have to answer it now, but maybe before the end of the day tomorrow. The big businesses that started as small businesses under the support of a credit union but now are big businesses and success stories….They’re probably still loyal to their credit unions.

I’d be curious. Maybe a small list of those validators, if you could provide it to us. It could be anyone, but these are people that otherwise wouldn’t have started the business in the first place, because maybe the big banks turned their banks on them.

J. Groves: I’d be happy to provide a list. I’m trying to think of some off the top of my head, and I’m afraid I’m drawing a blank on some of the ones that might be recognized by committee members. I think an interesting point you raise…. One reason why we’d be considering going national is that we, in many instances, provide that initial funding and financial advice to small businesses.

As they grow and look to expand beyond B.C., in many instances they’re not able to continue to bank with us any longer because we’re not able to provide that service across the country.

J. Groves: That’s not an ideal situation, so we’d like to be able to continue to maintain those relationships with those B.C.-based businesses that are going across the country.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Well, I’m still sure there’d be some level of loyalty to credit unions, even if they have outgrown you.

J. Groves: Absolutely. I’m happy to provide a list and will do so with the prepared remarks.

Mr. Tavender, welcome. I’ll give you the same spiel. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a wave with a couple of minutes left, and you conclude your thoughts. And we can go to the committee for questions.

R. Tavender: Thanks. And if I could just ask that you not call me a mister or master. That sort of only makes sense in the context of people that believe in slaves or servitude or those sorts of things.

R. Tavender: Oh, I understand. It’s a custom that people learn without really, perhaps, thinking through what it means. Not that I’m saying you don’t know that, but a lot of people just repeat it ad nauseam.

I’ll begin by acknowledging our presence in aboriginal territory by using one of the languages indigenous to this region, Chinook. [Chinook was spoken.]

I want to thank you for scheduling this additional hearing. This year, as I informed the committee in an e-mail, I was unable to register in time due to illness, and all of the Lower Mainland spots were taken. So while my preference remains, as I have stated for the past two years, Vancouver city, I am able to travel in the Lower Mainland, so I have come here to Lulu Island, the island upon which the municipality of Richmond is situated, at my own expense and of my own mere and free will. Nobody is paying me to be here today.

Today I will speak primarily about social assistance and education. To begin, I will continue my comments from the previous two years concerning social assistance and education, which were given on Monday, September 23, 2013, and on Tuesday, October 14, 2014. The transcripts are available in the Hansard, and I would ask the committee members to review them.

The situation with respect to both has only gotten worse. UBC has raised tuition fees, and the social assistance rate remains stagnant. This violates the right to security of the person recognized in the Charter, which guarantees not some regime of security but security sufficient for the full development of the human person.

Our development is not to be constrained along the axes of an economic agenda. If people wish to become, for example, doctors of philosophy in medieval Russian literature, the government should support that for everyone with capacity. It is a callous and barbaric people who prize resource extraction over cultivation of the mind and philosophy.

Turning to social assistance, this last year I have noted that the government has instituted a $9,600-per-year earnings exemption for all single individuals receiving disability assistance. The inference I draw from this is that the government admits that their assistance program is insufficient by at least $9,600 per year, or $800 per month.

Indeed, how much someone needs to have sufficient security is perhaps a difficult question. Virginia Woolf, in her essay A Room of One’s Own, writes: “Give her a room of her own and $500 a year.” Adjusted for exchange and inflation, that is somewhere between $45,000 and
[ Page 2010 ]
$130,000 per year, if we adjust for the inflation of the cost of goods or the cost of wages, respectively.

So the government’s offering of $906.42 a month, plus Christmas bonus, is quite out of line with Virginia Woolf’s view of what constitutes a sufficient independent living. Indeed, if we surveyed the people in this room, I suspect many of them would have difficulty subsisting on $906.42 in a month.

The Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act provides that the basic compensation for each member is $98,000 per year. Then there are further amounts for cabinet and other positions. This amounts to just under nine times the amount of security paid to disabled people in British Columbia.

I take it that these rates have been established because if the rate were less, Members of the Legislative Assembly could not live independently in the community. This rate is pretty much in the middle of the two possible adjustments for inflation and exchange of Woolf’s estimation.

For a moment, let’s turn to the compensation of Provincial Court judges. They are compensated well over the $200,000 mark, according to the 2010 judicial compensation commission report. Although the report states that part of this compensation is to ensure qualified applicants, this is, with the greatest of respect, an incorrect and cynical view of the judiciary. Judicial compensation is paid at the level it is for the sole purpose of ensuring that judges are independent of outside influence.

Now, I don’t want to be understood to say that we should reduce MLA compensation or judicial compensation. I think that a sufficient salary helps MLAs to discharge their duty independently. We might be tempted to think that MLAs are more important persons in our society so they deserve more money, but that is an error. The reason we pay MLAs a sufficient wage is why we pay our judges a sufficient wage: they must have independence from influence.

MLAs have not voted for themselves a wage anywhere near the rate that is paid to people with disabilities. The judicial compensation commission thinks that a Provincial Court judge requires over 20 times as much money as a person with disabilities. If these levels of security are what it takes to live independently in the community, then it is clear that British Columbia’s disabled people are paid at a level that denies them independence.

In 2014, B.C. had about 90,000 people on disability assistance. To give them each the $9,600 per year that the government tacitly admits it underfunds them by would cost, by my calculation, about $870 million.

The surplus listed in the consultation paper for next year is $277 million, enough to give everyone on disability assistance about $250 per month extra. The full $9,600 increase per person would be about 1.9 percent of the total operating expenses listed in the consultation paper.

Thus, this year I continue my judgment from the last two years, to wit, that the rates set out in the B.C. employment and assistance rate tables are so low that they violate the security of the person of the disabled, the poor and seniors.

This year I add an amount by which social assistance must be increased. At the very minimum, it must be increased by using the surplus to fund an increase, or about $250 per month. But there is room in the budget, I am sure, to do the full $9,600 increase that the province has already allowed to disabled people in the form of an earnings exemption.

Indeed, the whole earnings exemption idea is baffling. If disability assistance pays enough money, why do people need an earnings exemption? I hold that earnings exemptions, even if they must be applied for, constitute a tacit admission that the social assistance rate is insufficient by the amount of the earnings exemption, whether monthly or yearly.

It is relatively unexplored territory whether or not the Charter can confer obligations of this sort — positive obligations — but it is my opinion that it can and does impose such obligations, and it is my view that this reliance on the Charter will become increasingly relevant.

For example, the right to security of the person very likely requires government to have a program of environmental regulation sufficient to protect people from toxic substances like radioactive materials, diesel exhaust or excessive carbon dioxide and from unwholesome environmental practices — for example, those that threaten our water or wildlife. In many ways, parliament has become an ineffective mechanism for protecting the security of the person that belongs to everyone.

As a comment about the economic situation, I understand the province does not control banking policy. That is mostly set at the federal level. And it’s my understanding that since the early 1970s, as a condition of joining some sort of international banking consortium whose name escapes me at the moment, it was undertaken by the federal government or the Bank of Canada to stop giving zero-interest loans for necessary infrastructure.

I do understand there’s a wider context here. However, I don’t think that inappropriate decisions by the federal government on banking policy can absolve the province of their obligations to support the poor and disabled and to provide proper education.

In closing, I thank you for your time, and I urge you to, at a minimum, spend the surplus to provide for B.C.’s most vulnerable or, as a better option, to increase the social assistance rate by a full $800 per month.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Robin. I appreciate that. I’ll go to the committee for questions.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to say thank you for your consistent approach to the committee. Thank you
[ Page 2011 ]
for pointing us back to what you’ve communicated to the committee before. I’m a new member of the committee, so I haven’t seen your presentations from previous years.

Thank you for laying it out. We’ve had other speakers earlier, as you probably heard, lay out the challenges anybody living on disability in B.C. has right now — making ends meet in any sense. So thank you for laying it out and reminding us of the privileges that we have as MLAs and the salaries that we make. I think it’s important to reflect on that as well.

S. Gibson: I know I appreciate — we all do — individuals coming forward with their own individual concerns that they have expressed. Most of the presentations we have are corporate or organizational, so yours was unique in many ways. Thank you for coming today.

G. Heyman: I just want to quickly thank you, once again — this is my second year on the committee — for providing a presentation that gives us some very pertinent perspectives by drawing interesting comparisons that most people in society don’t think about on a daily basis.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I was going to mention, as well, that you’ve obviously given a lot of thought and consideration to your presentation.

One question, though, I had for you was with respect to the direction your proposal took with regard to surpluses. It seems to me your position is: take the entire surplus and increase the welfare rolls. But what about paying off debt? Where do you stand there, and how do you rationalize not dealing with any part of our provincial debt?

If I were a father who had gotten into debt — or a mother…. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to use sexist language or anything like that. If I had gotten into debt and had to choose between feeding my children — and disabled people are, in many ways…. I understand, in common law, a disabled person is considered a charge on their parents for their whole life. I think, in many ways, the province now takes that parental jurisdiction and uses it for their own benefit. I think that if you’re a responsible parent and you’re making decisions about that, it’s more responsible to feed and take care of your children than to pay down debt.

I don’t think the situation is one where a sovereign entity would be in default, and then the treasury would be seized or something. I don’t think that’s a situation that B.C. has to worry about. At worst, I suppose, the credit rating might decline or something — which, of course, has consequences. But that’s more abstract to me than the real consequence of someone going without enough food or security to take care of themselves and live independently.

D. Ashton: Robin, thanks. I’ve had the privilege of listening to you three times now, and I really appreciate you coming forward.

A question. It may be none of my business. Do you fit in the category that you are asking for us to look at?

R. Tavender: I will say, however, that my brother was on disability assistance for many years. He, unfortunately, passed away two years ago at the age of 26. He lived in squalor and did not have enough money to support himself. That was partly due to his being very unable to make appropriate lifestyle choices and so forth. I’m not putting all the blame on the government, but more money certainly would have helped him to have a dignified existence and to be able to integrate better into community.

D. Ashton: I just want to say you do a very good job at lobbying — I’ll use that word loosely — and at bringing forward the information to us for somebody else. So thank you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Robin. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee. Have a good day.

Now I would like to invite our friends from the B.C. Food Processors Association — James Donaldson and James Pratt. Gentlemen, good afternoon.

Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a wave when there are about two minutes left so you can conclude your thoughts. That will give us the opportunity, then, to go to the committee for questions. If you’re ready, the floor is all yours.

J. Donaldson: I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanks for taking the time. I know this was an additional session. I think it’s at the end of your run. I’m sure you’re all very tired, so I’ll try and be brief and high level. How is that?

We represent the B.C. Food Processors Association. We are a non-profit member association of about 300 members. I believe this time last year we were at about 260 members, so we continue to grow. We represent all aspects of the food, beverage and natural health products sectors.

As you probably know, food processing is the largest manufacturing sector in B.C. and, at $8 billion, represents almost 70 percent of the entire agrifood revenues that this province produces.

Today there are three main areas I wanted to focus on in this presentation that I really believe will not only help processors but will also help the provincial government meet its financial objectives. In order to achieve its growth targets — for agrifoods, of $14 billion by 2017 — the BCFPA has summarized these opportunities for growth in the food- and beverage-processing sectors.

The first one is the government’s Buy Local program. We appreciate and we were excited that the government continues to invest into this program, because it has a been a growing consumer trend and continues to be an important consumer trend for B.C. consumers, as well as consumers right across the country.

Last year in the budget, they put $2 million into that plan. While we were excited that food processors were included in that program — because previously, they were not — in its current state, the Buy Local program is really geared towards individual companies. To draw an analogy, in it’s current state, the way the program is funded, it really only increases the individual pieces within the pie, but it doesn’t make the pie bigger, which is really a critical element to the ministry being able to achieve its goals.

We’re requesting that the government partner with industry in developing a more comprehensive program. I can give you a perfect example. In Quebec, 18 years ago, they developed a buy-local program called Aliments du Québec. Its participants have achieved an average annual incremental growth rate of 3 percent.

If you look at our food-processing revenues of $8 billion, $2.7 of that is export, so that leaves us with about $5.3 billion. Some of that is sold elsewhere in Canada. We’re looking at, assuming about a $3.5 billion revenue base for products sold in B.C…. Three percent incremental growth is just over $100,000 million, so it’s not an insignificant amount.

The key message that we want to send to you today is that we’re not really asking for money. We’re asking for a greater level of partnership so that the ministry can achieve its goals and can demonstrate a much better return on the investment, on the money that it does invest in our sector.

The second one is a more comprehensive request. It’s really about stronger collaboration between government and industry on a broader scale. In its current state, the dynamics aren’t optimal right now. We don’t have as much dialogue, as much communication, as much collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture as we feel is optimal.

I’ll give you a perfect example of that. The government’s RFP process has actually created a barrier that makes it difficult for the ministry to engage with us. As an example, not only are we industry experts, but we also do program delivery for programs that fit our strategic plan and meet the needs of processors. By being a program-delivery group, the ministry can’t really collaborate with us in advance in the development of these programs. And we can provide valuable input to make those programs stronger, more meaningful and provide more impact for our members and for the industry in general.

I’ll give you a quick example. Very recently, the ministry came out with a food-processing industry report. It might be valuable to have us work with them on that. We had no advance warning. We found out about the RFP at the same time as everyone else. We actually applied, naturally, because it was an obvious fit, and we were unsuccessful. We spent about 100 hours developing a proposal. We were unsuccessful with our bid, and it was actually awarded to a consulting group out of Ontario.

Not only have we missed the opportunity to contribute to the development of that program and to partner with the ministry, but now we have an out-of-province group with no direct connection to the food-processing sector engaging them and trying to tell the ministry what the needs of the industry are. I see that as a tremendous missed opportunity, and I believe is was a $90,000 proposal. It’s not a large amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but again, it’s about optimizing the money that’s spent.

The final point that I wanted to make was about industry capacity. Industry capacity is a huge issue across the country. You may or may not know this, but since 2004, there’s actually been 143 plant closures in food processing across the country. Now, a lot of those were in Ontario, but there is a large amount of closures right across the country. That’s a huge concern.

At the association, we’ve get a very wide range of requests, and we need to, sort of, be a mile wide and an inch deep at all times, because the industry is so diverse. But we get more requests from small producers who want to scale up and grow, who are looking for people to co-pack their product. They’ve either started in their basement, they’ve started making it in their own kitchen, they’ve started making it in a commercial kitchen, and now they want to commercialize, and they want to grow.

That’s where we see job growth. That’s where we see innovation. That’s where we see global competitiveness for export — these niche, unique products that grow. It’s a very complicated process to be able to connect a co-packer with small processors that want to grow.

We get more requests for this than any other requests combined. It’s that significant. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with my counterparts across the country, and they all agreed that they get that request more often than anything else as well. It’s not just a provincial issue; it’s a federal issue.

I think that B.C. has a unique opportunity to take a leadership role in that area, to connect companies that have production capacity with the smaller businesses that need
[ Page 2013 ]
them. We’re proposing that we partner with the government to develop a program so that we can actually build the capacity within B.C. from the group that’s already here.

We already have the infrastructure in place that’s not optimized. It’s an easy tool to be able to connect businesses to one another. There are a lot of co-packers that don’t advertise, so it would need to be done in a planned, methodical way. But we know that we can grow their business just within the groups that are already here.

I think it’s something the B.C. Food Processors Association has a lot of heart for. It can create incremental jobs. It can create incremental growth. I think it really meets both the goals of the ministry and our desires as an association.

Finally, last year was my first time presenting to this group. I did mention the need for a food innovation centre. B.C. doesn’t have one, and we’re actually one of the only provinces that doesn’t have one. As a case in point, in February of this year, the provincial government in Saskatchewan and the federal government invested in a new innovation centre in Saskatchewan. They actually have two, even though their food-processing sector is less than half the size of ours.

I think it’s sorely needed. When you look at the small business base here, over 90 percent of food processors in B.C. are categorized as either micro or small. That’s where the growth is. That’s where the innovation is. We’re really trying to gear our services towards supporting them and fostering an environment where they can continue to grow.

I think that they’re going to need an innovation centre. They need the means, and they need the capabilities to be able to develop and innovate products on their own in a way that they can’t. They need a support structure for that in place.

I know I mentioned it last year, but it certainly was worth noting, since I had about 15 seconds to do so.

J. Donaldson: Why don’t we spend the time on questions? I saw a couple of people jotting notes down.

I just noticed you have some peer groups — one on Vancouver Island, that one on your website; and one in the Fraser Valley. You don’t have one in the Okanagan.

J. Donaldson: No. We’ve tried a few different times. I think it’s worth another go around. Sometimes it’s difficult. What we’re finding is that we’re having more traction with our peer groups that are put together from a functional point of view than from a geographic point of view.

Vancouver Island is a little bit unique. I think there’s a sense of isolation that sometimes processors on the Island get, where they have a stronger sense of community, whereas in the Fraser Valley, a lot of the participants prefer to go to other functional groups as opposed to the regional one.

When we’ve had those conversations in the Okanagan, that’s been the challenge. They’ve wanted to attend a sales and marketing peer group or our finance peer group or our human resources peer group. What we are looking at doing, since we haven’t seemed to get a lot of traction in the Okanagan, is to set up more webinars and make our peer-group meetings more accessible so that our producers, whether they’re up north or in the Kootenays or in the Okanagan, will be able to access that forum.

D. Ashton: I was just curious, because of PARC, the Pacific agricultural research station, and what they do in innovations toward food processing. Again, it strikes me that we don’t have that up there.

My last question is: are those wine bottles on your…? Do you classify wine under food?

J. Donaldson: Yeah. We do actually have some wineries and a couple of breweries as members.

J. Donaldson: People go where they feel need support, so we’re happy to accommodate them.

I just wanted to reinforce the production capacity issue. Just a small story from our farmers market. We had one table where the group had gotten a commercial kitchen, was excited, had looked at it and, in fact, connected with another person in the market. So they’re now sharing the cost of that commercial kitchen. It’s exactly as you say — just the connection that needed to happen to be able to share that production.

I wondered if you could talk a little more about the food innovation centre. Was it federally funded as well? Was it a federal-provincial partnership?

J. Donaldson: Yeah. And most across the country are a combination of provincial and federal funds. That’s absolutely true. Generally, there’s not a lot of commercial kitchen space.

A lot of the focus is really on commercialization, but specifically product development. It takes a lot of time. You need to test your products.
[ Page 2014 ]

Canada also has — I’m glad we do — very stringent regulatory and labelling standards. We need analytics. We need testing of those products. It’s not just about getting the right amount of basil in a vat with tomato sauce. It’s also about the nutritional breakdown, making sure that it’s compliant. There are a lot of different elements to it.

We don’t really have a one-stop shop, and that’s one struggle that we have as an association. For such a huge industry, it’s very fragmented. Not just from the types of production….

BCIT might do some things, and UBC might do some things, and we’ll do some things. We’ll have some programs. There’s a GF2 program that helps in certain areas. But people come to us because they want to understand where that information is, in a central way. We’re trying to provide that, but it’s even a challenge for us. They have those programs. And I mentioned the food processing industry report. Sometimes we don’t even know about things before they happen. It makes it more challenging.

As a small business, the easier we can make it on them…. Like I said, it’s not a small percentage. It’s over 90 percent. I think it’s 91 percent that are small and micro in size. They’re the easiest ones to help though, too, because they don’t need anything on a grand scale. But we don’t have that sort of one central place where they can go to help develop those products and test them and measure them.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for your presentation. I was interested in your idea about a more comprehensive provincial process for the Buy Local. We used to have the Buy B.C. program. Are you looking more at what that was, which was more comprehensive than the Buy Local?

My second question. You said at present it’s geared to individual companies. What happens when, for instance, a health authority decides that it’s going to start buying local and using local. Is that what you’re looking at — that it needs to have some sort of more provincial guidelines for that? I’d just like a bit more clarity on that.

In terms of Buy B.C., I don’t have a lot of information on the inner workings of it. I know it was some time ago. But I know, for example, the Aliments du Québec program that I mentioned has been going on for 18 years and has continued to grow. It’s a very simple program. It’s got two designations for a product that’s from Quebec — and that means the ingredients are sourced from there and it’s produced there, — and then they also have made in Quebec, because you can’t control it. If you’re a chocolate company, you’re not getting domestic coco, so then there’s a separate designation for that.

That’s huge for packaged goods because people…. I’ve spent a lot of time doing consumer research, and they just won’t spend a lot of time looking for a product. Some people will look at labels, but they tend to be the exception and not the rule. Making it easier for people to identify local products or locally produced products makes it that much easier.

When I was talking about the current state, essentially the way the program works is: if you’re an individual company and you want to do a buy-local program, you would apply to Investment Agriculture Foundation and you would receive 50 percent funding back for it. So you get two things. One, you have very small companies that can’t even afford that 50 percent to be able to participate, and then you get some larger companies that will essentially get a 50 percent discount on a program that they were probably going to do anyway.

Whereas if you have something that’s comprehensive that includes all products — which, essentially, you can apply — once you receive an approval, you can use that brand and logo to market yourself. But it’s done in a centralized way.

The critical factors…. The three main components to what makes it successful in Quebec — and by the way, it was also adopted in Manitoba with great success — were that industry, government and retail all worked together to develop this program. That way, it wasn’t Safeway developing their own program, and Sobeys. And that’s what they’re doing right now.

But in speaking to the retailers, they don’t want that either. They don’t want to have to reinvent the wheel. They don’t want to have to create their own unique spin on a buy-local program. If they have something that has equity that they can develop and invest in, then they’re happy to do it.

It’s a matter of getting them at the table, but it starts with more of a strategic approach about meeting the overall goals. That’s what I mean about…. It can make the whole pie grow if the whole industry is involved and can participate.

J. Yap: You talked about an innovation centre. How would that look? What scope of investment would be required?

J. Donaldson: I don’t think we’ve developed a business plan to that point. I know a few years ago there was sort of an innovation centre, but it didn’t really serve the original need.

I don’t know, Jim, if you have any comments about the innovation centre because you were directly involved?

We lose a lot of companies to Alberta because they’ve got a meat-and-potatoes type of setup, where you can go
[ Page 2015 ]
there, and there are kettles, there are research labs and that. We don’t have that in B.C.

What we tried to do a couple of years ago with this Food Innovation Centre was to set up virtual one, where we could use BCIT or UBC and farm it out that way.

We lost the funding, so we took a step backwards. In a perfect world, we’ve got a big building somewhere, where you’ve got everything that you need — kettles, research, analytics, incubator, etc. It’s a pretty big price tag, and industry would participate. There’s enough industry interest to partner with the government to do something like that. It’s just that we need someone to get it going.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking the time to present. We do appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Mr. Woodrow, good afternoon. I’ll let you know how it works. We’ll give you ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left, you can conclude your thoughts, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. If that works, the floor is yours.

First of all, I’m a volunteer and have been a volunteer for years, ever since I retired, but I was a teacher before that. In teaching, you have to volunteer or you’re not doing your job. I don’t need to talk to you much about volunteerism, because you know what it’s all about. I suggest that in my age group, we have a huge potential of volunteers in the seniors, and we’re not using them. They’re looking for places to volunteer.

Now, I volunteer on trails, and I’ve been volunteering on the Trans Canada Trail for 21 years. There are others, like me, who volunteer on the trail, but what government needs to do is indemnify the volunteers. We can’t have the volunteers footing the bill. So let’s get on with this, can we? Because we’ve been in negotiations with this, with the government staff, for ages. I’d like to see a change.

All we have to do is examine what takes place south of the border. I could tell you loads of stories about what happens down there, but it would take too long and eat up my time. Just look south of the border to Washington state, to Oregon and California, to see how they treat their volunteers. They treat them as employees. Right away, as soon as they sign up, they’re covered, and they’re covered with all kinds of different things. They have a tremendous workforce — no salary, no pension. So please look at that.

Second, the Trans Canada Trail — we’ve got difficulties. The difficulties are the lack of oversight and the lack of regulations supplied by government, because government has chosen the easy route: go with what each community wishes. That’s no good. When you go with each community, you have various rules and regulations on the trail that are no good for visitors — the tourists who come from Europe, for example — to cycle on the Trans Canada Trail.

We’re working closely with the director, with staff, rec sites and trails, with the ministry, and there have just been a whole series of meetings in the Okanagan about Rails to Trails. These are important meetings, and we made a lot of progress in those meetings. But now the message is going to the communities themselves, and the message from our point of view is that we’ve got to have standards all the way across the province on our Trans Canada Trail, especially the Rails to Trails section.

I’m non-motorized, and I’m biased — strongly biased — in favour of non-motorized. I’m a horseman and a hiker. I know that if somebody comes up behind me — even on a bicycle, silent — I’ve got trouble. I don’t like trouble; nobody likes it. The Europeans don’t like it when they come here, because they come here to cycle in wilderness. They want to go from community to community and be serviced, but they don’t like this competition with motorized recreationists.

When you look at it, the motorized recreationists have all of our Crown land to recreate on — lots of it. I’ve got friends who battle me. They have quads, and like me, they hunt. But I hunt from my mule; they hunt from their quads.

We all have our ways of doing things. We just need to accommodate those tourists who will flock here in huge numbers if we limit the usage to non-motorized.

I’ve been hugely disappointed to see Premier Campbell’s vision of the Trans Canada Trail basically gone to hell. He’s the one who stated who the users were to be when he laid out the Rails to Trails program. That was, of course, his caucus who did that, but it’s been changed.

Third, the Trans Canada Trail, to protect its values, needs to be given the same status as in Quebec. It’s a linear park. If we make this a class A park, we’ve solved a huge number of our problems. Just getting there will be a huge problem, a tremendous task. But to me, that’s the vision that we have to have. Convert that to a provincial park, with all of its status. Then we look to Quebec for that example. You see how they limited the use there. There are other examples in the U.S. to look at.

Finally, I just came off a hunting trip, and a successful one. We went to Yukon, and then we came back down into B.C. It’s a long drive. On that long drive, we passed a whole number of parks.

I’ve got a couple of green hunters in my truck with me. They’re in their 30s. They’re mature young men, and they’re really keen to learn what this sport — this whole thing,
[ Page 2016 ]
pursuit — is all about. Being an ethical hunter, I was anxious to show them. At my age, I need their help. We had to camp wherever we could because all the parks were closed.

I’m asking you to go and recommend that…. Now that we’ve got the seniors that we have and the number of hunters on the road travelling greater distances to get their moose — you used to be able to go to the Cariboo and get it — we need to accommodate the needs. Open the parks till at least the end of Thanksgiving weekend. That’s all we need to do. Look at the weather. We had 20-degree weather driving home through Fort Nelson.

We looked at all the gates, because we’ve got the brochure. They’ve got their computers, for heaven’s sake. They can pick all of the route. They can tell me how many hours it’s going to take to the next spot. It’s easy to plan now — not for me, for them. It’s easy for me because I’ve got them.

That’s what we need to do. Open those parks up so the seniors…. You can operate it with volunteers. You won’t get enough in certain places, I know. Nevertheless, we’re not using the seniors, who want to volunteer.

Down in California, when my wife and I travelled extensively when we first retired — we drove all of Mexico too — we found that they have honour boxes. You just go and put your money in the honour box, and you stay for the night in the state park. Well, guess what happens to the honour boxes. They don’t get filled, but that’s typical. But at least the park’s open, and the service is there. That wraps up my presentation.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Woodrow, for sharing your thoughts. I do have questions, so it’s a good thing maybe you did finish up early, because I have four. I’m starting with Eric, please.

E. Foster: Thanks a lot for your presentation. We’ll go to the end part of it first. I really appreciate your comments on keeping the parks open a little longer if there’s an opportunity for people to use them. I really have no issue with that. As far as a recommendation goes, I think it’s a great idea.

Go back to the Rails to Trails. You comment on the Okanagan — I’m the MLA from Vernon — about taking ownership and making them a class A park, which is not a bad idea. The stumbling block there is you’ve got six partners in that: the city of Kelowna, the municipality of Lake Country, the North Okanagan regional district, the municipality of Coldstream, the province and the feds. All contributed to the $21 million for the purchase of that trail, which I totally support. It was a great idea.

How would you suggest that we get all those partners to relinquish, essentially, their ownership?

L. Woodrow: There’s only one way, and it’s by negotiation. If we sit down and discuss the realities of what is going to happen to this trail and to tourism if we don’t take that action, then…. We will come out in the end in a negative balance rather than the positive thing we could have if we did make that change and set that vision for the future and tried to meet the needs of all the groups involved.

E. Foster: The purpose of the initiative was to retain ownership of that in the public domain, so that CN didn’t sell it off to the individuals and close it off forever, and to keep it as a transportation corridor, however that looks at the end.

I’m fully supportive of it. I’m glad we were able to partner as a government.

L. Woodrow: Well, it is a challenge. I recognize it. I see it. Nevertheless, we should take it on.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I think you pointed out quite well all the hours of work from volunteers that government and everyone else in the community and the province benefit from. A little bit of support can make a huge difference. I’ll be interested in continuing to track that and see where those discussions on indemnification are going.

On the Trans Canada Trail issue, I also appreciate the practicality of the ideas you brought forward. I think, as you point out, it’s not about banning one group or another; it’s about making sure that the usage is consistent and also works for each of the users, which often, as you say, is a different kind of usage.

On the Trans Canada Trail, are there particular areas of that trail in the province that are more problematic than others — other areas that are having a higher challenge right now?

L. Woodrow: Yes. The Summerland ATV group is particularly active. We had a minister there who supported them. He’s not a minister anymore. He’s not an MLA. It’s difficult. It’s more awkward. That was when the trail was…. I don’t know if it’s posted or not, but the website stated the users. There was a motorcade organized, and he was invited to join it, which he did. It was blockaded. It was stopped by cyclists.

Not much of a thing happened. There was no real confrontation. But it was an issue at that particular time, and there’s still an issue with, of course, the proponents, who want to use the trail to run to Princeton and back. They want to run it, and it’s normal that they want to run it. You can’t blame them. That’s their big desire, to get on their machines with their kids and everything and go for an event.

S. Chandra Herbert: A very interesting idea, to make it class A park, the Trans Canada Trail. I was curious. I’d
[ Page 2017 ]
heard — and I haven’t looked at the map recently — that there are still sections of the trail that they’re proposing or trying to push to be on the road. Is that the case in B.C.? Are we completed as a trail in B.C.? Sorry for my ignorance. I haven’t had the time to do the whole trail yet.

L. Woodrow: Well, you’ve asked a question that I’d like to answer honestly, but in front of this group, I shouldn’t do it. I could speak to you on the side.

You know, as a hunter — I live up in the Interior — I certainly appreciate your comments. I’ve driven the Alaska Highway and the Stewart-Cassiar numerous times over the last 30 or 40 years, and we do need to address that. We have lonely park-attendant syndrome up there, though. Nobody comes around until hunting season. That’ll be problematic, trying to staff those kinds of positions.

I’m more interested in your first topic there — the indemnification of the volunteers who work on the Trans Canada Trail. Just explain a little bit of what your vision of this indemnification means.

L. Woodrow: Well, it’s all come about since 9/11. Prior to 9/11 we weren’t so panicky. Now we find even government is panicking, and the liability issue is being rejected by government itself. When we go out into the wilderness…. When I go out to work, for example, on my Haller Trail…. I lead a group each year of volunteers on the Haller Trail, which is in the canyon near Clinton, at Big Bar. That group has to be covered.

We can’t get permission to go out there and work on that trail with the way the regs are set up. We have to have coverage, so we have our own. We have to buy our own. Trails B.C. pays that fee every year to the insurance company located in Kelowna. Their office is in Kelowna. They’re a good agent, but we don’t like that fee. That fee is escalating. It’s increasing, because we’re not supposed to have motorized sharing the trail with us on the Trans Canada Trail.

When the motorized are forced upon us, our rates go up. When we go to do volunteer work for the benefit of the province’s citizens, we shouldn’t have to foot this bill. And yet we have to fundraise to pay the insurance for our work. We have various groups working on various trails all over the province, mostly in southern B.C., though.

L. Woodrow: Oh, I’m not the treasurer, but it’s hundreds of dollars. I don’t think it’s $3,000. It’s a reasonable amount, but also, they assess the risk as being fairly low. I guess they haven’t had a lawsuit yet either. The minute I say that, I’ll be wrong, the wrong amount.

D. Ashton: Some of the sections that you spoke about are within where I represent. We’ve done an admirable job at trying. You spoke about negotiation and balance. That’s something that we are trying to strive for.

I just want to thank you. In my past life, I had a lot of association with the Naramata Wood Whackers through the regional district.

D. Ashton: Those gentlemen do an exemplary job. They’re like you. That’s what they want to do. They enjoy being outside. I concur wholeheartedly. We have to look at some form of indemnification for those that want to keep on looking after those provincial assets.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Woodrow. On behalf of the committee, I also appreciate you taking the time. It was very enlightening. It was the first presentation of its kind in all of our tour this year. It’s good to hear something different.

L. Woodrow: Well, I learned about this group, your meeting here with the public, through the Outdoor Rec Council, which is another proactive group. So give Jeremy hell for me, will you?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mr. Woodrow, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Take care. Have a good afternoon.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I have a quorum around me, so I will welcome Mr. Ken Peacock, the Business Council of British Columbia.

Mr. Peacock, ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to give you a warning when there are a couple of minutes left so you can conclude your thoughts, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

I have a fairly lengthy submission. You each have a copy to read at your leisure, sometime after the meeting today, I guess.

I just want to start off by talking a little bit about the economic backdrop and what we see for the economy —
[ Page 2018 ]
B.C., more particularly, and how we will be faring over the next couple of years. Then I’ll move into some of our concerns and recommendations.

Just starting off at the global backdrop level. The global economy continues to disappoint. Forecasts get routinely revised down. Right now the IMF is projecting growth at the global level of about 3.1 percent. If you go back to April, just as recently as April, they were projecting 3.5 or 3.6 percent. You do see this pattern of ratcheting down because of underperforming at the global level.

With that, you’ve seen commodity prices fall, and of course, most notably, oil, which is having huge ramifications for the Canadian economy, Alberta most particularly. But there are spillover effects right across Canada. If you look to the emerging or developing economies, you do see some challenges in slowdown in trend growth in those emerging economies.

For British Columbia, China of course stands out as one of the big factors there. Chinese growth is now forecast to be in the neighbourhood of 6.5, maybe 6.7, percent this year — a little bit weaker next year. If you talk to people who follow China more closely, there are a number of indicators that growth is in fact quite a bit less than 6 percent. Those are official GDP numbers.

Looking at B.C.’s exports, there is reason to believe that China is growing a little bit slower than 6 percent, just because our exports to China are now slightly negative. They fell last year, and they’re on course to fall again this year. That’s a dramatic difference from the past couple of decades when you saw double-digit — 30 or 40 percent, year-in, year-out — growth in exports to China. That transformation and transition that China is going through is washing up upon B.C. shores.

The Canadian economy — as I noted, because of oil prices — has definitely stumbled. We had a couple of slightly negative quarters in the first two quarters of this year. We don’t think that that should be called a recession, or for it to be referred to as a recession — other indicators like employment and stuff are continuing to grow — but it definitely was a slowdown in the Canadian economy.

We’re looking at a little bit of a recovery now, but this leaves the Canadian economy growing at just 1.2 percent for 2015 — very weak performance, much weaker than other industrialized economies and, in particular, stands out in contrast to the U.S.

Yes, the U.S. had a little hiccup in the first quarter of this year, but it has since recovered. The U.S. economy, which is of great benefit to both Canada and British Columbia, is actually on a much more solid growth footing, and it’s one of the reasons we think that B.C. will do reasonably well this year.

Just diving into a little bit on what we see happening in British Columbia, starting with the export sector against that mixed backdrop at the global level. The province’s export sector also makes the commodity markets down, and as a result, our mining sector, our natural gas industry, is of course hurting.

If you flip over to some of the non-resource activity in the province, the export sector is doing quite well. That of course is because of the weak Canadian dollar — the weak Canadian dollar having huge ramifications for British Columbia, helping boost exports in the non-resource sector. Non-resource manufacturing, agricultural products are doing well also. But then if you look to things that don’t get captured in the export statistics very well, like tourism, like tradable business services and our transportation and logistics services — all are doing very, very well.

That’s part of the reason that we think that the B.C. economy is performing reasonably well, given the mixed and varied external backdrop.

On the domestic side of the economy, retail sales stand out as almost too strong. It’s a little bit of a puzzle for us, seeing the retail spending expanding by 6 to 7 percent for the past 18 months, almost two years now. It’s a very strong performance compared to 2 or 3 or 4 percent, which is more consistent and more normal for B.C.

Alberta, of course, is the mirror. Alberta has gone from running at 6 to 7 percent down to minus 2 percent for retail sales, contracting because of what the Alberta economy is going through.

Before I jump into housing starts, just a note on employment growth in B.C. Employment growth, according to the Labour Force Survey, has been quite soft and quite muted. It’s just starting to see signs of picking up a little bit.

But if you look at an alternative survey — a survey of employment, payroll and hours, which gets much less attention…. That is a survey of employers, and it uses administrative data. It points to job growth, on a year-over-year basis, of 2, 2.2 or 2.3 percent — notably different than the less than one percent or 0.6 or 0.7 percent that the Labour Force Survey says.

Our read on it is that the Labour Force Survey, for some reason, is kind of under-reading what’s happening, because employment growth is…. Sub 1 percent is just not consistent with what we see elsewhere in the economy, such as retail sales, strong auto sales and other things. So we’re kind of blending those two to get a sense of what we think the job market is like in the province.

Another plus for B.C. is major engineering and resource projects. A lot of capital projects on the books. Many of them will have difficulty or challenges advancing, but there are a large number of commercial projects going on in the Lower Mainland and, like I said, a number of resource projects and some infrastructure, as well, that will help provide a little bit of a boost.

We do have positive net in-migration, and I think that’s going to continue. In light of what’s happening in Alberta, we will see more Albertans heading this way
[ Page 2019 ]
and fewer British Columbians going to Alberta. And we do get positive in-migration on a net basis from almost all other provinces right across Canada. That’s going to provide a boost, in addition to the usual 30,000 or 35,000 immigrants we get each year.

I guess, in sum, what we see for B.C. is growth of about 2.2 percent for 2015 and a little bit stronger, 2.6 percent, in 2016. That’s a little bit higher than the ministry is forecasting right now for 2015. They’re around 2 percent, I believe. But the thing to note here is that it’s not spectacular by historical standards — slightly below average — but if you look across Canada, it’s probably going to lead all provinces in terms of economic growth. We have this resilient, diverse economy that is helping us out here in B.C. That’s sort of the backdrop that we have for putting together our budget recommendations.

Just turning to that, right at the top of the list of our concerns for the provincial economy right now is competitiveness. We surveyed our members. We looked at some of the capital flows — where investment is taking place, particularly in the forest sector. It’s not in British Columbia; it’s in other parts of North America. This is something that we’re concerned about. We think that competitiveness in general needs to be addressed here in the province.

We’ve coined what we call the triple whammy, which has hit business competitiveness in the province. At the top of that list, of course, is the reversion to the PST. Inputs into business operations and production activities are now again being taxed at a rate of 7 percent — with the exception, of course, of machinery and equipment inputs into the resource and manufacturing sectors. But that’s fairly narrow.

That is a huge increase in the costs — about $1.6 billion back on taxes — for firms working and operating in the province. And we estimate another $150 million to $200 million in extra compliance costs.

A second factor is the carbon tax, now levied at a rate of $30 per tonne. Other jurisdictions in North America, most of them, don’t have it. That is by far the largest carbon tax or carbon levy anywhere in North America. While it was introduced in a revenue-neutral manner, it is a disadvantage to, particularly, energy-intensive exporting businesses. It’s not revenue-neutral for everybody participating in the economy; it’s just revenue-neutral at the aggregate level. In fact, there are significant costs imposed on the energy-intensive industries.

Finally, the third piece in the triple whammy is the escalating electricity costs. For many, many years, B.C. had a competitive advantage. That was one of our key competitive advantages — relatively low electricity costs.

You’re starting to see electricity costs creep up in this jurisdiction. At the same time, they’re falling or going down in many other North American jurisdictions because of low natural gas prices and pressure in some of these other areas or regions to reduce electricity costs.

Another thing that we would like to draw attention to is the whole municipal property tax scheme. Some municipalities are lumping on a high proportion, or a disproportionate share, of the burden of property tax on heavy industry, the utilities and commercial businesses. The reason for that is simply because there’s no restriction or limitation as to the ratios or the differences that can be heaped on the different segments of property taxes.

In this province, that’s a concern for us. Then a complex, costly regulatory environment, permitting issues, unresolved First Nation land claims — this type of thing makes it increasingly complex to do business in the province. That’s another concern we have.

K. Peacock: Less than that? I’ve got ten seconds to go through our recommendations. Well, you know what? They’re nicely ordered. There are six of them. I’ll just quickly touch upon them.

Aim to deliver a balanced budget is the first recommendation. The second recommendation is to keep the net debt-to-GDP ratio below 20 percent. Both of those are fairly straightforward.

The third one I do want to draw your attention to and underscore. We’re recommending that, to address some of the competitive challenges that I just outlined, the province keep the corporate income tax rate at 11 percent, rather than going back to 10 percent as has been promised, and use that fiscal room to address some of the competitiveness issues that we have identified, particularly relating to the PST.

That brings me to the fourth recommendation. There are a number of alternatives that we have outlined that might help address the PST concerns. One of them is broadening existing PST exemptions on new capital investment. I don’t have time to go into any of the details there. Another option is to exempt electricity used by industrial and commercial firms — again, getting at that high carbon tax cost, as well as the PST concerns. A third option to help address the return to the PST and the damage it has done is to develop a new investment tax credit scheme to provide incentives for more capital investment in the province.

The fifth recommendation. You’ve probably heard it before, but we are recommending keeping the carbon tax at $30 a tonne, particularly with other jurisdictions not following suit. Keep it at $30 a tonne until other provinces and other states do have a broadly based carbon-pricing scheme put in place.
[ Page 2020 ]

Lastly, recommendation 6 is the municipal property tax issue. Look at introducing some maximum tax ratios or fairness ranges to make sure that the discrepancy between industrial property tax and residential property tax, or commercial property tax and residential property tax, doesn’t continue to widen and actually comes down in some of the municipalities.

I do want to just take 20 seconds to make a comment on our final thought, the last section of our paper there. We are noting that, if you look over time, the nature of the economy has changed significantly. Population aging — we’re going to have almost one retiree for every two working-age people in the province within 20 years. That’s going to put downward pressure on growth and income tax revenues. Consumption patterns are going to shift. Elderly people don’t spend as much. People tend to spend more on services and less on goods, which makes it kind of perverse that we don’t tax services to the same degree that we tax goods, in terms of consumption.

All these factors sort of add up. What we’re suggesting is that this committee consider striking some sort of committee or review process for the B.C. tax system in general — doing an in-depth study of how it might be improved to enhance competitiveness and help secure and solidify tax growth and the tax base over the next few decades. So something for the group to consider.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Peacock. It gives us a little less than two minutes.

J. Yap: You talked about growth forecasts: 2.2 percent this year, 2.6 percent next year. Retail very strong, you said, and employment as well. You’ve got in your recommendation to offset the negative impact of PST, and I agree with you. Can you quantify the…? We’re seeing positive results, but they could have been better. Are you able to quantify what the damage in going back to the PST is to the economy?

K. Peacock: It’s very difficult to quantify it with any degree of certainty. The world has changed so dramatically. You’ve got oil prices down. You’ve got the exchange rate down, a weaker global backdrop.

There is a chart in here that looks at tangible capital investment that has fallen in the couple of years since the return to the PST. From businesses we talked to, there’s no doubt that the return on investment — EBITDA, earnings before taxes — is weak. That is prompting companies, particularly in resource sectors, to put their capital dollars elsewhere — the southern United States.

It’s difficult to quantify, but there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that the competitive picture in B.C. is poor and that it is causing capital to either be delayed or deployed in other jurisdictions.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We are completely out of time. I’m going to ask Carole to ask her question, and we’re going to take it on notice. You have until the end of the working day tomorrow to respond to the committee, and it’ll form part of the public record.

You mention the regulatory processes, and you talk about the William case and government’s role in addressing it. I would agree with that, but I think business, obviously, has a role in that case as well. I wondered if you could just give us an idea of any work that the B.C. Business Council is doing around informing businesses or discussing or looking at how you address the William case. If you could send any of that information in.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Peacock. A pleasure. We will, I’m sure, see you again and be hearing from you more in the future. Take care.

We have the NEBC Resource Municipalities Coalition: Mayor Bill Streeper, Mayor Rob Fraser, Colin Griffith and Mayor Lori Ackerman.

Welcome. Good afternoon. You’ve come a long way to present to this committee. Thanks for making the trek to Richmond. I’ll give you the same spiel. We’ll give you ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a wave with a couple of minutes left, and we can go to questions from the committee. The floor is yours.

B. Streeper: Who are we? The Northeastern Resource Municipalities Coalition was formed to protect and enhance the existing quality of life and levels of services for citizens in the Peace region and the Northern Rockies while facilitating resource developments in northeastern British Columbia. The current members are the Northern Rockies regional municipality, which is Fort Nelson, the city of Fort St. John and the district of Taylor. We directly service over 70 percent of the resource development in northeastern B.C.

L. Ackerman: The coalition is very clear on its overarching policy position to ensure that the resource municipalities that we represent develop as permanent, sustainable and vital communities. While the coalition recognizes the need to expand the resource communities to accommodate the projected growth in the short term, our focus is on how we will develop and prosper in the long term. We are communities, not projects.

The objective of establishing permanent resource municipalities has a number of implications. First, our resource municipalities and our rural areas do not intend to become staging areas for the industry’s long-distance commuting programs whereby we will incur many of the
[ Page 2021 ]
economic, social and financial costs but receive few of the benefits associated with resource development and industrial growth.

The coalition will work to ensure that an increasing proportion of workers and their families make our resource municipalities their home and contribute to the continued economic, social, cultural and financial vitality of the municipalities. Colin Hansen said at our launch a year ago: “If you took every worker today who is flying in to work in British Columbia from a home in Alberta, they’re paying their provincial income tax in Alberta. That’s where I think the incremental opportunity is.”

It’s our responsibility to build strong communities where we can recruit and retain workers too. Social needs, health, safety, education are the building blocks of strong communities. We will work with the province and the industry to create those communities, but we need the province at the table.

R. Fraser: You’ve heard who we are. You’ve heard the situation that we’re in. We’re here to inform your budget deliberations with some ideas from the north.

Communities are the children of the province. We get that. The province has put us in a pretty good position going forward. We need a willing partner.

I’m the mayor in Taylor. Sixty years ago they built that plant in Taylor. Not a lot of people in B.C. know about natural gas and what a clean energy source it is. But we know.

We’ve been through the boom and bust. We are trying to get our communities to be sustainable so we don’t get these huge, big cycles that have been happening. The way to do that is to build good, strong communities up there that doctors want to live in and that professionals want to live in so that the workers in that industry also will come and live there. That’s what we’re trying to achieve.

We recognize that if the Premier’s vision comes to fruition with respect to LNG, there will be a huge, huge impact on us up there. In order to prevent a similar situation that happened in Fort McMurray, where people can’t live — doctors, policemen and people that are well paid in our industries can’t afford to live there — we need to be able to plan through that and for that and really identify what the opportunities are and what the struggles will be.

Prior to our Peace agreement, we were in discussion with the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Families and the Ministry of Natural Gas, asking them to participate in a planning process with us. They just didn’t have the budget to do it. They recognized the need. Everybody understands the need. We understand that the province is, fiscally, in a position where they’re really trying to work hard with the budget, and that’s what all you folks are doing. But some investment needs to be made up front to ensure that we can plan properly.

We’ve got the people that we need. Industry will come. They need the social licence. They’ll come and sit with us. What we need is a willing partner in the province to come and sit with us. That means that those ministries — the lead ministries, I think — need the funds and the investment so that they can put people at that same table with us.

We can plan it. We’ve been through it. We’ve had our agreement in place, with respect to our Fair Share agreement, for 15 years now, and we’ve learned and really had an opportunity to understand how that can all work and how we can actually work together. That will help us, then, to understand the opportunities.

That’s really what we’re looking for — a recognition by the province that the resource communities in the northeast have a say and have some experience that can assist the province and ourselves and the industry. That’s what we’re looking for from you. When you deliberate, consider investing in those planning opportunities.

S. Gibson: I’m from the Lower Mainland, the Abbotsford area, but have travelled up a number of times into your region in my new role as an MLA — being, a bunch of us, new MLAs.

I haven’t had a chance to read all this, so please forgive me. I’m a fairly fast reader. What would you say is the one challenge, the one thing, that you would like to leave us with? What’s the one thing that we could start on as government to make your life a little more pleasant? Right now it’s unpredictable. That’s what makes it tough being local government in your area. You’ve got a great decade and then suddenly a decade of challenge. You have people moving away, businesses closing. What can the government do to make your life more pleasant?

L. Ackerman: I think, actually, going off what Ken was just talking about, from the Business Council, we need to be able to react faster to changing economic times. So you need to modernize government. You need to modernize local government so that we can react faster. We don’t know what that looks like, but we’re willing to work with you to make that a reality.

L. Ackerman: Sure. We’ve got situations where teachers, RCMP, nurses come into our community capped at an income that they could get anywhere in this province, but it costs more to live in our community simply be-
[ Page 2022 ]
cause of the economy that we have. So how do we work together to ensure that we have those building blocks for our community?

We don’t have all the answers, but we’re certainly willing to sit down with yourself and with industry to find those solutions that are going to work for our kids too.

B. Streeper: Another thing that we’re also looking at is for the resource jobs to be permanent jobs. It is very expensive when you look at the fly in, fly out. That creates no prosperity for the municipalities or the province at all. We have to stress to the companies that are doing this, the mega oil companies, about local employment, local hire.

R. Fraser: The Premier said just a few minutes ago at lunch that one of the things she needs to understand is planning — understanding what the problems are, plan for it and then reverse-engineer it. So put whatever plans we can, I guess, into place to try to recognize, if this is happening, that we need to do this, that this is happening. That will help us to respond quicker, because we will have understood the problem in advance. That’s why I’m back to this planning.

We have the experience right across at the oil sands. That gives us the experience of what happens when you create a new industry all of a sudden and then wham — you’ve got all of these people. So we can learn from that, we can reverse-engineer it, and we can figure out what strategies we can put in place to prevent it from happening to us. So this planning is critical.

M. Morris: Good to know that the good work that Coleman has been doing for a number of years up there to try and bring everything about and everybody else up there….

I’ve never seen any numbers. Going back to what you were saying, Bill, you need some definitive employee status up there. You want some permanent employees living in the area, but you can’t force people to live where they don’t want to live. That’s part of the problem that we have, and it goes back to what Lori said.

When I was in the RCMP, we were paying the guys to go to the small, isolated spots the same as they were getting paid in Armstrong and Lumby and all the other deluxe places that we have in the province here. So we’ve got to find some way around that.

Do you guys have the numbers that you could provide us? I know it varies with the decline that we’ve seen in the northeast part of the province and right across the province, but do you have the numbers of the people that were coming to B.C. to work from Alberta on a temporary basis, fly in, fly out, including also the people from B.C. that were flying up to Fort Nelson or Fort St. John or whatever, working in those camps and then leaving again?

C. Griffith: We don’t have it drilled down to that depth at this point, but what we’ve done, in the absence of any direct involvement by the province at this stage, is we’ve hired our own economist, and we’ve developed economic modelling that we can use to look at cumulative impacts on the municipalities.

As an example, for a major LNG project, we can produce the job creation, both transient and permanent. We can produce the government revenues that will come out of that development, both on the LNG tax side…. We’re actually marrying them together to look at both the upstream and the downstream right now.

It’s going to be very instructive for everybody to have a look at that. So much of the discussion since LNG was invented, if you like, is based on the upstream natural gas. There has been a very major focus on trying to get the communities in the northwest prepared, and we understand that. We’ve got the northwest readiness project and so on.

We think that at some point there has to be a more integrated planning process that would include the actual people who live in the northeast. There are only eight municipalities. There are only 70,000 people, 25 percent of the province. There needs to be a much more intensive planning process.

Everybody understands that it’s hard to spend money before you get it. We understand the provincial position on that, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But that shouldn’t forgo investments into front-end planning.

The industry is doing it on their side for the plants. They’re doing their feed processes and all the rest of it, right? But that isn’t happening for the communities. If you think of the vast development that’s going to take place in the upstream to service even one LNG plant, two of them doubles or triples the gas that’s being produced today. That is where the majority of the job creation is at.

That’s the challenge. But that’s basically just the elephant in the room that is not really being addressed too much. The fundamental purpose of why the coalition formed was to advance those issues.

M. Morris: A short follow-up. What’s the ratio again? For every job that we have in an LNG plant on the west coast, how many workers do we have in northeast B.C.?

C. Griffith: Industry suggests it ranges someplace between 5 to 7, the ratio. If you look at CERI, they’ve done projections in terms of upstream versus the downstream, in terms of global investments. They suggest that for every $40 billion spent on the coast for an LNG plant, there will be $120 billion to $130 billion spent upstream.

As you can see, this didn’t just start. The industry has already invested over $60 billion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Sorry, Mr. Griffith. We’re just about out of time. I’ve got five more people that wanted
[ Page 2023 ]
to ask questions, and I’ve got two minutes. If you have the capacity to take questions on notice and get us the answers before the end of the day tomorrow, I can get a lot of questions asked. If not, then we’ll just have to finish up.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just quickly, I wonder what discussion is happening with your organization, with the northeast coalition, with the northwest. You mentioned the learning that can happen from Fort McMurray. I think there’s huge learning that can happen from the northwest to you in the northeast, from some of the things that have occurred.

I’m wondering what kind of discussions are happening with the two areas. I know you can take it on notice and get back to us. I think it’s critical to make sure that pre-planning happens in both cases.

I want to raise some questions. The other is the infrastructure needs. You make some comments in your paper about the needs for highways and what’s happening there. I’d like a little bit more detail on that, and whether all your communities have access to high-speed broadband Internet or not.

L. Ackerman: Yes, the B.C. mayors caucus is still…. They’ll be up May 2 and 3.

E. Foster: Coming from another type of resource community and kind of lived, all this sort of stuff, and having been a fly-in, fly-out guy…. The big investment is the construction and so on. How do you get those folks to move in on a three-year job and then stay? Have you got any kind of a grasp that you’re going to get them there? I mean, it’s tough.

B. Streeper: On the construction side it would be, but there are a lot of permanent jobs that are still there.

E. Foster: I’ll keep getting the construction people to stay and do the permanent jobs.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the mayors that got to show me around when I came up to visit — much appreciated. I’ll have to come again.

I wondered what the relationship is in terms of the resource coalition, your municipalities, with local First Nations — Treaty 8, Prophet River, those kinds of communities — since some of the issues certainly cross over. I’m curious what the relationship is.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Susan will wait for the Hansard to be ready. She will box up those questions. Provide her with an e-mail address, and she will get them to you this afternoon. You can respond to the committee before 4:30 tomorrow.

L. Ackerman: I’m going to squeeze in an invitation. November 25 we are going to have an upstream forum held in Fort St. John.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. If you could get us the details, we’ll spread that around. Thank you very much.

While you’re doing that, can I please call up the British Columbia Integrated Youth Services Initiative — Dr. Steven Mathias.

Doctor, good afternoon. Sorry, I seem to be rushing here a little bit. I’m trying to keep to our schedule. Dr. Mathias, ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give you a wave when you’re down to about two, and then we can go to the committee’s questions after the ten. If that works for you, the floor is yours.

S. Mathias: Thank you very much. I’m here on behalf of the B.C. Integrated Youth Services Initiative. My name is Steve Mathias. I’m a child and adolescent psychiatrist who has worked in Prince Rupert. I’ve worked in Kamloops, I’ve worked in Quesnel, and I’ve also worked in Penticton. I’ve worked at the adolescent treatment centre for the Ministry of Children and Families, and in the last seven years, I’ve been working in the downtown core of Vancouver, working with homeless youth and addicted homeless youth who present with mental illness.

Today, I’d like to talk to you about the B.C. Integrated Youth Service Initiative, which I have to thank Minister Cadieux and Minister Lake for supporting. As we move through, I’ll be presenting the issue at hand, an international model, as well as our proposal. Finally, I’ll be presenting a submission to the Finance Committee requesting annualized funding for this proposal moving forward.

The issue, really, we have in this province is that in 2012-2013, over 172,000 young people sought help for mental health and substance use either through an emergency room, a primary care service provider or for addiction services. Those are the youth who actually sought help in this province. We estimate that there are likely over 300,000 youth, at any given time in any given year, that have mental health and substance-use concerns. One in eight young British Columbians sought help, but we know that at least 25 percent, if not more, of those who do need help do not.

There has been an increase of 85 percent in ER visits over the five years from 2009 to 2013 for youth aged 15 to 19. I probably don’t have to remind anyone that nearly three times more youth will die of suicide than of cancer in this province.

The lifetime economic burden of childhood onset mental health disorders is large, approximately $26 billion in British Columbia. But our return on investment, which I find really interesting, for mental health treatment and best-practice intervention is significant. For every dollar spent, returns are estimated to be between $3 and $5.

When we look around the province, our access points are disjointed for young people ages 12 to 25. Some will access services through a sexual health clinic, where they may get birth control, or they may get support for their reproductive health but not be able to get help for their mental health concerns or their substance-use concerns.

Similarly, as you see in this picture, young people who have been admitted to hospital are often seen in follow-up in waiting rooms that, I think it’s fair to say, wouldn’t be where we would want to send our children if this was the first experience they were having with mental health services. Given that a lot of these waiting rooms are open 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in this province, we are not serving young people when they need the help.

When we look abroad…. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There are actually models of care that have been implemented in Australia, Ireland and several other countries that integrate health services, those services that youth are most likely to seek, under one roof. Headspace Australia has 77 sites and plans to open up to 100. There are colourful waiting rooms. They have primary care, mental health and substance-use services behind one door. They also have what’s called eheadspace, which is an on-line service either through chat or phone where youth can get services up to 11 p.m. at night.

In September 2014, I submitted a document called “Transforming Access for Health and Social Services for Transition Aged Youth in B.C.” to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, mental health. At the time, my proposal was for a branded network of 25 integrated health and social service sectors across the province with an overlay of e-health services and a framework for research and evaluation.

In March 2015, we felt we needed to show the world, or at least British Columbians, what this looked like, so we opened up, on Granville Street in downtown Vancouver, the Granville Youth Health Centre. This was funded by donors — Silver Wheaton; Variety, The Children’s Charity; and St. Paul’s Hospital Foundation — as well as the Ministry of Health. Services offered include primary care, mental health, and substance-use counselling, income assistance, housing support and psychosocial rehabilitation as well as peer support.

If you look at your handout, you’ll see that this is a little bit unlike most clinics where young people get services. We worked with a branding company to come up with something that was marketable to young people. We are in front of six bus stops and two blocks away from the SkyTrain. It’s a bold design that most adults don’t necessarily feel comfortable being in but that youth love. Our satisfaction survey, in 26 categories, showed that people were satisfied over 90 percent of the time with this environment.

The waiting room has a television that gives youth feedback on their choices and services offered. And it’s a walk-in service. In other words, young people can come in off the street between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. every day and Saturdays from 12 till four to seek services. On site, as mentioned, we have peer support, primary care delivered by both nurse practitioners and family doctors, counselling and life skills.

The B.C. Integrated Youth Services Initiative really came from the proposal that was submitted. The initiative seeks to improve mental health and substance-use access and care for youth and young adults living in communities across British Columbia. The proposal calls for an easing of transition points, integrating and augmenting existing services with a common communications strategy.

We are not looking to reinvent the wheel. We recognize that a lot of centres, whether it’s in Richmond, Abbotsford, Prince George, Delta, Victoria, Vancouver…. There are a lot of services right now on the ground for young people, but all of them are missing something. Whether it’s mental health funding, whether it’s primary care, whether it’s substance use, they are missing something.

The funding that we have received from foundations, over $8½ million, would be used to create five centres across the province, five youth friendly centres where existing services could integrate and be augmented with top-up dollars. These centres would work in tandem with partners such as the philanthropic community, interministerial partners and community organizations.

Our prototype phase, which was launched this month, has bold objectives: the establishment of a backbone organization to oversee knowledge exchange and research, as well as ensuring that there is a common communication strategy for all sites; establish five centres, as mentioned, one located in each regional health authority. This
[ Page 2025 ]
process would be done through an expression of interest so that all communities in the province would have access to this funding.

We would support the expansion of non-traditional access points by partnering with web-based health services. We would conduct research and evaluation with quality improvement done in real time, as well as developing, for the first time, a youth public health strategy for the province of British Columbia.

This is a partnership like no other. We’ve had the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Families involved. We’ve also had four foundations that, all told, have contributed, as I’ve said, over $8½ million to this project and $1 million for research and evaluation.

What we are asking for are annualized funding dollars. Lots of services on the ground struggling to make ends meet, struggling to oversea an integrated health model. We are asking for $500,000 annualized per site for six sites delivering clinical services and supporting operations.

In the first year, for 2016-17, we’re asking for $1.5 million, and for 2017-18, we’re asking for $3 million to cover six sites. We are asking for $1.4 million per annum once the one-time funding runs out to run the backbone organization beginning in 2018, and we’re also requesting funding for the e-health team of clinicians that would support the province, including rural sites, to the tune of $500,000 in the first year and $1 million in a subsequent year. Our total request for 2016-17 is $2 million and for 2017-18 is $4 million.

Expected benefits: 7,500 to 10,000 individual youth per year will receive in-person services, while an additional 1,500 to 2,000 individuals will receive e-health services. I believe these are conservative estimates.

We will provide strong oversight and accountability by the backbone organization, and we believe that we can leverage government funding with philanthropic partners to amplify efforts and allow for scalability. We have $4 million of soft funding on the sidelines to be leveraged against anything that we can get from the government from the 2016-17.

This is something that philanthropy wants to support. We don’t have a lot of towers for mental health, but we can build health centres where youth can get good care.

Finally, our anticipated cost for the overall proposal, which is 25 sites — and I’m not here asking for this today; I’m just putting it on your radar — is $12½ million per year to operate 25 sites, $2 million for e-health services and again, $1.5 million for the backbone organization — knowing that I think we can raise $20 million to $25 million for capital investments in these 25 sites.

Expected benefits are on last page. We expect 35,000 to 50,000 individual youth per year to receive in-person services once this is rolled out. We feel that this is the way to allow our young British Columbians to thrive and access health services when needed.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for the presentation — very, very interesting.

Two questions. I always seem to have two questions. One is the Granville centre. You mentioned that it’s private donors and the Ministry of Health. Do you have any money from Ministry of Children and Family Development, because it’s a youth category?

Secondly, I’m intrigued about your five centres around the province. It sounds like a wonderful idea. I represent Campbell River at the north end of the Island, and there’s absolutely huge youth mental health problems. We don’t have enough workers from the Ministry of Children and Families. They burn out. There is nothing for young people. There is nothing on the Island for young people.

So while one centre sounds wonderful for what would be Island Health, it would not be, necessarily, in my community, which needs it desperately. But every community needs it desperately. It would likely be in a centre where you’re still going to have the issues of access.

I think my question is a bit of a challenge of how we can best use the dollars so that they get into every community, rather than just five centres of excellence.

S. Mathias: Well, I did say that we want 25 centres of excellence eventually, starting with five. The reason we want one in each health authority is to really provide support for the rest of the health authority and to develop those centres of excellence — you’re right — but begin to have expertise move beyond just the walls of that centre.

The other piece is the e-health component, which in Australia has been a big boon. It’s likely the reason more and more rural young people are accessing services, either through direct chat or through being able to call in and speak to a counsellor. I think if you look geographically at Vancouver Island, you would really see an opportunity for anywhere from four to six of these on the Island.

They don’t have to be large centres. They can be smaller centres, where you might have primary care and some clinicians or counselling. It doesn’t have to be the whole kit and caboodle, but it could be supported by a larger site, say in Nanaimo, where there is quite a bit of expertise, or in Victoria.

Going back to your original question, the Ministry of Children and Families has been supporting what we do at Granville Youth Health Centre with in-kind resources. This is really where, I think, they would see their fit — coming in with this, not necessarily with cash but with in-kind resources. I think, again, it’s what we’re looking for.

We’re looking to integrate services that are on the ground and bring people in and work together to pro-
[ Page 2026 ]
vide the services through one portal instead of numerous portals where youth…. I call it: “Every door is the wrong door.” I know we say that every door is the right door. But every door is the wrong door, because you go for one reason, and you can’t get help for any other. For youth, those are huge barriers.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Steve, for your presentation. I know we’ll be having more discussion at the other committee, the children and families committee, as well.

Just a couple of questions. I wondered what kinds of challenges you face, because I think it’s important for future pilots, around trying to get those integrated services. You mentioned the range of services that you’re able to do at Granville. I’m guessing those are other agencies coming in with their services. I wondered about how that had gone and whether there were any hurdles you faced there.

The second question was on referrals. Are you just open and anybody can walk in? Can doctors refer? Can social workers refer, teachers refer? Again, what we hear often is, “I get a referral, and I have to wait for six months to go and see somebody, or a year to go and see somebody, and then I get sent somewhere else.”

S. Mathias: What we’re proposing is to take on the ACCESS Canada benchmarks. ACCESS Canada is a new network for research and evaluation of services, and we have been brought on as a partner. One of their benchmarks is the ability to see a professional within 72 hours and a specialist within 30 days. I think we should finally start setting benchmarks in this area so that that opportunity is there.

What I would suggest is that you create a system where the priority is to see young people within a certain time. Young people don’t always need to be followed for a long time, but they may need to be followed for three or four sessions. That’s your first point.

One of the things that’s been really exciting for us has been the involvement of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. There’s an incredible opportunity to bring not only income assistance workers, housing support, vocational trainers on justice into our program but education as well. I think this is a tremendous opportunity, but you have to build spaces where there’s an invitation for people to come to work together.

S. Hamilton (Chair): The next two questions — I have Dan, then Simon, and they’re going to have to go on notice. So if you can go straight to a question, please.

D. Ashton: The question is integration. Are there not cost savings with integration with all these various agencies, like if you take a look at it over the health dollars? If you can get back to me, that would be great.

S. Gibson: I think this is an important initiative. My concern, and I’d like a response on this, is that there are symptoms, and then there’s the problem itself. I look at this document. This is good, and I’m not being critical. Don’t hear that. I just worry that we’re dealing with the symptoms, never really addressing the problem. We’re getting people at the end and dealing with them in a way that seems helpful, but it doesn’t really address the deeper problem. That’s my concern.

S. Mathias: Right. I can address that quickly. In this province, we do spend quite a bit of funding on early childhood development. But the truth is that a lot of mental health has its onset in early teenage years, as well as substance use. This is an opportunity to get to it early.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Mathias. Appreciate it. Sorry for rushing you through. We do have other people behind you. And thanks for the work you do — appreciate it.

Next we have the Abbotsford Hospice Society, the Surrey Hospice Society, Mission Hospice Society and Burnaby Hospice Society. Welcome, everyone. This is great. I suspect you’ll all be speaking with one voice.

Ten minutes for your presentation. With two minutes to go, I’ll try to give you a wave, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

This presentation is on behalf of the Fraser Health region hospice advisory committee, HAC. This committee includes the 11 hospice societies within the Fraser Health region. HAC brings together the executive directors of each hospice society, and we realize there are 54 other hospice societies throughout B.C. in other health regions. Our mandate includes social, financial and intergovernmental issues that directly impact the delivery of non-clinical, end-of-life care in the region.

My name is Gaëtan Royer. I am the ED for the Abbotsford Hospice Society, and if there are questions, we agreed that my colleagues would introduce themselves in answering questions.

The 11 hospice societies offer a variety of support services as part of the palliative care system. Working alongside nurses and physicians, our staff and volunteers assist with social and emotional support. Bedside support to the dying is what hospices tend to be better known for. Less is known about our bereavement services.

I’ll tell you a bit of a story. In 2012, Mary’s husband died of cancer. She had coped as primary caregiver for as long as she could, at home and in the hospital, and she was very hopeful with each cancer treatment. Not long
[ Page 2027 ]
after he was declared terminal, Mary and her husband moved into a hospice. They both moved in. She simply wouldn’t leave.

She still speaks about our volunteers who visited her husband regularly. After he died, Mary left the hospice, she left her family, and she left her social circle. Her health declined to the point where she left the only thing that she had managed to retain, which was her work. She went from a double-income household to single income to no income.

Mary was on a steep slope going down. On her way down, she needed access to medical attention, financial assistance, legal aid and other forms of social support provided by the government and other agencies. She was seeing more and more professionals, and these professionals didn’t communicate with each other. That’s when she reconnected with a hospice society.

She met a bereavement services manager, who connected the dots for her. You see, her problem was not a medical condition, or a rude landlord or her ability to work. Her problem was grief, eating away at her soul.

She was assigned a volunteer companion by hospice staff. She joined one of our support groups, and hearing stories from other people who were in different stages of grieving gave her hope. The comfort that we brought through support groups helped her to reconnect with friends, and today she credits the hospice bereavement services for giving her, her life back.

Today she teaches volunteer companions with a hospice, and there is no more compelling teacher than Mary when it comes to the value of having a volunteer companion who is willing to patiently listen to a person in grief. Oh, and she’s back to work.

Mary’s story is a compelling case for the socioeconomic benefits of bereavement services. People afflicted with grief no longer attach much importance to work productivity. Our contribution to a company’s bottom line no longer means as much as it did before, and there are companies that we know failed out of a person grieving. After you’re told that your son has three months to live, a quarterly report is not the three-month period that you worry about.

When someone dies, few of us are wired to just get over it. The death of a next of kin gets under your skin, and it saps your energy. Research shows that in fact it reduces cognitive abilities in a measurable way.

In addition to serving a diverse population, hospice societies also serve children and youth. For example, Langley Hospice supports kids in high school; provides one-on-one expressive play therapy; provides youth support groups; assistance in the event of teen suicides, tragic deaths in school. They help children losing loved ones to murder, suicide, illness and natural causes. Langley has two full-time child and youth program staff to meet the growing needs of that community. Our work with children decreases the burden on physicians, mental health professionals, schools, hospitals and, of course, families.

Mission Hospice has a program called circle of friends, a children’s support group for ages six to 12. Mission Hospice also holds a bereavement camp at Zajac Ranch every year. Prevalent among kids who’ve lost mom or dad or a close friend are self-inflicted injuries. We know that these things cost to your health regions’ budget.

Circling back to Mary, there are a lot of people like her out there and, given our demographics, an increasing number of people like her — many people with the potential to become a long-term burden on B.C.’s medical system, people with the potential to burden the provincial social safety resources. As EDs, we’ve all seen people who used to have good jobs end up in affordable housing, subsidized housing.

We currently receive support for the palliative care services that our hospice societies provide. We get these funds through Fraser Health, and it’s a great partnership. We really thank you for that.

Our specific ask today is for an annual investment of $110,000 per hospice society to help us fund our bereavement programs. What would we do with these funds? Well, we would train more volunteers, volunteer companions. In Abbotsford, we currently have 61 active volunteers. Our board, at our last strategic planning workshop, said we need to triple that number to meet demand. We would leverage thousands of volunteer hours.

Most hospice societies have one bereavement services manager who does wonderful things. That person connects volunteers with hundreds of clients each year. An example is Mission Hospice, with 150 active volunteers devoting 14,000 hours to serve a population of 37,000 people. Mission’s annual operating budget is, to say the least, stretched.

We would do more to help vulnerable groups. The 11 societies that are here all have, as part of their plans, the goal of reaching out to more cultures. Burnaby has volunteers covering 18 different languages. Without adequate funding, most of us struggle to connect volunteers and clients within ethnic communities.

With that money, we would help clinical staff. Last week I attended a workshop with Dr. Karim, a nephrologist with Fraser Health, who was talking at a workshop about volunteers who, with the right training and language, can help clinical staff communicate. As we know, many new clients have limited access to a support network here. We would reduce the medical and social financial burdens on provincial services.

I talked about Mary earlier. Like someone who has a costly spinal cord injury, Mary had become paralyzed. Grief is not a medical condition. It’s not clinical depression. A grieving person in a crowded waiting room at the medical clinic is a burden on our system. That person could be referred to the hospice, and sometimes they are.

We ask for money, but we offer to take more clinical
[ Page 2028 ]
and non-clinical referrals. That would be a really good start for a service contract to account for that money.

The B.C. government already has set a goal to invest more in palliative care and hospice services. In my community, in Abbotsford, we’re certainly benefiting from a very powerful investment, a very large investment. We urge you to consider $110,000 a year in hospice societies’ bereavement services as one of the ways to meet that provincial goal.

On behalf of the 11 hospice societies in the Fraser health region, I’d like to thank you very much for your time. At this point, we’ll answer any questions you may have.

J. Yap: Thanks for your presentation. Having gone through, recently, a situation in my own family with palliative care and end of life, I truly value the work that you folks do and the people you represent, so thank you for that.

You are asking for $110,000 per society. There are 11 in Fraser Health, but beyond Fraser Health, how many societies might also require this support? Do you have a number for the whole province?

G. Royer: There are 54 other hospice societies belonging to the other regions. We’re not speaking on their behalf, but we’re certainly one voice representing 11 hospice societies here.

C. Trevena: Again, I recognize the hard and very necessary work that hospices do. Thank you for that.

Mine is a point of clarification. You’re asking for $110,000 in hospice society bereavement services. That’s $110,000 for each of the 11 societies that you’re representing, or $110,000 for all 11? Secondly, while you are representing just Fraser Health, whether you’ve had any discussion with other hospice societies about whether this should be replicated across the board.

G. Royer: I’ll answer the first question, which is that it’s $110,000 for each.

A. Elias: In regards to speaking to the hospice societies in the Interior Health or in the Vancouver Coastal, we have not had that conversation at that table. Usually, we do have those conversations at the yearly conference, but we thought that we would take the initial step forward representing Fraser Health.

S. Chandra Herbert: There has been a request around capital dollars from another hospice society. I just wondered. Within your sector, capital infrastructure — what’s the interest there? As well, where do you get the majority of your funding to do the good work you do?

A. Elias: A majority of our funding comes from fundraising, and the rest of it would come from grant writing. There’s no reason or rhymes with grants, and the same with fundraising, so it’s extremely difficult to manage our budgets — hence, why we’re here.

In regards to the statements about the other hospice asking for capital funding, we’re not here for capital funding. That would be their own request.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just curious if it was an issue in your sector, but that’s okay.

E. Foster: You don’t get any direct funding on a per-day, per-patient from Fraser Health?

A. Elias: We have a small contract with Fraser Health. Each of the 11 hospice societies in the Fraser Health region receive $49,000 a year for our palliative support programs but not for our bereavement support. So currently fundraising and if you receive a grant for a program, that is what sustains it.

E. Foster: Okay, so if someone is in a bed in your hospice, you don’t get money directly on a per-day basis per patient?

R. Smith: I think it’s important to clarify, too, that not all hospice societies have a residential facility for people in palliative care. Surrey does not.

Also, the small grant from Fraser Health Authority is the same for all 11 societies, regardless of size of community. Surrey has a community of 500,000 people that we service, whereas the varying other societies service different sizes of community.

E. Foster: Okay. I live in North Okanagan. We have a facility and so on, so it’s a whole different model there, then. Thank you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for the work you do on behalf of the folks you do it for. Gaëtan, very nice to see you again. Take care.

Ms. Mackenzie, welcome. While you’re getting prepared, ten minutes for your presentation, and I’ll give you a wave with a couple of minutes left. Then we can go questions from the committee. The floor is yours.

I. Mackenzie: As the seniors advocate for B.C., as many of you may know, it’s my legislated obligation to, among other things, advocate in the interests of seniors and advise public officials on systemic challenges that face seniors. It’s in respect to the discharge of that obligation that I welcome the opportunity to come and speak to this committee today.

A number of issues affect seniors in the province, but it’s important to recognize that a great number of them are actually not health care issues. Context is important. I think I try to remind people that 90 percent of our seniors aged 65 and plus — or, perhaps more remarkably, two-thirds of our seniors 85 and plus — live independently in this province with no ongoing funding from the government to support them. They are not living in residential care, and they are not living with publicly subsidized home support. They are living independently, on their own, and their major concern is the affordability and availability of the housing that is key to maintaining their independence.

I just want to reiterate that. It is two-thirds of seniors over the age of 85 that are living independently without ongoing support.

While affordable housing is arguably important for all British Columbians, it is even more important for seniors, particularly those who are older and frailer. Seniors have the lowest median income of any age cohort, excluding those aged 25 and under. This gap is continuing to widen as seniors experience the slowest growth in income of all age cohorts.

The median income for seniors in B.C. is $24,000 a year. That means that 50 percent of our seniors are living above $24,000 a year, but 50 percent of our seniors in this province are living below $24,000 a year.

To illustrate this, I’m going to pick a hypothetical senior who’s 80 years old today who retired when they were 65. So $24,000 a year represents a senior who is likely receiving their maximum old age security of $6,780 a year, or $564 a month. They’re receiving the average CPP payment, which is $630 a month, or $7,500 a year. And they socked away what in today’s dollars would be $348,000 — over a quarter of a million dollars — at the point where they had retired.

This person is only able to produce $24,000 a year income. This likely represents a senior who worked all of their life. They raised a family, and they managed to put away over a quarter of a million dollars for their retirement. It could arguably be many of us in this room, if circumstances had been just a little bit different in our lives. I think that that’s an important perspective to have.

My office recently released a report on seniors housing. I’ve provided a copy for you all, in case you have not read it, and I’ve taken from it some relevant charts that I’m going to speak to and some numbers. There are a number of recommendations in that report, and some of them are not relevant to what I’m going to raise today. I’m going to speak to two very specific recommendations in that report, both of which could have and hopefully will have an impact on the 2016 budget.

As my report highlights, 20 percent of the seniors in B.C. are renters. Of the 80 percent who are homeowners, 78 percent have no mortgage.

First, I’m going to talk about the 20 percent of seniors who are renters, and I’d like to highlight the shortfall, and the significant shortfall, in Metro Vancouver and Victoria between housing costs and the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, or SAFER, grant.

If you look at chart 1, you will notice that we’ve taken three housing market areas to represent three different scenarios in the province, and we’ve taken two different income levels. The first income level of $18,180 reflects the average income of the current SAFER recipient, and $24,000 represents the median income. We’ve taken the average rent for a one-bedroom as determined by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, for Metro Vancouver, for Victoria and for Cranbrook, to try and give a flavour of the province.

We’ve then itemized what the basic costs are that seniors have, relative to living on their own. We are assuming that all of them are using public transit and don’t own a vehicle — except in Cranbrook, where you would arguably need to own a vehicle if you were living on your own. We’ve put in the government subsidies that exist for the lowest-income seniors around MSP premiums, around Fair PharmaCare.

We have also highlighted that seniors, who are increasingly in need of denture care, eye vision care, hearing aids…. There is currently no provincial program to supply any of those aids to our seniors population. Over-the-counter medications are increasingly expensive. They’re not covered by Fair PharmaCare, and seniors need more of those. So you can see the outline of those costs.

What you see in the remaining funds, in red, is the shortfall every single month that a senior will be experiencing. You can see the very acute issue for the lowest-income seniors in Metro Vancouver, Victoria and Cranbrook. Even for seniors on a median income in Vancouver, there’s still a shortfall every month.

What concerns me as the seniors advocate is that their rent is getting paid — anybody who’s ever had a landlord knows that the rent is getting paid — so what need is not getting met as a consequence of having to meet that rent each month? That’s what that highlights.

What I have recommended in my report and would ask that it be considered for the 2016 budget is that B.C.
[ Page 2030 ]
Housing recalibrate the SAFER formula so that it more closely mirrors the CMHC market rents and has a greater level of granularity of distinction.

It currently does distinguish between the Lower Mainland and the rest of B.C. But I think if you look at the CMHC data — and there is a full chart in the report — even within the Lower Mainland, there are great differences in average rents. Then you have markets outside of the Lower Mainland, most particularly greater Victoria, where rents are almost as high as they are in Vancouver.

That is recommendation No. 1 — that the SAFER grant be increased to reflect market rents and that there be some mechanism to allow for inflationary lifts. As we know, we effectively have rent controls in this province, but the rent controls are cost of living plus 2 percent, and the increases to the CPP and the OAS are only cost of living, so there is a gap that is continuing to widen every year with our existing seniors.

The second recommendation in the report focuses on the seniors who are homeowners in this province. I have asked for the creation of a homeowner expense deferral account. What you find is that seniors can be low income, they can live in a house, that house can have tremendous equity, but that does them no good. Their ability to make payments related to their house depends on their income, and their equity isn’t producing an income.

I have recommended that the province consider a homeowner expense deferral account that would allow seniors age 65 and over — and this could reasonably be both income-tested and interest rates calibrated relative to the value of the house — to defer other household costs, such as their homeowners insurance, their strata fees if they are living in a condominium, major repairs and maintenance and utilities.

What that would do is it would have the practical effect of increasing their income, should they choose to defer everything, by about $7,000 a year. That’s going to be a tremendous help to our lowest-income seniors as they continue to face increasing costs relating to their aging — these things like mobility aids and different services that they now have to pay to have done because they’re no longer able to do themselves.

It’s fully explained in the report. If you look at the charts that have been provided to you, you can see that over the course of ten and 20 years, there’s still a significant amount of equity retained in the home of a homeowner who would do this.

The cost of this is one where it’s more nuanced than the SAFER grant. The SAFER grant is a genuine cost increase estimated at about $38 million to achieve what I would like to achieve. This is money that is the homeowner’s that will come back to the government with interest when the house is sold. While there will be costs in the short term as people come onto the program, when the houses are sold and the remaining equity is liquidated and returned to the province with interest, money will come back.

It’s modelled slightly after property tax deferral. To give you an order of magnitude, the province recouped about $50 million last year from property tax deferral that had been deferred in previous years.

S. Chandra Herbert: First, I just want to say thank you very much for the good suggestion around SAFER for senior renters. It’s one that I’ve written the minister about on and off for years, but you’ve stated it in a way that, I think, would be simpler than what I’ve had in mind on how to address that.

What do you hear from seniors? I’ll save what I hear, because I know what I hear. What do you hear from seniors who are on SAFER who are in the place that they’re in? What are they cutting back to, to be able to pay the rent?

I. Mackenzie: Well, they’ll be cutting back certainly on expenses that relate to socialization. You will find a simple thing like a handyDART ride to go to your seniors centre is actually $5 round trip or $5 and a little bit more. That adds up. So they will be forgoing those kinds of activities. They will be forgoing, potentially, some of the over-the-counter medications. They, arguably, shouldn’t be forgoing regular medications. They should be covered through Fair PharmaCare. But there are the other ancillary medical needs they have — over-the-counter medications, a proper walker, new eyeglasses. You get the idea.

S. Chandra Herbert: What I’ve heard is food, bedding, anything to do with the house…. They can’t afford it, as hydro bills and rents go up.

On the deferral one, could you explain a little bit about how it would work? You’ve got on chart 4 just if it’s deferring to major repair and maintenance. If you own your home and you’re employing somebody to come and fix something — you’ve got whatever you need doing — how are you going to defer the payment? What’s the concept there? It’s private to private.

I. Mackenzie: The concept there would be that…. We’re not talking about the $50 bill for something or the $60 bill for something. Because you have to remember you’ve…. This is about a roof that needs to be replaced. It’s $12,000.
[ Page 2031 ]

We already have a mechanism in place through HAFI, the Home Adaptations for Independence grants that we give to people, to flow a lump sum grant, based on an application process and bids, that would see that money go for those purposes.

The other ones are more straightforward, because the payment would go directly to…. Whether it’s B.C. Hydro or the strata corporation, it wouldn’t flow through the hands of the senior. It could be that the payment goes directly to the contractor. It could be that we use more of the HAFI approach, and it flows through the senior into the contractor.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I have three more questioners. I can take each question on notice or run out of time. I’ll leave it up to Mike, who’s the next questioner — whether or not you’d like to go on notice.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I wonder if you could just take a minute to speak about access to services. I think that’s the other issue. You mentioned the SAFER program. We certainly get…. I’m sure every MLA gets folks into their office who aren’t aware that the program is even there. I know you’ve touched on it in previous reports or in this report. I just wondered if you could take a couple of minutes.

I. Mackenzie: Even B.C. Housing estimates that there are 7,000 British Columbians who would qualify for SAFER that have not applied for SAFER. We know there are people out there. We know through our survey that there are people at low income, who are renters, who are unaware of it.

My office is currently working with government to try and determine how we can get a message into the hands of seniors that talks about the rent subsidy that’s available to them. But we are aware of that as well.

And if you could get back to the committee by the end of the day tomorrow, it can form part of the public record.

S. Gibson: What about the role of the family? Where does the family fit in? If it’s a caring family, how come the kids aren’t getting more involved in caring for their mom and dad?

I. Mackenzie: I think you will find that, for the most part, they are getting involved in the care of their family member.

S. Hamilton (Chair): No, go ahead. We’ve got 30 seconds. We’re good. That’s all right.

I. Mackenzie: I think you will find that the families are involved. What we are talking about is a financial obligation — that some family members will be exhausting their financial abilities caring for their own families and that, in fact, you could argue, on something like the property expense deferral, it is the family’s money that’s being used. The expense deferral account is people’s own money. The government role is simply liberating it for them in a very sustainable and cost-effective way.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You better believe that when I get to be that age, I’ll be tapping my kids.

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time, Ms. Mackenzie, to present to the committee and look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. Take care.

Gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you the high sign with about two minutes, and you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours.

P. Holden: Thank you very much for this opportunity. The Burnaby Board of Trade would like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the opportunity to present to you as part of the Budget 2016 consultation process.

A little bit of background on us and our organization. My name is Paul Holden. I’m the president and CEO of the Burnaby Board of Trade. With me is my colleague Cory Redekop who’s the manager of policy and events for the organization.

The Burnaby Board of Trade is Burnaby’s pre-eminent member-based business association and is one of the largest chambers of commerce or boards of trade in the province. The BBOT brings businesses together to develop strong networks, to represent the interests of the business community to local government and to foster economic development.

We represent almost 1,200 businesses, organizations, not-for-profits and entrepreneurs from across Burnaby and beyond. In fact, 20 percent of our members come from outside of Burnaby and see our organization as a chamber of choice. We have very much a triple-bottom-line mandate of economic, social and environmental priorities.

In Budget 2016, the Burnaby Board of Trade encourages the provincial government to prioritize fixing the provincial sales tax, PST, system by removing PST on all business investments in new equipment, machinery
[ Page 2032 ]
and software, with the creation of a refundable input tax credit.

While the B.C. government has succeeded in making B.C. more competitive by many measures, the taxes paid on business inputs is an outlier that forces B.C. companies to pay more than businesses in most other provinces and serves as a drag on business investment.

Business investment is crucial to both innovation and economic growth. When companies invest in improvements to the tools, equipment and infrastructure which their workers use, it increases their productivity, spurs innovation and drives economic output.

Input tax credits can serve as a catalyst for all of this by encouraging firms to make those investments that help them perform better and produce more. The BBOT believes that input tax credit could help invigorate business investments in the province and help boost the competitiveness of our local firms.

Out of all the investments and inputs business make, equipment, software and machinery have arguably the biggest potential spinoff benefit for the economy as a whole. We think it’s reasonable to target those items for this tax credit.

As we all know, April 1 of this year marked the two-year anniversary of the return of the PST from the previous harmonized sales tax, HST, regime. The HST had many advantages to the PST, and most notably among those was the availability of input tax credits that allowed businesses to recoup the taxes paid on business investments.

When the PST returned, those credits disappeared. There was, in effect, a 7 percent tax increase on those investments. We think it is time to look at implementing some of the benefits of the HST into our current PST system.

One way to illustrate the tax burden on business investment is to look at a province’s marginal effective tax rate for businesses. The METR represents the tax imposed on an incremental dollar invested and takes into account all taxes applied to revenue and profits as well as to the investment required to make that profit. This measure is often seen as a more accurate depiction of the total tax burden placed on business.

As shown in table 1 of the printed report provided to the committee, the provinces with the least-competitive METRs are the provinces of B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan — notably, the provinces which continue to levy a retail sales tax similar to or such as the PST, which can get embedded at every stage of production and directly increases the cost of doing business.

While the METR is just one measure of tax competitiveness, I mention it to highlight the impact that tax policy can have on interprovincial competitiveness.

The BBOT recognizes the government’s need to be prudent with the province’s finances and has applauded the government’s return to balance budgets in recent years. We also understand that the impacts on the budget of new spending initiatives and new tax reductions must be carefully considered.

The net cost of a full PST input tax credit for equipment, machinery and software was estimated at approximately $461 million by the Expert Panel on B.C.’s Business Tax Competitiveness. We acknowledge that this would be a substantial reduction in government revenue if implemented in full and immediately.

However, with a provincial surplus of $1.68 billion for fiscal year 2014-15 and projected surpluses over the next three years of just over $1 billion, the BBOT feels there is fiscal room enough to begin to implement some tax relief for businesses.

In addition, before B.C. reverted to the PST, the government appointed the Expert Panel on B.C.’s Business Tax Competitiveness to review the tax competitiveness of the province. As part of its final report, the panel similarly recommended a refundable tax credit on equipment, machinery and software. The panel also suggested, at the time, a 0.5 percent increase to the provincial corporate tax rate as part of a suite of changes to offset the decrease in revenue from the implementation of the tax credit. However, in the following year’s Budget 2013, the provincial government raised the corporate tax rate by a full 1 percent but without implementing any corresponding PST tax credit.

If you couple the increased tax contribution by business already being made and the return to budget surpluses, we think the time is right to fix the PST. Therefore, the BBOT encourages the provincial government to prioritize fixing the PST in Budget 2016. We recommend that Budget 2016 include the creation of some immediate level of refundable input tax credit for equipment, machinery and software, with the goal of eventually phasing in a full 7 percent PST input tax credit for those particular investments in the future.

What amount this credit should be must, of course, be considered against the state of the provincial economy and budget at the time, but again, when you consider the current and projected surpluses in conjunction with the 1 percent increase to the corporate tax rate already implemented, we feel it’s now an appropriate time to begin to fix the PST.

As the premier business association in Burnaby — representing nearly 1,200 businesses, entrepreneurs and organizations from across our city and across the Lower Mainland — we again thank you for the opportunity to present to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and to comment on the creation of Budget 2016.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Terrific. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate that. I’ll go to the committee and see if there are any questions.
[ Page 2033 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: A very concise presentation with one focus, and I appreciate that focus. However, I wanted to ask you a slightly different question, just to get a sense of whether or not this is an issue in Burnaby as well, which the board of trade might support.

A number of chambers and boards of trade have come to us and requested dealing with the property transfer tax, looking at reducing it for properties under a certain value and increasing it for high-end properties — to balance the change in taxation revenue for the province as a means of trying to support more affordable home ownership for people. Some have argued it might cool off the high end of the market, but I’m not sure. Does the board of trade have a position on that issue of housing affordability and the property transfer tax?

P. Holden: Specifically on that issue, we haven’t formulated a position on that at this stage. We do have a committee within our organization that specifically addresses a lot of the broader social issues that affect Burnaby. That may well be something that that committee might bring forward.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Any other questions? We’ve heard from a lot of chambers of commerce in our tour, and boards of trade. Many of the questions prior have pretty much been asked and answered. So don’t take that as a lack of interest. Nevertheless, we do appreciate your taking the time to present to the committee. Thanks for the work that you do and for your contribution to our economy too. Have a good day.

Good afternoon, welcome. I’ll just give you a little prelude here. You have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll interrupt you quite rudely with a couple of minutes left, just to let you know it’s time to conclude your thoughts. That gives us the opportunity to go to the committee with questions. If you’re ready, the floor is all yours.

S. Demers: I am. I’d like to just say to the standing committee: thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.

A little background about myself. My husband and I are the parents of a 27-year-old young man, Sean, who has significant challenges due to lack of oxygen prior to birth. He has a speech and language disorder, epilepsy, cerebral palsy and global developmental disorder. It’s been a long, hard road for us, and as we’ve aged, we have set up things for a good and safe life for Sean. Sean has an older brother and a sister. The sister lives in the U.S. The brother is in the community where we live. They both take seriously their roles in supporting their brother as best they can.

The reason I’m speaking to the committee today is not just on behalf of myself, but it’s on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

A little background on myself. I sit on the north regional council, which is an advisory board to CLBC, Community Living B.C. There are 13 councils across the province. I also sit on PAC. PAC is an extension of this. Representatives from the different councils meet four times a year in Vancouver. PAC stands for Provincial Advisory Committee to CLBC.

Today as I speak with you, I bring with me the knowledge and the understanding of what’s happening in our community here in Prince George in the north region and in communities such as Haida Gwaii, Prince Rupert to the west; Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek to the north; McBride, Valemount to the east; Quesnel to the south; and many other communities in between.

Also, because I sit on the Provincial Advisory Committee, I’m aware of the needs in our province. I listen on a regular basis to families who are so frustrated with trying to navigate the systems and are being wait-listed. There’s just not enough money in our system.

With all the technology and the saving of children’s lives at birth come the challenges that those children incur. For most of it, it is quite significant. As communities and citizens and taxpayers, I’m sure that you’re aware we as a society are responsible to support these children — to support all our children.

A report I heard years ago said that one in every four individuals in Canada would in their lifetime either have or know someone close to them with challenges. There needs to be a balance in society and a responsibility to budget ourselves so that all individuals in our country get the support they need to live safe and secure lives.

I can speak of our own situation. I was a stay-at-home mom for our two older children. It was not always easy, but my husband and I had agreed before we had children that we would not look to any assistance to help us support these children. We would forgo many things that others thought were important. We felt that it was important for shelter, food and clothing and to be educated.

Our third child was born with a birth injury, lack of oxygen. He attended the Child Development Centre until he entered school. The Child Development Centre recommendations for Sean were extensive speech therapy, as he was non-verbal. In order for us to pay this ourselves, I re-entered the workforce, as the speech therapy was expensive at over $600 a month.

There are many parents who are in the same situation today and are not looking for support through government agencies. The desire to take care of their own children is paramount in their lives. But when we ask for support and when the system that has been set up in our wonderful country and provinces has this help, then the funding needs to be there as much as it can be.

As for our stress level as we age, I often tell people it’s like having a six-year-old for the rest of your life with additional challenge beyond that of “what a normal six-year-old would be.”
[ Page 2034 ]

My husband and I currently are in our late 60s, and at many times, it just simply wears us down. We have an aging population, and there are many others in our situation. They are, at times, suffering from exhaustion.

When Sean was in his late teens, we applied for respite and received a total of $233 a month for us to use for respite. In today’s terms, that money will offer us one to 1½ days a month. That is a base amount. Some families — many of them — need much more support than that.

A tragedy happened that I am sure you are aware of in Prince Rupert last year, when a 39-year-old single mother gave her autistic son an overdose of lorazepam, an anti-anxiety drug, and hung herself. Only days before, she had asked for help from the province.

People in their hometown of Prince Rupert told CBC News the mother and son had a deep affection for each other. They would often walk the streets of Prince Rupert together for hours on end as a way to calm Robert. In a Facebook post from Angie, the mother, she wrote that Robert had become too violent to stay home. She’d asked the province to help by putting Robert in a long-term placement but was told that wasn’t possible. Days later, both mother and son were dead.

Recommendations were put in place to prevent such a tragedy, according to reports in the media. Having said that, I don’t believe that it may not happen again. We need to have our guard up against that. Things are escalating every day in so many people’s lives in our province.

I know of a mother currently in Prince George whose daughter is profoundly challenged. The daughter is coming out of the school system at the end of this school year. Currently there is support in the school system for her daughter with a TA, teacher assistant. But when these young people become adults, it’s like they drop off the face of the earth.

In many cases, there are no supports. This mother will need to quit her part-time job so that she can look after her profoundly challenged daughter and will only get the room and board from her daughter’s persons-with-disabilities pension.

A total of $375 is what she’ll get for the room and board, and her daughter’s pension is only $906. Minus the $375 leaves the daughter with $531. So this mother and daughter will be living below the poverty level. This is criminal in a province that talks about family first.

CLBC, Community Living, receives funding from the ministry, and many times CLBC is accused of not helping those in need and of having wait-lists that are far too long.

I’m here today to say that it’s not CLBC’s fault, as they are not getting enough money from the ministry for the needs out there. Current stats show approximately 1,500 people are coming into the adult system from the Ministry of Children and Families yearly. Only about 800 of those are going on what they call wait-lists. A big part of that, I am aware, is that people just don’t know where to go or how to get on any kind of support. Today I speak on behalf of all of those, and not just the ones with challenges but also their parents.

To quote Premier Christy Clark, who lobbied during her election, the phrase was “families first.” To me, that means all families. I’m sorry. I just don’t see that happening.

Apparently, CLBC is reorganizing. They can reorganize as much as they want and try to stretch the already exhausted dollars, but there is no new money flowing, and that is what needs to be addressed. That seems to be what’s happening.

Investing in all areas of society is a delicate balance. We can find no better use of our tax dollars than to provide a future for our children and vulnerable adults to give them a safe and secure life, and it is all our responsibility. Many of the children, even with challenges, with proper help will become productive and tax-paying adult citizens themselves.

Our son Shawn is an example of this. We have worked tirelessly to access and ask questions and lobby for him and advocate for him for 27 years. He currently has a casual job at A.C.E. Courier here in Prince George. It’s only four hours a week, but he absolutely loves his job, and he wants to work more. He’s able to help prepare his work clothes with my help, and this happens two days before his job each Wednesday. He is loyal, on time, works hard, never stops once he starts his workday. The employer is extremely happy with his performance.

To the committee: please make it your mandate to influence an increase in the funding significantly to Community Living B.C. so that they can work with service providers and families to make this province an example for across Canada and around the world. I respectfully submit that.

I know I still probably have some time. I do apologize if I spoke too quickly, but I hope it was clear.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Not at all. It was abundantly clear — very, very clear. We’ll use that time for questions, Ms. Demers, if that’s okay.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Sheryl, for your very eloquent and heartfelt presentation. I represent the North Island. It’s not quite as remote as the area that you work in, but still it’s an issue that we have, of access. I get many, many families coming into my office who are frustrated about access to service and ability of CLBC to provide.

I was wondering. You talk about the question of waiting lists and that. What sort of program level is there for the north? You’re talking about an area — say, Prince Rupert, Prince George, pretty well the whole north. What level of service is there for CLBC? Do you find that you are being asked, as families, or that people are being asked to just go to the nearest community when that nearest community may be three or four hours away?
[ Page 2035 ]

S. Demers: I am aware of offices that are set up all across. We have Terrace. We have Smithers. I mean, I just sort of touched…. I said Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii That’s as far west as you can go. But there are so many in between. I do know from my work in Northern Health before I retired that there are actually 44 communities in the north that have a certain population where there are offices. Now, I’m not saying that CLBC has offices.

I’m aware that in our council, we have 15 people on council, and we try very hard to make sure we have members from Smithers, Terrace, Mackenzie, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John — all those communities I mentioned. We try and make sure we have enough people.

Like for Fort St. John, Fort St. John would be what they call the north, and we have people that sit on our council. There are also CLBC offices in those areas, smaller offices. We work very hard with all those, as a board, to just have conversations around that very thing, Claire, around what the level of service is.

What it boils down to is that there is not…. The big thing I’ve been hearing for 20 years since Shawn went into the school system is: “There’s not enough money. There’s not enough money. There’s not enough money.” So to me, you folks are the steering financial committee.

I actually asked to speak today. I have to admit that I’m probably not as nervous speaking on the phone as I would be in front of you, but I wish you could see my face. You can hear my voice. But I have a heart for not…. We have a son with challenges, but I just see the need, and it boils down to: where can the money be distributed from our tax dollars?

I don’t know if I’ve answered your question there, because I tend to go on when I get someone to listen to me.

S. Hamilton (Chair): That’s just fine. Ms. Demers, I have one more question from Carole James.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Hi. Thank you, Sheryl, and thank you for your presentation.

Two questions. The first one is regarding respite. You mentioned that your family requested respite, and you managed to get some. I wonder what the resources are like for respite, because that’s another area where I hear a lot of concerns. Even when parents are given the ability to get respite, they can’t find support. They can’t find people there.

The second question was transition. You mentioned your son, and he’s part of your family and lives at home. But there are many families who are looking at a transition for their son or daughter to move out on their own or to transition onto their own, and that that’s a challenge. I hear that a lot from people who are working with CLBC. I wondered if you have any thoughts around that area as well.

S. Demers: Well, first of all, the respite. To me, $233 doesn’t seem to be a significant amount that will help us do that because since we first accessed it, when Shawn was about 17…. I was aware it was there, Carole, and I thought: “We can do this ourselves.” Finally a friend of mine who had a child said, “Sheryl, you and Albert need to get some respite money,” so we applied for it and we did get it. But then like you said, Carole, to find somebody that can step into that….

There are so many…. There are CLBC rules, and there are CRA rules. I don’t know if you folks are aware of that. But with CLBC, basically, you access support. It can be in the home or out of the home. But the minute someone comes into the home, CRA steps in and says, “Well, we could bring someone into the home, but they have to claim it as income,” whereas if our son can go out of the home to their house — which is very difficult for a young person with challenges, to be moved out of their environment — then they don’t have to claim it as an income.

That’s an issue I take to task with CRA, because they’re stopping us from getting people to come in. I don’t know if you as the steering finance committee would have any impact there, but there need to be some more rules around that that are very clear. To find people to come into the home is a lot easier than finding someone that has a bed in their house to take your child for two or three days.

Actually, we live on a cul-de-sac in Prince George, and right across from us is the AiMHi group home, a big home where you can take your child and leave your child for a day or two or three and use your respite money for. But then again, you’re taking that child, that individual, out of where they’re secure and safe and where they feel comfortable. That’s why I have an issue. And that’s a big one, Carole, honestly — to find the people to do it.

Now, fortunately, we can access and use our son, but Shawn has to go to his brother’s house. We don’t have a problem having people claim it as an income, but we don’t even know how to do that. Do we set up a payroll system, and then that costs us money? We have to have an accountant, etc. All those little things when you should be focusing on having the care of that child. You have to think about all these other things that you maybe don’t even have experience in.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I could maybe frame, on your behalf, one of the recommendations from this committee to the Finance Minister that the Finance Minister lobby or work in conjunction with CRA to attempt to resolve the issues on your behalf.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. We could put that forward as one of the recommendations, and I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to deliberate that in our discussions as the committee meets in the very near future.
[ Page 2036 ]

S. Demers: Oh, that’s okay. I’m fine with that. It’s just that transitioning is a difficult thing.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Hold the thought. If you have access to e-mail and you can send an e-mail to our committee with an answer to that question before the end of the day tomorrow, it can form part of the public record, and we’ll all have a chance to read it.

Next we have the British Columbia Association of Kinesiologists — Hardip Jhaj.

Welcome. You’re all by yourself. You were with three other people yesterday, so you’re confusing me. Nevertheless, welcome. Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left. Then we can go to questions from the committee. So the floor is yours.

H. Jhaj: My name is Hardip Jhaj. I’m the current president of the board for the B.C. Association of Kinesiologists. Today I’m here just to present our views as to how we can come forward to help contribute to B.C.’s health promotion and population.

Of the $17.4 billion budgeted for the 2015-2016 provincial budget…. Approximately 38 percent of the annual provincial budget is allocated towards health care spending. We recognize that managing health care costs effectively while maintaining positive health outcomes is an important fiscal plan objective.

The BCAK believes that its 870 members can effectively contribute to achieving a balance between sustainable health costs and management and proactive health management. This contribution supports investing in health while effectively managing the costs of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, which is defined as being empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations, conduct public consultations and consider and make recommendations on the annual reports, three-year service plans and budgets of specified statutory officers.

This includes health care investments such as the Auditor General’s current relevant projects, which the BCAK feels it can have a positive impact on, with regards to managing access to adult tertiary care services for individuals with serious mental health and for substance abuse issues. Additionally, we feel that BCAK can help impact the Auditor General’s projects for 2016-2017 by effectively helping out with the province’s actions in primary prevention, health promotion and chronic disease prevention.

The Auditor General’s performance audit of the health leadership…. The BCAK feels they can impact the current leadership or stewardship arrangements in the health care system, which are functioning effectively in certain cases. As well, the BCAK feels that it can impact the Auditor General’s performance audit of rural health, where rural health authorities have core health programs and are working to close the gap on low health incomes in rural B.C. and on being able to have people afford better health.

The BCAK’s primary goal in this presentation today is to raise the awareness of kinesiologists as an integral part of the province’s health care and fiscal budget policies. We are also here to increase the understanding of the committee of the benefit that recognition of kinesiologists can have on lowering health care costs. We’d like to raise awareness of the benefit to B.C. citizens in engaging kinesiologists to support preventative, maintenance and rehabilitative health care services. We’re here to gain an understanding that the route to recognition of the efforts and abilities of kinesiologists may come through regulation of the practice of kinesiology.

Kinesiologists can help support B.C.’s health policies, practices and budget. Kinesiologists are well positioned in B.C. to improve health by providing proactive healthy living and support and by helping to understand the relationship between physical activity and health.

More than 80 percent of BCAK’s members are involved on a community basis and work in different communities throughout B.C. They’re well located to help the government’s initiative on community care.

Kinesiologists promote and support a wide range of health services, from health and fitness evaluations to exercise prescriptions; postural assessments and education; athletic training; exercise therapy and interventions; therapeutic applications of ice and heat; general nutrition counselling; ergonomics, with limitations as noted in our scope of practice; mobilizations; manual therapy manipulation; osteopathic manual techniques; and electrical therapy techniques.

Kinesiologists support the B.C. government’s focus on primary and community care shifting to a prevention and health promotion focus with a proactive response to address socioeconomic, cultural, demographic and fiscal challenges all at once.
[ Page 2037 ]

Kinesiologists recognize the growth and the health care needs that accompany an aging population of B.C.’s demographics. We’re well positioned and well trained to provide services to that segment of the population.

Kinesiologists are able to work in a strong interdisciplinary team with other health care professionals.

Health care can be managed more efficiently by supporting clients and their families in primary and community care programs. The delivery of health care through community-based providers is less costly and more effective than acute services in addressing the main health issues associated with rising obesity rates and inactivity as well as with our aging population.

Community programs can be tailored to both rural and urban needs, for mental and physical health challenges and for both local and individual needs to provide the necessary support while better managing and controlling health care costs.

Kinesiologists have the expertise and training to support clients in staying healthy, mobile and active. They work with clients in complex and chronic conditions as well.

Members of the BCAK are university-educated and are committed to continually developing their professional skills, knowledge and critical reasoning. They provide client-centred services informed by best practice. They act in the best interests of their clients and provide public advocates on issues related to health, health promotion and the well-being of the public.

The BCAK represents its members and ensures members have a clear, defined scope of practice. They ensure they observe the acts and delegation guidelines that are closely aligned to B.C. health professionals.

Has anybody worked with a kinesiologist here before? Does anyone know what kinesiology is?

H. Jhaj: There are 870 of us in B.C. What we do is we’re human movement specialists who provide services to the public through application of health science. That includes anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, psychomotor behaviour, nutrition, etc.

Kinesiologists work closely with clients not only to improve their physical performance and prevent and treat illness but also to manage current care plans. They provide workplace-designed services. They provide support and rehabilitation and wellness management. In essence, BCAK members are everywhere.

What do kinesiologists do? Well, we enhance individual and community-based health through therapeutic exercise prescriptions, in workplace health management, ergonomics, education and design, nutritional counselling and research initiatives in public health and wellness.

As a member of the community health care team, kinesiologists focus on the prevention and management of both acute and chronic disorders, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, motor vehicle and workplace injuries, and chronic pain. Kinesiologists are strong advocates for improving the health practices of B.C. citizens by promoting the preventative and restorative aspects of individual health and well-being.

The BCAK has 870 members across the province, a majority of which work in communities throughout B.C. The association is a long-time member of the health care community and is active in supporting the government in its mandate to ensure that British Columbians maintain active and healthy lifestyles.

E. Foster: Two questions — well, not really questions. One, do you actually go by Happy?

H. Jhaj: Yes, I’ve kind of had that name attached to me with B.C. education system throughout, including when I graduated from SFU. They asked me if I wanted Happy on my degree.

Secondly, my nephew is a surgeon, but he took his undergraduate degree in kinesiology, so I know all about it. He used me to practise on a lot. You folks do great work, and you should be recognized in the health care system a lot higher than you are. Thank you for your presentations.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’ve come across kinesiologists through a previous life working in professional dance but also through ergonomics and the workplace, so thank you for helping make people’s work lives so much safer and simpler and more enjoyable.

I wondered. Is there any interest in the BCAK at this point to be regulated within B.C.? Maybe it’s a big question, with lots of debate amongst your members, but I’m just curious. Some people do approach us and ask to be regulated, sometimes.

H. Jhaj: At this point, looking at our membership, they are interested in regulation. We were told when we did approach that they weren’t looking at regulating any professions any further right now in the health care system.
[ Page 2038 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): I have a question. I’m just wondering. What sort of form of outreach are you engaged in to raise the profile of kinesiology within the mainstream medical sector?

H. Jhaj: We have now started with the B.C. HealthyFamilies initiative and working with the diabetes association. I can provide you a written response, as well, to that question.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If you wouldn’t mind, you could do that, but we have to get that before the end of the day tomorrow.

Maybe as a follow-up to that, there’s obviously a lot of engagement with fitness studios — gymnasiums, and so on — and people. I think you know Ranj Heer, who is a good friend of mine — or an acquaintance of mine, anyway. She speaks quite highly of you, actually. Nevertheless, you’re engaged at that level, as well, quite thoroughly, and I wonder if you could speak to that a little bit.

S. Hamilton (Chair): With respect to fitness studios. A lot of people you talk to — people like my wife, who practically lives in one…. She talks about kinesiology all the time, and the effect. A lot of people are engaged with kinesiologists at that level as well. You obviously have some contribution there, so maybe you could speak to that.

H. Jhaj: Kinesiologists do have a wide range of services that they provide. There are kinesiologists that we have, and a large number of them, that do provide services within fitness studios and gyms. If you’ve been on rec boards in rec centres, you’ll notice a lot of kinesiologists there.

The main reason is because kinesiologists are trained to work with populations that are not only injured but have chronic disease and that have co-morbidities — diabetes, heart disease — which other professions are allocated to work with. However, they aren’t very cost-effective. Kinesiologists are a very cost-effective way to not only ensure their health is maintained and it’s affordable, but also they’re working with standardized, trained professionals.

Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for the opportunity to learn a little bit more about kinesiology. Keep up the great work. Thank you for your time.

Next we have the board of education, school district 43, Coquitlam — Kerri Palmer Isaak.

Good afternoon. Welcome. Just to let you know, ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes remaining so that you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions.

S. Hamilton (Chair): May I ask who you represent with the board of education. Are you a trustee or…?

K. Palmer Isaak: Yes, I am a trustee. I’m actually the vice-chair, and I’m acting chair at the moment. We represent a very large area. We represent Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Anmore and Belcarra, so a large number of municipalities.

This letter is our formal written submission to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services by five key stakeholder groups with the school district 43, Coquitlam. We outline three serious concerns about the state of education funding in B.C. and our specific district. We also offer three thoughtful recommendations.

The first one is underfunding. Fairness and equity in funding B.C.’s 60 school districts is imperative. School district 43 is B.C.’s third-largest school district of 60, with one of the most diverse and complex demographic profiles and population growth projections significantly higher than 97 percent of all school districts, yet we are in the bottom 2 percent of all school districts for funding on a per-student basis.

School district 43 has a balanced budget, sound fiscal management practices, proactive capital improvement plans, revenue generation successes and some of B.C.’s highest student academic outcomes, but we appear to be financially penalized for our efforts and our successes compared to all other school districts.

Our second concern is funding protection. The funding protection grant provided to other school districts currently costs school district 43 $3.7 million annually. As a well-managed district, we are again penalized and receive zero in funding protection. If the grant was modified to be balanced and equitable in its distribution model, it would allow school district 43 to reinvest the $3.7 million to further our education services. It would also assist in funding inflationary cost pressures, which currently are not considered or funded. Government must ensure that public education receives increased funding protection that is applied fairly to all districts.

Our third is CommunityLINK funding. CommunityLINK funding is important for supporting our most vulnerable students. However, the allocation method of redirecting existing money from within the school district budget to its own program budget, along with inflexible spending control, is ineffective. CommunityLINK needs to be fairly funded with increased new money and allowed to be managed by school districts.
[ Page 2039 ]

Our recommendations. We would like to update the Ministry of Education on K-to-12 funding allocation systems and funding formula, including supplementary grants, to attain equity across B.C.’s school districts and more fairly allocate funding to larger school districts that have more complex challenges.

We have diverse student populations and higher costs of service delivery. Fund school district 43 at least at the average level of school district funding. School district 43 is significantly underfunded to effectively deliver education services that are mandated by the Ministry of Education and needed and demanded by our communities.

Our second recommendation is to modify the funding protection supplementary grant to a balanced and equitable distribution model to allow districts fair access to the funding. The current $3.7 million shortfall for school district 43 that we annually face would be redirected into our own regional cost pressures which need funding protection, including inflation and higher costs of service delivery.

Our third recommendation is to provide new and increased funding for CommunityLINK and our vulnerable students, along with empowerment for school districts to decide to allocate and spend it on local priorities that will best meet the specific and often unique needs of the communities that we serve.

These reasonable, attainable and financially viable recommendations, if implemented, would provide school district 43 with funding at a level that is the average for all B.C. school districts versus near the lowest funding level; the ability to undertake capital projects and meet seismic requirements for enrolment growth; the ability to support new local, regional and provincial education initiatives, such as the new curriculum; the ability to support vulnerable students with mental illness and related social issues in schools; and the ability to meet the significant projected student enrolment growth over the next 20 years.

A robust K-to-12 education system that is adequately and equitably funded across districts contributes to the personal, social and economic success of students, families and residents in the school districts we serve.

In the case of school district 43, as B.C.’s third-largest school district, we serve three large urban areas and two suburban regions with a population of 225,000 people, 70 schools, 35,000 students and 3,500 dedicated employees. The population is expected to grow by 140,000 by 2041. This requires proactive planning and increased funding.

We understand the cost pressures that the B.C. government faces. We also acknowledge the commitment by the government for $564 million in funding to increase the K-to-12 education over the next three-year fiscal plan. However, it simply does not go far enough in addressing the serious overall funding shortfalls and inequity that some districts face, especially school district 43.

When compared to smaller school districts with fewer schools and lower enrolment and that face fewer challenges such as significant population growth, diverse and complex demography, increased mental illness and related social issues in our region in schools, school district 43 is not adequately or equitably funded.

In closing, we note that the select standing committee has acknowledged the cost pressures on our school districts across B.C. and has recommended that the budget reflect increased funding for a public education system. We encourage the committee to also consider the modifications to the funding allocation system and formula to bring added fairness and equity to the system.

We look forward to these recommendations being implemented in the upcoming budget. We thank you in advance for your efforts to maximize the resources available for public education in B.C. and for SD 43.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for your very clear, focused recommendations.

I just wondered if you could talk a little bit more about the CommunityLINK program and where you see a difference, where you see the allocations going now and, if a recommendation was accepted, where you might see some changes or where your district might have different priorities than you’re seeing now through the ministry program.

K. Palmer Isaak: I would love to give you a much more in-depth answer. I’ll give you a very quick one, but then I can also have staff prepare something for you that would maybe be a little bit more helpful.

The complaints that I am fielding from my staff and from the people that I work with are that CommunityLINK is too prescriptive. It’s not flexible enough to be able to redirect funding to specific needs. And of course, because our enrolment and our students change annually, we need to be able to have that flexibility to redistribute that funding and specifically target to our most vulnerable special needs students. That flexibility would greatly assist us.

I’m happy to provide you with more information about specific CommunityLINK use.

S. Chandra Herbert: I was just going to say thank you for raising the CommunityLINK issue. It’s an issue in my community as well, in Vancouver, with them trying to find additional money, because there’s not enough to deal with the level of vulnerability in students.
[ Page 2040 ]

You know, when we should be focusing on education, realizing you can’t do that due to the level of poverty is a pretty big challenge. So thank you for the document, and thank you to the board.

S. Hamilton (Chair): In your presentation, you mention that your enrolment amongst all the communities is roughly 35,000 students. Has that remained stable over the years?

K. Palmer Isaak: Yes, and we actually have an anomaly in that we have an increase in enrolment, which is something that is not the norm across the province. We were seeing declining enrolment in a number of districts, so this is a great challenge for us. It’s a good thing, but it’s a challenge for us at the same time.

C. Trevena: Thank you for your presentation and keeping it focused. If I can broaden the focus, we’ve heard from a number of districts with increasing student population, where they’ve got the whole issue of capital and improving schools, the need for new schools. Is this something that you’re facing in your school district — the issue of either rebuilding or renewing the actual capital?

K. Palmer Isaak: We’re very fortunate. We have a very strong team that has done an amazing job in distributing our capital management plan and with our capital management plan. We have had to look at creative and innovative ways of using our capital.

We have sold schools. We have sold school land — which is something that other districts have faced but have been reluctant to commit to — in order to meet the shift in our population. Our population has dispersed and changed throughout our district, and in order to meet those needs, we have definitely worked very, very hard to deliver a balanced budget.

Part of that was, really, re-evaluating our capital situation. I’m very proud of our capital standing at the moment.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I have another question. Sorry. With regard to your ESL, has that stayed stable, or do you see that fluctuate at all in recent years — up or down?

K. Palmer Isaak: It seems to be pretty constant in our district, although we have seen some increases. We also have one of the largest groups of international education students in our district. That is a program that has come to our district and been such an asset to us. We’ve really appreciated it and enjoyed having that addition to our district.

Seeing none, thank you so much for taking the time and coming all the way out from Coquitlam to see us and share your thoughts. We do appreciate it. Enjoy your day.

Next we have our friends from the BCIT Student Association — Sameer Ismail and Dylan Smith.

Gentlemen, welcome. Good afternoon. As you’re approaching, I’ll let you know that you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with about five minutes to go so that you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee and ask any questions they might have. When you’re ready, the floor is yours.

D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I just want to start off by saying thank you for taking the time to hear from us on behalf of not only the student association but the students of BCIT. We realize you have a very busy schedule. So we do appreciate it.

I’ll start off by giving a little bit of a background about BCIT and address some of the common misconceptions. With five campuses throughout greater Vancouver, BCIT represents the second-largest post-secondary institute in the province by unique-student head count and is sort of on a level playing field for the second-largest institute by FTE count with Simon Fraser. It’s definitely a large body of students. I believe by unique head count we’re just under 50,000 this year — a lot of students spread out throughout the greater Vancouver area.

One of the things we pride ourselves on at BCIT is that we — the students themselves — like to think that we have a pragmatic approach when we tackle problems. As such, we have two of what we like to think are fairly reasonable and concise recommendations that have been provided to you in your package today. I’m going to sort of hit the highlights of those a little bit, and then we’ll go forward to questions.

The first recommendation pertains to student housing. Then the second one, which I’ll follow up with, is in regards to the B.C. completion grant.

Student residence and student housing for post-secondary students in B.C. play a critical role in the post-secondary experience in many regards — to name a few, development of campus community, as well as a reduction in the congestion in this overcrowding and overcapacity of transit and things like that. It really helps to alleviate some of those pressures as well. Having those students on campus all the time really helps build a sense of campus community.

In recent years we’ve seen the demand for housing steadily increase. We see 10,000-plus students every year wait-listed for student residence. Because of that, those 10,000-plus students are then turned down for residence and then forced out into the private rental housing market, which has a number of consequences for the students — namely, the fact that affordability is a big concern for a lot of students. When you look at the costs of on-campus
[ Page 2041 ]
residence housing as compared to private-market rental housing, the costs are significantly different, especially depending on the municipality within greater Vancouver that you’re looking at.

Now, getting a little more into why we have this recommendation today, post-secondaries, as I’m sure you know, don’t receive public funding for building new student residences, and there are also restrictions in place — the fact that post-secondaries aren’t allowed to incur debt to build rental housing. That’s really the crux of this first recommendation. We would like to ask that the provincial government remove the barriers for post-secondary institutions to incur debt and to borrow in order to build residence housing for post-secondary students.

Just to address some of the potential concerns, obviously, I realize incurring debt is not necessarily a good thing in the public sector, but as you’ll see in our package that we have provided you, all of the debt servicing costs for such projects, at least from the perspective of BCIT, would be covered by the costs of the rental housing itself.

Doing this is a critical step and a critical tool in not only alleviating some of the burden on the local transportation systems, buses and the like, but also relieving some of the stress on post-secondary students.

If there’s more rental housing available, then they don’t have to stress and worry about, “Okay, maybe I have to take on another part-time job to be able to cover my rent expense while I’m at school,” which could potentially hinder them in their studies and diminish their ultimate performance and learning while they’re attending post-secondary. That’s the crux of that first recommendation.

The second one I will address, I mentioned — around the B.C. completion grants. Now, this is something that back in the summer — I can’t recall the exact date — we presented more or less the same recommendation to Minister Wilkinson in the Ministry of Advanced Education. What you’re getting is roughly the same thing. It’s something we feel is very important, so we wanted to address it again.

As I’m sure you’re all aware, student loans and student debt are a hot-button topic not only in B.C. but across the country and throughout North America. It is the view of the BCIT Student Association that we recognize that student debt is a problem for students in B.C. We recognize that the student loan interest rate in this province is the highest in Canada, if I’m not mistaken. But at the same time, we recognize that it isn’t necessarily a reasonable or feasible solution to start making drastic changes here or there.

As such, we’ve come up with a reasonable proposal, financially speaking, to help alleviate some of the additional stress on post-secondary students financially, in terms of the burden that their student loans place on them.

Without going into too much depth about it, what we’re proposing is a modest expansion of roughly $4 million to the B.C. completion grant, to be called the building B.C. grant, and a couple of caveats attached to this to ensure that that funding is directed towards students that it will help and is directed to helping the province.

Students would only qualify for this expansion (a) if they have completed a program and (b) if that program is a trade designated by the province or the ITA as a program in need, in alignment with the skills-for-jobs blueprint. As it’s, I believe, the largest provider of trades and technical training in the province, this is something that is near and dear to a large portion of BCIT students.

Another benefit of doing something along these lines is that…. If you’re looking at a stereotypical trades student, some of them come from a less advantageous background. They’re lower income, that sort of thing. The barriers that exist currently vis-à-vis more expensive tuition, student loan interest rates and that sort of thing can be seen as preventative by those students.

Providing something like this for them and targeting to entice them to take a program deemed an in-need program, an in-need skill, is sort of two birds, one stone. It helps ensure that those students won’t necessarily interact with the criminal justice system further down the road, saving costs there. It also helps prepare and realign the young workforce in the province to where the provincial government is targeting the jobs to go in the coming years vis-à-vis the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint.

Having said that, is there anything else I’ve missed or should touch on? I don’t think so. That about sums up my portion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Terrific. That just gives us an extra minute or so for questions.

M. Morris: Probably one of the most reasonable requests that I’ve seen from student associations with you guys here today.

Just going back to your first recommendation there, part of the problem that we have, from my understanding in government anyway, is the rules that control how government reports debt. You know, as a member of the Finance Committee and Public Accounts Committee, this topic has come up many times.

If post-secondary institutions are given that benefit of going out and building their own residences and incurring debt, that debt then becomes part of the provincial debt. It has to be reported as part of the provincial debt, so it would increase the provincial debt significantly if all of the post-secondary institutions that have requested this go out and build all these residences, regardless of whether it’s covered off with funds that are raised through that particular institution.

We have to be mindful of that. If we do incur debt, then it does affect our credit rating as a province. For every reduction in the credit rating that the province has, it
[ Page 2042 ]
affects our interest rate by 0.01 percent, I believe, which is about $200 million for every tick mark that we go in that direction.

It’s a significant impact on the province. If there were some way to get around that, I’m sure we would explore that.

S. Ismail: To that, I would say, Mr. Morris, we may be talking about a sum of up to a couple hundred million dollars, at least in the shorter term. My understanding is that in total taxpayer-supported debt in B.C. — at least operating debt — we’re sitting at about $42 billion. Throw in Crown corporations, we’re well over $60 billion. In terms of rating agencies, I think it’s our stance, it would be safe to say, that in terms of quality of debt, I don’t think that it would be something that would raise flags with any of the rating agencies. I think B.C. is rightfully proud of its credit rating. I don’t see this as the sort of debt that would be viewed as being, shall we say, reckless.

Also, considering in orders of magnitude, this would account for such a small portion of B.C.’s total debt load that I think the impact is negligible.

C. Trevena: I also want to pick up on the housing question. With the cost of rental housing in the Lower Mainland, I don’t know how any student can afford to be in the private sector.

You say there are 336 places for BCIT students and there are more than 10,000 students wait-listed for insufficient on-campus housing. Is that 10,000 here in the Lower Mainland? It’s a factual question.

The second question I’ve got is…. We’re hearing this from a number of institutions — the need for having student residences. Clearly in the greater Vancouver area, there’s a pressing need. Has there been any discussion — this might not be for you, but it might be for administration — between the different institutions to get together? I mean, it’s not that far from UBC to the Surrey SFU or the Burnaby SFU or BCIT, or any of these colleges here in the Lower Mainland, to have student housing as a group rather than uniquely to your institution.

D. Smith: I’m not aware of any discussions amongst the admin of the post-secondaries. I do meet and converse with BCIT senior leadership on a fairly regular basis, but those discussions are not something that I’ve been made aware of yet. That’s not to say that they aren’t happening. That just may be something that I’m not privy to.

C. Trevena: And on the figures, would it be equating more than 10,000 students on a wait-list and you’ve got 336 places for your students?

S. Ismail: The 10,000 figure is for the Lower Mainland; 5,000 alone — as of last year, anyway — were UBC students. There is a similar number wait-listed at SFU. Other post-secondaries are a little bit tighter with their figures, and they’re harder to get to, so the real figure actually may be considerably higher than that.

It’s certainly something that amongst student associations has been a hot topic for discussion. But again, I’m also not aware of what individual post-secondary administrations are discussing amongst themselves.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you — particularly Mr. Ismail, for your arguments around investing in housing and debt issues and so on. I appreciated that.

When you talked about the grant — the idea of a completion grant particular to trades — would that, in your view, be additional to the existing grant program? So i.e., you could apply for it whether you’re in…. It’s just an expansion of the money, or basically, trades students would only be able to apply for that one program. I’m just wondering: adding an additional $4 million exclusively for trades, or just to top up the total amount and make it more applicable?

Also, in terms of that, I understand that you can only get the completion grant if you’re in a program over two years. Some trades programs aren’t quite two years. In your view, would that include those lower-year programs? Or is two years an acceptable limit for completion grants?

S. Ismail: We sort of look at this as an over and above, rather than completely segregated. I think that there are some concerns about the completion grant in terms of that time figure. There are some trades programs that do meet it. Many of them do not, and that is also another area of concern for us.

Okay, the Prostate Cancer Canada — Mr. John Winter. Mr. Winter, you’re going to come up and present in a new life. Welcome.

Ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a wave with a couple of minutes remaining so we can go to the committee for questions. The floor is yours as soon as you’re ready.

J. Winter: Thank you, Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen. Nice to be back in front of you again, in a different guise, perhaps, and one that’s not with a hand out knocking the government or anybody for the problems of the economy and the like. This is, I guess, more of a social-related issue but one that I think requires some attention from government.
[ Page 2043 ]

As you know, my name is John Winter. I used to be the president and CEO of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. I’m here today representing Prostate Cancer Canada, an organization that I became involved with last year. I’m a member of the Prostate Cancer Canada B.C. Leadership Council and also a recent addition to the Prostate Cancer Canada board of directors. Prostate Cancer Canada is the leading national foundation dedicated to the prevention of the most common cancer in men through research, advocacy, education, support and awareness.

In 2004, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Because my cancer was detected early, I am able to sit here before you today, proud to say that I am cancer-free. This brings me to the reason that I am here. While we are doing a better job of raising the profile of prostate cancer, there is still much work that needs to be done to ensure that the one in eight Canadian men who will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year better understand their risk for developing the disease.

I have divided this presentation into three key areas. I’ll begin by discussing the prevalence and incidence of prostate cancer nationally, and focus specifically on how this disease affects men and their families living in B.C. The second thing I’ll discuss is the prostate-specific antigen test, also known as the PSA test, and why it’s important in detecting prostate cancer early. Finally, I will discuss active surveillance and the idea of smart screening.

To provide a bit of background, prostate cancer is a disease where some prostate cells grow uncontrollably and no longer function as healthy cells. Prostate cancer can be slow growing, and some men who develop it may live many years without ever having the cancer detected. In fact, many men will die not knowing that they actually have it.

However, a significant proportion of prostate cancers may and will result in death. This year it is estimated that 24,000 Canadian men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and approximately 4,100 of those will die of the disease. In B.C., 3,800 men will receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer, and 600 men will, tragically, lose their lives.

While an estimated one in eight men will be diagnosed with the disease in their lifetime, a recent Ipsos-Reid survey of men over 35 revealed that only 20 percent of Canadian men were actually able to accurately identify a man’s chances of developing the disease in his lifetime.

One of the most critical ways of preventing many men from dying with prostate cancer is through early detection. When prostate cancer is detected early, the survival rate is over 90 percent. The prostate-specific antigen test, known as the PSA test, is a simple blood test, taken from the arm, that measures the amount of PSA protein in the blood. PSA is a protein produced by the prostate and is normally present in a man’s blood in small amounts. Elevated PSA levels may indicate prostate problems, one of which could be cancer.

Very few medical tests are perfect. The PSA test, like any other tool, has its limitations, but for the early detection of prostate cancer, it’s currently the best test to identify those at greatest risk of developing the disease and ensuring it can be caught and treated in its earliest stages.

Last year the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, a body with very limited experience in prostate cancer and best practices, publicly denounced screening for prostate cancer with the PSA test. The U.S. equivalent of this organization also recommended against screening for prostate cancer, and this recommendation has led to an increase of men being diagnosed with metastatic disease.

One major issue with the task force finding was its reliance on what is widely considered to be weak evidence. Currently the most relevant studies on the subject have not yet reached maturity due to the long latency of the disease.

According to new research, if PSA screening was eliminated, the cases of advanced prostate cancer would double, resulting in up to an estimated 20 percent increase in annual prostate cancer deaths. In the absence of a test that can specifically identify the aggressive disease, the PSA test is still the best option for ensuring that we detect problems with prostate in its earliest stages.

Another issue with the task force’s argument is that many proponents of PSA testing do not disagree with the shortcomings of regular screening of all men. Instead, Prostate Cancer Canada and urology experts have advocated for an approach that is tailored to individual men, called smart screening.

Smart screening takes a man’s individual risk for developing prostate cancer into account and is a personalized approach where men are encouraged to be tested to establish a baseline PSA number, with tailored follow-up based on their complete risk profile. If there are changes, the man and his doctor decide together how best to move forward, based on his own risk.

With this approach, some men would not require a follow-up test for two or even five years or possibly longer. The baseline, however, would provide important information on how quickly the man’s PSA level is rising and whether further diagnostics, such as a biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, may be required.

It is important to note that a case that warrants further follow-up does not mean a man will require immediate treatment. It could mean active surveillance. Doctors in Canada are pioneers of active surveillance, an evidence-based approach that involves closely monitoring low-risk prostate cancer and aims to improve quality of life by reducing or delaying radical treatment until it’s absolutely necessary. Active surveillance can significantly mitigate the issue of overtreatment that has been regarded by some as a concern with PSA screening.

Prostate Cancer Canada believes that the use of smart screening will also allow better management of this issue
[ Page 2044 ]
by offering other options. Detecting prostate cancer in later stages limits treatment options and also eliminates the possibility of active surveillance — a kind of watch-and-wait treatment, if you like.

British Columbia and Ontario are the only two provinces in Canada that do not cover PSA testing for screening purposes. For a man in B.C. who does not meet the current Medical Services Plan criteria, the out-of-pocket expense for a single PSA test is approximately $30 plus tax. Screening for prostate cancer is not covered under MSP, even though prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and results in the third-largest mortality rate for cancer in men.

According to a 2015 Ipsos-Reid survey, over 90 percent of British Columbia men stated that they’re more likely to get the PSA test if it is covered by their provincial government. Polls such as this demonstrate that having to pay for this test is an impediment for men to manage their health and understand their risk for prostate cancer.

By absorbing the cost of PSA testing, the province would be making a strong statement and demonstrating its continued commitment to preventative health care and to ensuring that men don’t have yet another excuse to manage their health.

Prostate Cancer Canada recommends that men receive a baseline PSA test in their 40s. As a pre-diagnostic test, the PSA result is added to an individual’s risk profile, which can then assist medical professionals in determining how best to tailor an individual’s follow-up and care.

We estimate that if all 40-year-old men in B.C., about 29,000 of them, received a baseline PSA test in 2014, it would have cost the B.C. government approximately $870,000 at that $30-per-test rate. In this same year, it was estimated that 580 British Columbian men died of prostate cancer, which could likely have been prevented if their cancer had been detected early enough.

All prostate cancer deaths result from advanced disease. Based on data published by researchers in B.C., if we assume that these men underwent the standard practice of localized treatment, androgen deprivation therapy for advanced disease and received end-of-life care, it would have cost the B.C. government approximately $11 million to treat these men, using estimated approximate prostate cancer treatment costs of $20,000 per man.

Based on available information from other provinces, we estimate that a provincially funded PSA screening program could reduce test costs to as low $10 per test, one of the least expensive medical tests available and one that could result in large net savings for the government of British Columbia.

We estimate that a publicly funded PSA screening program, paired with the world-leading active surveillance model pioneered here in Canada, would reduce both prostate cancer mortality and expensive treatment of advanced cancers.

E. Foster: I’ll qualify this by saying I get my PSA test every year. You alluded to it a bit in your conversation, but I have heard from some fairly learned people that they agree with the premise that the PSA test is not the answer and that it causes a lot of false positives, and so on. Can you elaborate on that a little more? I know you did speak to it in your presentation.

J. Winter: Well, I guess the issue for me is that I probably wouldn’t be here if there had been no screening tests as they currently are. I was fortunate enough to have a doctor that put it on a very strict regimen of annual regular testing, and the like, and was able to manage and watch the PSA level as it changed. Not enough men do that.

While there may be a significant number of false positives in terms of the current process, it’s all we have. The ability for men to be tested is not something that they take great delight in. They don’t line up for it. Not enough men do it. I guess our concern is that by adding further degrees of uncertainty to the testing process, we’re only playing into that concern and that fear.

The problem is certainly one that would suggest — I think I alluded to it in my notes — that there would be more deaths in British Columbia as a result of fewer tests being taken at early stages, diagnosed, even if it’s one in ten or one in eight.

E. Foster: As I said, my doctor is a proponent, and I go every year, so I’m onside. I’m just curious as to….

J. Winter: There are certainly issues. There’s a certain stigma, maybe, attached to it, if that’s the right word. Men are not anxious to play the role and do that if they don’t have to. But I think that at the end of the day, it is the best test we have. It’s the only test we have. There are concerns that the $30 impediment is in fact just that.

What I think we’re really talking about here, as well, Eric, is that it doesn’t have to be an annual thing. If there are high-profile or higher-risk patients identified at an earlier age, they could be managed throughout the process that we talked about — this watch-and-wait kind of process. Many men will go through life never having this problem, and that’s also good. The fact that there’s some comfort in the fact that….

S. Chandra Herbert: I think the point you make that a test, however challenging, is better than no test is a good
[ Page 2045 ]
one. Certainly, in speaking with Prostate Cancer Canada, I started to get to understand this a lot better.

I’m curious. Thank you for laying out what you think the costs would be for a program like this. Where should we get the money? It’s a question I know that you’ve been asked many times, or you’ve asked politicians many times. How should we pay for this?

J. Winter: Well, I think it will pay for itself, because it ends up being a net reduction in terms of health care costs. It’s one of those things that you invest today for results tomorrow, perhaps.

At the end of the day, it’s a hard thing to really actually measure. The $30 is sort of a number out of the air. I don’t know that it will relate to any of the actual costs. But it is an investment, if you like, by patients who have not been under care of a doctor. I guess those are the times you don’t pay for it, in those cases.

It’s something that I think if you can reduce the amount of number of people in care under the program, the investment in health care protection….

J. Winter: Catch it early, then you don’t become such a burden on the process. It’s a grey area.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Mr. Winter, thank you very much. Appreciate you taking the time. Always a pleasure.

As you’re walking up, I’ll remind you ten minutes for presentation. I’ll give you the two-minute windup, and then we’ll go to committee for questions. The floor is yours.

R. Botterell: I need to start my stopwatch here so that I don’t get in trouble.

R. Botterell: Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association.

Last year I had the privilege of presenting to this committee in Courtenay, and this year I’m here in Richmond. I want to express my appreciation for the Coast Salish people allowing me to present on their traditional territory and also to express my appreciation to John Yap for letting me present on his traditional territory. [Laughter.]

The PVLA is an association of landowners, farmers, ranchers and residents of the Peace who are deeply concerned that Site C is proceeding without proper due diligence. Today I’ll speak to the concerns of the PVLA members as taxpayers and in their capacity as B.C. taxpayers and ratepayers.

Full disclosure: I’m not a certified flight instructor, I’m not a PhD in economics, and I’m not the grandson of W.A.C. Bennett.

If you run into Premier Christy Clark, please mention to her that I’m an optimist, an optimistic fiscal conservative. In that respect, I applaud the government in its efforts on LNG. But as the balance of my remarks will demonstrate, my views and the views of the PVLA are that there’s still a lot more due diligence to do before I could say the same thing about Site C.

I want to talk from the perspective of the types of questions your constituents — taxpayers and ratepayers, like the PVLA members I represent — would ask about Site C, questions that I believe this special committee should consider now in the context of 2016-17 budget deliberations, anticipating the May 2017 election.

Let me start with some questions squarely in the committee’s bailiwick. Why would the B.C. government throw away $800 million, according to B.C. Hydro’s own forecast, of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money subsidizing electricity exports to bring Site C into service in 2025 when we don’t need the power until 2029 or 2030?

I have included with your kit the materials that I am relying on. For that point, I draw your attention to a very recent energy forecast made by B.C. Hydro. The way I would draw that analogy is that if it was your household, why would you buy something four years before you need it and spend $800 million you don’t need to?

I think the other point is that it’s not actually that low-cost an option. When you look at Columbia prices for energy, what you’ll find is that you can buy energy in as much quantity as you want for $38.96 a megawatt hour for delivery in 2020.

With the North American market awash in surplus power, I don’t think those cost figures are going to change any time soon. Once again, as a household, why would you spend 30 or 40 percent more than you need to?

I also want to draw your attention to some materials I’m leaving with you — which is new information, the most recent materials I was able to find — from Monday, October 12, in London, England, where Bloomberg New Energy Finance made its global trends in clean energy investment presentation.

What it points out in its presentation is that renewables such as solar and wind are already less costly than Site C and are predicted to go much lower over the upcoming years. So why would we lock in a high-cost source of energy when there are low-cost options available?

As you may be aware, Robert McCullough, a respected energy expert with 30 years of experience, continues to state that Site C may well be twice as costly as other options. This goes directly to the points that have been made, even in the previous presentation. If we could increase our debt by half as much as Site C requires, that would create fiscal room for other important government priorities.
[ Page 2046 ]

According to B.C. documents — they’re in your kit; we received them under freedom of information — the debt-to-revenue ratio for B.C. is 93.1 percent compared to 33.8 percent for Alberta and 33.4 percent for Saskatchewan. Those are the three provinces that have triple-A ratings.

If B.C.’s ratio becomes 95 percent, which is only a little bit more, our triple-A rating is at risk. That’s what Moody’s says. Since the power is not needed now, and given the uncertain economic times, why risk hitting the 95 percent threshold? Once again, to use a household finance point of view, we always talk about mortgage service ratios. You bump into that limit and you limit your ability to deal with other important priorities, and you run the risk of a downgrade.

There are some other questions, I believe, that you should consider and try to address and, certainly, that PVLA taxpayers and ratepayers would like considered.

The first is: why does the B.C. government ignore expert information that says that demand for electricity is dropping, not increasing? In B.C. Hydro’s first-quarter report — it’s in your kit — they reported that there is a 1,320 gwh drop in domestic tariff sales. So demand is falling away. In B.C. Hydro’s own report, they talk about sluggish commodity prices and slow start-ups.

More importantly than that, on Monday, in London, world experts in energy finance presented their outlook for power demand growth for 2012 to 2040. What did they say about Canada? Negative growth. What did they say about the U.S.A.? Low growth. To say that there’s going to be massive growth in energy demand is not supported by the experts.

What are a few other questions that I think warrant some consideration? The whole issue of the costs and benefits of delaying Site C…. In your kit, you’ll see the FOI request we made. The Ministry of Energy and Mines actively looked at a one- or three-year delay — what the pros and cons would be. But all of the pertinent information is blacked out.

I certainly don’t understand why the B.C. Utilities Commission isn’t looking at transmission projects that are upcoming. A really interesting question that we, frankly, find very confusing is why Minister Bennett dismisses geothermal power as very expensive and risky, including to power natural gas extraction.

The reason we find it confusing is that it flies in the face of written assurances we’ve seen, provided by one of the minister’s senior colleagues to investors. I’m going to read a segment from that written assurance.

“Electricity generated from British Columbia’s geothermal resources could provide a significant future source of clean and renewable energy for the province. Our government is committed to the geothermal sector, and we are continuing to work on streamlining the regulatory framework. We encourage this investment and are committed to working with the industry in B.C.” I have trouble squaring that clear commitment to geothermal and the use of geothermal with the stated position of Minister Bennett.

Last but not least, I think taxpayers and ratepayers would like to know why the government continues to say that referring Site C to the B.C. Utilities Commission would take the decision on Site C out of the hands of elected representatives. Section 5 of the B.C. Utilities Commission Act provides for cabinet to seek the advice of the B.C. Utilities Commission on any issue and not interfere with the ability of cabinet to make the final decision, which is where the final decision should be. But we need the best information, and we need independent expert review.

I’d ask you and urge you, on behalf of the PVLA, to ask and address these questions. It’s never too late to press the pause button. Certainly, the B.C. Utilities Commission has a role to play here. Taxpayers and ratepayers concerned about the finances of this province, concerned about holding on to the triple-A rating and concerned about using the borrowing capacity we have for important other projects, are counting on you to look at it. We really think this is an important committee that plays a critical role in this discussion.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation as well as your presentation last year.

I have a couple of questions. One of the issues is…. You’ve introduced a graph from a B.C. Hydro document for the rate design evaluation methodology that shows that the earliest Site C energy capacity might be needed is 2029.

There’s a big wavering “if” out there around LNG, although the last time I checked, most LNG proponents were proposing to power by burning gas itself, not with electricity.

I notice Revelstoke 6 comes on at a later time. If you look at this in terms of the relative amount from Revelstoke 6 versus Site C, it doesn’t look like it’s anywhere near a significant proportion of Site C.

The real issue about Site C is providing us with capacity for peak times, as I understand it. The capacity potential of Revelstoke 6 — correct me if I’m wrong — is 45 percent of Site C at about 1/18 of the cost, and it can be brought on much more quickly — in about a four-year time period, maximum.

My second question is…. I think many people observed the impact of drought conditions on agriculture in California, Washington state and B.C. this year and started to think about what the future might hold. Does the landowners association have studies about the agricultural capacity for agricultural products that would be needed by British Columbians to replace lost or expen-
[ Page 2047 ]
sive import opportunities in the future based on climate change models? If they do, that would be useful information to submit by the end of day tomorrow.

R. Botterell: I’ll have to excuse myself. I have some homework to do by tomorrow.

Thank you for those questions. I’ll make two brief observations for each question.

The first is that, yes, Revelstoke 6…. It was interesting in the debate the other day in the House around Revelstoke 6. Revelstoke 6 may be in the planning phase, but it’s certainly not under construction. This is the most recent information available on the forecast time frame for Revelstoke 6 coming on stream. There is every reason to look at Revelstoke 6 and say: “That would be a low-cost way to generate some earlier capacity and buy even more time to look closely at the types of questions we’ve raised on Site C.”

Revelstoke 6 is certainly something that could be expedited and would make a big difference. You can see in this chart that, as you’ve mentioned, towards the end of the spectrum, it could be moved up.

On the question of agricultural capacity of the valley, there is an expert by the name of Wendy Holm, who has done a variety of work and presented it to the joint review panel. The east-west orientation of the valley, plus its location and microclimate, enables it to produce the types of fruits and vegetables that are needed to support a population of a million people.

It’s roughly the same distance as the distance to California. As the California drought continues and persists as a result of climate change, it’s a very important part of the agricultural makeup of this province.

Certainly, the PVLA has made that presentation. Wendy Holm made that presentation to the Metro board, and that played a role in the unanimous support of the Metro board for referring Site C to the Utilities Commission.

S. Gibson: I do recall very well your presentation last year in Courtenay. As you know, you and I talked at some length afterwards.

I think the cogency or the argument that is perhaps most pervasive, in my view, is the reliability — the run of rivers, the wind power, etc. Some of the arguments you make are reasonable, but I think for many in government, the appeal really came with what’s reliable here. Clearly, Site C was extremely reliable. Again, I don’t want to argue with you here.

Working through the psychology and the appeal and allure of the fact that we are the third-lowest provider of electric power, as you know, on the continent, I think that that was something to be continued.

I don’t think the other items that you’re making a case for will be precluded by Site C. They’ll actually complement Site C, in my view and, I think, in the view of many of us.

R. Botterell: Well, it’s not my intention to debate the issues here, other than simply to point out that the PVLA and the expert that the PVLA retained, Robert McCullough, is of the view that you could produce the same type of firm power in a package of renewables that has some firm power at half the cost of Site C.

The economic argument is, as a fiscal conservative, optimistic that we could actually have either a more secure triple-A rating or fiscal room for other government priorities by taking another approach than Site C. And we have the time to look at it, is the point of B.C. Hydro’s latest forecasts.

I think I’ll just leave it there. I think we can fully address those types of concerns and generate a low-cost source of electricity for everything that’s needed.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time. We appreciate it. Have a good evening.

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.

3) Make Transit Work Coalition	Kenya Rogers
4) British Columbia Cycling Coalition	Richard Campbell
5) Insurance Bureau of Canada	Aaron Sutherland
	Michael Lee
6) Dr. Mychael Gleeson
7) Coast Capital Savings Credit Union	John Groves
8) Robin Tavender
9) BC Food Processors Association	James Donaldson
	James Pratt
10) Larri Woodrow

11) Business Council of British Columbia	Ken Peacock
12) NEBC Resource Municipalities Coalition	Mayor Lori Ackerman
	Mayor Bill Streeper
	Mayor Rob Fraser
	Colin Griffith
13) British Columbia Integrated Youth Services Initiative	Dr. Steven Mathias
14) Abbotsford Hospice Society	Gaëtan Royer
Mission Hospice Society	Angel Elias
Burnaby Hospice Society	Bruce Kirk
Surrey Hospice Society	Rebecca Smith
15) Office of the Seniors Advocate	Isobel Mackenzie
16) Burnaby Board of Trade	Cory Redekop
17) Sheryl Demers
18) British Columbia Association of Kinesiologists	Hardip Jhaj
19) Board of Education, School District No. 43 (Coquitlam)	Kerri Palmer Isaak
20) BCIT Student Association	Sameer Ismail
21) Prostate Cancer Canada	John Winter
22) Peace Valley Landowners Association	Rob Botterell

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Spencer Chandra Herbert (Vancouver–West End NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
	Claire Trevena (North Island NDP)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Susan Sourial

1) Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC	Dr. George Davison
2) Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education	Maggie Milne Martens
	Corine Willems
	Madeleine Sauvé
	Gili Avrahami

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES