Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 97 — Monday, September 19, 2016 (HTML)

320 Strategy Room, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue
580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C.

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Robin Austin, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

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

4. The Minister of Finance, Hon. Michael de Jong, Q.C., appeared before the Committee and presented the Budget 2017 Consultation Paper.

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

8. 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	2199
R. Tavender
D. Hancott
M. Milne Martens
A. Sinclair
B. Gutray
J. Morris
T. Hejazi
W. Bruneau
M. Zlotnik
Presentation by Minister of Finance	2214
Hon. M. de Jong
Presentations	2219
T. Thomson
K. Shortt
B. Riddell
M. McLachlan
K. Carrusca
T. Parhar
W. Booth
L. Alderson
S. Smythe
J. Johnson
M. Conlon
R. Archdekin
A. Hardy
H. Pastrick
J. Stewart
C. Bercic
M. McGregor
P. Cenerelli
R. Rees
K. Simpson
P. Spothelfer
S. McDonald
M. Bourcheix-Laporte
K. Reimer
T. Audain
B. Brown
A. Brown

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

We’re an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with a mandate to hold 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 must issue a report by November 15, 2016 with its recommendations for the 2017 provincial budget.

The committee is holding a number of public hearings in communities across the province, and British Columbians can participate via teleconference, video conference or Skype. There are numerous ways to submit your ideas to the committee. British Columbians can complete an on-line survey or send in written, audio or video submissions through our website, www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance.

We invite all British Columbians to contribute to this important process, and for those of you in attendance, we thank you for taking the time to participate today. 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 midnight on Friday, October 14.

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 will 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.

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

I’d now ask committee members to introduce themselves. I’ll start with our government Whip.

Also assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial and Stephanie Raymond from our Parliamentary Committees Office. Michael Baer and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services are also here to record the proceedings.

I’d like to just, first of all, start with our first presenter, I guess, at 9:05: Robin Tavender.

Mr. Tavender, could you come to the mike, please? Once again, ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a couple of minutes as a heads-up and we can go from there, but if you want to keep talking and cut into the question time, it’s entirely up to you. The floor is yours.

R. Tavender: Thank you. Just to begin, I’d ask that you please not call me “Mister.” If I talk about misters and slaves at home with Mom, she says: “We don’t have those; we have a family.”

I’m going to introduce myself using one of the indigenous languages of this territory, Chinook. [Chinook was spoken.] My name is Robin. Then a short little prayer. [Chinook was spoken.]

To begin, let me state that I have travelled here to this meeting at my own expense, of my own mere free will. No one is paying me to be here today.

To begin, I will continue my comments from the previous three years concerning social assistance and education, which were given on Monday, September 23, 2013, on Tuesday, October 14, 2014 and on Wednesday, October 14, 2015. The transcripts are available in Hansard, and I would ask the committee members to review them.

To begin, I will discuss the case of A.J. Brown, who will present herself to you later today. The retention of her Canada Pension Plan money by the government violates her security of the person, because it deprives her of sufficient security in a way that is unjustifiable in a free and democratic society.

Next, the case of my friend Harvey. Harvey grew up in B.C., was gainfully employed as an optician, and led
[ Page 2200 ]
a very sociable existence. I knew Harvey then. He was a fine fellow. He still is, but unfortunately, he was in a car accident and is now quite disabled. He has qualified for disability assistance, and he would receive a small private pension, but this is counted as a different sort of income, so it counts against his assistance. This clearly violates Harvey’s rights. I would find that Harvey’s constitutional right to security of the person has been violated in a way that is unjustifiable in a free and democratic society.

Both Harvey and A.J., if they earned these pension moneys, would be exempt $800 per month, or $9,600 per year. But for some reason, pensions are accounted differently than employment income. This may have made sense in the past, but today, in 2016, it is certainly unacceptable, given that both A.J. and Harvey are denied money that they would be allowed had they earned it through employment.

It is discriminatory to disabled people who cannot work to differentiate between earned and unearned income. Many disabled people, such as Harvey and A.J., are simply unable to work, and this provision violates their right under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to equal benefit of the law without discrimination. It does so in a way that is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.

More generally, I have reviewed the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, as available online. It appears that several sections — to wit, sections 8 and 11 — violate the right to security of the person, which, as I have stated several times, means sufficient security. These sections are unjustifiable in a free and democratic society as they impact the ability of people like A.J. and Harvey to enjoy sufficient security. Therefore, I would declare these sections of no force or effect.

But we must keep in mind that even if rendered inoperative, the meagre pension moneys that Harvey and A.J. are due would not provide them with sufficient security, given the estimates I made last year, using Virginia Woolf as our guide. Specifically, I draw your attention to my comment last year. 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 $130,000 per year.

As I noted last year, the amount that an MLA is paid is somewhere in the middle of what Woolf recommends, and a judge is probably paid about twice what she recommends for independent living. These payments are not, as some suggest, to ensure qualified applicants. These payments are made solely so that Members of the Legislative Assembly, and other judges, may discharge their duties independently.

Now I will turn to something positive. The government does appear to be listening. In the budget speech 2016, the hon. Michael de Jong said the following: “Those on disability assistance will be receiving an increase, up to $77 per month.” Last year, I said that the government has instituted a $9,600 per year earnings exemption for all single individuals receiving disability assistance. The inference I draw from that is that the government admits that their assistance program is insufficient by at least $9,600 per year, or $800 per month.

I also said that 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. I would continue it for this year, too. I would also note that by increasing the rate by $77, the government has acceded to my judgment, if not to the degree that I required.

I have also heard it said that the Bank of Canada considers roughly 2 percent per annum to be a reasonable cost of living increase. Therefore, I would increase my finding by 2 percent to $9,792 per year, or $816 per month. Minus the government’s $77 per month increase, that leaves $739 per month, or $8,868 per year that people are owed, in my opinion.

I just want to make it clear that I still hold that the existence of any earnings exemption justifies the inference that the disability assistance rate is underfunded by that amount. But I also want to make it clear that if such earnings exemption is the best that can be done, it should be increased annually by at least 2 percent, and quite possibly more.

I feel it my duty to remind you that we are talking about amounts that are small fractions of what MLAs or provincial court judges earn, and I am not suggesting that yourselves or other judges should be paid less, only that if you feel these are wages you are due, surely there is something quite inadequate about the wages we pay to the disabled. In this year’s budget consultation paper, the next three years of surpluses are enough to make substantial movement toward compliance with my judgment.

As I implored you last year, I would suggest spending this surplus to increase the disability assistance rates by at least the amount of the earnings exemption. By the 2019-20 budget, the government will hopefully find ways to make these increases permanent.

Next I turn to a more personal matter. In light of the recent Daniels Supreme Court of Canada decision, I feel it my duty for myself and my posterity to put on record the fact that I come from a family with Indian heritage. We have lived in Canada time out of mind. In the jargon of the Daniels decision and Canadian jurisprudence, we are non-status Indians.

According to our oral tradition — that is, law — we have never made any treaty with the Crown, nor have we disposed of our aboriginal right to hunt, to fish and to camp as we like in Canada — including the building of fires and the taking of wood for fuel and tem-
[ Page 2201 ]
porary dwellings — as well as the use of waters, flora and minerals.

I should note that I use the term “Indian” only because it is current in Canadian jurisprudence. Unfortunately, we have lost our own word for what we are, but words are tools or servants; they are not our identity. The term “Indian,” in my view, is laden with European misconception about the people of America. I also reject the term “indigenous,” because everyone who is not from some other planet is indigenous to earth.

Therefore, I prefer the term “Native American,” because it encapsulates that prior to contact, we moved freely throughout America without tax, toll or custom. We camped, hunted, fished and harvested plants where we liked. We built temporary wooden dwellings. We made fires for cooking.

Our oral law has no mention of boats, except in reference to the Irish and French people with whom we interbred upon their arrival. Our oral law is that our Irish ancestors arrived here sometime in the 19th century, and our French ancestors, sometime in the 17th century — to use the Christian calendars. Thus, we allowed Europeans into our family as soon as they arrived.

That we displayed august liberality and a lack of racial discrimination should not be held to diminish our aboriginal right. All statute law is, in effect, a treaty between the governor and the governed. For myself and my heirs, I look forward to a respectful nation-to-nation relationship with all levels of Crown government in Canada.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. We’re under your time, actually, so I’ll go to committee for questions if anyone has them.

R. Austin: Thank you, Robin. In your description here, you used a lot of language that pertains to the law. Because of your frustration that you feel about these very important matters, and having been in opposition for 11½ years, I was wondering whether you had considered speaking to legal societies that do pro bono work on behalf of minorities and people who have been disadvantaged using the legal precedents that you’re speaking about.

Have you thought about going somewhere like the Pivot Legal Society to say: “This is fundamentally wrong. You guys are lawyers. Go to court, and tell politicians what to do”?

R. Tavender: Well, that leads me to another thing that I think is poorly structured in British Columbia, which is the legal profession: the monopolistic guild structure that we have that governs many of the professions that were introduced by — and I don’t really like this divisive jargon that splits people up — the settlers, for lack of a better term.

There was sort of this…. In the world of the church, you had parochial districts, and you had monopolies on the provision of certain services within those parochial districts. Whether it’s holding mass or having the audience in court, I see those as fairly similar. So we have a system of monopoly that….

I take your point that there might be ways for me to…. I could, for example, go to law school, and I perhaps could get a JD myself. I don’t know that I would have the stuff to do that, but perhaps I could. But that’s buying into a system that, as you say…. You characterize me as frustrated, and I don’t believe “frustrated” is the correct term. I would say I’m, more, curious about the way we govern ourselves here.

That’s my answer to that. I don’t believe that these institutions, filled with people who have been indoctrinated by the Crown university system, necessarily have the wide perspective we need to see outside of those institutions, especially with respect to addressing the issues of colonialism — universitatis being the Latin word for corporation, universities simply being statutory corporations that have no customary existence in British Columbia.

Thank you, Robin. Appreciate you taking the time, and I’m glad you got on the list in Vancouver this time.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay, we’ll go on to our next presenter. I would ask Dr. Daren Hancott to come up to the microphone, please, from Yorkville University.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for being here so early and so promptly. It’s nice to be a little bit ahead of schedule — not much. Once again, ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll give you about a two-minute warning. If you want to keep going, you can. It just cuts into question time, that’s all. Okay, the floor is yours.

D. Hancott: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity. I’m campus principal for Yorkville University. It’s a private university based in New Brunswick, with operations in New Brunswick, Ontario and now British Columbia.

In August 2015, Minister Wilkinson granted Yorkville University consent to use the word “university” and to offer a bachelor’s degree in business administration with specializations in accounting, energy management, project management and supply chain management. Additionally, Yorkville University is authorized by the
[ Page 2202 ]
New Brunswick government to offer several degrees, including a bachelor of business administration and master’s degrees in counselling psychology, adult education and educational leadership.

RCC Institute of Technology, a subsidiary of Yorkville University, is located in Toronto and has ministerial consent to offer three degrees, including a bachelor of business information systems; a bachelor of interior design, delivered both on line and on campus; and a bachelor of technology, electronics, engineering technology.

RCC Institute of Technology also operates the Toronto Film School, which has three campuses and nine diploma programs in the entertainment and creative industries.

Yorkville specializes in offering degree programs to working adults seeking to advance their skills and careers while continuing in the workforce. Its programs are offered through a blend of on-line and on-campus learning.

One of the questions that we keep getting asked is why Yorkville University is in British Columbia. I’m a British Columbia resident — I’ve been for a long time — so I think I can answer that. Basically, its purpose is to commence operations here to advance its national aspirations by opening its first on-ground campus, in the downtown. It will be hybrid in on-line delivery to align with the B.C. government’s jobs plan.

It took me almost two hours to get here this morning from Burnaby. SkyTrain had some issues. I was stuck in traffic for about half an hour. I got on the SkyTrain, and I missed the first four stops — couldn’t get on. So we’re trying to make sure that people who go to school can access their education without having to be stuck in traffic for two hours a day.

The university’s goal is to be a part of the B.C. advanced education sector, a fully participating member of BCCAT, with a campus that’s earning both EQA and ISP designations. There are lots of international students here. One of the reasons that we want to do this is we want to attract more international students, and having a downtown campus is core to that.

Vancouver is a post-secondary education destination, and part of the strategy is to create a campus that is value-added for the traditional working adult as well as the student visa market.

We have secured a location. It took 30 visits to different locations. You know the property issues in Vancouver, trying to find a place that’s appropriate. But we finally have one at West Georgia and Thurlow, and we’ll be offering classes there in April of 2017.

Hybrid delivery is a benefit for some working adults. They receive the benefits of all of the on-line that we offer — small classes, experienced and caring professors, best-practice course design, learning platform, and the community experience to build on-campus delivery and support, meeting their professors.

Yorkville University has already submitted an application for a master’s of business administration program, with the same delivery options — on-line and hybrid — targeting the same adult learner market. The business plan calls for opening education and creative industries, so those programs are forthcoming.

How we contribute to the post-secondary education sector, creating good jobs. I am an example. I am the campus principal. We have hired a dean, a registrar. We’ve got about 20 faculty members teaching in the program already. Once the campus is open and our hybrid model is fully operational, we’ll be hiring additional faculty as well as administrators. These are good, long-term jobs.

Providing post-secondary education and training to British Columbians so they can meet their personal and professional goals. In key areas of the economy, we think energy management, project management, supply chain management, which is why we’ve offered those specialties. Each of those programs will have a B.C.-centric expert advisory committee to help us with the curriculum as we move forward. They will be key assets to the university’s mission to equip students with the skills required to succeed in the B.C. economy.

Increasing the educational offerings in Vancouver to enhance the city as an educational destination. It’s our first program in B.C. but not the last. As I said, we’ve submitted our application for an MBA. And lest I forget, this is not just about Vancouver. We’ve had students from all over British Columbia over the last decade in our programs. So even though this is about a B.C. campus, we have students from all over British Columbia in our current programs.

Many of you don’t know that I was chair of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and I’ve been on the program advisory committees and the policy review committee for the past 11 years. A lot of the policies that you see coming forward to government are written by members, chambers and our policy review committee. The reason we do that is to make sure that government and opposition are aware that business is very important to British Columbia. Most jobs are created by small and medium enterprises. There are 170,000 in British Columbia.

My thought is that if we can make sure that they’re all moving forward and hiring ten, 15 people, you can imagine what the B.C. economy would look like and what our coffers would look like if we had another 200,000 or 500,000 or one million jobs. That’s what we’re trying to do. That’s why we’re here.

The last point I’ll make is that we’re a private institution that doesn’t require government money. We won’t ask you for any money. We just need to make sure that
[ Page 2203 ]
we can operate and do our thing as a small and medium enterprise in British Columbia, and we look forward to that opportunity. We’re delighted to be here.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Hancott. I will go to the committee for questions.

D. Ashton: Doctor, thank you. As you were speaking, I was quickly looking at your website. What’s the average cost for a student taking a bachelor’s?

D. Hancott: It depends on the number of credits they transfer in. I mean, that’s a….

D. Hancott: It’s about $1,200 per course, somewhere around there. Most students bring transfer credits from other institutions, so a degree takes a lot less time. The cost is not the tuition that you see. It’s the number of credits that they have to complete to graduate. But that will give you an idea.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I just wondered what discussions occurred with other universities and other institutions in British Columbia. I would imagine that there could be some tensions between existing universities in our province and a university coming in from another province. I just wondered what kind of discussions had occurred and what kind of discussions are occurring.

D. Hancott: Good question. As you know, as part of becoming a member of BCCAT, you have to have articulation agreements and discussions. We have ongoing discussions with Kwantlen University. We’ve got Corpus Christi College. We have agreements signed, and there are some in the works. I don’t want to talk about them publicly at the moment, but there are five or six on the go.

What we’re trying to do is recognize what students have already done at certain schools so that they don’t have to repeat it with us and vice versa. One of the things that I find frustrates most students…. Even though B.C. is probably one of the best provinces in the country, maybe even in the world, in recognizing prior learning, there’s still a lot of work to be done. Psych 101 is psych 101, and math 101 is math 101, and there are still a lot of schools that sometimes don’t accept that. There are issues, and students get frustrated.

We’re trying to be a transparent player in the marketplace, and through our efforts with BCCAT, we’ll work on that. Outside of BCCAT, we’ll sign our articulation agreements with schools that maybe have programs that are not a part of the system so that we can still recognize what those students have already completed.

S. Gibson: So why would a prospective student pick Yorkville? The second question is: can your courses be received or acceptable, say, at the community college where I taught at in Abbotsford? Will your courses be transferable there for credit to, say, UFV?

D. Hancott: The reason they choose us. There are a plethora of reasons. One of the ones I mentioned this morning is that they don’t want to be driving to a campus and spending two hours in traffic. They have kids, they have jobs, and they want access to their programs. They don’t want to miss courses. Lots of courses at many schools aren’t offered on a regular basis — your electives, maybe, but maybe not your core courses. If you miss one, you wait. We offer all of our courses all of the time, which is unique.

Secondly, they have a choice between on-line learning and blended learning — their choice. We don’t force the issue. You can choose. It depends on your lifestyle, whether you’re a full-time mom or a part-time dad. You choose. We’re trying to give people access to high-quality education using the best learning technologies that are available.

As for transferability, again, I brought up the issue. Sometimes departments within universities don’t transfer or recognize their own courses. There’s an issue there. Part of what we’re going to do is go through the BCCAT system, which means it’s published so you can see.

Still, after we become a member, we still have to work with individual institutions on programs, individual deans, individual vice-presidents of academic to make sure we’re on the same page. That’s why you have articulation agreements, articulation meetings, conferences and things like that. You do presentations if there’s an issue. We document all of these things, and if there’s a reason for something, there are private meetings to say: “Why is this still an issue in 2016 in British Columbia?”

Actually, UFV is one of our institutions that we’re working with. Haven’t made much progress there yet, but there’s still work to be done. Maybe we’ll see you in Abbotsford at some point in time.

Just a couple for me, then. You mentioned, as part of your bachelor of business administration program, supply chain management. How well subscribed is that program? I would imagine it’s fairly popular.

D. Hancott: We just put together a program advisory committee of seven professionals across Canada, many
[ Page 2204 ]
from British Columbia, to work with the supply chains to make sure that the core competencies of their designation are recognized in our program. I think the threshold is 80 percent. So when students graduate, they will be accepted. The same thing with project management. The same thing with accounting, with the CPA.

Students, as I said — I don’t want to repeat myself, but it’s worth repeating — want recognition for what they’ve already done. They don’t want to repeat things over and over again. They want to graduate and become more productive members of society. We’re here to facilitate that, as a private enterprise in British Columbia.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. And are you attracting…? Often business administration is sought after by more mature students, people that are already in the workforce. Do you have an off-campus presence? Are you able to provide certain coursework through the Internet, etc.? Have you expanded to that point yet?

D. Hancott: Yes, but April 2017 is our downtown campus. Everything else is on line right now. Our average student, I believe, is 32 years old, with ten to 12 years of experience. That’s not your average student, but they’re still young enough. They have 33 years in the workplace — there’s no mandatory retirement, so maybe 35 or 36 years. Let’s utilize that.

Okay. Thank you, Dr. Hancott. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. We are on time. Actually, we’re a little ahead of time, folks.

Could I ask the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education to come to the microphones, please? We have Maggie Milne Martens, Amanda Hillis and Andrea Sinclair. Good morning, ladies, and welcome.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll let you know that we have 15 minutes for the presentation — a total of ten minutes for your speech and five minutes for questions. I will try to give you a little heads-up when there are just a couple of minutes left. If we cut into the question time, that’s your prerogative. It’s just a little less time for the committee to ask you things.

M. Milne Martens: Hon. Scott Hamilton, Carole James, members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, I am speaking today on behalf of the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education. We are a grassroots organization of parents representing over 70 schools in Vancouver.

We are gravely concerned that the level of underfunding experienced within our public schools is now so severe that it is threatening the very founding principles of public education as outlined in the B.C. School Act, which is the democratic right of all children in British Columbia to an education that allows them to meet their full potential and become contributing citizens in our society.

Our government claims they are spending unprecedented amounts on education. As working families, we are all spending unprecedented amounts — on feeding, clothing and housing our children. Moreover, every year we are spending unprecedented amounts on subsidizing a public education system in crisis.

I could now quote the usual figures — the reduction of education spending as a share of GDP, its failure to keep pace with inflation and B.C.’s infamous claim to the second-lowest per-pupil spending in Canada — but everyone’s eyes would either roll over or glaze. Instead, I’m going to speak about what underfunding really looks like for students and families every day — in particular, the loss of educational quality and the increasing inequity.

In Vancouver, 38.9 percent of all children entering primary school speak little or no English, in primary classes that are larger than they were 15 years ago, yet 50 percent of our English-language-learner teachers have been cut. A quarter of all library staffing has been reduced. A third of our special education teachers have been cut, even though the number of identified special needs children has significantly increased.

For example, 1,882 grade 4 to grade 12 classrooms last year had four or more children with IEPs, almost 800 of those containing seven or more students with designated special needs. In fact, more than half of the 5,199 special needs children identified in our district did not receive any additional funding.

Virtually all art and music specialists have been eliminated in elementary schools in Vancouver. With a most recent loss of the remnant itinerant band and strings program, any quality education in the arts has been extinguished.

For a province implementing a new curriculum whose core competencies include communication, creative thinking and the understanding of personal and cultural identities, this erasure is particularly incomprehensible. How is it possible under these conditions for all children to access the education that meets their learning needs?

As you are no doubt aware, it is parents that are increasingly pressured to compensate for the lack of essential resources in schools. This includes school fees and the myriad of expenditures that occur throughout the year. One parent of three children totalled these expenditures to be $436 last year. It also includes extensive fundrais-
[ Page 2205 ]
ing to purchase playgrounds, digital technologies, arts programming. This is creating huge inequities between schools in wealthier catchments, whose parents can raise significant funds and provide these resources, and those who, through cultural or economic barriers, cannot.

But this is not all. The loss of resource and specialist teachers is driving parents to outsource what was once provided within a comprehensive public education — for example, remedial tutoring, one hour a week; psych-ed assessments to avoid a three-year wait-list; a choir; learning a musical instrument; art class; joining a sports team. The total of all of these things per year, per child, comes to $7,008.

For the average family, this is too much. For the 22 percent of children in Vancouver who live in poverty, including children of the working poor, this is insurmountable. We appear to have deviated from a public education system predicated on the redistribution of resources to create equal access and opportunity for all children to one in which an increasing number of children are being denied their basic educational rights.

All this, we are told, is a result of declining enrolment and can be addressed by closing schools for more efficient use of space. But this masks the underlying flaw of the current per-pupil funding model that no longer adequately compensates for the diversity of needs within a district and has removed all funding allocations for facilities. This has created a situation in which school buildings, as fixed expenses, are now liabilities to school districts, resulting in funding shortfalls disproportionate to the degree of enrolment decline and forcing closures.

Make no mistake. The recent proposal in Vancouver to close 12 schools, now reduced to 11, is not in the educational interests in children or even taxpayers’ returns but is a desperate measure taken to mitigate the severe effects of underfunding within the district and to meet the arbitrary goal of 95 percent capacity utilization recently imposed by the current government as a precondition for funding to make Vancouver schools structurally safe in the event of an earthquake.

Even though the closure of these 12 schools would reach a capacity percentage of 94 percent, the VSB would only save $7.7 million. This does not restore the $21 million in ongoing cuts made to the district this year or the previous $60 million in cumulative cuts since 2002, and this is accounting for declining enrolment. It does not even cover next year’s shortfall, currently projected to be $15 million.

Here is what closing schools in the urban setting of Vancouver would actually look like. I cite a few examples from the closure list.

A school of 193 children, 40 percent aboriginal, 40 percent recent immigrants, operating at 71 percent capacity, with the highest levels of poverty and need within the city. They will lose their relational and community supports that this school provides and will be split and crowded into two other high-poverty schools with even greater seismic risk, impacting all three communities with concentrated need, increased class sizes and the loss of crucial arts, music spaces and resource spaces.

Another proposal is to close a school of 275 children, 60 percent of which are English language learners, currently operating at 71 percent capacity and to stuff these children into a large tier 3 school with high levels of vulnerable students who are also largely English language learners, to create a mega-elementary school of 758 students, almost double the recommended maximum size for an elementary school — again, with the loss of all resource spaces and crucial community immigrant resources.

A third example is the expulsion and dispersal of 1,029 high school students into four different schools merely to create a swing space while other schools are being upgraded because the government has refused to fund temporary accommodation, and also to boost the capacity of receiver schools — again, all over 1,000 students — so that they might become eligible to receive government funding for seismic mitigation. This would be the largest school ever to be closed in British Columbia.

Is this what taxpayer accountability looks like? Is this really government’s vision of educational efficiency?

Between the government’s rigid 95 percent target, which is based on profit-margin accounting and not on educational priorities, and its refusal to replace and right-size facilities that have outlived their life span, even though it will actually save taxpayers money when factoring in deferred maintenance costs, the Vancouver school board has no other option — it is not their choice — but to close smaller neighbourhood schools, predominantly in low-income areas, whose lower utilization is largely a reflection of the discriminatory policy of choice legislation and not of population decline.

The government has an opportunity, a real opportunity, through this seismic mitigation program to provide the funds and flexibility needed to build safe and educationally appropriate facilities consistent with its own progressive initiative, in 2008, to use the resource of space to create neighbourhoods of learning, a vision that recognizes the interconnectedness of vitally needed services to children and families, such as early childhood education, and would provide sufficient space to serve the needs of current and future generations.

In short, chronic underfunding has reached a crisis in this province, creating unacceptable inequities within our public education system, and is no longer able to provide a quality education to meet the needs of all learners. Moreover, the inflexible policies of the government around seismic upgrading in Vancouver is forcing the school board to make educationally unsound decisions that reinforce socioeconomic inequalities and will undermine neighbourhoods most in need of the stability that neighbourhood schools provide.
[ Page 2206 ]

In their zeal to bend the cost curve and force efficiencies, the government has neglected its primary responsibility: the provision of adequate funds and infrastructure necessary to enable all children to receive a quality education. This is, after all, shown to be the best investment for societal health and future economic prosperity.

In conclusion, the Parent Advocacy Network affirms the recommendation of the last two standing committees to provide adequate, stable and sustainable funding to school boards to provide all children with the educational opportunities they need to reach their full potential.

We further request the overhaul of the current funding formula to reflect the true cost of operating schools; to provide the supports and resources needed to meet the diversity of educational needs and offer a comprehensive, quality education that includes the arts; to rescind the 95 percent capacity mandate and adequately fund infrastructure and capital projects to ensure that all children are provided with safe, educationally appropriate facilities without sacrificing the quality or breadth of their education through cost-cutting measures; and, lastly, to partner, across ministries, to include education as part of a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy through the seismic mitigation plan to expand the number of schools that include early childhood learning and care and crucial family supports and programs that serve community needs.

We cut into question time here a little bit, so we’ve got about two minutes for questions. I’ll go to the….

S. Hamilton (Chair): That’s all right. I wanted to make sure it was your time.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Hard to follow. I just wanted to say thank you for presenting the issues.

It’s particularly important to remember that, as you say, when you’re talking about community programs and schools, inflexibility hinders the opportunity to create those partnerships, which I think are so important not only for schools but, in fact, for communities. No one has the ability to do it if your space hasn’t been counted.

You mentioned Vancouver, talked about Vancouver specifically. I certainly know this isn’t an issue in Vancouver only. This is an issue across the province, and I just wondered what you’re hearing at the start of the school from other districts and other areas, if you have any conversations.

A. Sinclair: It’s pretty much the same. Certainly, Vancouver is the last one to the bottom for school closures. Other districts have closed schools — many schools over multiple years. That doesn’t mean they’re not struggling. They still don’t balance their budgets, or they do at the cost of programs and children. So it’s smoke and mirrors. They’re suffering exactly the same. We are just the last ones to the party to close the schools.

You use a phrase in your report now: “largely a reflection of the discriminatory policy of choice legislation.” What did you mean by that? Could you just elaborate very briefly? We’re just about out of time here. I didn’t understand what you meant by that.

M. Milne Martens: Right. In 2002, legislation was introduced that opened boundaries. There has always been movement across schools, but this was a full opening of boundaries. In an urban centre, where you have wealth and poverty living side by side, what tends to happen is that parents that have means and education will move their children to where they perceive there to be better educational opportunities.

Now, with underfunding and parents supporting the system by buying resources, the difference between those educational opportunities grows. What we’re seeing is, in areas where there are lower-income families and populations, those that can, move, because they see there’s a lack of resources to meet those needs. They see more resources elsewhere.

In Vancouver, the actual population of children is not reflected in any way by the capacity utilization targets that are being used, and that the government is forcing the Vancouver school board to use, in order to determine which schools are closed. So what we’re doing is we’re closing capacity in areas where there are actually more students, which is going to create havoc for future generations in our city.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’re completely out of time, but I’m going to go back to another practice that we used the last couple of years. I’m going to ask George if he can ask his question. If you can take it on notice and reply back to George, it can still form part of the record.

G. Heyman: In that case, I’ll make the question two parts. One of them is…. You talked about parents fundraising. I’ve certainly heard a lot of that when I attend parent advisory committees in my constituency. So I’m wondering if you could provide a list of the kinds of things over the last decade that parents have been asked to fundraise for which were previously considered, or which you consider to be, part of the basic education system that should be provided.

The other one is…. Under the capacity utilization, you mentioned early childhood education. I know there are
[ Page 2207 ]
some other uses to which school space is put which are not factored by the Ministry of Education. Putting that on the record as well, and their use in the community, would be very helpful.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I could ask Hansard if we can extract the question and the answer at a later date, after you’ve had a chance to reply, and it be presented to the committee.

Thank you very much. We did run over time. You presented a very important subject, so I wanted to make sure it was fulsome. Thank you for taking the time to be here today.

Okay. Next we have the Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia division, Beverly Gutray and Jonny Morris.

Good morning. If you’d take the microphones, please. I’ll let you know we have 15 minutes in total — ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a wave-down with about two minutes left on your presentation time, but if you cut into question time, that’s entirely your prerogative. We’ll just have to cut it off at 15 minutes regardless. So the floor is yours.

B. Gutray: Good morning. What a very important presentation this is about investment in community mental health, which we’re going to highlight. First of all, I just want to say thank you for our opportunity to present to you.

Just a little bit about the Canadian Mental Health Association. We’re Canada’s oldest mental health charity. We have existed in Canada for 97 years and in B.C. for over 60. We have 14 branches across the province that serve in excess of 100,000 British Columbians, and our vision is mental health for all. That’s what we’re concerned with.

I would just like to say that as elected government leaders, you know more than most British Columbians that mental health does not solely belong to the Ministry of Health but to all social and health ministries: the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Children and Family Development; the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Advanced Education; the Ministry of Justice, unfortunately; the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; and of course, one of the issues that we’re all dealing with across this province, which is access to affordable, safe housing — so the Minister Responsible for Housing.

We can all see that mental health begins where you live, work, play and, for us, volunteer, as we call it. Mental health and well-being begins from before our first breath and all the way through to our last breath in this world. We must, together, have a collective goal of improving our mental health and reducing mental ill health and substance use problems. I would just like to outline a case for investment.

Prevalence. In any given year, one in five Canadians experiences a mental health or substance use problem — some of us right here. By the time Canadians reach 40 years of age, one in two have or have had a mental illness. Well, I think there are a few of us that are in that 40-plus group. Anyway, without making any other comments….

Who is affected? So 70 percent of mental health problems have their onset during childhood or adolescence. I’m going to say that one more time: 70 percent of mental health problems have their onset during childhood or adolescence. Young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental illness or substance use disorders than any other group. Men have higher rates of addiction than women, while women have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders.

People with mental illness are twice as likely to have a substance use problem, compared to the general population, and at least 20 percent of people with mental illness have a co-occurring substance use problem. For people with schizophrenia, the number may be as high as 50 percent.

Also, very importantly, Canadians in the lowest-income brackets, as you’ve heard from your previous speaker, are three to four times more likely than those in the highest-income group to report poor-to-fair mental health.

We thought we could play a little video. What I will refer you to in your packages…. You have an infographic called B4Stage4, which really is the core of our presentation today. Our presentation is about investing early, to have the long-term benefits.

We’ve been very fortunate in this province to see an expansion in hospital beds, both at the Hope Centre at Surrey Memorial and the soon-to-be Segal centre in Vancouver and, following that, the Royal Columbian Hospital, and there have been additional beds.

But all of the gains that happen in those beds can’t happen without a corresponding investment in community mental health. People get stabilized, and what are they coming home to? It’s hard to get timely access to our system in spite of all we know.

What we need is to build a basket of services and supports in community that can prevent people from using emergency departments and police — often because they are the only 24-hour mental health service available. We can spend smarter, and we can focus our efforts on preventing mental illness and substance use problems. We can focus on early identification and early intervention.

We have evidence-based interventions that have proven to make a difference. I’m just going to list a few.

A wonderful program from SFU, in partnership with health authorities across this province which this prov-
[ Page 2208 ]
ince has invested in, is called the nurse-family partnership program. Right now it is in a research phase, but it actually has 40 years of research under it from the U.S. — a very good program. It involves intensive home visits and continues until children reach their second birthday. These are public health nurses that visit, and these are young women who have their first child who live in a low-income situation — a really important investment. Once the RCT is done…. I mean, our case to you is invest, invest, invest. This is the kind of investment that works.

You’ve already invested, through the education system, in the FRIENDS program, which is designed to prevent anxiety, increase resilience, improve life skills in children. It is an evidence-based international program that has been licensed to B.C. and is in B.C. public and independent schools. What’s wonderful is that this is a school setting. That’s where kids are, and that’s where their parents are.

At this point, I’m going to pass the mike to my colleague, who will talk more about children and youth mental health.

J. Morris: The key theme in this presentation, committee members, is to really build upon your existing investments. Government has built upon these investments, and our goal is to stay the course with these investments as we move forward into this next budget year.

Another significant investment that has been made by the Ministry of Children and Family Development recently is Confident Parents, Thriving Kids. It’s a great example of a targeted prevention, an early intervention program focused on behavioural problems, set in the home. Lots of research has shown that actually, in the long run, hopefully within the next decade, you’re going to be saving money in your criminal justice system, because the children who have been exposed to this program are no longer at risk of becoming ensnared in the criminal justice system with behavioural problems.

In addition, you’ve also made investments, which we hope can stay the course, in Bounce Back and Living Life to the Full, which are targeted and early intervention programs focused on low mood, anxiety and stress. If any of you still have televisions or if you listen to radio ads in your car, you might have heard the “Bounce back today” campaign airing across B.C. up until the end of June next year. This is another good example of an investment that government has already made, actually over the past eight years. It is readily adaptable for young people experiencing low mood, anxiety and stress.

Finally, the three additional investments that you’ve already made, which I think are significant to highlight as you consider the material in front of you.

You’ve made a significant investment in the Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use Collaborative. This is a wide-scale, systemwide initiative to improve systems of care for children and young people around mental health and addictions. It’s underway, and it’s destined to wrap up in March 2017.

The B.C. Integrated Youth Services Initiative is a series of five hubs that you’ve resourced to provide place-based, integrated care for young people who are in need of integrated resources around mental health, sexual health and substance-use health.

One final investment that you’ve made that is often an unsung hero is HeretoHelp, which is resourced through the Provincial Health Services Authority and the B.C. mental health and addictions services. It really is your flagship provincial resource around mental health and addictions. Almost 1.5 million people visited HeretoHelp last year, all in the name of getting high-quality information and resources.

B. Gutray: Those resources are really specifically for parents, for families, for people with lived experience, for providers, whether they are providers within the mental health system or they are a worker who works in a YWCA or a boys and girls club.

J. Morris: Arguably, we’re at a tipping point, and we know that the health budget consumes the most within the budget that you set in this upcoming year.

The Ernst and Young group, who many of you know, and a foundation in Australia recently found that to double the proportion of Australians receiving timely and appropriate mental health services would require an additional $9 billion over 15 years to provide the extra 8,800 mental health professionals required to meet that target. Whilst the numbers might be a bit different here in British Columbia, I think the case has been made repeatedly that the current health system cannot sustain need when it comes to mental health and addictions.

We have significant treatment gaps, whether that’s a 50 percent treatment gap around depression or a 75 percent treatment gap for children and youth experiencing clinical, significant symptoms. So we’re at a tipping point where you can build on the investments that you’ve already made to actually create a stepped care model of care for people experiencing high-prevalence problems like depression, anxiety and behavioural health.

B. Gutray: I know I’m running out of time. I’ll get right to the recommendations. Really, the recommendation is to stay the course when it comes to child and youth mental health and to double the investment. I know that you’re setting recommendations for the next three years ahead, but we know that is where the biggest benefit will be for families, for children, for youth and for communities. Although that sounds bold, we know that that payoff is there. Really, we can’t build enough hospital beds. Honestly, we can’t.
[ Page 2209 ]

Poverty remains a major barrier. We would like to see rates increased for people with disabilities. It’s been a long time since they’ve had a rate increase. More than 50 percent of people on PWD are people with mental illness. That is the way to go.

One of the most important things…. There’s been lots of attention around substance use, substance use disorders, addictions. Invest in building an evidence-based, community-based addictions system that is focused on prevention, early identification and early intervention, and stop the pain and the tragedy that is happening over and over again.

S. Hamilton (Chair): It’s all right. It’s very important, so we appreciate you taking the time.

You referred a couple of times to: “Stay the course.” I’m wondering. We’ve all heard about the silos. You referred to the different ministries involved, and those represent potential silos. We’ve heard that there’s an effort…. I understand there’s a working group that cuts across, working across government, chaired by the Minister for Housing. Has your association engaged with that working group to try and help with staying the course?

B. Gutray: Yes. We’ve had meetings with the staff that support that group. Some of the same recommendations from us would be showing up through actually working with the staff.

J. Yap: If I may have a quick follow-up. If you could identify one focus, what would it be? You referred to a number, but if this working group could focus on one issue.

B. Gutray: Child and youth mental health and substance use. We’ve got to make progress on that issue for the youth and for the families.

I just want to ask if you have access to some material that could go on the record that would help with this. I certainly don’t want to suggest that we should only invest more in mental health and early treatment based on a business case, but I know many businesses over the last couple of decades have found that supporting people with mental illness or dealing with depression actually has a direct benefit through increased productivity.

Any demonstrative studies that you have at your access that could be forwarded to Hansard or the committee would form part of the record and be useful.

You mentioned the collaborative and the fact that the funding finishes in 2017. I think it begins to address some of the issues that were talked about around the need for a system.

I guess my first question would be: any word on continuing the funding for the collaborative? If not, that’s important for us to know.

I guess the second piece…. I know we’re doing some work through the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, but is there any further work around integration? It’s probably, I think, one of the biggest issues that we continue to hear about from parents who can’t navigate what doesn’t exist, who can’t work through the system that isn’t there, who get bounced from area to area. I just wondered about any work in that area.

B. Gutray: As far as the collaborative, the collaborative is intended to really drive a systems change. A collaborative is not intended to live forever. It’s actually the precursor to the kinds of investments that we’re talking about.

Certainly, I would say, in the year ahead, the need for transition…. You can’t just invest heavily in a collaborative and stop. That would erode the gains that you’ve got in that area.

As far as navigation, our organization across this province really supports over 100,000 people who knock on our door. We help them navigate through all kinds of resources in communities. I think your biggest investment, your biggest potential long-term gain, and this is staying the course long term, is to be able to…. When you have savings in police — and you will have savings in police, if you go this way — you will offset some of the investments in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. But we cannot continue to have a 24-hour system be reliant on police and emergency departments.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for being here. I appreciate you taking the time to provide that presentation.

Actually, before I finish, the length of the video…. Please feel free to forward an email to our Clerk’s department. They can send it directly to us. If any MLA here has an opportunity to watch it in all that time we spend reading or in our hotel rooms over the next few weeks, by all means.
[ Page 2210 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Then please forward it to the committee’s office, and we’ll make sure everybody sees it.

J. Morris: You’re all invited to our fall policy conference on mental health, which is in your package too.

The Finance Minister is a few minutes away. That’s my understanding. We are going to have a little bit of time on our hands, so I’d like to push our open-mike opportunity up to right now.

We have somebody sitting in the audience who has the pronounced tenacity to actually be prepared to stay here until five o’clock. Given that, we’re going to give her an opportunity to speak now, rather than make her sit through an arduous day with the rest of us. We have Tahani Hejazi. In fact, I have a 50-50 chance of this person being a constituent — North Delta? South Delta?

It’s an open mike, so you have five minutes to present. We don’t go to questions, but we are looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

T. Hejazi: Yeah. Maybe I’m coming with something different, but I need people to hear the thing that I have.

Almost $2 million per year is spent in recruiting foreign doctors in B.C. And $132.4 million was spent on a program called A GP for Me between 2013 and 2015 to address the problem of tens of thousands of British Columbians who cannot find a doctor. This program allowed health professionals like pharmacists, nurse practitioners and practical nurses to replace doctors. B.C. pays $100,000 as an incentive to have doctors relocated for just three years.

Meanwhile, my husband is a Canadian international medical graduate who passed all the required Canadian medical exams and, also, the English test, with 15 years’ experience in pediatrics. He can’t get his licence till now. He didn’t cost the country a single cent. He’s ready, willing and immediately able to work, meeting the health needs of our community.

My question is: if he works as a taxi driver, would you think he will save money for the government instead of applying to social services? Or do you think, with the resumé he has, that Tim Hortons or McDonald’s will hire him? I need somebody to answer my two kids’ question: why is our family struggling to find any means to survive and have a meaningful life in their own country?

Our family has no plans for two years, and we are still waiting for we don’t know what. This is all I have.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay, thank you. We don’t usually go to questions, but I’m maybe a little bit confused, and I’d ask you just to clarify. Your husband is a medical grad student in pediatrics.

S. Hamilton (Chair): And he cannot get certified to practise here in British Columbia through the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Consequently, he is overqualified for, as you probably described, more menial unskilled labour, so can’t be hired to do that. I’m just trying to understand, okay? That’s your situation.

T. Hejazi: Our situation is…. My husband has only Canadian citizenship, so we have no choice to go. We have only this country. I have two kids, 12 and eight years, and they are Canadian.

We moved here before, two years, and then, now, we didn’t get any answer from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The only answer that he gets is that he’s only eligible for a clinical trainee as a third-year medical student, unpaid for three years. And maybe after these three years, he will get a place for residency.

My question is: 15 years of experience means nothing? Is it the same level for the third year of a medical student? How will my family survive in the future? What other choices does he have in his own country?

S. Hamilton (Chair): I see. I’m certainly not an expert on the subject, but I do know that the regulatory body makes those decisions. Beyond that, it’s difficult for me to answer that question, but we can certainly try to take it on notice and maybe get back to you. You can contact maybe your local MLA’s office in conjunction with that. Have you talked to them?

T. Hejazi: I have tried everybody, and everybody is not familiar with these kinds of problems.

The community is suffering from a health crisis. Everywhere there is a shortage of doctors. If they claim that they are trying to find a solution for this shortage, why is my husband — and, I’m sure, there are many like him — sitting at home? They are wasting all these years of studying — and experience, also — while the community is suffering.

I need to know who is familiar with these kinds of problems and how we can survive, me and my family. Is
[ Page 2211 ]
it right to push us or to kick us outside of this country so that I can raise my kids I don’t know where? You know and everybody is familiar with what’s going on in the world. I don’t want my kids to suffer again.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time to let the committee know your problem.

R. Austin: Before you go, I have a quick suggestion. There is a member of the Legislature from Vancouver-Langara. Her name is Moira Stilwell. She was, at one point, charged by the government to look into this complicated issue of how we certify foreign-trained doctors. I think if you were to contact her, she would be able to give you assistance, because she spent a lot of time on this.

The challenge is that all of us who are in politics…. Governments don’t license doctors. The profession itself licenses doctors, because it is a self-governing profession. So it is complicated, but if you were to speak to her, she might be able to assist your husband to weave his way through the system to try and get qualified.

T. Hejazi: Just to make it clear, did I understand that this — let’s say the College of Physicians and Surgeons — is a self-regulated area?

T. Hejazi: Also, I have a question about that. This college takes money from the taxpayer — the tax money, yes? So it’s not a private area if they use the tax money. It’s not a private company, I think.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m not sure if it’s tax money or if it’s money provided through memberships of the certified physicians in the province.

R. Austin: The point I’m trying to make, though, is that it is self-governing. All of our professions — whether it be doctors, accountants, architects, etc. — are, through legislation, self-governing. So the issues around certification to become a professional doctor or accountant or whatever…. It is mandated through them.

Anyway, if you speak to Moira Stilwell, MLA for Vancouver-Langara, because she spent a lot of time on this issue, I think she might be able to assist you.

Okay. The Finance Minister is still a little ways away, so what I’m going to do is jump ahead in the agenda here and ask the Public Education Network Society, PENS — Dr. William Bruneau and Dr. Michael Zlotnik — please to come up.

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much for being here. I do appreciate it. I’ll mention to you, as I do everyone else, we have 15 minutes in total, ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to give you a wave with about two minutes left, and then we can go to the committee for questions. But if you run over time, it’s just question time that suffers. That’s all. The floor is yours.

Over the past century, this committee and its predecessors have faced at least four periods of especially rapid change in British Columbia. Each time, the government has increased funding for public education, for the health system and for social assistance.

The year 2017 — which is what we’re talking about, and the years immediately following — is the fourth such occasion. In the 1900s government spent significant amounts to take public education from the 19th to the 20th century. Now we must fund the system for the 21st century, not the last one.

A century ago, before and after the 1914-18 war, the public and government realized that fair and equitable funding for schools was crucial in a young democracy, as British Columbia then was. Systemwide growth along with increased public funding built public confidence in the schools and in our society’s capacity to deal with change. Since then, administrative costs have held steady from year to year. Further, the system has become more accountable and transparent.

None of this changes a fundamental fact about educational governance in the province. The system is run from the top down. That has not changed.

Then, after World War II, the postwar baby boom produced serious overcrowding in schools even as the economy began to diversify. It sounds like a chapter from the present, not from the past. The government response was to increase spending well over the rate of inflation.

In the late 1960s, a third moment of rapid social change occurred, and the public agreed that schooling must, in consequence of it, help to stimulate students’ critical thinking powers from kindergarten to PhD. In response, the government of the early 1970s briefly and significantly increased public education funding.

Forty years later, we enter a fourth period of change. We do so with a background of fiscal restraint going back to the 1980s. In school boards across the province, the cupboard is bare. In 2016, boards shoulder many social and educational responsibilities: the education on differently-abled children, the provision of ESL instruction, the fairer distribution of educational benefits to all citizens and the best possible teaching of the compulsory public curriculum. Yet boards have too little funding and too little discretion.

It is extraordinary that the Vancouver school board should be discussing closure of Britannia Secondary, Gladstone and other schools with records of success in
[ Page 2212 ]
the areas of concern that we have just listed. Meanwhile, British Columbians are amazed to see government offering well over $300 million annually in some cities to private schools under the Independent Schools Act of 1977.

Our main points remain. On historical and educational grounds, we argue that British Columbia per-pupil funding should rise in the next two fiscal years to match funding in Canada’s most generous provinces. We say school closures should be prevented. We argue that programs in the arts and basic academic fields should be retained and strengthened and made available to all British Columbians.

M. Zlotnik: The current B.C. public education funding system does not support democracy. It undermines the efforts of parents and teachers to teach students democratic principles and values.

The B.C. Legislature, in addition to deciding the funds for public education, is also teaching lessons about governance, democracy, deliberation and fairness. While local communities and school boards can best discern what students and the community need, there is no realistic way for school trustees to determine or even influence the total amount of money for their school districts.

(2) The principle that every student in the province should have an equal opportunity to be educated is violated. Unequal opportunities to learn reflect both economic and social inequalities and the impact of the unequal capacity to raise funds through charity, student fees or parental fundraising to ameliorate the underfunding crisis. More generous funding of some private schools is another source of inequality.

(3) The processes for determining budgets convey anti-democratic messages. Democracy is learned in the ways we govern ourselves more than it is taught as a doctrine. When parents, students and citizens see their ideas and concerns disregarded, showing they have little political efficacy, how can they believe that public education is preparing them for democracy?

This centralized, top-down approach has devastating impacts on public confidence in public education and on the belief that citizens can influence decisions about not only education but other realms of concern. This woefully broken system discourages parents, students and educators, and it undermines belief in democratic processes of deliberation.

If parents want to have more influence over the education of their children, the present system practically invites them to abandon public education in favour of private schooling. As the son of a World War II veteran, I know my dad would see this as a setback to the democracy he and his fellow veterans fought for.

W. Bruneau: To conclude, we think the guiding purposes of the government in setting the budget for 2017 and later ought to be to honour democracy as we set those budgets and to ensure adequate funding in those budgets for public education. These purposes lead to practical objectives, a concern for a committee like this one.

First, we recommend, then, that this committee report to the Legislature that the system of funding in public education needs a major overhaul. We think the system should give school boards more discretion, including the ability to respond to long-term population flows; that it should fund school districts over much longer periods, reliably; that it should free public education funding from the formulaic per-pupil approach under which is has laboured for nearly 40 years and give public education a firmer basis in revenues from the progressive income tax.

Second, that government’s vital leadership role is to engage in taking responsibility, strengthening democracy and pursuing the common good — good things, we’ll all agree. School trustees, educators, students and citizens could and should participate in discussions about the principles for funding public education, principles that will have the public’s confidence. There is a case for a royal commission on these matters.

Third, that public funding of private schools ought to be reduced or eliminated. Expenditures of more than $300 million annually in subsidies to private schools undermine public confidence and do not advance democracy.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, gentlemen — well under time. I’ll go to the committee for questions.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Not a question, but a thank-you for the presentation. I think you’ve presented it in a different kind of approach, using historical information, reminding us about the importance of public education in citizenship. I think that often gets forgotten. I think we often neglect that piece of public education and the importance of the education system in citizenship, so I appreciate that you’ve reminded us of that, using democracy as an example. Thank you.

R. Austin: I was wondering whether, in your arguments around not funding private education, you see a difference between schedule 1 and schedule 2 private schools, in the sense that some private schools are, for want of a better term, very exclusive, very expensive and are a direct subsidy of the wealthiest people in the province of British Columbia, and others are a subsidy to people of average means who simply want to have some form of religious input within the public education system. They’re not wealthy people. They’re average people
[ Page 2213 ]
who maybe have come to this country from another country where their religion is perhaps a bit more important aspect of their life and therefore see themselves as people who are already paying taxes here. Do you see any differentiation in that in your argument?

In the case of class 1 schools, category 1 schools, one of the things I would say immediately is that the public subsidy appears to be a subsidy of unfairness. That is to say, these are schools who don’t have to accept special needs kids and say so in the material that they present on the Internet about their admissions processes. They don’t concern themselves with ESL. They don’t have to worry about differences between the social status of various students who come to them. We’re paying taxpayers’ money, effectively, to subsidize what looks like an exclusivist and decisively classist, if I can use that term, approach to public funding, and this is just plain wrong.

Now, category 2 schools are an interesting question. It seems to me that you have to look to history for this. In 1872, when public education began in the province, there was a very clear distinction between the state and religious interest. That seemed absolutely essential in the minds of decision-makers at the time, and for 100 years it remained so — a little over 100 years, 105 — until 1977. It seems to me that that distinction was essential and correct at the time and that the argument for giving it up was mistaken in 1977. We have a chance to redo that mistake — there is a do-over in politics — and it could be now.

That would be my answer to that, a historical answer. Mike, did you have something…?

M. Zlotnik: I want to pick up on the question of equality. We ought to be aiming for every child to have the opportunity to advance as far as they can possibly go through education. Money ought not to be an impediment to that. What we once saw as satisfactory for a high school graduation…. Now, increasingly, people need post-secondary education, and so that opportunity is the first requirement. That’s the way I’d put it.

There are very complex issues around the public-private thing, and that might be something to be explored in a royal commission. But we ought not to be undermining the capacity of any of the children in public education through underfunding public education when there are schools that have funds they don’t actually have to have. They would run without them. This is a misuse of money, and I think it’s a loss of clarity.

A much more equal system of opportunity — economically, socially and educationally — is what it takes to create a democratic culture. Children should not be punished through the exigencies of the neighbourhood they live in or the wealth or social status of their parents.

S. Gibson: I thought your points were illuminating regarding democracy. I suppose that…. I find that when parents choose a particular school or a kind of educational option, as per their comment earlier…. They form a group. They build the school. The public doesn’t build it. When you go by a large independent school, it’s been built by parents and supporters.

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but I’m saying they’re exercising their democratic will by initiating that school. In a free society, they make that choice. I’m sensing that you’re discouraging that choice in a democratic society. So I’m just trying to…. I think you’ll see where I’m going with this point.

M. Zlotnik: Choice is one important element here, but neighbourhood schools should be of a sufficient quality that people don’t have to shop around simply to escape the conditions in the local school.

We have an electronic version of our presentation, by the way, where we go into more background.

One of the fundamental beliefs in a democracy is that there is something called the common good and that we need to all be concerned with not only what’s good for us individually or for our family but also what is good for the community as a whole. I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter what’s good for our family. It does. But we want to create an ethos where people care about one another and where we look at the whole value of the community.

Those kinds of investments — that kind of education, that kind of a society — are of immense value in every other way.

I’m glad you actually remind me…. As a son, postwar, going to school and also the son of a World War II veteran, I certainly remember classrooms in grade school that were 40-plus kids. Nevertheless, we have come a long way since then, too.

Anyhow, thank you very much for taking the time to present to the committee. A very important subject. Enjoy your day.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We will now hear from the man who’s about to charge this committee with our responsibilities — a little better late than never, I suppose.

Hon. M. de Jong: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, Members. Thanks for accommodating the schedule.

We’ve done this a number of times in the past. I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to do it a little closer to last week, when much of this was public. In any event, it might be a good…. In the past, what I’ve done is share with the committee, essentially, the information derived from the first quarter update — parts of it may give rise to questions or issues or thoughts or concerns — and have a conversation.

Mr. Chair, I’m happy to take questions as we go or run through it. If I scoot over things, it’s not because I’m trying to slide something past you. It’s just that I’m cognizant of your time and schedule. If you want to come back to it, by all means tell me that that’s an area of interest that you want to explore further.

In terms of the deliberations that you’re undertaking…. Again, thank you for the time. It’s a great province, and it’s fantastic to go around and see parts of it. Also, it takes you away from home and families. This time of year, travel logistics can be a bit challenging.

If you go to page 1, slide 1 should be…. We usually call it the bottom-line slide. In really summary form, when the budget was presented in February, for the fiscal year we’re in, we were projecting a surplus of $264 million. You’ll see how that has grown significantly to almost $1.95 billion. So that’s significant.

We can go through how some of that has happened, but for the committee, the even more important numbers, I think, are for the out-years, ’17-18 and ’18-19, where again you see growth in the forecasted surplus, $287 million to almost $900 million, and then $373 million, bordering on just about $1 billion. For the purpose of the committee, those are significant numbers, as well, to look at.

In terms of the fiscal year we’re in, the single largest contributor to the increase in the surplus is income tax, mostly personal income tax. A little bit on the corporate side — I think just over $100 million more than was anticipated in the corporate. Most of it is personal income tax. Property transfer tax contributes a significant amount in total but also a significant amount of additional revenue, accounting for the increased revenue you see there.

Apologies to people who are here and don’t have the material. I’m sorry about that.

Other things you see contributing to the final bottom line for this year. There was, as you know, in the budget in February an additional budgeted increase to MSP, 4 percent, that was proposed to take effect on January 1. In light of where we find ourselves, that is being cancelled and, as well, some additional relief for those on premium assistance. You can see how that decision is quantified. A lesser impact this fiscal year — it’s only a portion of the fiscal year, three months — but then in the out-years, just over $100 million.

Crown corporation income. There are puts and takes, but most of the decrease is attributable to ICBC and claims costs. I would say this. If you study…. It’s not so much that the number of accidents are going up dramatically, but the number of claims per accident is going up, and the cost of claims per accident seems to be going up significantly. That’s something that ICBC is wrestling with and that impacts their net income. The government is also forgoing any of the dividends that were previously budgeted — $150 million a year. There won’t be, for the life of this fiscal plan, any dividends paid.

In terms of, then, some decisions for this fiscal year that have been made with respect to the unanticipated surplus, you’ll see the reference to new housing affordability initiatives. I think more of the details around that will arise as early as today, this afternoon. You’ll hear more about that.

The significant $1 billion allocation to debt reduction. I’ll show you what the impacts of that are on our debt numbers and the positive features associated with that over the longer term. And then the allocation to the prosperity fund, recalling there was $100 million initially set aside in that fund. This additional $400 million will bring that up to half a billion dollars. I think that’s probably all I’ll say about that.

We’ll go into some more detail. If you flip over to page 2, there’s a kind of breakdown on what the changes are since the budget was presented. You’ll see the reference to income tax, higher revenues, property transfer taxes.

On the expenditure side, the statutory spending includes…. I just mentioned the $500 million housing initiative. In addition to that, it includes a couple of other things. I think $60 million plus above and beyond what was budgeted for direct fire suppression, wildfire suppression. If you think about where we thought we were back in May, June, we thought it was going to be one of those horrific seasons. It was bad, but it was not — financially, at least — as bad as we thought it might be. So that’s captured in that amount.

We signed a couple of contracts, the biggest one being the nurses’ contract, after the budget. So the costs associated with that are also included in the statutory amount, as is the $18 million, I think, for Elections B.C. for that little contest coming up later next year. If there are any more questions about that, by all means.

In terms of the revenue changes, I can break that down. Maybe the first thing of note is that we’re crossing the $50
[ Page 2215 ]
billion mark for the first time in our history. In terms of the breakdown of personal income tax and corporate income tax, it’s $1.1 billion more on the personal side than anticipated and $191 million more on the corporate side. I’ll talk a little bit about that, particularly the personal income tax, in a moment, here on the next slide.

On the property transfer tax, this is the forecast, and there’s lots of interest in this, and I imagine the committee will share some of that interest. I said last week that I’d get a breakdown. We’re trying to provide regular data updates and have through the summer and will continue to try and do so. I don’t have that data today. We’re going to find a time this week or next to release it.

What I can tell you is that for the balance of the fiscal year, we think that there will be, beyond the budget, $800 million more than anticipated from regular property transfer tax, if I can call it that. The number we’ve plugged in for the 15 percent is $165 million. That is a forecast.

Part of the challenge, and it will be with the data that we release here in the next little bit, is that August was not a normal month. Most of the deals were moved up, we think, in advance of the tax taking effect on August 2, so we’re not really going to get a good and more accurate feel for that until through September, October and the fall. Nonetheless, I’ll release the data, and people can look at it.

Natural resources are up, largely on the strength of forestry — forestry enjoying a relatively positive year.

I talked about Crown corps. I should say this. I talked about ICBC. Both the Liquor Distribution Branch and B.C. Lottery Corp are enjoying slightly better years than anticipated in the budget, doing well.

On the personal income tax front — I mention that because I think it’s important insofar as it provides a little bit of a window on what’s going on in the economy — the increases cut across virtually all income streams. The best way to summarize this, I think, is: there are more people in B.C., more people working in B.C., and they’re earning more.

Now, it’s important to acknowledge that that doesn’t mean that applies to every single family in every single community. But on balance, this is an indication of more people working, and that is consistent with what we are seeing in some of the other indicator areas that I’ll show you in a few moments.

The one caution that I am given by the economists within treasury branch and I try to pass on: there is a lag. We get this data and these numbers and, ultimately, the transfers from the federal CRA, and the adjustments….

There’s an adjustment to the base amount that does carry forward or you can carry forward with, I think, greater reliability, but there’s another component to this that you cannot count on in future years. So the forecasters do their best to try and anticipate what it will be, within treasury branch, but it does not automatically follow. There’s a lag effect. These numbers are based on 2015 assessments, so we’ll have to be cautious about the numbers we plug in going forward in terms of what they will look like.

I talked about the MSP decision. People will know that in the budget, there were some other changes made to MSP based on relating to the methodology for calculating who pays what. Those remain in place, and they do and can result in very significant savings, particularly single-parent families with children, where the change — the child isn’t counted for the purposes of calculating the amount owing — can have a very dramatic effect.

You’ll see, in addition to the cancellation of the increase — the 4 percent increase that was scheduled to take effect in January of next year — there is a further reduction for those on premium assistance.

I know there are views — and you may hear those views expressed around the province during your deliberations — around MSP and even its existence as a separate charge. I will tell you that with the implementation of this, 40 percent of British Columbians will pay no or reduced MSP premiums, and I am advised that with the latest round of changes, two million British Columbians will not be eligible to pay any MSP premiums.

That’s on a population base of…. I always say 4½, but I think we’re at 4.6 million now — 4.6, 4.7. It’s fair to say it’s a significant number of people in that respect. But for others, it is a significant charge and fee that they are confronted by.

On the expense side, I don’t know that I have a whole lot more to add. I talked about this in terms of the housing component.

I actually did not mention one thing that may have stood out for you on the front sheet because it’s not a line that has appeared before in the past. But it is relevant for you and the work you’re doing. There’s a line there called “Other measures subject to approval in the out-years,” and that is merely to highlight the fact that we anticipate, particularly on the housing front, that there will be a desire to continue to do some things. The committee will, I suspect, make some recommendations in that respect as well.

The two areas that I thought warranted some of kind of an allocation for the purpose of the quarterly update were on the housing front and climate leadership, which also is going to engage some costs in terms of…. Whatever the final decisions are around, it’s going to involve some cost as well. I don’t know that I’ll belabour that point.

Then if we go to some of the numbers as it relates to…. I mean, I always say this. It’s just to point out…. In that first period, that first block, during the deficit, it is convenient to forget the fact that during that period, we couldn’t afford the services the government was providing.

We didn’t collect enough revenue to do so, so we borrowed it. We borrowed $5 billion during that period to sustain those services until we got back — in ’12-13, ’13-14 — to getting the solid line above the dotted line. That,
[ Page 2216 ]
candidly, has remained a priority for the government and for me in terms of the course we chart fiscally and in presenting the budget in the book.

I talked about the $1 billion paydown and some of the benefits. Here’s what that does to our debt-to-GDP and debt-to-revenue. The dotted line is what was in the budget, and I say immodestly that comparatively speaking, those are already pretty good numbers. They’re better now.

Perhaps I say this at my peril, but the early indications are that from the discussions we have with the rating agencies, we’re in pretty good shape. Our triple-A credit rating is…. These numbers are getting, as you might expect, pretty solid reviews in terms of the financial sector at least and those that determine how much we pay to borrow, to build and service our existing debt.

The drop-down on the debt-to-revenue side. One of the rating agencies, a few years ago, became very focused on debt-to-revenue, and candidly, we were hovering around the edge, at the high 90s, for what might have triggered a downgrade and, therefore, more expensive borrowing costs. That comes at the expense of money for services, so I think this probably is pretty good news for us that way, in terms of saving our money for services as opposed to sending it to banks.

If you can go to…. I just, comparatively…. We’ve seen this, and I’ve shown this in a variety of ways. This is a slightly different way. You see where we stand vis-à-vis some of our peer provinces, Ontario most particularly.

The other thing I tried to highlight here is how quickly things can change. In the span of, really, three years, Alberta is going from…. I think it was a 2 percent debt-to-GDP — a 3 percent debt to GDP. At the rate we’re going and they’re going, our debt-to-GDP in a couple of years will be lower than Alberta’s. The virtues of having a diversified economy and a diversified trade portfolio reveal themselves in light of what our neighbours to the east are going through. You can see those lines are poised across in a favourable way for us, less so for our neighbours.

Then, I think, two final things on the debt, generally. A subset of the total taxpayer-supported debt is what’s called the direct operating debt, which is something that’s been kept for decades. I do describe it this way: it’s the grocery tab. It’s the money we borrow to pay for services as opposed to pay for capital construction. At one point, it was up around $15 billion, then we brought it down. During the most recent recession, we borrowed another $5 billion. But you can see that we’re on an improved track. The budget track was pretty positive.

With the ability to pay down debt in the way that we’ve done this year, we are poised — in the fiscal plan that would be tabled next February — to eliminate the direct operating debt entirely. If we can do that as a province, it’ll be the first time in 45 years that we don’t have that fiscal millstone hanging around the necks of British Columbians. Though I don’t expect that a lot of people spend a lot of time worrying about that, it is, I think, relevant to point out to those who are, quite properly, making submissions about what to do in a more positive economic climate with additional fiscal resources.

Over the long term, eliminating our debt obligations in a responsible and balanced way is going to leave us a lot less vulnerable and is going to reduce our debt-servicing costs even further and free up money for direct services to people. This is something, I suppose I say immodestly, I’m kind of proud of — that we’re able to address something that has sort of been building over 45 years, and we’ve got the thing going in the right direction. The right direction in my view, at least.

Then finally, I won’t dwell on this, but you can see as a part of…. We still have a sizable taxpayer-supported debt. It is now increasingly dedicated exclusively to the hospitals and schools and roads that we’re building — infrastructure.

I guess the last thing I’d say…. People have said to me in the past: “Well, you know, you can’t balance the budget” — well, you can; it’s not easy — “and you can’t attack the debt.” Well, not only are we able to reduce and eliminate the direct operating debt; you’ll see, as between last fiscal year and this one, the taxpayer-supported debt will actually reduce in real terms by over $700 million. Now, the challenge is to continue that track, as was the case, say, between ’03-04 and in those years, where for four years that was the case. We’re not there yet, but it can be done. It does require some discipline in terms of decision-making.

All of the numbers I’m showing you are produced by folks in the treasury branch. I think I’ve told you this in the past. I’ll tell you again. With respect to the forecasting, I don’t tinker with it. I don’t say: “Oh, you know, wouldn’t it be nice if we could jack that one up a bit and reduce that one?” The numbers are the numbers, and they drive the formulas that the economists have for determining how that translates into taxation revenues and that sort of thing. I think we’ve been served well by resisting whatever temptation may exist to tinker with that.

These are the numbers as it relates to anticipated growth. Treasury branch, as a matter of course, includes prudence for budgeting purposes. So if the private sector is saying growth at 2.9 percent, we budget on the basis of 2.7 — or, similarly, 2.4 and 2.2.

In terms of where that positions us nationally, you can see we are really head and shoulders above other parts of the country and are anticipated to remain there through next year as well.

Some of the commentary is, candidly, fairly gratifying. TD Bank says B.C. is at the top of the pack. The Conference Board is saying that B.C.’s economy is booming and will lead all others this year and next by far. B.C.’s
[ Page 2217 ]
economy is firing on all cylinders and will lead the country in real GDP growth over the near term. A swift rise in the number of people relocating to the province, and with a booming economy, labour markets are tightening and absorbing the new workers easily.

All of this can change. I mean, we take it for granted at our peril. But for the moment, I think it is fair to say we are the envy of every jurisdiction in the land. The steps we take — and this is where the committee will play an important role — to ensure that the benefits of that fiscal strength are shared equitably are important. But we certainly do come to the…. They are having a different conversation in virtually every other province in the country for the similar committees that they may have undertaking this work.

In terms of a couple of areas, I will say that two years ago, we had a chat, and you may recall I was still dissatisfied. I thought we were still underperforming on the employment front. There is a pretty solid trend line now, and our challenge is to keep that going.

Right now employment growth at the moment is showing a 3.3 percent growth. For budgeting purposes, the ministry is forecasting 2.4. But so far, 74,000 new jobs — 44,000 full-time and 30,000 part-time — so pretty healthy numbers in that respect.

Similarly, unemployment numbers are good in terms of where they’re at, although we’d like to see some improvement from the 6 percent that we have now.

Retail sales. Again, a solid trend line — 6.7 percent growth so far. We’re not budgeting on that basis. We’re budgeting on the basis of 5.4 for 2016 and 3.7 in 2017, but we’re certainly ahead of that.

I thought you might be interested…. I don’t usually do this, but just to break down where some of that…. I don’t know if any of the committee members are hearing from the new car dealers. I tend not to have much contact with them. But they do seem to be having a pretty good year, as are other areas — building, garden supplies, home supplies.

I said to the group last week…. I’m not sure. I’ve been thinking about the one anomaly there being gas stations. I should have found out how much of that is gas sales or just gas stations themselves. With more people and, presumably, more vehicles on the road, it would be interesting to get the number for volumes of fuel sales and whether they are down — which I think would probably, environmentally, be a good thing.

Housing starts. You can see a measure of volatility. The year to date is 42,000, well above the average of 28,000. It seems to be going up and down within a range there, but it’s certainly well above the average. I think this is an area where in terms of the housing affordability, we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball.

I think the members of the committee have heard me talk in the past of my views on the importance of supply and the steps the government has taken, and the committee may wish to recommend to take in the future, to ensure that the supply of housing remains strong or even stronger than it is presently.

Finally, exports. If there’s an area that I would say at a macroeconomic level I am concerned about, it’s here. U.S. numbers are up, I think, almost 7½ percent to date, but they’re getting geared up for another softwood fight.

I don’t know. I watch the same shows that members of the committees do. I sure hear a lot of protectionist rhetoric from both sides of the presidential debate. After October, my guess is that the Commerce Department will go to work and receive an application and start calculating a countervail duty for B.C. softwood and Canadian softwood products. So that’s looming.

Everywhere else our trade numbers are down. China and Hong Kong are down — not a lot, but down. Korea down, Japan down. So the importance of continuing to diversify and add to our stable of trading partners, I think, is as important as ever. If our customers are hurting, that’s eventually going to visit upon us. It just has to. That’s an area that we need to focus on.

All this does is demonstrate…. Amongst our customers, domestically and internationally, you can see the pressure is almost entirely on the downside. In the U.S. in January, they were forecasting 2.4 or 2.5 in ’16-17. In August, that went down to 1.5, 2.3, and you can read it down. China is kind of stable there, but Japan is, arguably, anemic. The eurozone, pressure on the downside. We don’t have a lot of direct trade with Europe, but China does, and if they’re not buying washing machines in Paris, then they’re probably not buying resource products from us to make them in China. There is that interconnectedness trade-wise.

The last thing. The Auditor General a couple of years ago pointed out that we tend to be focused on…. We have a three-year fiscal plan, but the point was that there are trends that develop over a much longer period. Who’s asking the questions about the long-term sustainability of the economy and long-term trends? You’ll see in the actual report that there are a number of pages dedicated to beginning to examine what that looks like — productivity issues, demographic issues, what our labour supply is going to look like.

We continue to have in this country something of a productivity issue. That’s driven, in large measure, by the degree of investment in capital upgrades that take place. Especially if things are going reasonably well, as they seem to be in B.C., at a macro level, it can be easy to ignore some of those trends. We’ve included some material in there to identify what some of the longer-term challenges may be for the B.C. economy going forward.

Then, finally, just the schedule. Going forward, you’ll see the work of the committee referred to there. The second quarterly report — the Economic Forecast
[ Page 2218 ]
Council will come in with their numbers. Again, Carol has been there, I think, the last couple of years. In the past, some interest, because eventually those numbers have a direct relevance to the contracts and the amount of money that workers are paid and adjustments that may be made, so depending….

Again, if in this year we overperform the number that the forecast council provided last year, there will be an adjustment to the wages of people in the public sector going forward to share the benefits of that success.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. I know there will be lots of opportunity over the next eight months to have debate on the more political issues, so I’ll stay away from those today.

I wanted to ask a question around the aging demographic slide, because I think you mentioned that there were the other demographics issues as well. I wondered whether the Finance Ministry has also compiled the numbers around youth, the numbers of babies being born, etc. I just think of programs like education. We’ve just had a big discussion around education. It obviously impacts those kinds of spendings as well. I wonder if all those stats are available too.

Hon. M. de Jong: They are. We draw from vital stats on that, factoring in life expectancy, factoring in the degree to which people may want to work beyond historic retirement years. So yeah, all of those. I think the phrase that jumped out at me, and I don’t know if it’s in the…. It’s sort of what the new normal appears to be — the new normal demographically and the new normal in terms of growth rates.

In the ’70s, you had economic growth of about 6 percent. I mean, 5 percent, 6 percent, 4 — that was kind of the zone. That’s not the zone anymore. Similarly, to your point, Carol, about the demographic and the number of workers as a proportion of the number of retirees, that number is changing dramatically. The initial analysis suggests that it’s not changing dramatically for an abbreviated period. It’s changing dramatically for a prolonged period.

G. Heyman: Minister, you pointed to the increased revenue from the property transfer tax, and you and your government acknowledged some of the problems of rapidly escalating housing prices in Metro Vancouver with a special session of the Legislature in July.

Notwithstanding the importance of the resource sector in the rest of the province, the Metro Vancouver economy has a large and growing tech sector that is a very important driver of the B.C. economy as well. Many employers in that sector have talked publicly about the difficulty in attracting and retaining the kind of talent they need to continue to grow jobs in the sector because of the high cost of housing in Metro Vancouver.

I’m wondering if the ministry has or is planning to do any studies of the relationship between the rapidly escalating, or what was a rapidly escalating, cost of housing and is still a very high average housing price in Metro Vancouver with impacts on economic growth in Metro Vancouver today and projected into the future.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the budget document itself, we try over the years to provide a table that tracks what has thus far been a steadily increasing cost of housing. Sectorally, we’ll get data and information from the sectors of the economy. We do so geographically as well.

I think I should be candid about the challenges associated with tracking…. It’s easier to track what does happen than what doesn’t happen. Tracking the person that didn’t come versus tracking the impact of the person that did is tougher.

Having said that, maybe starting this afternoon and going forward, and going back to some of the steps that have been taken, I think some of the economic sectors were gratified the government has taken some steps. I will say this: of all the levers that a government can utilize to address the challenge that you’ve identified and that others are experiencing, increasing the number of housing options on the market for people, in my view, remains the most relevant and will have the most significant impact.

I guess I’m a bit old-fashioned that way, but as long as demand is far outstripping supply, I think we are going to see elements of the challenge that you have identified. The step this summer that we discussed and debated in the Legislature was designed to address one element of demand, and that is: international. But there is still a very, very strong domestic demand, and we need to increase the supply of housing to address that, to satisfy that.

I was wondering whether the minister could comment on the negotiations or the new, upcoming agreement — I think, and I may be wrong on this — in terms of the federal health transfer and how that will affect our province, which is going to see such a large increase in people over the age of 65, and the effect that that has in terms of health care costs being very high for the last couple of years of a person’s life.

Can you comment or elaborate on that? And how you, as the person responsible to go and negotiate this with
[ Page 2219 ]
the federal government…. Are we able to get allowances for the fact that people still want to come and retire in British Columbia and then we end up with the increased health care costs?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks for the question, because it’s worth hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of how that question is answered.

Just a very quick synopsis of the history. The previous federal government decided several years ago that they were going to amend the methodology for calculating the health transfer. The health transfer for us is a big deal. We don’t get equalization payments; happily, we don’t require them. The health transfer is a big part of meeting our health care obligations.

What they’ve done is they’ve moved to a strict per-capita calculation. “How many people do you have? Here’s the multiplier. There’s your money.” Our argument has been twofold. One you have articulated quite ably, and that is: to do so is to ignore the reality that depending on your demographic makeup, an 80-year-old generally is accessing the health care system far more regularly than a 20-year-old and the costs are therefore exponentially greater.

We are not the oldest jurisdiction in Canada, by the way. The Maritimes are older than us, but we are on the older side of average, and we see people continue to come here and retire. So the shift, the change, has had a profoundly negative impact on British Columbia, and we are engaged now with a new federal government in trying to address that and seek redress and a change in approach.

There is a second dimension to this. I’ll tell you candidly what I said to a former federal minister, Jim Flaherty. We traipsed off to Ottawa, and we had a couple of these three-inch binders making our case, the demographic case. You know, there’s something else about this, and I don’t mean…. The province at the time that benefited the greatest, to the tune of almost $1 billion, was Alberta.

Alberta has the highest per-capita health care costs in the land. Here the rest of us, many of us in the rest of the land, are endeavouring to extract the maximum value possible, drive our costs down at the same time as providing services. There are always debates about how that…. But as a result of the shift, the province, candidly, that has done the least to address that is being rewarded. What will happen with that money? It will be spent. The pressure, the phenomenon of the nurse or the anaesthetist that says, “I can make 40 percent more in Alberta,” will continue.

There is, I think, the compelling rational argument that you’ve made around demographics, but there’s also the practicality of the matter, and we are endeavouring, in a constructive way, to make both.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Minister. I guess there are no further questions. I suppose, as the committee travels, we’ll find all kinds of creative ways to tap into that surplus that has been pronounced. In the meantime, we appreciate you coming.

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. But in those deliberations, remember it is the particularly the lines for next year and the year thereafter that are…. I know $2 billion sounds cool, but…

Back onto our regular agenda, we now have the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association.

Taryn Thomson and Karen Shortt, if you could come up. We’re just going to take about a two-minute break here to recharge our coffee. In the meantime, if you could prepare, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Welcome, Taryn Thomson and Karen Shortt, the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association. Ladies, welcome. Good morning. Ten minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a wave-down when you have about two minutes left to your presentation time. You’re welcome to cut into the question time if you like. It just shortens the opportunity for us to ask of you. The floor is yours.

T. Thomson: Thanks. I’m wearing a button that says, “ABE changes lives,” and this morning my son said to me: “Who’s Abe?” So I’m going to try and talk about who Abe is here this morning.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity to address you today about adult basic education in British Columbia. My name is Taryn Thomson, and I have taught ABE at Vancouver Community College for 16 years. Currently I’m a department head, and I’m here today representing my faculty association, the VCCFA. I am accompanied by Karen Shortt, the president of the VCCFA.

A few weeks ago I had a visit from a former student. He’s now doing honours English at McGill. He came to us several years ago because he had dropped out of school. He was a little socially awkward, and I imagine high school had been hard on him. He carried with him a collection of short stories. He blossomed in our ABE program. He said to me the other day: “You know, I don’t think I would have made it to where I am now if I hadn’t found ABE at VCC.”

ABE changes lives by opening doors. The funding mechanism brought in by this government nearly two years ago is shutting these doors for many students. That is what I’m here to talk about today.

Let me start by saying that ABE students are low-income students. Provincewide 71 of ABE students live below the poverty line. A large population of ABE students live on some form of social assistance and earn well below a living wage. Another large segment of ABE students, about 55 percent, fall within a group of working poor who are often piecing together a life of precarious work while trying to improve their lives and balance responsibility for self or family with going to school.

A large number of ABE students were not born in Canada, start out learning English in a LINC program and then sometimes cross over to ABE when their skills are strong enough. In addition, many low-literacy students are low literacy in not only English but their first language because they didn’t have access to education in their early years. So the lines between ABE and ESL can sometimes blur. ESL, of course, has also had its funding slashed, and its students now pay high tuition.

A large number of ABE students have disabilities, either diagnosed or suspected. This means that these students need more time to complete courses and need support in their learning. And 58 percent of ABE students are women. Many of these, some 20 percent, are also heads of households and have to juggle school with child care arrangements and also work one or more jobs.

This bring me to the new funding mechanism, the adult upgrading grant. The system is deeply flawed. First off, I’m not sure why it was brought in. The government cut $6.9 million in funding for ABE but is spending $7.6 million to fund the adult upgrading grant. If this was a cost-saving measure, it has failed.

Secondly, despite spending more money, the system is serving fewer students. One reason for this is the AUG income bands for eligibility are ridiculously low. To qualify for AUG, a single student must earn less than $24,000 per year. We know that a living wage in Vancouver is about $40,000, so this means that only those who are desperately poor will get funded.

In a way, students are penalized for working. A student who works and makes a meagre $30,000, not even enough to live on, is deemed too wealthy for the adult upgrading grant. It is even worse for couples and working families. The income bands do not increase enough to make any sense.

For example, the income threshold for a family of two is about $30,000. Now, one person making $10 an hour, 40 hours a week, would make about $19,000. So a couple, both making this paltry sum, would together bring in a combined income of $38,000, and they would be ineligible for AUG.

Another flaw with the AUG system is that it is modeled on Canada’s student loan rules. While ABE is mandated and housed in the post-secondary system, ABE students, economically and socially, are not typical post-secondary students. While AUG rules were modeled after CSL rules for consistency, they have proven to inadequately support a large portion of ABE students because they rendered them ineligible for funding.

One of these CSL rules is a 12-month residency requirement. Just this week I had two students in my office on two separate days who had both recently moved from elsewhere in Canada. They are now unable to start coming to school as they can’t afford the tuition, and the residency requirement makes them ineligible for AUG funding.

Keep in mind that ABE students are mainly looking for ways to improve their lives. These are not people taking a course to broaden their outlook in life. These students don’t have that kind of luxury. They need to get a basic level of education so that they can get better jobs or get into programs that will lead to better jobs. The 12-month residency requirement is a barrier.

AUG rules have also resulted in a reinterpretation of grades. A student’s in-progress grade is now interpreted as a repeat. Depending on their unique circumstances — amount of prior education, disability, work situation — students may need more time to complete a course, especially at the fundamental or intermediate levels, where students are still developing basic skills.

These students often face multiple and unique barriers to education such as diagnosed or undiagnosed learning disabilities, poverty, precarious employment and will need more time to complete their courses. With the new funding mechanism, students must finish in the time set by the AUG rules, or they will not be funded further.

In addition, the course withdrawal, long a legitimate way for students to manage their studies when life gets in the way, has been removed with AUG. A student who withdraws now will not get funded for the same course when he returns to school. So if a student suffers a death in the family or a serious illness or must leave school to work when seasonal work comes up, that student puts their schooling at risk.

One final insult of the system is that AUG funding is considered taxable income. This is ridiculous, of course, as it is only institutions that receive the funding, not individual students. However, it is taxable income, and the extra income for students at tax time can push them over the allowable income levels for AUG and render them ineligible.
[ Page 2221 ]

So who is being served by the system? The poorest of the poor will be able to come to school under this system — the unemployed and those on social assistance. However, there are limits. The AUG has a lifetime limit of 156 weeks, or about three years. Now, this may sound generous, but if you take a person who is working at the fundamental level of ABE, this means they may be ineligible for funding before they even reach the equivalent to grade 10.

I guess, in the end, the only people the system really serves are the extremely poor who only have advanced-level or grade 11– and grade 12–level courses to complete. This is a small number of ABE students.

Who is not being served by the system? Fundamental- and intermediate-level ABE students, students who live with their low-income parents, students with disabilities, students who move here from out of province and students who work. To illustrate the points I’ve been making about who is not being served, I want to provide you with some stories.

We have a student who is a recent immigrant to Canada. She has been studying ABE at the fundamental and intermediate level for the past couple of years. She’s trying to sponsor her husband to come to Canada and join her, so last year, in addition to coming to school, she worked as much she could to prove that she could provide for both of them when he arrives. She made $33,000 last year. This year she was denied AUG funding. She can no longer come to school.

Another student has three children, and her husband makes $60,000 — $10,000 over the AUG limit for a family of five. She’s trying to upgrade so that she can go into nursing. Since June, she’s been unable to return to school because she’s ineligible for AUG and her family can’t afford the tuition.

In addition, many students with disabilities at VCC are getting denied funding. This is either because they have not finished the course in the timeline set by government or their incomes are slightly above the income threshold.

One of our students with disabilities works at Home Depot. He made $28,000 last year and was deemed ineligible. At VCC this year, we gratefully received $100,000 in funding for students with disabilities, from this government, so this student and others who have PWD status are funded — for now. That $100,000 will be gone by the spring, I would guess, and then many students with disabilities will not be able to come to school.

As a final example, at VCC, we used our one-time transitional funding — allotted to each institution when the new funding mechanism was brought in — to set up an additional grant that funded ABE students whose income was above the AUG income bands but below a living wage for Vancouver. We funded some 500 students through this grant. Now that money has been spent, and we have been assured there is no more coming. These 500 students cannot afford to pay $500 per course. They are not coming to school.

This is a truly dismal situation. I don’t know what imagined problems this new funding mechanism was brought in to alleviate, but I can tell you that it has, instead, created new problems. Most distressing, this is a system that is going to keep the poorest and least educated in our province right where they are. This is a system that is going to bind people to lives of precarious work and grinding poverty.

In conclusion, I recommend to this committee the following things. One, the reinstatement of tuition-free ESL, adult basic education and adult special education programs at all our post-secondary institutions and an ongoing commitment to provide an envelope of funds designated specifically for developmental programs.

Two, a funding formula that better responds to the cost pressures faced by B.C.’s post-secondary institutions. Specifically, I recommend a comprehensive, consultative review of funding to address regional inequities and core funding needs for B.C.’s public colleges, institutes and regional universities.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for using the stories. I think it’s important that the committee be aware that these are real people and the struggles that they’re having.

I think the ABE program, from my perspective, is a perfect example of a hand up instead of a handout. It’s a perfect example of giving people that opportunity to transition. I’ve seen so many stories in my own community of exactly that. So I couldn’t agree with you more.

Do you keep numbers around drops that you’ve seen over this last year since the funding has come into place? I’ve heard a lot of complaints from students who won’t even try if they know there’s an application process and a grant process that’s just too difficult for them to be able to imagine. I wonder if you’ve been keeping track across colleges of the numbers around ABE.

K. Shortt: We will anticipate at least a 500-student drop this year, because the one-time funding is exhausted.

Taryn and I have been to Victoria five times just to meet with AVED officials and tell them our story and tell them how desperate we are to keep these students in class. So 500 students were served by the one-time funding last year. The funding is now exhausted. So right at the beginning, I can say we will lose 500 students, at least.

J. Rice: With your visits to Victoria, what is the rationale for the changes that we’re witnessing as you’ve outlined?

K. Shortt: They’re just saying there’s no money, so that’s it. That’s hard to hear when we heard the minister this morning say there is a surplus. This money, if spent on education, will come back to this government many times over in income tax revenue and so many other ways, to have our citizens working. We’re talking about men and women with a grade 10 or a grade 9 education that need math 11 to get into drafting, that need biology 12 to get into nursing. We’re talking about real people that will contribute to this economy if they’re just given a chance.

J. Rice: I’ll just follow up. I just wanted to say thank you very much for your presentation. I echo the sentiments that you’ve conveyed today in my community in the north. ABE funding is crucially important. So thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, I just have one. We have a couple minutes left.

You spoke about income thresholds quite a bit. Where do you see…? Have you any defined thresholds, any cut-off points that you might be able to identify to be sort of the minimum/maximum that a person should be able to earn before they can qualify for that funding?

T. Thomson: Well, one thing I think would be important would be to have some kind of an urban classification. Earning $30,000 in somewhere like Prince George is different from earning $40,000 in a place like Vancouver. So I think that the bands have to account for the region that a person is living in, because it’s a huge difference. Being tied to the Canada student loan grid, as the grant is, it means that there’s no room for leverage on that, we’ve been told.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Just one other question. You mentioned a $100,000 funding that you’ve directed to persons with disabilities…

S. Hamilton (Chair): …with respect to continued education, but you’ve said you expect that money to dry up. Has there been some indication that that money wouldn’t continue, or have you been told?

T. Thomson: We did not…. At our last meeting, we got the indication that there would be no more money coming in one-time grants of any kind.

T. Thomson: Of course, we’d rather not have one-time grants. We would rather be just properly funded.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much. A very important subject. I appreciate you coming and imparting your wisdom on us and your words. It’s very enlightening, and we appreciate you taking the time.

Okay. Next, we have our friends from the Pacific Salmon Foundation — Dr. Brian Riddell.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Welcome. You’ve got a total of ten minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a little heads-up with a couple of minutes left, so you can conclude your thoughts, and we can go to the committee for questions after that. So the floor is yours.

B. Riddell: All right. Well, I’m not going to push my limit, because I find that the questions are probably more important than my presentation sometimes.

We have given you a PowerPoint in note form. I apologize to the audience, because we were told not to bring a PowerPoint, and so they can’t follow along here.

I think what we want to present to you today is something that we used to see in the budget but we haven’t recently, and that’s that recognition of salmon’s value to British Columbia. It’s not a direct cost. It is a value and a benefit to our people and that. It used to be there, and it’s not recently. We just want to reinforce to you that there are many people out there in your ridings that work for salmon, are absolutely passionate, and that it’s a very positive return economically for this province.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning on that. We really want to bring attention
[ Page 2223 ]
to the idea of an investment priority in the next budget. We certainly heard some positive words from the Finance Minister this morning, but I want you to also know that you don’t do this alone. There are many experienced partners out there, and we offer ourselves as people that can facilitate that and really build collaboration with the province. We have done this before.

I also want to thank you for making Pacific salmon the official symbol of B.C. That was in 2013. Yes, we were guilty of lobbying that. I also want to point out, though, that we have failed to get together and identify a symbol yet. We should do that. That would be a good-news story for everybody.

I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that Pacific salmon really are ingrained in the history and society of British Columbians. We know about the history of our First Nations. We’re talking about working with them more, reconciliation. Nothing is more directly related to the First Nations than the value of salmon. It’s very simple. Of course, there’s the economic and the ecological values that we talk about as well.

Unfortunately, most of the time when I say Pacific salmon, you probably think negative, right? In 2016, what comes to your mind? The loss of Fraser sockeye again. I’ll come back to that. You are always thinking about development versus environment, frequently associated with salmon. For a lot of that, we’re working on how to resolve those sorts of problems that we faced in the past.

The ongoing debate of open-net-pen salmon aquaculture and wild Pacific salmon. We’re already working on that. We need additional support to do it timely, but we can address that.

I think, fundamentally, it comes down to the government seeing salmon as a cost. It’s a problem that you don’t necessarily have to get into. The point we want to make is: it’s worth the effort. It’s worth the investment. It will be recognized by the people of B.C. We can help you with that by partnering in some of these opportunities.

Now, you do invest in the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. A couple of years ago, the last election, you gave the licence fees to them. We are kind of the tidal water side of that sort of activity. We’re involved in very similar activities. We’re very complementary, but we do not overlap. We very distinctly try to use our money in discrete ways so that we’re using it to the greatest effectiveness.

Really, what we want to bring to you today is that we can work within government priorities — I’ll end on that — and, at the same time, we can benefit for salmon and from salmon. If that’s the bottom line, that’s where I’d like to take you.

Now, slide 2 simply reinforces what I said about working in the past. In the mid-2000s, we had something called the B.C. living rivers trust. It was a $22 million cash investment by the province of B.C. We turned it into $82 million by working with industry, other government, First Nations and communities. It actually generated 450 projects in six years, and it worked throughout the province.

We’ve made that presentation to you in the past, in Victoria. I just want to reinforce it. We’ve done this before. It’s worked very well financially.

I think the other thing I’ll bring to your attention, though, is that this year — the last three years, I guess, it really is — we’ve been working with ministries in the provincial government to represent them to the federal government for the recreational fisheries conservation program. What we’ve done with that is we’ve netted $1 million to programs through your ministry. We do work collaboratively on areas like that where we can help represent you.

The third slide really just is some of the numbers we provide to people that we’re talking to in terms of fundraising. The strength, really, of the salmon foundation is our ability to build collaboration and leverage money. These summary numbers really just sort of emphasize that for you.

The bottom line here is that in terms of our 30 years, we’ve invested $48 million of cash from various donors and the federal government, provincial government, as I just said. We have turned that into over $170 million in terms of salmon programs. You’re talking about a 3.5 times leverage over all of our programs.

What do we do with that money in terms of what’s the investment for? Habitat restoration, fish passage — those are the big ones we’re working with the province on now. Small hatcheries. Assessment programs. We work in educational programs, build stewardship centres.

The other element is watershed planning. The Water Sustainability Act talks about watershed governance. We see a real opportunity there to work with you on that. Community round tables are the other element that we support, so we have a wide diversity of things that we will support.

The next slide really just emphasizes the diversity and breadth of our supporters — 1,500 different supporters annually. These are individuals, foundations, corporations and that. I think we’ll have to send you the slide to really emphasize the diversity of the corporate supporters in B.C. These are long-term supporters that we’ve worked with through the years. We’re talking about 1,500 annual supporters, and we’re building on that every year. There is an opportunity there for a lot of good news with other groups.

The heart and soul of the foundation, really, is what we call the community salmon program. These are the people in your ridings that work for salmon — 345 organizations throughout B.C., about 35,000 volunteers in your ridings over the years. Currently we have about 20,000 registered streamkeepers. This is a significant number of people involved, working specifically for Pacific salmon and their local habitats.
[ Page 2224 ]

This is a landmark year. We have always received some money from the tidal recreational stamp. That’s a federal government program. Anyone wanting to retain salmon in tidal waters in Canada has to buy the stamp. We used to get a dollar. In 2013, we lobbied the federal government to get all of the money back to B.C. We were successful in doing that, so that point alone increased the money back to B.C. by $1 million.

Each year we invest about $2 million in B.C. communities, all working on projects for Pacific salmon. This year the total value of community-generated programs exceeded $100 million. That’s a pretty substantial number coming from communities over a number of years.

Keep in mind that these are real people in the ridings and they have been at this for a long time. They are unbelievably committed.

The next slide comes to a number of our actual programs in terms of how we raise funds. I think the community engagement really is where we see the synergy with the province. Currently we invest about $2 million, as I said. We, unfortunately, still have about $1 million that we cannot support each year. These are programs that continually roll over and that we can’t support.

Given that it’s two minutes, I don’t want to miss…. Two major points probably. One major project you’re going to hear a lot about is called the strategic salmon health initiative. This is part of our major Salish Sea research program. It’s a collaborative program between Genome B.C., funded by the provincial government, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans science branch with Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders, and the Pacific Salmon Foundation. This is the direct study that is understanding the interaction between salmon farms and wild salmon and hatcheries.

We’re using state-of-the-art genomics to tackle this in a rigorous manner. That program is currently funded at the full amount, except that we’re finding that processing information from genomic programs is really costly. We’re now seeking money to actually have a timely analysis so we’re not waiting five years to get the information out.

The expectation, publicly, of course, is that there is an interaction between the farms, and distrust, really, is causing the debate to go on. We really have sort out whether this is real or not. That’s why we’re doing that program, and that really does merit some support.

I was going to talk about a new data management program. Why would I bother you with that? Because most of the debates that I find in 40 years of managing resources comes because people don’t share data. They don’t share information, or they disagree with others. This is the first time we’ve put all the information together into a single data system. Everybody shares the same data — particularly in your area, Jennifer. This is where it was developed, in the Skeena.

Let me just go to the end point here. We really want to reinforce that there is tremendous people power out there that you can benefit from. We can actually work on the community groups — 345. We have a proposal to build a network to implement the Water Sustainability Act.This is critical to salmon, and it’s critical to people. Twenty-thousand active streamkeepers in your communities throughout the province.

The other aspect of this is…. In your own publication, in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector report, it is an annual revenue of $2.2 billion. So it’s not a direct cost; it’s a direct benefit to the province of B.C.

In closing, let me really just encourage you to consider an investment in salmon futures and that this is going to benefit return to you. The sort of thing that we really believe you can do with this is we can address government priorities and have positive benefits for our Pacific salmon and for our communities.

Oil and gas development in the Skeena. The salmon explorer database I was just telling you about was built to resolve that debate in terms of public sharing of information.

Implementation of the new Water Act, sustainability. It’s critical to us and critical to you, because now you have to implement it.

First Nation engagement. We’re involved with many First Nations throughout B.C., and we have a strategic plan initiative. We have to improve that because, clearly, First Nations are going to have more to say about environmental conditions.

The bottom line is: there’s no place else in the world that is more at risk in terms of wild salmon than Canada, and in terms of B.C., really. The other places all had some salmon. We have an enormous resource base in Pacific salmon. We have the biggest risk, and we have to resolve this one.

We are here to work with you. The opportunity is there for you, but I think we really have to recognize that we need to reinvest in Pacific salmon in B.C. We’re here to assist you in doing that if you want. We’d certainly like to talk to you more about amounts of money and where you could invest it for your priorities.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. We’ve cut into question time quite significantly.

D. Ashton: Doctor, thank you for the presentation. I greatly appreciate it.
[ Page 2225 ]

A quick question. The Okanagan bands have done a terrific amount to get salmon back into the Okanagan drainage system. Why are they stopping the fish in the lower periphery of it instead of those fish being able to come up into the Okanagan Lake area, where they had been, traditionally, years before?

B. Riddell: You really have to talk to your own provincial ministry on that one.

D. Ashton: There are always two answers to questions, sir. I’m asking you the question.

B. Riddell: My understanding, in talking with them extensively, is that introducing another species back into where they were apparently will change the ecological system that’s functioning now. So you have your trout, and you have your sockeye salmon — the kokanee, right? That is what people in that area are choosing as their first resource for fishing. That’s what the communities know. If you put the other one back in there, it’s very difficult to predict what would happen. But you’re getting very good returns from just using the lower lake.

J. Rice: In regards to the Pacific Salmon Explorer, I wanted to know if you could speak to how it’s been subscribed and use examples on the ground of its utilization.

B. Riddell: The Pacific Salmon Explorer was developed by all of the First Nations and technical people in the basin. It’s been supported by NGOs and TransCanada Pipelines. Really, it was a way of putting all of the information about the status of the stocks in the Skeena — all five specific salmon species — and the status of the habitats. You can look at it on….

Basically, a lot of it comes from the provincial map systems and that. What we’ve done is integrate them so they’re all in one unified system. Anyone now that wants to develop on the Skeena estuary or in the lower Skeena can go in and see what you know about there. Where are the conflict potentials, and what could you do to resolve them? Plus, you’ve built an incredible expertise of technical people in the area.

J. Tegart: Just really quickly, thank you very much for your work. I’m part of the Thompson River–Fraser River steelhead challenge.

B. Riddell: It’s an obvious, very interesting question in itself. I think many times government thinks: “Well, you just want a huge amount of money. It’s just another big, sunk cost.” We don’t.

On an annual basis…. We’re 12 people. Now, we have huge networks. But if we had $3 million to $5 million, we could probably turn that into $20 million to $25 million. You can then tackle specific things. When I said we’d work with you to identify your priorities, you have a particularly thorny one there. That would take a targeted program.

The Water Act — sustainability, minimum ecological flows. Critical for salmon in the future under climate change. But your models will not be right everywhere because B.C.’s too complicated. But who lives on all those rivers? You know the answer. It’s all the communities, right? So we can easily build you a monitoring system that’s not going to cost you a lot of money, and it’s going to be real-time. But we don’t seem to get these opportunities really acted on.

S. Hamilton (Chair): This is such an important subject, as far as I’m concerned. I have a question, but I’ll get you to take it on notice, and maybe you can respond to the committee through committee Clerks.

I’m wondering about cross-jurisdictional conversations that you might have had. I’ll give you an example. I was fishing up in Rivers Inlet this year, and the fish, particularly the king salmon, disappeared. We have this down to such a science. Somebody said there was a huge Alaska fishery, and things may have…. You know a lot more about it than I do, but I’m kind of curious about how you communicate with other organizations like yourself, maybe out of Alaska. I know governments do, but do organizations like yours?

The second thing. The stamp for tidal waters is $6.30. It’s so cheap that it’s insignificant, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t think anybody would complain about paying more, especially if you’re going to make that kind of investment to go salmon fishing. You know, ten bucks and you get all the money, or $15 and you get all the money. I could care less. Enough said.

I think it’s just so important. We closed the Fraser River sockeye. We closed the Fraser River because we were concerned about bycatch. There’s something really, really serious going on.

I really appreciate the work that you do, the work of philanthropists in the business. I’m thinking about the work that’s been done up around the Wannock River, in Rivers Inlet, with the salmon hatchery. That’s all private money. I can’t say enough about the work that you do and the people that you bring together to get things done.

B. Riddell: We just took over that hatchery, by the way, so next year the Pacific Salmon Foundation is at Rivers
[ Page 2226 ]
Inlet. We will be working with the Oweekeno people to rebuild the resources in that area.

B. Riddell: If you’ll send me those questions, I’m happy to answer all of them.

Next we have the British Columbia Construction Association — Manley McLachlan.

Mr. McLachlan, welcome. Ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a wave with a couple of minutes for winding down. The floor is yours.

It’s a pleasure to be here again in front of this panel. Let me just give you a little bit to perhaps reacquaint you with our organization and introduce us to some of the new folks.

We represent close to 1,800 construction employers here in British Columbia. Our membership is primarily in the industrial, commercial and institutional part of the sector, and the majority of our members are small companies. I think that’s a given across the piece. We are, we like to say, the largest and most inclusive organization. We greatly value the work that we’ve done together with the B.C. government to build and maintain B.C.’s infrastructure and the built environment and, I should add, the work that’s been done on the skilled workforce.

It’s important to note that we’re not a labour relations organization. We’re not, I’m going to say, bogged down in that stuff. Our membership is representative of the industry, so we have about 20 to 25 percent of our members who work under collective agreements, and the balance are what are typically referred to as open-shop.

To illustrate the key role that construction plays in the province, I’m going to share some key statistics with you. But I want to state very clearly at the outset that there are two key issues in front of our sector today: access to a skilled workforce, and fair and transparent procurement processes.

The first one deals with having enough people to actually get the work done. You’ll see in a few minutes the volume of work that’s available here in B.C. We’re in an incredible environment right now. The second piece is around fair and transparent procurement processes, those processes that ensure that people in your ridings and the taxpayers around the province have access to public sector procurement in a fair and open manner.

Some of the statistics. Construction continues to be the number one employer in B.C.’s goods sector. The industry contributes 8.2 percent to B.C.’s GDP. That’s more than forestry, oil and gas, and mining combined. We know that Central 1 Credit Union is predicting that number to go up substantially. Today approximately 215,000 British Columbians work in the industry. Again, that’s more than the number of people who work in agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining combined.

Many people in our group always ask the question: “Why don’t we have a ministry of construction?” I’m going to deal with that. We have an alternative to that that’s working, I think, very well.

Here’s one of the more challenging things for us. Two out of three construction employees today are over the age of 45. About 70 percent of construction employers hired new tradespeople this year. B.C.’s skilled trades will have approximately 47,000 job openings by 2024. It’s the impact of both — the capital investment that’s being made but also the retirements that are about to take place.

Today in B.C., one in 24 kids that graduate high school enters the trades, but one out of 70 goes into the construction trades. In order to meet the need for tradespeople, that number needs to be down at about one in five.

Now, I have to report some progress. In 2014, one out of 32 kids was going into trades, and one out of 85 was going into construction trades. We’ve seen an improvement, and I think that’s a credit to the skills-for-jobs blueprint, the realignment of the education related to trades training and the realignment within the ITA.

Eighteen percent of employers have searched internationally within the last 12 months. That’s an indicator. That is a given. That’s going to happen. When you have these kinds of shortages, you’re going to have people looking for the highly skilled, particularly industrial, tradespeople that literally travel around the globe. As major projects come into British Columbia, we’re going to see those folks arrive.

The current estimated value of construction projects in B.C. today is roughly $78 billion, and there’s another $329 billion that’s proposed. Only two LNG plants are built into that estimate. So even if you back out some $80 billion, we’re still at a pretty substantial number. Just to get a take on where employers are at, 75 percent of construction employers tell us that they feel that competition for projects has increased in the past two years, regionally, nationally and internationally.

They’re compelling stats. They speak directly to the challenges and the opportunities that are in front of us.

We typically provide, I think, 14 or 15 recommendations. I’m not going to go through them, but I do want to deal with two areas: fair and open public sector procurement and the second piece around the skilled workforce.

We have great faith in the capital asset management framework. We’ve petitioned this group and other folks in government to make that a policy document, not a guideline. There’s tremendous work that has been done now in
[ Page 2227 ]
the three-year-old deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum. This forum came together three, almost four, years ago, where industry literally works with the deputy ministers of the capital ministries. We have subcommittees that are working on some very key direction for policy, contract documents and processes.

The capital asset management framework is about fairness, openness, transparency. It deals with competition, the allocation and management of risk, value for money and protection of the public interest. We align 100 percent with those four objectives. So if there’s a recommendation — and you’ll see there is one — we’re looking to see that that deputy ministers industry infrastructure forum is continued and that resources are made available for industry to provide input. The dialogue is very, very productive.

We’ve seen, over the last number of years, a push towards aboriginal enhancement — in other words, the effort to be more inclusive, both at the worker level and the business level. What we’re looking for is that government work with industry to develop a process that identifies outcomes so that there are very clear outcomes that are expected when a particular approach is taken. We would really like to see the expansion of options for enhancement to be put in place, which would allow employers to utilize the existing employment programs and be recognized as part of the enhancement process.

I realize I have two minutes left. I want to deal quickly with a new and emerging element that we’re all going to be dealing with in public sector procurement. It’s referred to now as social procurement. This is where public sector owners are building in community benefits, or a desire to achieve community benefits, through publicly funded projects.

Sounds like a great idea. It is a good idea. Industry does not oppose it. But what we want to see is a process that ensures that it’s open, it’s inclusive and it’s fair.

I’ll give you just one example. One of the leading communities in this province, the community of Cumberland, was one of the first groups to put this into play. They went to a two-envelope system. In the first envelope, you had to acknowledge, as a bidder, that you were going to be able to achieve two out of the 12 community benefits they were looking for. These benefits were quite wide-ranging: you pay a living wage, you hire apprentices, you support local charities. Once you cleared envelope 1 — and they told us it was a yes or no — then they opened your price.

Now, you need to remember that in social procurement, whatever your objectives are, they’re going to be paid for out of your project funding. The challenge we’re seeing now is when weight begins to be applied to those objectives. I’ll tell you, the experience in Cumberland was that everybody learned. The successful contractor was able to demonstrate their commitment to the community by making two contributions of $2,500 each to two local communities.

Sounds like a great outcome. If you talk to him today, he’ll tell you the reason he got that job is because he cut a check for 5,000 bucks — so not the outcome we were looking for, but it’s how these things need to be put together. I think that while we support it, we want to be directly involved in the development of processes that don’t appear to be, or give the opportunity for, some form of non-open, not fair and clearly not transparent process.

J. Yap: Thank you, Manley, for your presentation and your long-term commitment to these important issues and the association.

There’s a figure in here — 215,000 employment in the construction industry. Is that a complete figure? Is it just direct employment? Does it include all the consultants, engineers, architects, all of that, or is it just the trades?

M. McLachlan: Absolutely. If you look at the supply sector, if you look at the design community, it certainly becomes a much larger part of the population.

M. McLachlan: Well, it’s always a challenge to nail that down, but I know the guys who are a lot smarter than me will offer the opinion that for every job in construction there are probably three supporting it. So it’s almost three to one.

J. Yap: Right. So your sector and all of the kind of related spinoff are hugely important. It’s not 215,000; it’s a larger number.

M. McLachlan: Yes. You know, you’ve probably heard me say this before — that in terms of economic development, in terms of impact on the economy, nothing happens until something gets built. And it’s in the building of those projects that lots of things happen, in terms of community benefit, workforce development and paycheques that go home and back into our community. It’s a huge impact.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Manley, for your presentation. You mention the numbers around students or individuals going into construction or going into trades in the first place. I think I’ve raised this before,
[ Page 2228 ]
certainly from my years in education. One of the biggest influencers is parents, and I think there has been a shift for parents seeing the trades and seeing the opportunities that are there.

But I wondered what your association is doing just to inform people about the opportunities that are there, because often if a family doesn’t have experience in the trades, it may not be an area that they’re encouraging their kids to look at. I wondered if you’re doing some work around public education or expanding their views around what’s there.

M. McLachlan: Carole, I appreciate the question. This has been a task that’s been in front of us for quite some time. The way I describe it is: we need a culture shift. And it has to happen at the family table. We’re starting to see, perhaps, some of that come around.

We’ve done everything from…. Three years ago, I was a keynote speaker at the very first Conference of Board of Canada Skills and Post-Secondary Education Summit. My message didn’t go over very well with a lot of the folks who run universities in this province, because it means we’ve got to look…. I said, “We need to train people for jobs that exist, not jobs that might exist,” among other things.

We have a very active program, through our foundation, called Project Shop Class. We’ve cobbled together about $3½ million in the last little over a year — some federal government funding and funding from industry — to put new tools into shop classes across the province, primarily on the northwest coast and on the Island, and we’re now working in the southern Interior. What that does is it allows kids to experience the tools that they’re going to run into on the jobsite.

We also have been working with the government, with the Ministry of Education, to create a new learning profile in the shop class. We’ve got employers involved in that process. We’ve identified what that training should look like so that when they come out, they’re going to be familiar with the tools, and they’re going to be trained on stuff that the employers want them to be trained on.

Then, at every occasion, we talk about the opportunities in the industry. We also highlight the points that…. We were big supporters of the government’s shift to a requirement for apprentices on public sector projects because we felt we needed to get more employers involved in order to get more apprentices involved.

It’s an onerous task, because it is a culture shift. But as long as we continue to deliver the message and people begin to recognize, through government’s work — the skills-for-jobs blueprint, the initiatives that are undertaken by the ITA…. We think we’re getting the message out to families.

We’ve just set up a partnership with the B.C. Lions and their Lions in the House program. We’ll be going out to schools across the province again to talk to young people about the opportunities.

S. Gibson: A super quick question. I come from an agricultural community, and a lot of the folks that I know are encouraging their kids to take over the farm. It’s always the lament, it’s a sad thing, when the dad says: “My kid’s not going to take over the farm.” It’s a bit of sadness in the family.

Tell me a bit about how you encourage the next generation of people to stay in the construction industry.

M. McLachlan: Well, I think that as long as we improve working conditions, from a safety perspective…. There’s a tremendous effort going into that between the B.C. Construction Safety Alliance, the work that’s done by the Council of Construction Associations and a recognition by employers that it is their responsibility to make sure people go home safe. That, to me, is one of the number one pieces.

Wages today in the industry are probably the best they’ve ever been, and they’re consistent. We’re not having these big peaks and valleys that used to exist. If you look at the investment…. We took a bit of a dip in 2008, near the end of 2008, 2009. We’re actually way beyond, today, in terms of investment and the number of workers in this industry than we were prior to 2007, when we were saying: “We can’t find anybody to work in the industry.”

So I think it’s a combination of the paycheque, the work environment, and I just think there’s a growing recognition that there’s nothing wrong with a job in the trades.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present. I appreciate it and hope we can continue the discussion some other time.

Okay, Ken Carrusca, TJ Parhar — the Cement Association of Canada. Gentlemen, welcome. Good to see you again.

You probably know the routine: ten minutes to present, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a wave with about two minutes winding down, and then we can go to the committee.

K. Carrusca: Thank you very much. That’s quite a segue. My first job as a student was actually installing lit-
[ Page 2229 ]
erally hundreds of doors at an apartment building near Oakridge. So yeah, there are a lot of jobs that pay really well in the construction industry. But we’re here to talk about our favourite topic, as you know: cement.

Thank you again, and good afternoon. I’m Ken Carrusca. I’m the vice-president of environment and marketing for the Cement Association. Many of you know I’m here with TJ Parhar, senior director of government and public affairs, again with the Cement Association. We’re here providing input on behalf of our members, the cement companies operating in B.C. That’s Lafarge, with plants in Richmond and Kamloops, and Lehigh Hanson in Delta. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments here to the committee.

We’re here once again to offer comments on an issue that we’ve been talking to you about for more than eight years — the B.C. carbon tax and its impacts on the cement industry. Thank you again for listening and recommending unanimously to government that it recognize the cement industry as an energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry and to take some sort of action to level the playing field.

As you know, climate change is one of society’s biggest threats, and B.C. here has been on the leading edge in the fight again climate change for some time now. Canada has now come a long way and is fully acknowledging that climate change is obviously real — that it’s an issue of fundamental importance that must be addressed by all citizens; by all officials at the local, provincial, federal levels; and, of course, by those of us operating in industry.

Let’s be clear where the cement industry stands on this topic. We support carbon pricing and stand with the B.C. government as leaders in working to do our part to address climate change. Our issue is not specifically with the carbon tax or with carbon pricing. It has to do with fairness.

All cement that’s used in B.C. should pay a carbon tax on the greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of where that cement is made. B.C.’s cement manufacturers right now pay $30 per tonne as a carbon tax, which, as we all know, is the highest cost across Canada. In fact, it’s the highest cost for carbon paid across North America.

Our comments today are a follow-up on presentations to this committee that we have made and that Michael McSweeney, our president and CEO of the Cement Association, has made for the last several years.

The Cement Association has presented several times, and we’ve had the opportunity to have had numerous meetings with both government and opposition MLAs, cabinet ministers and government officials since the carbon tax was introduced in 2008.

It’s extremely important that we find a long-term resolution to the unintended and unfair consequences of the carbon tax that puts the B.C. cement industry at a competitive disadvantage, a disadvantage that affects jobs in our sector and our ability to compete with imports of cement from the U.S. and Asia.

I know that you’ve all heard this story before, but I believe it’s important to repeat it again so that we can all work together on finding a long-term solution. So 35 to 40 percent of cement used to make concrete in B.C. is imported from either the United States or Asia, where there are no carbon-pricing solutions. As we’ve mentioned before, prior to the carbon tax being implemented in 2008, imports were approximately 6 percent. Post–carbon tax has led to leakage of production to the U.S. and Asia and additional GHGs from transboundary transportation.

We know that government didn’t set out to cause leakage and additional GHG emissions, but as we look to the future, the province must develop solutions to leakage and for fair treatment of energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries.

K. Carrusca: Well, let me comment on where we should be going in the future on how we address carbon pricing for these energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries. But first of all, I want to say that we, again, are thankful to the committee and to government for hearing our issues and for responding.

We want to thank the Ministry of Finance again for implementing the cement low-carbon fuel program. The funds provided by that program are being used for significant capital investment at cement kilns in Lafarge and Lehigh, so collectively that is reducing GHG emissions. But the reality is that it’s only an interim program, and the cement industry needs to have a permanent solution.

We were, therefore, delighted with the Premier’s August 19 remarks on the B.C. climate leadership plan, where she highlighted two areas raised that we want to emphasize. The last part of this conversation really is on those two issues: No. 1, the protection for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry and No. 2, Portland-limestone cement, or PLC, as a lower carbon intensity cement.

First of all with EITE, the energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry protection. Many of you have heard us speak before on cement. Producing cement involves raising the ingredients, limestone and shale, up to a very high temperature. It requires a lot of energy. The cement product itself is a commodity. It’s moved around the province, obviously, so it’s very trade exposed.

At the climate leadership plan announcement in August, the Premier and the Minister of Environment acknowledged that we need some mechanisms, some measures, to address the energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry.

That was one of the key recommendations, actually, out of the B.C. climate leadership team that they put forward in their report a year ago, last November, and a topic that we’ve been discussing with several other stakeholders, including environmental groups, for over five months now.

So it was, again, very welcomed by the cement industry, and we’re happy to be talking with government about a long-term solution for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry.

The second topic — and really, coming to the end — is Portland limestone cement. It’s also called, in the industry, PLC. That was one of the items that was identified in the B.C. climate leadership plan — again, the use of Portland limestone cement. It is, as I mentioned, a lower GHG intensity cement. It’s about 10 percent lower than otherwise regular cement.

We talk to a lot of folks about PLC, and everyone asks: “What’s the catch? Does it have a higher cost?” No, there’s no higher cost. “Is it harder to place? Is it harder for the trades to place that material?” No. It hurts me to say this, but the catch is really the inertia of engineers, the inertia by architects and by those that specify materials in the public sector.

Over 50 percent of the domestic cement used here in B.C. is already this new PLC cement, with the majority of that 50 percent being in the private sector.

Anyway, we were very pleased to see government respond in the climate leadership team report authorizing the use of PLC in public infrastructure. But we really need more than just it being authorized. We need to see government take a leadership role and mandate the use of PLC in government procurement.

The cement industry — we’re here to work with government to help facilitate the use of PLC cement and concrete in public infrastructure across B.C. As government makes decisions on project announcements, we can be there to support those projects by saying that PLC is available for use in Site C, it’s available for use in any potential LNG projects, and it’s available for use in bridge, road, school or hospital projects across the province.

Really, in closing, we’re here, again, to say thanks for listening in the past and to let you know that the Cement Association of Canada and our members are here to work with government to help develop a mechanism that provides for a long-term solution for the issue of energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry, that movement across borders and the impacts that it has on domestic producers. We’re here to push for government to provide a strong mandate for the use of PLC in public infrastructure across B.C.

When you have this tried-and-true building material that can, in fact, reduce GHG emissions, we want to see government mandate that this material should be used across the province.

Thank you again for your time. We’re here to address any questions or talk anything else about cement and concrete.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Riveting subject. Thank you very much for your presentation. I’ll go to questions.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation. I have two questions of clarification. I certainly understand and would support a requirement to use PLC. I think public infrastructure requirements can drive industry change quite successfully.

You referred to the authorization in the announcement of the use of PLC. My understanding is that PLC has been in use for a while. I’m not sure what significance the authorization actually has. Perhaps you can clarify that for me. I understand what a requirement would do. That’s different.

The second question is: are there any competition issues with PLC that could be imported from other jurisdictions that we would also have to consider in terms of energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries that we should know about? That’s my question.

K. Carrusca: Good questions. On the authorization, as I kind of alluded, it is authorized for use in B.C. in the private sector. There’s a number of buildings I was going to talk about. The Trump Tower, on West Georgia, used PLC.

What’s the resistance? I think it’s the word “authorize” versus “mandate.” I think it’s that inertia by engineers and architects that it hasn’t been used, to date, in public infrastructure. But it’s used in the private sector in Europe, and often we look to Europe for…. They’ve been using this for over 20 years. I think it’s really an issue of inertia.

Certainly, we’d like to see government mandate its use — and, of course, mandate its use where it can be used — as a first choice.

On your second question — are there any competition issues? Across Canada, not all of the members of the cement association produce the product. It’s been sort of a chicken-and-egg. In B.C., both domestic companies produce PLC. Elsewhere in Europe, it’s, again, common. It’s actually imported as well.

There’s no reason that that material…. We’re not here to advocate for that, of course, but there’s no reason that those types of materials also couldn’t be imported. From our perspective, there are certainly no trade issues with its use. It’s a material that can dramatically reduce your carbon footprint. It’s available now. I think we’ve all got a responsibility to do that.

E. Foster: Okay, on not exactly the same lines, but when we go…. I think you answered this. If we were to support this as a committee and went to the procurement people, what’s going to be their big push-back? Other than the fact that, well, we’ve never done it before, which is not very scientific.
[ Page 2231 ]

K. Carrusca: Again, fair question. As I’ve gone across the province, the issue is, again, like I say, the chicken-and-egg. The demand hasn’t been there, so of course companies aren’t supplying in that marketplace. But if the demand is there, again, this material — cement — is produced here in the Lower Mainland. I won’t talk about the material that’s produced elsewhere, but it’s transported literally across the province by truck, by barge, by train.

If it comes to be a point — and we hope to see that soon — that government is looking for PLC in their public infrastructure, that material will be available. It certainly will be made available, if it isn’t already, in that marketplace by the producers here locally. It can literally get on the truck this afternoon and, as you know, be up in Prince George or be up north in ten hours.

D. Ashton: Just real quickly, the 15 percent limestone limit applied to PLC in Canada is well below the maximum limit of 35 percent to European standards. Why don’t you take the next step?

K. Carrusca: Sure. A lot of these discussions…. Again, we talk a lot about codes and standards. They’re set within the building code. The current standard allows for about 10 percent or so of limestone that’s added into the cement product.

K. Carrusca: So the limit is 15. Typically, they put in ten so that it’s well within the limit. We need further work on changing those codes and standards. That’s really the only issue. As an engineer, when folks have said, “Well, let me see the strength over time,” and whatnot, the two graphs, so to speak, are identical in terms of 28-day strength.

Dan, I think it’s the next step. We’d certainly like to see more of that substitution, but right now we’re at that 15 percent level. It’s authorized. We’d like to see a push to mandate its use.

S. Hamilton (Chair): That answers my question. It’s one thing to build a sidewalk. It’s another thing to build a dam or a highrise. In terms of the integrity of the product, I guess that’s fairly important, but you’ve proven that.

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time. I’m sure we’ll see you around town.

Next, we have the Downtown Eastside Adult Literacy Roundtable — Lucy Alderson, William Booth and Suzanne Smythe. If you could come on up, settle yourselves in. While you’re doing that, I’ll let you know we have 15 minutes in total — ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll give a wave when it’s coming down to the final couple, and then we can go to the committee and ask questions.

W. Booth: Good morning. I’m William Booth, and I’m with my colleagues, as you heard — Lucy Alderson and Suzanne Smythe. We’re with the Downtown Eastside Literacy Roundtable. We’re a coalition of adult educators who understand literacy as having the knowledge, skills and confidence to participate fully in life.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again about the importance of literacy. Also, thank you for your recommendation you made last year for annual funding of $2.5 million for community literacy work in B.C. and for your continuing support.

The positive impact of literacy funding to communities as a whole cannot be denied. It affects everything from health care to the economy and improves a community’s ability to participate in today’s B.C. jobs plan.

The lack of multi-year funding makes community literacy work unstable and uncertain. We are here to ask the government once again to provide ongoing funding, required for the coordination of annual literacy work.

The Downtown Eastside is a dynamic, vibrant, low-income neighbourhood, and it has historically been a hub of rich cultural life. In the eyes and words of the people living there, this is a community of enormous strength, cohesion and activity. The funding enables us to reach all parts of the community — adults, youth, children and families, seniors, aboriginal people and immigrants.

A specific example of an innovative program working on the Downtown Eastside addresses government and other institutions’ increase in the use of web-based services as a form of cost-cutting. The result is that access issues — the basic right to government and other services — are moving beyond the scope and assistance of the not-for-profit sector. The round table, along with other organizations working to address the digital divide magnified by poverty, low literacy, low English levels and homelessness, aims to increase the digital literacy skills of low-income residents.

In collaboration with the community and service providers, we have created an information network to provide educators, service providers and the community with a user-friendly, accessible way to share critical information and existing resources and tools related to education, social services, mental health support, legal resources, etc. The information hub, called linkvan.ca, was designed to be accessible and easy to understand at all literacy levels and to find services relevant for individuals.

We are bringing technology to the community, not waiting for them to come to us, through hosting peer-to-peer pop-up cafes. They are designed to be drop-in, mini tech lessons that work with individual commun-
[ Page 2232 ]
ity members and clients to increase their digital literacy skills. The idea is to create knowledge flowing through the community.

The combination of LinkVan and tech cafes helps vulnerable people by giving them immediate access to daily survival resources and access to technical help. It brings learning to people instead of asking them to come to us for learning.

I’m Lucy. I’ve been working for the last 25 years in community education and, most specifically, for the last 18 years in literacy and upgrading. I know you’ve been sitting here all morning, and as an educator, I just want you to get up and stretch. I know you’re taking care of yourselves.

I work at the Carnegie learning centre, which is in the Downtown Eastside. I work at the WISH learning centre, which is for women working in the sex trade, in the area and the survival of the sex trade. I work, also, in the Hastings Backstretch. We have a learning centre at the racetrack as well.

I, again, want to thank this committee for recommending the $2.5 million remain as a budget item for the province. You would think that with this renewed literacy funding every year, we would be staying on top of things, but that’s not happening. I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to tell you, from the ground perspective, what that looks like.

We have three things that are happening at the same time as maintaining our literacy programs. First of all, we have a lot of government ministries that are cutting staff and moving to web-based service delivery. These savings really have been down-loaded to untrained, often unpaid members of the community.

We have a number of non-profit organizations that are disappearing or shrinking, and they’re cutting back advocacy services. This is especially in the health and housing areas.

We have educational pathways — pathways that we have relied on to just encourage people to step into. These are becoming either unaffordable or unattainable. So it’s having a big impact on those community literacy programs that we have worked so hard to establish and maintain with your support.

For the literacy programs themselves, we’ve become the explainers now. We’re the system navigators. While the need for these emergency literacy services is increasing, our funding mandate is actually moving toward an employment focus. It’s also true that twice as many literacy organizations are accessing the same dollars that we had ten years ago. So we’re all getting less.

We’re having an impact on instructors. For instance, myself, in order to be here today…. I consider it an important commitment to be thinking about the big picture of education in this province, but we had to close the learning centre at Carnegie for the morning. We are really being pulled — where can we be, and where can we have the most impact? — and we’re starting to feel a little bit transparent.

Instead of really doing my work, which I think of as actually developing new programs and doing the kind of research that we need, the innovative curriculum development, we’re just trying to hang on to what we have. Although, as William mentioned, we are looking for efficiencies in all of that work, we’re still people on the ground doing all of that explaining — the sitting down, listening and then helping someone go forward.

We’re having a big impact on our volunteer tutors and receptionists. Our volunteers are the new civil servants, and they’re often untrained, unsupported and stressed by the depth of knowledge expected of them and the desperation of the community.

Last Thursday I just assisted a man with housing forms. But it goes a little deeper than that. He was an aboriginal gentleman who was living in a shelter, and he has cancer. He said to me: “I can’t prepare for my biopsies in this shelter. I don’t have the privacy or access to a bathroom to get ready for my tests. I have to find housing that’s near all these health services. Can you do this form for me?”

Of course, it wasn’t just filling in forms. It was figuring out which building he wanted to go into, calling the housing society and listening to the experience of deciding whether he should give up or try and live. Because he’s a resilient person who has been through so much, he decided that he was going to. These really are issues of health and housing, but because we’re the place that’s open, that’s what we get.

We also have a big issue with privacy, where people are giving their private information — their social insurance numbers, their birthdates — in a wide-open learning centre. It’s the only place they can go to where they can actually get help and where something can be printed out.

I think, also, that we’re really concerned about the tuition that has been added to adult basic education. Before, I used to have about three or four options for people — how they could go forward and get their high school completion or get ready for their next step in their educational process. Now I have to backtrack and try and explain that several of those aren’t there anymore and the other ones are more complicated.

What we’d like to do is…. In addition to the $2.5 million, we need tuition-free adult basic education. We need to keep these educational pathways alive. We cannot add to the debt. We need everyone to do their own work. We need ministries to have staffed front desks and a person to help with on-line services. And we need another $1 million to be part of the literacy funding pot, with a particular mandate towards research and innovative programming with low-literacy learners.
[ Page 2233 ]

S. Smythe: Hi. Thank you for allowing us to be here today. My name is Suzanne Smythe. I’m a professor in adult literacy and adult education at Simon Fraser University, the faculty of education, just across the street. I’d like to continue to discuss…. One of my research areas is education policy, and I work with colleagues around the world. One of our focal case studies is B.C.’s decision to charge tuition for adult basic education because it’s in contravention of UNESCO and many other UN agreements around access to basic education.

What I’d like to do in the short time I have left is to outline just a little bit of background about that policy and then what we’re learning about the consequences of that for adults in B.C.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Just so you know, your ten minutes are up, so we’re into question period time. It’s all your time, however you want to use it.

The fundamental issue — there’s more to it than can be said, obviously, in a short amount of time — is that last year, in December 2014, the decision was made to start to charge tuition for basic education programs.

Basic education programs are those for graduated adults, people who have completed secondary school but need to go into higher education — for example, the trade programs that our fellow citizen discussed earlier. Overwhelmingly, the courses are pre-calc, science, biology 12 and so on. These are programs that people were accessing for free in order to either finish their grade 12 or go into further education or employment.

Those courses now are charged at average tuition of between $300 and $525 each. I teach in a master’s program. My students actually don’t pay that much tuition, but my master’s students are getting professional degrees, and they actually have the benefit of salary increases. These are courses that are basic education. They are not professional. They don’t lead to anything except access to programs that they need in order to continue with their lives, whichever those pathways will be.

I think it was a policy error, because it has an overwhelming effect on the livelihoods, on the equity, on ability to earn a livelihood and ability to support one’s family — charging such exorbitant costs for courses that, in many parts of the world, are still considered basic education.

I’m concerned about the reframing of adult education as non-core, which is happening in the public system. I’d like us to see, as a province, that education — and particularly adult basic education for those who really need an extra pathway and extra time — should not be having barriers but rather open up pathways as an anti-poverty strategy, which we desperately need in this province, and as access to the educational outcomes that other British Columbians do have access to regardless of their income.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I know we could go on for hours, but I do apologize and appreciate that there’s a lot to talk about.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just a quick one — I guess a comment as well. I appreciate you referring to it or speaking about it as a downloading of costs. I think it expands what literacy is, for people to be thinking about not simply reading, which I think most people think of literacy as, but government services and government requirements for people to be able to access the Internet. Even phoning and waiting, I think, is a difficult one.

I appreciate you just reframing it for all of us, because I think it’s important to think of literacy in its broadest sense and the need that’s there. So thank you for your presentation.

S. Gibson: Yeah, this is an area I have an interest in, having taught a lot of university students over the years. How do you find your customers? Often I have found that people that have literacy problems tend to disguise it. They run and hide, and they don’t admit it. So the people that most need to see you and come to your attention often conceal their limitations. How do you go about finding your clients, if you will?

S. Smythe: It seems that when programs are accessible, when they’re low barrier, people find programs. For example, when the education guarantee, which was to take tuition off of adult basic education, was introduced in 2010, participation in literacy and adult basic education increased 40 percent.

At the peak of the education guarantee, there were 45,000 adult learners enrolled in post-secondary institutions. That has declined steadily since the imposition of tuition. We don’t have the latest stats, but we hope to have them by December.

Then in school districts, again, another 21,000 were enrolled. So people find literacy and adult education when they are accessible.

W. Booth: I’d just like to add to that. There’s actually more discrimination and stigma around illiteracy than
[ Page 2234 ]
there is around addiction, in the community that we work in.

L. Alderson: I think that there are far more people looking for assistance in this area than are disguising it. But it’s true that people do. Sometimes people are already working, and they are good at what they do. But then, you know, they always get the wife to do the paperwork.

L. Alderson: I worked with someone just last spring. The gentleman was talking about the safety record of companies. This gentleman had worked in construction. He was totally on top of it, but he couldn’t take the next step because his reading and writing skills in English weren’t strong enough, and that’s all we worked on. He had all the content. But it was because we could meet him at a time when it worked for him.

Part of that flexibility can be provided in the community, but we just really need to be working together.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you so much for taking the time. It’s a very important subject, and I’m sure we will be continuing the discussions in this committee.

Next we have the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia — Dr. Michael Conlon and Dr. Jim Johnson.

Gentlemen, welcome. You may have already heard me say 15 minutes total — ten for presentation, five for questions. I’ll try to give you a little wave with a couple of minutes winding down so we can go to the committee. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

J. Johnson: Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee. My name is Jim Johnson. I am the president of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C. — CUFABC, for short. I’m also an associate professor of economics at the University of British Columbia Okanagan. I’m joined here by the executive director of CUFA, Dr. Michael Conlon.

CUFABC represents 5,400 members — faculty members, librarians, instructors, lecturers — at the five traditional research universities in British Columbia: University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria, Royal Roads University and the University of Northern British Columbia. Those five members are unionized under the labour code of B.C.

CUFA has a role. Our mandate is to act as a unified voice on policy on matters pertaining to post-secondary education in B.C. That’s our role here.

We’d like to share with you our three main priorities for the 2017 budget. First and foremost is an enhancement in the funding for the B.C. research universities. Second is provincial matching of federal and other research funds. Thirdly, provincial graduate scholarships.

I’d like to start by providing some detail to substantiate our view on the need to enhance the funding for our research universities. The Ministry of Advanced Education is the only core ministry to have suffered cuts in the current mandate, not just in real dollars but in nominal dollars. In both 2012 and 2013, research universities saw budget cuts — most recently, a rolling 2.2 percent cut to their operating grants.

These cuts come at a time when enrolment is surging at many of our institutions. The cuts, as you may recall, were billed as administrative efficiencies, but the stark truth is that these funding shortfalls have eroded the teaching and research capacity of our universities.

In addition to the actual cuts, the universities have been suffering from the effects of inflation. Many of the expenditures that the research universities undertake, in terms of library acquisitions and plant and equipment, have been rising in price faster than the consumer price index. The universities have been badly hit by increases in cost.

In addition, B.C.’s universities have been falling behind in areas like compensation, in areas like upkeep of buildings. There has been a degradation of the financial status of our institutions.

Our position is that the research universities of B.C. represent an excellent investment for the taxpayers of British Columbia. We have looked at Statistics Canada data. Some of what I’m going to tell you will be of no surprise to some of you.

Based on the 2011 census, university-educated individuals with bachelor’s degrees or equivalent earn an average income of $67,000, which is considerably better than those with high school only at $37,000 and also better than those individuals with community college or trades education with average income of $43,000.

These are averages. Obviously, there’s a distribution, but these are the averages from the census. Individuals with post-bachelor’s degrees, which is mostly graduate and professional degrees, come in even higher, according to the census, at $90,000.

Roughly 20 percent of B.C. residents between the ages of 25 and 64 have bachelor’s degrees. Another 7 percent have post-bachelor’s degrees. So it’s a non-trivial chunk of the labour force. It’s not all the labour force, clearly, but it’s a non-trivial chunk.

Statistics Canada’s labour force survey provides evidence of the labour force attachment generated by people with higher degrees. The unemployment rate in 2015 was significantly less for those with bachelor degrees, 4.6 per-
[ Page 2235 ]
cent; for those with post-secondary, typically community college graduates, 5.6 percent; and those with only high school diplomas, 7.9 percent.

This was not a one-year phenomenon. This is a pattern which repeats itself year after year. It also holds across all age cohorts. In every age category reported by Statistics Canada, those with university credentials have much lower likelihood of unemployment than those without.

In terms of the labour force participation, which is the percentage of the adult labour force that is actively involved in the labour market whether employed or unemployed, the labour force survey again offers insight into this relationship, into the attachment that university-educated people have to the labour force. Participation rates for those with bachelor degrees are 78 percent; those with high school diplomas, 67 percent. In other words, 33 percent of those with high school diplomas are not in the labour force, and only 22 percent of those with bachelor degrees.

This speaks to the private return on education. There’s also a very significant public return. Our findings, which just we represented here from Statistics Canada data, are not unique. There was a recent study from the Education Policy Research Initiative at the University of Ottawa that came to essentially the same conclusion. Research universities represent an excellent investment for taxpayers.

There’s also another aspect to the return on this investment, and it has to do with the role expanded access plays as a solution to low economic growth and stalled productivity. B.C. has enjoyed healthy productivity gains, healthy economic growth in the last few years. But in truth, most western countries, particularly those that have resource-based economies, are finding slower and slower growth, lower and lower productivity. The promised growth of LNG didn’t really materialize as we had hoped. It may never.

Robert Gordon, has written a groundbreaking book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth. His view, and he’s not alone in this, is that we may be entering a period when the traditional growth and productivity generated out of resource extraction industries is at an end — that this may no longer be the engine of growth that it has been for the past ten years.

He argues that natural resources are no longer a reliable path to growth as it has traditionally been. Gordon looks at a variety of resource-dependent countries, including Canada, and concludes that the primary path to increased productivity and innovation is expanded access to undergraduate and graduate education.

As the Finance Minister noted in the 2016 economic update, most of B.C.’s growth has been driven by Vancouver’s real estate market and unanticipated retail sales across the province — not really a sustainable basis for economic growth.

Our first recommendation, our primary recommendation, is simply this. We ask the committee to recommend restoring inflation-adjusted funding to pre-2012-2013 levels and to fund inflationary increases thereafter. We reckon the cost of that is $120 million to base and $30 million per year.

We have two other issues we want to discuss with you. The first is matching provincial grants. B.C.’s researchers miss out on important opportunities because they are unable to obtain matching funds. Some federal programs, such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, require a 50 percent matching fund, and funds from the not-for-profit sector often come with the condition of matching funds.

Now, the B.C. knowledge development fund does have a small matching research grant fund, but it’s primarily for capital expenses. It’s not for all disciplines.

We’re calling for a revamping of the BCKDF terms of reference and an infusion of funding through matching funds across all the disciplines to help B.C.’s researchers compete nationally and internationally for research funding. In addition, this is an investment that would create jobs and economic activity.

Our recommendation: create a matching fund for researchers, open to all disciplines, at a cost of $25 million annually.

Finally, graduate scholarship. Currently B.C. is not competitive with the other provinces in terms of its graduate student funding. We risk losing the best and brightest to other provinces, and if students leave, there’s an excellent chance they won’t come back.

Unlike B.C., Ontario provided $30 million in provincial funding this year for the Ontario graduate scholarship program, which gives the best students up to $15,000 per year. This program has been in existence for decades. It was in existence when I was an undergraduate. Alberta has a similar program, the Alberta graduate scholarship. And to make matters worse, our graduate tuition fees are amongst the highest in Canada.

In order to address this challenge, we ask the committee to join us in calling for the creation of a provincial graduate scholarship program. Our recommendation is to create a provincial graduate scholarship program with 500 scholarships at $15,000 each. That’s $7.5 million.

To conclude, we think that the critical challenges facing B.C.’s universities are solvable. We have offered realistic, affordable solutions. We have, in our sector, shouldered a slightly disproportionate share of the burden during the lean years.

In the last fiscal update, which was Thursday, the Finance Minister announced a surplus of $2.4 billion and projected a total surplus of $6 billion over the next two years. Despite this robust forecast, B.C.’s research universities have been experiencing a slow decline. We believe now is the time to reverse the trend and invest at least back to the 2012-2013 level in B.C.’s research universities.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. We have about two minutes left for questions, so I’ll go to the committee.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I wondered if you had an estimate around federal funds that have been missed out on, if there’s a rough amount that you could see that B.C. could have accessed if we’d had some kind of matching….

M. Conlon: The Canada Foundation for Innovation essentially is funded on the basis of merit, so it’s difficult, in that situation, to do it on a per-capita basis. But B.C. researchers are obtaining Canada Foundation for Innovation grants at a lower rate per capita than their colleagues elsewhere. That is not the case in the social sciences and humanities or in the engineering and research sciences side, because those programs do not require matching funds.

It’s our hypothesis that the reason why B.C. researchers are missing out on CFI funds is that the matching fund is so much more limited than it is in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time. Always an important subject. I’m sure we’ll be continuing to discuss it as the committee goes forward.

Finally, before lunch, we have — not a very enviable place to present, but nevertheless — the Geoscience B.C. folks. We have Robin Archdekin, Bas Brusche, Bruce Madu and Carlos Salas.

As I mentioned before, as you’re getting ready, ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a little heads-up with about two minutes to go, and we’ll go from there. The floor is yours.

R. Archdekin: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for having us here today. I’m Robin Archdekin, of course. My team here today is Carlos on the far end, Bruce, Bas handing out the pamphlets. I think most of you have met them before.

Slides for this presentation are in the package that we’ve given you. They’re distributed together with some other information on Geoscience B.C. Our aim, of course, is to work towards long-term, predictable funding for Geoscience B.C.

I plan on keeping the presentation brief so that we can have some dialogue and questions afterwards. In the interests of time, I’m going to skip through some of the slides quickly. If you have any questions about anything I haven’t covered, please let me know.

Slide No. 2 in your package: what does Geoscience B.C. do? We’ve presented before in front of the committee, but to review, we collect, interpret and deliver independent, publicly accessible earth science — earth science that’s critical to B.C.’s resource management decisions as well as investments and jobs across the province.

Some of the key areas of our work are listed here. There are the five: minerals and mining; water-related work; quality and disposal; seismicity; fugitive gas emissions — it’s a growing area — and, of course, geothermal.

What is B.C.’s ROI, return on investment, with Geoscience B.C.? Well, first, let me say we’re grateful for the contributions of the province, totalling $62 million in our 11 years, including the most recent $5 million we’ve received. We’ve been able to leverage that for $22 million from the resource sector and others, including organizations like the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

We’ve invested those funds in over 135 projects, covering more than 50 percent of the province. Providing hard numbers for our work is a challenge. Direct financial benefits are not always…. It’s not always an exact science in itself. Investment decisions by a resource sector do depend on a range of factors. Our earth science is most often used as a basis for front-end decisions around investment, which, of course, can take years to materialize if you’re dealing with, say, the mining sector — up to 30 years, for example.

However, it’s clear that there is a positive multiplier factor for return on investment. We do know that there’s been a significant increase in mineral claims across the province, in many more mines in operation now than compared to the outset of Geoscience B.C. in 2005. Two examples are a QUEST project in south-central B.C., which was followed by $86 million in new exploration investment in that project area. Our water-mapping project in northeast B.C. led the oil and gas sector to invest $150 million in a water treatment plant.

Another significant illustration of the multiplier factor. Since 2005, B.C.’s share in Canada’s total mineral exploration expenditures has increased over threefold.

Next slide. Slide 4 — a pie chart, quickly. From this, there are several things, but you can see that every dollar spent on Geoscience B.C. is $1.49 in the ground.

Business case. Continuing here — slide 5, very quickly. I think Norman Keevil…. His quote is very meaningful. He really talks about the critical infrastructure that geoscience, earth science, provides the province not only in terms of minerals but also the energy sector. It’s similar to roads, bridges and ports and so on for B.C.’s economy. So discovery and responsible development of new resources depends on the availability of the province’s earth science.

Geoscience B.C.’s independent and public earth science is a fundamental building block that instills confidence in B.C. as a place to invest. I’m on slide 6 now. First Nations, local communities, governments in the resource sector use our information to evaluate resource projects from an economic, social and environmental perspective.

Slide 7. Our earth science is 100 percent public always. Regardless of the results, we are going to make them pub-
[ Page 2237 ]
lic. Sometimes people may think: “Well, it’s not the result we were expecting, but nevertheless, we’re going to put it out there.” We have an earth science viewer. On slide 7 we’ve referenced it there, and I encourage and invite you to check it out if you have the time.

Slide 8. The comparisons of funding slide is very interesting. It shows, as you can see, that compared with other key jurisdictions in Canada and one in Western Australia, B.C. is relatively modest. I think, however, we have been able to use those funds effectively across the province for B.C.’s benefit.

Just a note. You can see there that what we’re talking about throughout is not only…. It’s the total geoscience investment. So for B.C. that includes the geosurvey, which is within government.

Why does Geoscience B.C. stand out? What’s our value proposition? Well, I said earlier, first and foremost, this organization is independent. Our independence is critical to our return on investment for the province. Often, a key factor with First Nations working with us is that very independence.

Communities, academia, governments and resource depend on credible independent information. We generate trust through our work, and I think that underlines the credibility of the organization. In other words, Geoscience B.C. provides to the people of B.C. independent earth science, enables informed resource management decisions as well as attracting investment that creates sustainable jobs.

There’s no other group like us in North America. There’s only one other one, in Australia, so we’re an exceptional group, and the work that we do is unique.

As the slide says, slide 10, there’s been a threefold increase in exploration investment, as I said earlier, since our inception. This represents a great opportunity for growth in the mining sector in B.C. and others.

Slide 11, helping maintain social licence. We’re working with all communities — as I said earlier, the First Nations, the local communities, all levels of government and the resource sector — not only to look at investment but to help maintain social licence. We address not only economic concerns but environmental and social concerns.

For example, in the natural gas sector, we’ve mapped saline aquifers in northeast B.C., reducing surface water use by the energy sector. We’ve identified safe fluid disposal zones for the sector to further protect the water resource. We’ve increased the number of seismicity stations by 600 percent, from two to 12, in northeastern B.C. since 2012.

On slide 12 are some quotes from individuals with organizations that have benefited in the oil and gas sector from our work. The quotes underline their appreciation for this earth science.

Helping B.C. achieve greenhouse gas reductions is a critical area. Targets are being set to reduce these greenhouse gases. They’re significant, and so they should be. Geoscience B.C.’s work will help B.C., help the province, achieve those targets that are legislated, that are committed to. Our earth science will pinpoint potential sources in fugitive natural gas emissions, aided by remediation efforts. Also, it will help enable this sector to optimize natural gas production and revenues.

Slide 14. As mentioned at the start of my presentation, our aim is to achieve long-term predictable funding for Geoscience B.C.

I’ll highlight some of the areas quickly that we intend to use and target the new funding. For clean energy, we’re helping B.C. reach legislated methane emission reduction targets, as I mentioned earlier; enabling clean energy and regional economic development through direct geothermal use projects; groundwater mapping; seismicity monitoring; exploring other ways, as well, to make B.C.’s natural gas sector clean, such as CCS, or carbon capture sequestration.

Slide 15. For minerals and mining, new funding for Geoscience B.C. will support our work in measuring cumulative impacts of proposed mining projects; life-of-mine research on water, tailings and mine closure; new provincial scale survey data for explorers and resource planners; innovative exploration techniques that lead to discovery and new mines.

I’m seeing some yawns around the table. I know lunch is quick, but I wanted to have some time for questions and to engage you a little on the work we do.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I do appreciate that. Thank you very much. I will go to the committee for questions.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. I know I’ve asked this question before, but I think it helps to get it on the record, because I think it’s a question that other people have, which is: how you make a determination about which projects to take on and how that process occurs within your organization.

R. Archdekin: It’s a great question. We’re very proud of the process that we have. We have what I call a four-step process. Step 1, the most important process, is engagement. We listen to First Nations, to local communities, to all levels of government and the resource sector. We listen to what their concerns are around resource management in the province in step 1.

Step 2 is we identify the science that needs to be done, and we conduct that science. We hire the best experts to do it in step 3. Then step 4 is we make that science available publicly for everyone.

I guess, to answer your question directly, it’s that first step, that engagement — listening to what the concerns are and what we can do in terms of science to address those concerns. It’s very important, I think, that people are heard, that they feel that they can communicate what the direction of our science should take.
[ Page 2238 ]

D. Ashton: I just want to thank you for your presentation. While you were speaking, I was looking at some of the projects that you’ve done since 2006. So once again, thank you.

J. Yap: Yeah, thanks for your presentation. I know you focus on the geoscience side, but a previous presenter earlier referred to a study that suggested that the world of economic drivers was shifting away from resource extraction. I’m interested in your view. Maybe you’ve come across studies that perhaps show that in fact, while there’s some transition going on, there’s still a lot of need for resource extraction, including mining and all the work that your work supports.

R. Archdekin: A good question. I heard the previous presenter’s question, and I thought…. It’s interesting. I’ve heard that all my career. When I came out of forestry years ago — it was about the time Columbus came over — that was the same thing. It was like: “Oh boy. Wrong decision maybe.” But you know what? I think that we are moving into other areas, but I still see resource extraction…. The word itself is kind of a tough one. I see that using our resources wisely is going to continue to be, I believe, a fundamental part of the economics of this province and other provinces.

The real issue is how we can do that and achieve a balance with the environment and the social aspects. But I see this continuing that way.

Now, in terms of the work that we’ve done, I don’t know that we’ve done anything that directly addresses that. It’s just not something we’ve been asked to do yet.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time. I appreciate it. Enjoy the rest of your day. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more from you in the future.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll ask if our friends from Central 1 Credit Union wouldn’t mind stepping up. We have Helmut Pastrick and Anna Hardy.

Good afternoon. Good to see you again. Welcome. As I mentioned before to everyone else, we have ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a heads-up with a couple of minutes left as it’s winding down, and then we can go to the committee. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

A. Hardy: Well, thank you very much for having us here today. As many of you know, my name is Anna, and I’m the B.C. regional director of government relations at Central 1. Central 1 is the primary liquidity manager, payments processor and trade association for all 42 credit unions in B.C. Also joining me today is our chief economist, Helmut Pastrick. Right behind me we have Sonja Foley, who will be doing my work while I’m on maternity leave; and our policy analyst, Samantha Lundy.

Before I turn it over to Helmut, I just wanted to express my sincere appreciation for the consultative process year after year. I want to emphasize how grateful all of the credit unions of B.C. are for your recommendation, for the past three years, to make the temporary deferral of the increased provincial tax rate on credit unions permanent. Although the final outcome was not what we were hoping for, we do truly appreciate the committee’s unwavering support.

To set the stage for my remarks, I’d like to ask Helmut to give you a brief provincial economic outlook.

Our view of the B.C. economy is rather optimistic. We see a nominal GDP growth for the next three years north of 5 percent annually, and real GDP above 3 percent annually. We see, obviously, ongoing low interest rates, a low Canadian dollar, the U.S. economy continuing to grow, no recession at this point that we can anticipate with any clarity, some improvement in the global scene but still probably a subpar global economic performance overall. But B.C. certainly is benefiting, as I said, from low interest rates and a low Canadian dollar.

Some of our commodity sectors are certainly having some difficulties. Metallurgical coal prices have fallen, and production has dropped off. We see that not really improving, although met coal prices have actually bounced back in the last couple of months. But we don’t expect to see any material improvement as long as China has excess capacity in steelmaking.

Of course, our regional economies really vary quite considerably. The Lower Mainland is the strong driver there. We estimate growth, real GDP — we’re at 5 percent annually at this point. We see Victoria also performing much better, and some other parts of Vancouver Island. The large centres — Kelowna, as well, is beginning to see improvements. But once we enter the more resource-based regions, then we see quite considerably difficult economic conditions and even, in some cases, local recessions. High unemployment, out-migration and, of course, housing in those regions would reflect those conditions.

Speaking of housing, we expect to see this housing cycle continue to expand, and the contribution to growth overall will be quite considerable. We see housing construction picking up in other regions, not only in Vancouver.
[ Page 2239 ]

This cycle will continue until we see an economic recession. Typically, economic recessions occur due to external events. Global conditions deteriorate for a number of reasons, and as long as we do not see that, then this housing market and economy will continue to expand. Now, at some point, of course, the housing crunch continues to worsen, and affordability deteriorates ongoing. That, too, will provide some brake to housing activity. But overall, we see it continuing to expand and hold up.

A. Hardy: Thanks, Helmut. As you can see, we have some economic challenges facing various regions in the province. I do think that there is a very important role for financial institutions to play to ensure that capital is deployed effectively.

My remarks today are going to focus on small business, and I’m going to start off with a story. There is a family of third-generation business owners. They had developed an idea for an old building, but it was in need of major repair before it could either be sold, rented or repurposed.

So what started out being a cleanup project ended up becoming a vision for a new business venture. When the bank wouldn’t lend to them, they approached their local credit union, and with their financial guidance, the framework for the project was outlined, financing put in place, and their dream became a reality. I’m proud to say that there are dozens more success stories just like this across the province.

Unfortunately, there is a current regulatory roadblock that limits the amount of small business lending that B.C. credit unions can do. Credit unions incur a very onerous capital penalty if more than 30 percent of their portfolio is comprised of business loans. As you may know, all financial institutions are required to hold prudent levels of capital to keep them safe and sound. In B.C., we’re the only group of financial institutions in the country with this penalty, and we believe that it’s hampering the growth of the B.C. economy.

Credit union risk management is much more sophisticated today than it was when this regulation was written in 1989, which was almost 30 years ago. This is proven by the fact that our loan-loss ratios are consistently lower than those of the banks. Traditionally, we’ve also outperformed banks during financial crises. Throughout Canada, credit unions exhibit extremely prudent risk management, proven especially in comparison to Canadian banks, U.S. credit unions and U.S. banks. Moreover, we have robust investment lending policies that limit the amount of lending we can do to particular industries.

This type of restriction, I believe, is severely limiting our ability to do the type of lending that B.C. businesses need. Access to financing is consistently rated as a limiting factor for starting a small business, and B.C. credit unions can help fill this gap.

Our ask is that we would appreciate if you would forward your shared concern to the Finance Minister, as this change would be zero cost to the government. By allowing credit unions to lend to more small businesses, it would be of great benefit to the provincial economy for job creation and community growth in both urban and rural B.C.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

J. Yap: Thanks for your presentation. Earlier the Finance Minister talked about some of the risks, and one of them is the protectionist sentiment south of the border, both major party presidential candidates talking about a more protectionist approach. Given B.C. is such a trade-dependent jurisdiction, Helmut, I’m interested in your perspective on that risk — not just the U.S., but there’s also Brexit and the impact on China’s growth. China is a big trading partner. So your thoughts on that risk.

H. Pastrick: Yes, it certainly is a risk. I hope it does not come to pass, of course. The economy is very much dependent on trade. We’ve grown through trade. We’ll continue to grow through trade. Certainly, our domestic set of our economy is important as well. But when it comes to incremental growth, historically, if we’ve had a robust trade sector, we’ve had above-average, if you will, overall GDP growth. To have a situation where we have a constriction of trade would be quite negative.

Should the worst scenario come to play and we indeed do not have the TPP advance, we have the NAFTA cancelled, if you will — I’m not sure how that happens, but let’s assume that it turns quite negative — we would see a very negative outcome, first on financial markets, on currency markets and then on the real economy. Hopefully, that won’t come to pass and this is all, at least on one side, just posturing.

S. Gibson: There seems to be some momentum to go national with some credit unions. There seems to be some interest in that, some discussion. I acknowledge that the legislation is not there yet. What’s your view, either one of you, on the implications for the viability of B.C. credit unions and their appeal as uniquely provincial financial institutions?

A. Hardy: There is legislation in place federally right now — it’s been in place since 2012 — for credit unions to pursue a federal charter.

We do have one credit union that is currently seriously considering this option. I think that no matter what the outcome, B.C. credit unions — their focus will always
[ Page 2240 ]
stay on community. Certainly, the benefits of having a headquartered financial sector will stay in B.C., so in terms of jobs and head-office jobs and not just branch-type jobs. Does that answer your question?

G. Heyman: This is, I think now, the third year I’ve heard the presentations from Central 1 as well as individual credit unions, and I just want to thank you for your tenacity in pursuing measures that will enable credit unions to continue to invest in communities in a variety of ways, both small businesses and homeowners.

A. Hardy: I grew up in Ontario, and I think that having such a large financial sector here in B.C. — the strongest in the country — is really a unique advantage we have, and there are opportunities to leverage that. So thanks, George.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I want to express our disappointment, as well, around the provincial tax rate. I think our committee certainly supported it, as you know, and had hoped the change would occur.

I think it’s important to just remind us again of the impact. I know during the discussions that there were certainly discussions about the tax rate for banks versus the tax rate for credit unions and that with this change, you could actually see some credit unions paying more in taxes than banks. I wondered if you could just remind us again so that everybody’s up to date with the impact.

A. Hardy: The Finance Minister did grant us a deferral and a slow phase-in of the provincial portion of that tax, but of course, credit unions in B.C. were also impacted by an increase in federal tax. When both federal and provincial tax measures are completely implemented, we will be seeing, across the board, millions of dollars more in taxes paid federally and provincially.

H. Pastrick: And we estimate, when it’s all in, that the effective tax rate credit unions will be paying will be higher than the effective tax rate of banks, even though statutory rates may well equal. But given that chartered banks have a broader line of businesses and, obviously, more deductions, they end up paying less tax rate bases than we will.

H. Pastrick: Oh, I think by the time we’re all said, it’s going to be in the order of 19, 20 percent, I believe, if I remember correctly.

A. Hardy: Well, it will be an additional $80 million over and above what’s already being paid systemwide.

J. Tegart: I’d just like to thank you and thank you for the service to small, rural communities, because quite often you’re the only ones in our community, and the support that you give to community. To hear today about your request in regards to supporting small business — that’s so incredibly important in rural B.C., in particular.

I really appreciate your comments today, and hopefully, the Finance Committee will put that forward towards the budget this year.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll conclude by saying that there are a lot of communities in this province that wouldn’t look the same, particularly rural communities. Thank you for being our rural voice on this committee, Jackie, and mentioning that it wouldn’t look the same if it wasn’t for the contributions by the credit unions.

One quick question I have. How many credit unions would you estimate…? You said 30 percent business loans is all that’s allowed.

S. Hamilton (Chair): How many credit unions…? You don’t have to give me a specific number, but on average, are you fully leveraged to that 30 percent now, most?

A. Hardy: Most of them are, yeah. For example, in the Lower Mainland, a lot of credit unions are trying to diversify their risk away from residential and retail lending, so they’re looking more at business loans. Also, as was noted in the rural communities, there’s incredible demand for small business financing. We’re not able to meet it at this point.

S. Hamilton (Chair): And might I go so far as to suggest that the temptation would then be to leverage yourself against larger loans to bigger companies, which is, in essence, the opposite of what you really would like to do.

If you’re capped at 30 percent, you want to, obviously, maximize your ROI, so the temptation would be, then, to go to something larger, dollarwise, as opposed to actual numbers.

That’s my thought, anyway. I thought I’d put that out there too. We wouldn’t want you to be tempted by big business.

A. Hardy: Certainly, you’re not going to see credit unions with huge exposures to, like, Massey Ferguson or things like that, or Canfor or anything like that.
[ Page 2241 ]

Okay. Well, thank you very much for taking the time, once again. We look forward…. I’m going to guess we’re going to hear from more credit unions as we continue to tour the province, but you’re the first.

A. Hardy: Yes, you will, but some will be making written submissions instead of oral presentations.

All right. Next we have Families Against Cuts to Education — Carrie Bercic and Jennifer Stewart.

Fifteen minutes total — ten minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll try to give you a little wave when you have a couple of minutes winding down so you can conclude your thoughts and we can go to the committee. If you’re all ready, the floor is yours.

J. Stewart: Hi there. My name is Jennifer Stewart, and with me is Carrie Bercic. We’re with Families Against Cuts to Education. We did present last year. Last year, I made the error of essentially reading my submission to you. I’m going to try not to do that this time, because you can read for yourselves. We kind of want to hit the points.

As the people who went before us mentioned, we appreciate very much your recommendations that resulted from these consultations last year, where you did recognize that education needs increased funding. You made some strong recommendations, and we were disappointed that we didn’t actually see them implemented in the budget. So thank you for those recommendations, and we’d like you to do it again.

It’s clear that you, as a committee, recognize the importance of public education and the value of it, too. Research has shown that there are social benefits and also economic benefits to public education, as manifested through increased graduation rates. There are also negative economic and social costs in terms of increased use of social welfare, decreased earning potential, decreased tax paying and increased incarceration that cost society for every person that we see who doesn’t finish school.

A Canadian study estimated in 2008 that an increase in graduation rates as small as only 1 percent would result in an aggregated annual cost savings to Canada of over $7.7 billion, in 2008 dollars. So there is an actual “business case”— I hate to use the term, but there really is — for public education. It pays off. It is an investment that will pay off in the future. As I said, it’s clear that this committee recognizes that, but it is also clear that your recommendations have been ignored and that public education is underfunded.

Despite your recommendations, operational funding went up in the 2016 budget by only $28 million for public schools last year. That was less than a 1 percent increase over 2015, which is less than inflation. For the second year running now, we have an increase in enrolment across the province, so when you have an increase that’s lower than inflation, you can’t even do what you did last year, let alone service increasing numbers of students.

Even above inflation, costs have increased. I’m sure you’ve heard this every year. I know you hear from a lot of different education groups. I think you’ll probably be hearing from the school trustees association and different districts who will talk about the various costs that they face that have gone up — including things like the next-generation network, which is the Internet system that was required for all districts. That was built by the province but billed to the districts. No funding was given for it, so they have to get that funding out of their budgets. The result of these funding pressures is that districts had to make cuts yet again for their 2016-17 budgets this spring.

Our group, Families Against Cuts to Education — we’re volunteers. We don’t have a budget. We don’t have research staff, so what we did was…. During the spring, we looked for media reports about budget processes in different school districts and also searched school districts’ websites for their fiscal information. We found that at least 31 of the 60 districts faced a shortfall going into the 2016-17 budget year of $85.28 million, cumulatively, by the middle of May.

I will just note that several of those districts — like Surrey, Chilliwack and Sooke — had seen increased enrolment. As a result of these shortfalls, because the school districts are required by law to balance their budgets, we saw cuts, again, to staffing levels, programs, services. Even entire schools were closed simply for budget reasons. That’s why we were seeing the school closure in Osoyoos. As you know, that played out a little differently, but the original impetus to close that school was financial.

I’d like to tie this back to the costs of underfunding education. When you close a school, when you cut a program or when you put kids into larger classes, you really run the risk of kids falling through the cracks. You run the risk of kids failing to graduate. The vast majority of kids are going to be okay. They’re in that middle section. But the kids on one end, who need extra help because they have disabilities of some sort, and the kids on the other end, who are gifted yet who are extremely bored in school, also need extra.

Those are the kids whose services have been whittled away. I mean, in Vancouver, we saw all the gifted programs cancelled this year for budget reasons. You run the risk of losing those kids, who aren’t going to graduate. If you say: “Well, let’s just lower the graduation requirements,” which some would say is already happening…. We see that only one provincial exam is required in grade 12 anymore.

There are far fewer courses needed to graduate now, and I don’t think that that serves our children well. We are not setting them up to succeed by graduating them
[ Page 2242 ]
with lower requirements. What we need to do is give them a quality education to prepare them for the future. That’s the investment that we need to make.

Also, closing schools doesn’t solve your operational budget issues. It’s a one-time savings there that doesn’t help if the funding that you get isn’t meeting your costs. Prince George is a good example of this. They’ve closed 21 schools, and yet they were on our list of 31 districts that still had a shortfall this past year. So the question becomes: why is it underfunded? This is one thing that we would like to really focus on here — the per-pupil model of funding.

The current funding model doesn’t look to the districts for insight about what their costs actually are. It doesn’t take into account fixed costs. You have fixed costs just to open the doors of your school before you even have any students. You need to maintain your building. You need to have a principal. You need to have the teachers. You need to heat your building, light your building — all those things. If you lose two or three students a year, you’re not going to stop doing all of that.

If you go from 100 kids in a school to 97, you’re not just going to shut down that school. You just have less money to do the exact same stuff with. This is the problem with the per-pupil funding model. It punishes children who happen to attend school in a district with declining enrolment, as their district must meet its fixed costs with decreasing amounts of money. As I mentioned before, even some districts with growing enrolments still…. Surrey had a $4 million shortfall this year, even though they are growing by leaps and bounds every year, as we hear.

This committee, going all the way back to 2002, which was the first year that the per-pupil funding was in place… This committee, which at that point had only one member of the opposition on it, stated that it was struck forcibly by how much financial pressure educators working in the K-to-12 system seemed to be experiencing. “We think the shortage of funds is reaching a critical stage for rural schools.”

Now, that was in 2002. In 2003, the Task Force on Rural Education reported that, yes, there is a problem with per-student funding for rural schools. However, we didn’t see any relief for rural schools until this past June, which was 13 years later, when we have the rural education enhancement fund. That saved a handful of schools but did nothing for the 250 schools that have closed across B.C. Many, many of them are in rural districts.

Of course, it’s not only rural districts that are suffering. Our list of 31 included urban, suburban, rural — all, you name it. It’s clear that the government recognizes that this current funding model is insufficient. This summer, we’ve seen announcement after announcement about funding, about school buses, giving back the $25 million that was cut, but they did not give back the $29 million that was cut the year before.

It appears that at least some of these funding announcements are made without regard to what is actually required. They’re just sort of arbitrary numbers. Like, the $6 million for implementing the new curriculum and the new technology doesn’t take into account the fact of how much it is actually going to cost to outfit all the classrooms in the province to meet the demands of the new curriculum. I don’t think we’re going to see any difference in PACs having to go out and fundraise.

In 2013-14, six school districts in the Lower Mainland reported that altogether, they had to fundraise $6 million, and that’s just what the districts were aware of. That’s not counting your little bake sales, your plant sales — all those things that the PAC does every year. While we say it’s encouraging to see the government commit money to public education, the way we’re seeing it happen — this arbitrary, one-off, crisis-to-crisis type of funding — is indicative of a systemic problem and is in no way a sustainable method of funding an education system.

We’re not alone in saying that. The B.C. School Trustees Association says boards cannot do their jobs properly “under the current practice of unpredictable and erratic funding and policy decisions.”

Another thing. We saw recently a $250 tax credit for school supplies, which works out to $12.50 per student per year. A dollar a month isn’t going to make an appreciable difference in a family’s budget, but I’ve heard from several teachers that they could really use a dollar a month per student in their class. They could buy things like 3D printers — equipment that they need. So that money would go a heck of a lot further if it was put into the system, rather than a $12.50 return to families.

Just quickly, capital funding is also lagging behind need. We see it in Surrey, especially, but we also see it in Langley, Chilliwack, and even parts of Vancouver. I live in Mr. Heyman’s riding. My son’s school is 140 percent full because Olympic Village is also in our riding. It was a village built without a school. This didn’t use to happen.

This is what is happening in Surrey too. There is incredible amounts of development without the infrastructure to support those families that are moving in there. In the 1970s, when we saw the development of the False Creek lands, they built that school as part of the development, and the school was open when the families moved in. I don’t know why we moved away from that model, but it is really hurting our communities.

The Premier, Christy Clark, recognized that this current model isn’t working for capital funding. She said: “I think we need to have a good look at the way we decide when we will be funding a new school and make sure that it accommodates school districts that are growing as quickly as this one.” And we support that — that it’s not working right now and we need to be looking, generally, long-term and in the future, in both operational funding and capital funding.
[ Page 2243 ]

In conclusion, we urge you to once again recommend adequate funding, recognizing that it is not currently adequate. And we urge you to renew and strengthen your call for a review of the funding formula, because the per-pupil funding model is clearly not working, and it is, in fact, detrimental to the provision of educational services. We need to find a new model.

We’re not here to suggest what model to find. We think that we need an inclusive, impartial review that takes into account the views of all the stakeholders so that it will be accepted and it will work. So we need to review the funding model would be our main recommendation to you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. What you were saying was really important, so I wanted to let you keep going, but you saw my two-minutes sign. We’re down to two minutes for questions.

G. Heyman: Thank you both for the presentation. I’m perfectly willing to take this information in written form after so others can ask a question.

In attending parent advisory committees at schools, I’ve regularly heard parents raise the increasing burden of having to fundraise for many things that their children need for courses, as well as teachers need to carry on — like paper, for instance. Recently, with the promise of a new coding curriculum — I believe you referred to it — without money accompanying it for updated computers, I’m curious as to what you’ve heard from parents about how they feel about facing the fairly sizable pressure of raising funds for up-to-date hardware and software for their kids or having their kids go without.

J. Stewart: I think what it means is nothing will change. I mean, I know at our school and many other schools, if you have iPads in the school, it’s because the PAC has either raised the money to buy them or has gone out and gotten a grant, like from London Drugs or whatever. It entirely defeats the purpose of education, because it’s incredibly inequitable for kids if their parents can’t do that for whatever reason. They go without, and that is entirely defeating the purpose of the education system.

In terms of Vancouver, we have an additional problem that I think is going to make PACs have to fundraise even more this year. It is that as part of the budget cutbacks, they have slashed the discretionary budgets of the schools, and they took back any money that was sitting in accounts that schools had. They clawed that back to cut the shortfalls, so schools have even less money.

If you need to buy desks or you need to buy some textbooks, all that kind of stuff, they’re going to be asking the PAC to do that because they don’t have the money anymore.

C. Bercic: I’ve been doing public education advocacy and working on PAC for almost 20 years now, and I can see in parents the increasing level of: “I am absolutely not able to do this anymore. I’m tired of fundraising for what my children should be given in public school.” There’s just a level that I think all advocates who work with parents see — of complete frustration and saying: “You know, we can’t do this anymore.”

There’s only so much parents can do and fundraise. And teachers shouldn’t be carrying the system. Staff shouldn’t be carrying the system. Parent fundraising shouldn’t be carrying the system. It feels to me like there’s an expectation that PACs will step in and step up and that suddenly there will be more computers in the schools because parents realize that schools and teachers need them to teach the curriculum.

There’s the expectation that that’s going to happen. Unfortunately, it’s becoming really apparent to those who work with these parents that the level of frustration that the inability to raise the amount of money that is expected…. It’s just not there anymore.

J. Stewart: Yeah, there’s always something more. Parents used to fundraise for….

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m sorry. I’m going to have to cut you off. I apologize. I know we could go on for hours. It’s very important. But I have another presentation waiting right behind you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I do appreciate it. And if you have any more to add, by all means, as your thoughts come to you, submit them to the committee, and they’ll form part of the record.

Could I ask the Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser University — Pierre Cenerelli and Melissa McGregor — to pop up?

Thank you. Ten minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after that. I’ll try to give you a little bit of a signal when there are two minutes left, and then we can go to the committee. The floor is yours. Thanks for being here.

M. McGregor: Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Melissa, and I’m the director of external relations for the Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser. I’m also a PhD student in the English department at Simon Fraser.

M. McGregor: On behalf of the Graduate Student Society at SFU, we wish to thank you for providing us with this opportunity to present to the all-party Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services regarding British Columbia’s 2017-18 budget.

I have a few words in the way of introduction about the society. The society at SFU, the GSS at SFU, represents about 4,400 students in 38 academic programs at SFU’s Burnaby, Surrey and Vancouver campuses. The GSS is a recognized student society under the University Act and the Societies Act.

We represent SFU’s graduate students in university affairs and collect and administer dues on our members’ behalf. We use these fees to provide a group benefit plan, grants and other funding for students, social activities and student space and also to support departmental caucuses.

There are significant economic and social benefits of graduate degrees. A 2014 Statistics Canada survey of the post-secondary graduating class of 2009 and ’10 clearly underlines the economic benefits of obtaining a graduate degree.

For example, employed graduate student holders earn significantly more than other post-secondary students. There are some numbers in the written report, but I’m going to pass over the numbers right now for the sake of time.

There’s also evidence to support that a graduate degree prepares students for future jobs; 92 percent of master’s graduates reported that their job was closely or somewhat related to their education, and this figure reached 96 percent for doctorate holders. This compares favourably to figures for college graduates and bachelor graduates. The numbers for those groups are 81 percent and 80 percent respectively. These metrics indicate the benefits of a graduate degree both for individual students and for the economy and society as a whole.

In order to realize this economic potential for all British Columbians, we need to improve funding for students, provide effective transit to campus and adequately maintain our educational facilities. As such, we urge the Finance Committee to consider our ideas for (1) increased investment in graduate students, (2) continued support for the U-Pass B.C. program and for public transit and (3) deferred maintenance at SFU. I’ll provide a little bit more information about the first of those priorities and then move through the other two.

Although PhDs go on to earn more money than those with bachelor’s degrees, they also owe substantially more student debt upon graduation. According to the same study I referenced earlier, even three years after graduation three-quarters of graduates were still trying to pay off that debt. This significantly impacts their ability to contribute to B.C.’s economy, delaying their entry into the housing market and making it more difficult for them to have families.

Funding prospective graduate students is an ongoing investment that attracts and retains highly qualified researchers and skilled workers in a competitive environment. International students contribute to the vibrancy and innovation of our workforce and ensure that we remain globally competitive. Up to 54 percent of those international students who studied at B.C. institutions indicated that they were interested in working in the province after graduation.

As researchers at the forefront of their fields, supporting graduate students facilitates innovation and technological development. This will help grow new and emerging industries and enhance established industries, such as the natural resources sector, which benefit from the research-driven innovations that improve efficiency, productivity and sustainability. Graduate researchers are really important in furthering these kinds of innovations and doing this research.

The University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and SFU represent three of only five of the top 20 universities in Canada where graduate students do not receive provincial scholarships. Given the high cost of living in British Columbia and the educational opportunities available elsewhere, B.C. universities require a significant investment from the province if they are to contend in an increasingly competitive world of advanced education.

Although it is difficult to obtain data on the reasons students choose not to study in British Columbia, anecdotal evidence from SFU’s graduate program suggests that many of them are struggling to attract top candidates because the cost of living in the Lower Mainland is prohibitive. Providing additional funding for graduate students would go a long way towards solving this problem.

Provinces such as Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba offer graduate students provincially funded scholarships valued, on average, at $5,000 per academic term or $15,000 for a full academic year.

If the government provided B.C.’s research universities with this level of additional funding, universities could distribute it in the form of fellowships for graduate students. Supporting 1,000 graduate students across the province would cost the province $15 million a year, but it would significantly increase B.C.’s ability to attract and retain the very best graduate students. By providing money directly to research universities, the government would not need to establish additional administrative structures. Instead, its role would be to encourage universities to fund students as efficiently as possible.

With that said, we urge the committee to recommend that the province invest at least $15 million above current operating costs in B.C. universities for the purposes of attracting, supporting and retaining talented graduate
[ Page 2245 ]
students. This funding would be administered directly by research universities and could allow them to provide 1,000 graduate students in all programs with awards of $15,000, bringing the opportunities for students in B.C.’s institutions in line with those in other provinces.

This program could be launched as a pilot project, which could then be evaluated by the government, post-secondary institutions and stakeholders such as graduate students and, thereafter, adjusted as needed.

The second thing we wanted to talk about today was transit and, more specifically, the U-Pass program. We would like to thank the provincial government for its continued support of the U-Pass B.C. program, as it demonstrated through the two-year renewal of the contract, from July 2015 up until April 2018.

Post-secondary students really do consider the U-Pass an essential service. Despite its rising costs, they have voted consistently and overwhelmingly in favour of continuing the program. During the Graduate Student Society’s 2015 referendum, nearly 90 percent of our members voted in favour of continuing the program.

Part of its success is that a striking and increasing majority of SFU students depend on public transit to attend classes. In 2011, 69 percent of students reported relying on public transit for their transportation to campus, but in 2014, that number increased to 73 percent. We don’t have a more recent number, but my guess would be that it is still on the rise.

Unfortunately, the average commute duration for these students is over 47 minutes, far greater than the national average commute of 26 minutes. Furthermore, transit to SFU is increasingly unable to meet demand as the university grows. It’s not just the university itself that’s growing; it’s also the residential developments on top of the mountain that are growing quite quickly.

Bus pass-ups are becoming more and more frequent, and students often have to wait for several full buses to pass them by before they can board. Investing in improved public transportation to SFU is thus necessary to enable the university to provide adequate access to its members.

We are pleased to note that Metro Vancouver’s Mayors Council recently agreed to provide its share of funding to support the first phase of investments promised by both federal and B.C. governments. We are hopeful that an appropriate portion of this $2 billion investment in public transit will support improved service to SFU. We respectfully ask that the province continue working with the other two levels of government to prepare for phase 2 of this investment.

We continue to believe that one of the most tangible ways to increase access to post-secondary institutions for all British Columbians is to provide affordable, efficient and reliable public transportation. So we urge the Finance Committee to recommend that the provincial government consider supporting the U-Pass program well beyond the end of its contract on April 20, 2018, and, in general, to continue investing in improved public transit in Metro Vancouver.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You’re at the ten-minute mark now. It’s all your time. It’s your time, however you want to do it. If you don’t want to go to…. It’s your time.

M. McGregor: Okay. Well, we’ll breeze through this one very quickly. This is not a new one. We’ve presented this one to the committee before.

The last thing that I’ll raise is deferred maintenance at SFU. Until recently, SFU and other PSIs in British Columbia lacked the funding needed to keep up even with basic building maintenance. As a result, maintenance needs have been deferred, and the aging facilities have fallen into disrepair. A report published earlier this year put that number in deferred maintenance costs at $241 million, so it’s quite a significant number.

We are very happy that in 2015-16 the provincial government provided SFU with $13.6 million in routine capital and that this amount was set to increase to $19 million in 2016-17. But this doesn’t quite make up for the chronic underfunding that was the case between 2008-09 and 2014-15.

So the final thing that we wanted to present, the final thing that we wanted to ask of the committee, was that they recommend that the government continue to increase the routine capital it provides to SFU and other PSIs so that they can begin to address the accumulated deferred maintenance needs.

S. Gibson: It was my privilege to get a grad degree from SFU. I think one of the things that I would like to point out, though, is that I think many students today are being more innovative in terms of…. For example, I worked full-time and did it part-time. I think this is one of the paradigms increasingly available to students. Some programs are available in the evenings so that the student can still work during the day.

That’s always a challenge, I think, for universities. You’re offering programs during the day, and the person can have a…. If they’re a breadwinner or have an independence, they’re not able to take the degree because there’s so many constraints against them. That’s one of the requests…. I’ve always encouraged universities — I’d be interested in your comments — to be more flexible to allow someone like myself, who was working full-time, to go back and do a grad degree at SFU without having to put everything else on hold. I had a family, a mortgage payment, etc., to make.

I’m not disagreeing with your lament here, but I think it requires grad students to be more flexible and more innovative as opposed to just business as usual.

M. McGregor: I should let Pierre respond to this as well, but I will say that it would take a lot of flexibility for me to be able to take out a mortgage right now. I mean, things are very, very different. I have no idea of when we’re talking about by comparison, but it’s really, really expensive here. I don’t want to…. I’m going to digress, so maybe I’ll let you respond to the question.

P. Cenerelli: Well, I think that sums it up nicely, I suspect. But also, I’d say that, if I may toot our own horn, here SFU is pretty good at providing this flexibility. I suspect the university has gone as far as it could in that domain by having on-line courses, courses that could be taken entirely at a distance.

They have done a lot — not necessarily in absolutely every program, but not every program offers itself to that distance-type model. But they have several models where people literally don’t set foot at the university. They do that, and in fact I know of many graduate programs, in particular, where people live in another province and take the degree at SFU. They do a pretty good job. They’re pretty innovative, but I think that they’ve probably met the wall of what’s possible to do in that regard. I can’t speak for other universities, of course.

S. Gibson: I would just add, Mr. Chairman, that I drove in from Abbotsford regularly to SFU. It wasn’t a really pleasant experience, because it was a drive often in crappy weather. But I mean, I had to make that sacrifice. I’m not saying everybody wants to do that, but to lament that we’ve got to have all this extra money for students…. Sometimes people have to work full-time, and I was a part of that. It wasn’t great. I’m not bragging, but I worked my way through it.

I would encourage other students to be more flexible. Again, I’m not disagreeing with your lament here. I think it’s well taken, so thank you.

M. McGregor: Many of us still do work while we’re doing our degrees. That hasn’t changed. It’s just a lot more expensive now than it was.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I’ll just be really quick. I want to thank you for your presentation. I want to thank you for your work and also to say that the students I know who are in graduate programs are flexible. They’re looking at the best to manage and are either driving or working or doing all of those kinds of things to try and make it work.

The piece that stands out for me in the presentation…. Well, it all stands out, but one of the pieces is the fact that other provinces do offer graduate scholarships. I think that’s a really important piece for the committee to pay attention to. I think those provinces see it as an investment and see it as getting their resources back. I think it’s an area that is of particular attention for us to pay.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present. It’s always important to hear from you, and I look forward to continuing the discussions as we go forward. Have a good day.

Next we have the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia — Dr. Heather Banham and Richard Rees. Welcome.

It’s good to see you again. As you’re settling in, ten minutes for your presentation, five minutes to the committee for questions. I’ll try to get your attention, if you keep your eye on me, at the two-minute mark or so. You can conclude your thoughts, and we can go to the committee. The floor is yours.

R. Rees: Good afternoon. I’m Richard Rees. I’m the president and CEO of the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C., here on behalf of our 34,000 members in British Columbia. I’m joined by Dr. Heather Banham, who is the first vice-chair of our board and dean of business at Okanagan University College.

We’re now one of the largest professional organizations in B.C., and our members are on the front lines of business in this province. They see firsthand what issues are impacting investment and the economy. It is through that lens that we speak to you today.

Now, I’ve had the pleasure of presenting to this committee since its consultations began early in the last decade. This will be the last time you’ll see me in my role with the accounting profession as I retire on December 31 after 17 years. But I’d like to record my appreciation for the work that you do in making recommendations to the provincial budget based on the feedback you hear at these sessions and through the written submissions you receive. I know that the recommendations you make have contributed significantly to the strong fiscal situation that B.C. enjoys today.

I’d like to begin with a brief economic snapshot that includes research and analysis from our annual Check-Up report and Business Outlook Survey. According to the Check-Up, B.C.’s economy enjoyed a year of solid expansion in 2015 with a real annual GDP growth rate of 3.1 percent. For the sixth year in a row, B.C.’s job creation was positive and consumer spending rose, driving growth in retail sales, services and real estate sales. A low unemployment rate and continued positive in-migration were also instrumental in boosting sales activity and prices in the housing market.

B.C. remains in strong fiscal shape, running its fourth surplus in a row in fiscal year 2015-16, and expected sur-
[ Page 2247 ]
pluses for ’17 and ’18 are projected. The government has one of the lowest debt-per-capita ratios in the country and enjoys a high credit rating.

Looking at what has been achieved over the years, there are many positives. However, we are here today to tell you that there are some fundamental structural issues that could undermine the long-term health of B.C.’s economy, impacting our ability to fund the services, education, health and social services that our citizens need. B.C. still lags in terms of business productivity. While B.C.’s average labour compensation per workers and education levels increased, they lag behind the national average.

B.C. is poised to lead the country in terms of GDP growth over the next few years. CPABC recommends that the B.C. government focus on the following policy areas to encourage business productivity: establishing input tax credits for businesses, developing B.C.’s skilled talent pool, fostering head office growth and helping small businesses grow. I’ll run through some recommendations in relation to that.

First, the two issues that have a direct impact on productivity — input tax credits and access to skilled labour. We’ve consistently advocated for a simpler and more competitive sales tax, and we’re pleased that the government recognizes that the provincial sales tax in its current form is outdated. Your commission on tax competitiveness could be an important step in the right direction towards modernizing and streamlining the provincial sales tax.

Currently, B.C.’s marginal effective tax rate on investment is 27.5 percent, which is the second-highest rate in Canada. What this rate looks at is the upfront costs of making an investment, including financing, taxes on materials and services, equipment purchases and inputs. It’s an important indicator of a jurisdiction’s competitiveness. The biggest negative impact on the METR is the application of a retail sales tax without input tax credits.

Our members have consistently ranked the restoration of PST input tax credits as a key priority for the provincial government, and we’ve just completed a member survey in which thousands of our members responded and maintained this as the number one issue. For these reasons, we would once again recommend that the B.C. government do implement input tax credits for business capital investment. This would encourage investment, maintain our province’s competitiveness and drive productivity, all of which are crucial.

In addition to a competitive tax regime, another determinant for investment is access to skilled labour. In coming years, B.C.’s labour market is going to be affected by two major trends: an aging population and an emerging knowledge economy. Over the next ten years, 69 percent of B.C.’s expected job openings will be due to retirements, and more than three-quarters of these openings will require some post-secondary education.

Now, while B.C.’s educational attainment increased in 2015, employers are still concerned about the experience gap caused by skilled workers retiring and new graduates lacking the required competencies. In many sectors, B.C. is not graduating enough educated workers to meet labour market needs.

For these reasons, we recommend the B.C. government expand the current initiatives that promote education and skills training and work closely with the federal government, post-secondary education institutions and industry to develop a cross-sectoral policy that better equips post-secondary students with the needed skills and effectively integrates graduates into the workforce. In addition, the government should consider expanding the Canada-B.C. job grant, which is an employer-driven cost-sharing program that helps businesses offset training costs.

With a competitive tax regime and access to skilled labour, B.C. will not only improve productivity, it will also attract new head offices and support the growth of those already established. Head offices contribute to the growth of small business and the creation of industry clusters.

Currently there is an emergence of high-tech corporate offices in Metro Vancouver, which has three of what are called Canada’s four high-tech unicorns. They are Slack, Hootsuite and Avigilon. Adding to these flagship anchors are international companies: Microsoft, Sony Imageworks and Amazon. While this is a start, B.C. is home to only 7.5 percent of the head offices in Canada.

To attract and foster more head offices, particularly in the high-tech sector, B.C. needs to have four key ingredients. First, access to capital. Early-stage venture capital is critical for companies to take timely advantage of market opportunities.

Secondly, a supportive tax and regulatory environment. Government policy plays an important role in attracting and retaining these head offices.

Third, access to a good pool of talent is essential to building a company or an industry and attracting head offices to a jurisdiction.

Fourth, of course, is a good quality of life, which attracts and retains both local and international staff.

We certainly recommend that the B.C. government continue to support initiatives like HQ Vancouver and should consider expanding it to include other major B.C. urban centres. Fostering industrial hubs will have a positive impact on B.C.’s small businesses, which make up 98 percent of businesses by number and account for 54 percent of private sector employment in the province.

The B.C. government has long recognized the importance of small business to the provincial economy and has introduced various measures to support it. It’s important to the B.C. economy that the province encourage its small business to pursue growth. On average, small business employees earned almost $10,000 less than employees of large businesses. This wage gap is primarily related to
[ Page 2248 ]
productivity, as large firms tend to be more productive.

Small businesses in B.C. have long enjoyed a low corporate tax rate. While this minimizes the tax burden, it actually discourages entrepreneurs and small businesses from growing their business. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, many small businesses don’t see a healthy return on investment until after they reach the $500,000 income mark. The chamber has advocated that the federal government increase the business income cap to $1 million before the higher corporate tax rate takes effect.

Encouraging small business to evolve to become large enterprises will develop a more prosperous economy. CPABC believes that the B.C. government should consider reviewing the corporate tax structure and examine best practices from jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, which eliminated the small business tax rate recently, and then, from there, determine policy measures that can encourage business growth without hurting small business.

In conclusion, we know that you are aware of these issues and acknowledge that they are being worked on. It could be very easy, in the current environment, when we’re doing pretty well, to make them a lower priority. But I say, again, these are structural issues. They are fundamental to the long-term viability of the B.C. economy and the capacity of the government to provide sustainable public services.

We look forward to seeing the continued efforts to enhance B.C.’s economy in the 2017 budget. Thank you, again, for giving us the opportunity to provide our members’ insights to you.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I couldn’t leave without saying a thank-you, Richard. It’s not going to be the same at Finance Committee without you presenting again. So I just wanted to say thank you for the work that you’ve done with the association. Thanks for your presentations. I appreciate it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We appreciate it. Always appreciate your presentations. They’re always very thorough and capture everything you want to say and everything we should hear.

As I say, they’re that thorough. You don’t have very many questions. Just a whole lot of compliments and accolades.

Mr. Rees, enjoy your retirement, in case I don’t see you between now and December. I’m sure you’ll, after 17 long, hard years….

All right. Next we have the AMS student society of UBC Vancouver, Kathleen Simpson.

Ms. Simpson, welcome. You’ve been sitting there for a while, so I imagine you heard my spiel. A ten-minute presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with about two minutes to go.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Then we’ll go to the committee for questions. So welcome, again. The floor is yours.

My name is Kathleen. This year I have the privilege of being the VP, external affairs, at the AMS. I’m also a psychology student in my final year.

The AMS is the student society at UBC Vancouver, representing over 50,000 students at the Point Grey campus. The AMS oversees 400 clubs, runs numerous businesses, provides student services ranging from academic tutoring to the food bank to the Sexual Assault Support Centre on campus. The AMS also advocates, through both UBC and all levels of government, on issues facing its membership.

I’m here today to give a brief presentation on the three most important recommendations that we can make on behalf of our fellow students. These recommendations pertain to the U-Pass program, post-secondary core funding and the student loan interest rate.

To start off with, the U-Pass program is a collaboration between the province, TransLink, post-secondary institutions and student associations that provides universal transit passes to all students at ten post-secondary institutions across Metro Vancouver. The AMS would like to thank the provincial government for their generous support of the program and for helping to secure the contract renewal of the program last year for an additional two years.

The U-Pass program is an incredible initiative for helping to foster affordability for students and benefits from nearly unanimous support among students. In last year’s referendum to renew the U-Pass program contract at UBC, 97 percent of students voted in favour of the renewal.

The U-Pass program also contributes to Metro Vancouver’s transit culture, with the number of students who opt to use public transportation over other transit methods increasing since the program’s creation. According to UBC’s annual transportation status report, person trips using transit have increased by 278 percent.

Thanks to the U-Pass program, students who benefit from the program save over $1,500 annually on transpor-
[ Page 2249 ]
tation when the U-Pass is compared to the cost of buying a monthly three-zone pass. Even students who only require a one-zone pass save $600 annually.

In 2015-2016, the student loans program gives a student loan budget allowance of $93 per month for transportation. While this $93 covers the cost of a one-zone pass at $91, it would not cover either a two- or three-zone pass, which are $124 and $170 respectively.

With the cost of living in the Lower Mainland rising steadily, students are facing financial strain in all areas of their lives. These important savings on transportation are invaluable in helping students to manage the increasing cost of living.

In the AMS 2016 annual survey of students, a full 17 percent reported that they might need to abandon their studies for financial reasons. This represents a five-point increase from the same question the previous year. Many students are in an extremely financially challenging situation, and the loss of the U-Pass B.C. program may push the balance against many students who are fighting to make financial ends meet.

For these reasons, the AMS recommends that the U-Pass program be made a long-term priority to increase student affordability. We also recommend an end to cyclical contract expiries and the development of a long-term, standardized and affordable U-Pass program that is indexed to inflation.

To our second recommendation on core funding. Over the past decade, provincial core funding grants to post-secondary education have been outpaced by both inflation and the rate at which the provincial government has allowed domestic tuition to increase.

With post-secondary institutions facing greater and greater cost challenges and per-student operating grants that do not keep up with these increasing pressures, students are inevitably left shouldering the differences. According to the most recent available data from Statistics Canada, the proportion of post-secondary government funding has decreased from 69 to 55 percent between 1990 and 2009. In the same period, the proportion of funding by students rose from 24 to 35 percent.

With stagnant provincial funding, post-secondary institutions have no choice but to find alternative funding methods. One such method is through tuition increases. UBC domestic tuition increases by the maximum capped amount of 2 percent annually, and international tuition often faces much higher increases.

According to the 2016-17–2018-19 service plan by the Ministry of Advanced Education, the target for the number of spaces at post-secondary institutions is to remain fixed at 200,153 students for the next three years. In the same report, however, it was stated that the ministry anticipates that “the actual results of 2016-17 onwards will be higher than the targets, as public post-secondary institutions are expected to continue to deliver more student spaces due to the current economic enrolment trends.”

Despite the projection that there will be an increase in enrolment numbers, the ministry has not provided an increase to operating grants to assist post-secondary institutions with providing these spaces.

Budget 2016 saw the added $34 million over three years to the Ministry of Advanced Education, but this additional money was only intended to fund wage increases under the economic stability dividend. Budget 2013, on the other hand, decreased the funding to the ministry by $46 million over three years, asking post-secondary institutions to find savings in their budgets to cover the decrease.

The AMS continues to believe that although efficiencies may for a time be able to mitigate these cuts to operating funding, they will eventually lead to a decrease in well-needed services and support for students. For this reason, the AMS recommends that per-student operating grants increase annually by the same amount as the domestic tuition cap so as to more equitably share the burden of post-secondary institution funding on both students and government.

Finally, with respect to student loans, with student loan interest rates of prime plus 2½ percent, B.C. is tied with New Brunswick for the highest student loan interest rate in the country. These steep interest rates make it far more challenging for new graduates entering the workforce to save and invest and, ultimately, more difficult for them to enter the already challenging housing market.

It is these students with the least financial resources who are forced to take on student debt, and subsequently, due to the interest rate, it is these same students who end up paying more for their education.

With many students being forced to take on student loans to finance their education, many also report that financial stress negatively impacts their studies. Across Canada, approximately half of all students graduate with debt as a result of their education, and 40 percent rely on government student loans.

At UBC, 12 percent of students reported that the reason they had chosen to extend their degree past the four-year degree standard was due to reducing the course load for financial reasons. One in six reported that they may need to abandon their studies altogether for financial reasons — again, a significant increase since last year.

In 2015-16, the average student in B.C. spent $17,360 in tuition for a four-year degree. In B.C., the median government student loan for a degree is $20,000. A student with this median debt load completing repayment in ten years would pay $5,691 in interest on their student loan.

After considering the interest rate on loans, students taking on the median government student debt end up paying a total of $23,051 as compared to their debt-free counterparts, who only pay $17,360 for the same degree. This means that students who do not take on student loans end up paying 24 percent less for their education
[ Page 2250 ]
than their peers whose financial needs mandated that they only take student debts in the first place.

To dramatically reduce this disparity, the AMS recommends that the interest rate on student loans be reduced to prime interest rate as a first step towards eliminating student loans altogether.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Ms. Simpson. That’s a very, very good presentation. I appreciate your taking the time here.

Before I go to questions, I first of all want to thank you and your AMS for the work that you’ve done on your campaign drawing awareness to the sexual assaults on campus. It’s exceptionally well done.

My colleague here actually brought up questions about interest rates, comparatively to the rest of the country, on student loans. Maybe we can get some clarity, because I’m not sure whether or not those interest rates that charged are a direct pass-through. Obviously, it’s a third-party lender. The money comes from banks, essentially, and passes through government. Is that a surcharge that government creates, based on what we actually pay back to the banks when you pay your student loans off? Do you know that?

K. Simpson: My understanding is that the government borrows at a rate below prime and then the charge is added afterwards. But please correct me if I’m wrong on that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Yeah, government’s decision. Okay. I’d just like to get some clarity on that, so maybe we could….

Anything else? No further questions by the committee? Thank you very much. I appreciate your taking the time.

We have our friends from Genome B.C. — Suzanne Gill and Pascal Spothelfer. We’ve met before. You’ve obviously been listening. Ten minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left as time is winding down. When you conclude your thoughts, we’ll go to committee. The floor is yours.

P. Spothelfer: Good afternoon, members of the committee and committee Clerks. It’s our pleasure to be here today and to speak on behalf of Genome B.C.

These are exciting times for B.C. and genomics. We are at an inflection point where innovations in genomics are making a practical difference economically and socially. Genomics as a disruptive technology offers enormous potential at a global scale.

B.C. is at the forefront of this transition, and this will create an exciting economic and job-creating opportunity for the province and the country. Thanks to the investments made by present and past governments, both federally and provincially, British Columbia has a globally significant genomics research cluster and ecosystem.

B.C.’s talent, infrastructure and research excellence in genomics and molecular biology are the fuel that will allow our bioeconomy — including forestry, agriculture and life sciences — to grow and provide significant returns to the province. This means B.C. is well placed in terms of global leadership and job creation now and well into the future. The OECD predicts that the bioeconomy enabled by genomics will increasingly be a major driver of economic growth.

With continued coordinated efforts and funding, the bioeconomy in British Columbia could reach well over $12 billion in GDP and support 56,000 jobs by 2030.

How do we get there? As we have created a globally recognized genomics capacity through careful investment over the past 15 years, we now also have to leverage that investment. Genome B.C.’s 2015-to-2020 plan, Powering B.C.’s Bioeconomy, shows us what it would look like to see an increase in social and economic benefits for British Columbians. It is a vision for how genomics can solve some of the most pressing needs in the sectors that matter to B.C., from forestry and mining to health care. It is the beginning of the next 15 years.

If, or rather when, we are successful, genomics will be incorporated into everyday life, affecting every citizen. It will contribute to a healthy population, vibrant communities, resilient ecosystems and natural resources adaptable to climate change. Genomics will be at the point where information technology is today: integrated, invaluable and ubiquitous. This will take some time, but we are making significant progress. Genomics right now is having an impact on many lives, and it is impactful to the B.C. economy in many ways. Let me give you a few examples.

In health care, genomics is improving patient outcomes and treatments by improving diagnoses and outcomes for children with rare diseases; preventing pandemics by providing rapid diagnoses and mitigating
[ Page 2251 ]
transmission of infectious disease; reducing adverse drug reactions by using a patient’s genomic data to prescribe the right medication at the right dosage; and improving patient outcomes by integrating a patient’s genomic data and cancer genomic profile to inform cancer treatment.

In natural resources and clean tech, genomics is mitigating against climate change, securing the future of our forest industry by creating tree-breeding programs that promote adaptation, pest resistance and wood quality; improving water quality by enhancing bioremediation and other mining practices such as acid rock drainage and tailings pond management; helping the health management of wild fisheries by providing better tools to identify risks facing salmon stocks; creating better monitoring systems for surface water and groundwater; and providing tools that identify early indicators of change to the environment and ecosystems.

In agriculture, genomics is helping to grow and sustain an industry by developing efficient and accurate diagnostic tests for crop and animal disease detection and surveillance; understanding why bees are disappearing, and breeding healthier bees to safeguard our food supply; and designing new breeding programs for products to complement current practices to expand B.C.’s agriculture exports.

Not only is Genome B.C. working on these efforts; we’re also dedicated to engaging in public discussions and education. Genome B.C. is committed not only to engage in public discussions of the value of investing in science but also to be the credible source for genomic information for the public, government, industry and educators.

This year alone we have reached 8,500 K-to-12 students and supported 875 teachers in 35 communities across the province. This is an important part of our plan. We’re ensuring that children across the province can learn about this important area of science. We have helped to reintegrate genomics into the new K-to-12 curriculum and are working with other institutions like Science World to inspire students to pursue studies in science.

We’re grateful that the province has seen value in and endorsed our five-year plan. We’re also grateful that the province has made an initial investment in our plan. It is the framework for how we continue to support a sustainable pipeline of discovery, including applied and transitional research. It ensures our work will meet the needs of industry and government.

The plan highlights how we’ll support the creation of new services, products and companies. We want to work with you to ensure that British Columbia takes full advantage of the opportunities presented by the bioeconomy.

It also enables us to work with government and other stakeholders to develop the frameworks and policies that are critical for the day-to-day use of genomics across sectors and in health care particularly. This committee has, in the past, been very supportive of Genome B.C. and has recommended that the province continue to fund our work. Thank you for your ongoing support.

Because of the support of the province, B.C. is one of the top genome clusters in the world, and B.C. citizens are already realizing the economic and social benefits. Let’s continue to ensure that B.C. benefits in all ways from the investment and research, intellectual capital and world-class genomics capabilities.

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

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the work that continues to be done. I think you’ve identified it well. Education, I think, is part of the big challenge so that people even know the depth and breadth of work that goes on in the area of genomics. I think that’s a big, important piece.

I think the health care piece is an interesting piece to pull out in some ways. People across government, of all stripes, often think of health care as this big black hole where money continues to be poured in. It’s a huge cost. It’s expensive.

I think we don’t often shift it the other way to look at the economic opportunities that health care and genomics can provide to British Columbia. I think there’s an interesting shift — I’m starting to hear discussion going — to look at it as an economic driver, not simply as a taker of the resources provincially.

S. Gibson: How are you working with post-secondary institutions to encourage their students to focus on studies that will enhance our genome capability, if you will?

P. Spothelfer: The research cluster we have has attracted phenomenal researchers and also very good teachers at our universities — at UBC, in particular. They are the ones who then attract the graduate students and the undergrad students into their programs.

We’re also working very closely with the faculty of medicine, which is obviously our first target. One of the educational goals we have is to educate the future doctors on the use of genomics.

One of the initiatives we’re discussing with the university — and it’s not easy to do — is to have all medical students’ genomics data captured. Once their own genome has been mapped and they can see the results that come out, we believe that they will take that knowledge into practice, which ultimately is a condition to drive genomics into general health care.
[ Page 2252 ]

D. Ashton: Pascal, why is it difficult to speak with our universities on that? They don’t want to be involved in it?

P. Spothelfer: It’s not difficult to talk to the universities. They want to be involved with it, but there are a lot of challenges. For instance, we can’t force students to have their genome taken. There are ethical challenges around that. We just have to work with them to make it feasible. There are cost issues as well. To have a simple genomic test done is relatively inexpensive. But to have a full genome sequence still costs $2,500 to $3,000. Somebody has to bear that cost.

There are cost issues. There are ethical issues. There are practical issues. There are capacity issues. But the dean is very enthusiastic, and so are we.

D. Ashton: Sorry. I stepped in front of George there. I will bear that for the rest of this tour.

Thank you for the work that Genome B.C. has done for quite some time and for educating all of us as well as other MLAs about the opportunities in the future. Welcome. Belated congratulations on your new position.

I have two questions. I also, first of all, want to echo Carole in thanking you for the work that you are doing in contributing to the education of students in the K-to-12 system and encouraging them, by doing so, to take up further education in the sciences and the various fields that are necessary to continue to build a thriving, tech-based sector in B.C.

I have a specific question. With respect to natural resources and clean tech, you said that you are providing tools that identify early indicators of change to the environment and ecosystem from natural causes and industrial activities. Natural causes, I assume, is climate change, largely. Can those tools be used, or are you also developing tools that could be used prior to any change as part of an environmental assessment process?

P. Spothelfer: There’s one very interesting example where we are currently in the second project with the province on that: the early detection of avian flu, which traditionally was detected by capturing and slaughtering wild fowl and then checking the chicken. Generally, by the time that test was done, it was too late.

By developing a genetic test, where samples are taken from wetlands and watersheds, they can be analyzed for the presence of avian flu. These are very good early indicators of a potential outbreak. Then the isolation measures and other measures can be taken. I think that’s a good example of such a genetic tool.

I take every advantage and every opportunity I can to speak about the type of work that you do — most recently, yesterday, the Terry Fox Run — particularly as it pertains to things like cancer research. We’ve made incredible strides because of the efforts of the folks at Genome B.C. I can’t say enough about the work that you do. Thank you.

Okay. Next we have our friends from the British Columbia Lung Association, Scott McDonald.

As I’ve mentioned earlier, we have ten minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions from the committee. I’ll try to get your attention with about two minutes left, and you can conclude your thoughts.

I didn’t bring my suitcase full of my various glasses I need to read things, so I’m going to be….

S. McDonald: Lung disease affects us all. The Lung Association has a long history in British Columbia and, really, around the world. We were the TB Society. We built Tranquille hospital as the society for the prevention of tuberculosis and other forms of consumption; turned that facility over to the Crown in, I think it was, 1919; operated as a society since that time; and changed our name to the Lung Association in the late 70s. Now we have a vast array of diseases to talk about.
[ Page 2253 ]

I’m not going to talk about all those, but I’m going to emphasize three areas that we’d like the provincial government to pay attention to. I say they have been paying attention for quite some time. The Lung Association’s mission is to improve the lung health of British Columbians, and it’s quite a challenge. There are many factors in there. Our focus is lung disease and the causes of lung disease.

Hundreds of volunteers make up the Lung Association. We have a board of directors, volunteers from throughout the province. We have a medical advisory committee, thousands of special events participants and tens of thousands of donors and supporters around the province.

We finance our work through fundraising primarily — direct mail. We invented junk mail, I’m sorry to say, with the Christmas seal campaign in 1908. We continue to operate the Christmas seal campaign and other mailings. We have a number of special events around the province — one just last weekend. So 300 riders from White Rock to Cultus Lake and back raised a little over $200,000 for our work. We also receive grants from corporations and from the Crown and from foundations.

Our program philosophies are that we’re provincewide. We provide programs as best we can in this vast province. Everything we do is evidence-based. We try to be competent. We try to be available to all British Columbians. We want things to be free or low cost. We want them to be current, professional and as complete as possible.

Our main areas of focus are diseases you’ll know: asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, occupational lung diseases, cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis, tobacco, air quality and many other issues.

We fund about $1 million in research annually in British Columbia. We train the specialists that British Columbians see — primarily at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, in Prince George and in the Okanagan, at Thompson Rivers and at other institutions around the province — in nursing, respiratory therapy, physiotherapy, medicine and other disciplines. We fund six fellowships at UBC each year. Those are training tomorrow’s radiologists, pathologists, thoracic surgeons, respiratory specialists and specialists in tuberculosis. We provide grants of up to $60,000 for two-year projects. We’re funding close to 30 right now.

Our community health education activities are aimed at patients and professionals. We try to improve air quality around the province, including wood smoke reduction and Radon Aware. I’ll talk about a little more. We run the QuitNow program for the province and have for 12 years. It’s the most successful quit smoking program in the country. It’s one of the largest on earth, in fact.

We advocate for tobacco…. Just recently, in the first day of this month, the tobacco and vaping act came into regulation and is going to make for healthier British Columbians.

QuitNow, as I’ve said, is the largest smoking cessation program in Canada. It offers access through on line, telephone, in person and in every other possible way.

Radon is coming into the public knowledge now. Radon is a radioactive gas that’s everywhere on earth. It’s in higher concentrations according to the geology. Most of the time, the geology is the principal factor, but it’s home construction, construction of buildings. We run Radon Aware here in British Columbia and have worked with Shared Services B.C. and other branches of government — Ministry of Environment, in particular, and Ministry of Health.

Buildings must be tested. A building next door to another building may have a high radon exposure level. The unit used to measure radon is called a becquerel. It’s named after Dr. Henri Becquerel, who worked with the Curies in their discoveries relative to the medical uses of radiation. All of them died horrible deaths around radiation poisoning and cancers related to their early work with radiation.

Health Canada has set a unit measurement of 200 becquerels per cubic metre as the level at which you don’t need to worry. But at 201, 210, you should be taking remedial action. We’ve done studies in British Columbia — primarily in Prince George and the Okanagan, as well as in East Kootenays — where we measure, in Prince George over 50 percent of homes, higher than 200 becquerels. In the Kootenays, there are many homes over a thousand becquerels.

Six hundred becquerels is roughly equivalent to a chest X-ray a day, and there are thousands of homes that have 600 becquerel exposures. That’s like lying there watching TV and having a chest X-ray a day. You don’t want that.

We’re urging government to pay attention to radon. I should have mentioned earlier, too, that the second-leading cause of lung cancer behind tobacco is radiation from radon exposure. Health Canada attributes as many as 16 percent of lung cancers to exposure to radon — so a very significant issue, and we are working with government, and we’re urging government, to take continued action on radon.

Wood smoke is an issue in many of the communities that you represent — not so much in urban areas but where wood is accessible and used by homeowners. About 120,000 homeowners use wood as their primary heating source. We’re not proposing that wood not be used as a fuel but that it be used wisely. We work with the Ministry of Environment in a variety of ways to reduce the impact of wood smoke.

We, in fact, have worked for, I believe, nine years now with the Ministry of Environment on a wood stove exchange program. If you turn in your polluting old stove and buy new technology, you can receive a grant through a variety of mechanisms, mostly municipal governments, where we facilitate the grants from the ministry to those communities.
[ Page 2254 ]

Community education is very big. We want to prevent tobacco use, we want to improve air quality, and we want to educate patients about managing their disease. Our advocacy issues are many around air quality and tobacco, best medicines for patients, support for science and many other areas.

Tobacco advocacy. We want to prevent the use of tobacco. About half a million British Columbians continue to use tobacco, and vaping is becoming an important part of threats to lung health. We don’t really know what’s in the vaping compounds that people are inhaling. They’re buying them on line. We don’t know their sources. Health Canada prohibits the importation of vaping materials that contain nicotine. There’s very little that can be said about the use of vaping right now to reduce tobacco through reducing your nicotine intake.

We need to protect the health of British Columbians who are non-smokers, who are about…. Close to 90 percent of British Columbians now don’t smoke. We want to ensure that smokers can quit, that they have lots of opportunities to quit, and we want tobacco to be denormalized. And this relates to your charge that government must invest in tobacco reduction.

Smoke-free housing. A person’s home is their castle but not if it affects their neighbour — the secondhand, drifting smoke. Outdoor places are becoming more important — sports fields and other places. E-cigarettes, I mentioned, a growing issue. Flavoured tobacco. Kind of embarrassing that tobacco continues to be available in pharmacies in British Columbia, the last province in the country to allow that.

Investing in the future. We want to ensure public health. Reduce tobacco. Pay a lot of attention to infectious-disease transmission, primarily through vaccinations. We’re encouraging investment in vaccination and programs to promote vaccination. Assure public health through protection of the air we breathe and educating patients about their disease.

The tobacco, again — an emphasis. We’re encouraging continued investment in the tobacco cessation program, which provides nicotine-reduction therapies to British Columbians. QuitNow. Youth prevention. We don’t want youngsters taking up smoking, and we want smoke-free public places and an investment in that.

Infectious disease. My PowerPoint here shows an airplane. We’re only a few hours away from western Africa, where there are some terrible infectious diseases. We need to keep control on that through B.C. Centre for Disease Control, primarily. Our interest, principally, is tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia, which are preventable through vaccination.

Air quality again. I’ll just emphasize again radon, wood smoke, and I’ll mention transportation.

Partnerships work. We work with government — several ministries, municipalities and others, districts. We work with other NGOs. I know Heart and Stroke is presenting here, the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance, the Canadian Cancer Society.

We work with service clubs, educators, communities and international partnerships. Priorities for government should be a tobacco-free B.C. We need to protect the air we breathe, and we need to help….

S. Hamilton (Chair): You were just under ten. It never fails. People who say: “Well, I won’t need that much time….”

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I was going to ask about vaping, but I think you’ve answered it — that the research isn’t being done yet. I guess I was going to ask if that was part of the work that was being done.

The second piece that I wanted to ask, because I think it’s the next smoking issue or lung issue, is the legalization of marijuana. I wondered if you had presented to the federal consultation that’s going on across the country right now and whether the association had put in a paper or any kind of research just around how to address those issues. I think that’ll be the next big issue coming up around smoking issues.

S. McDonald: Yes, we obviously oppose inhaling anything except fresh air. Marijuana is a threat to lung health — smoked marijuana, that is. There’s no question of that. One thing about marijuana. Most cigarette smokers smoke 20 a day. Marijuana — I don’t think there are that many people that smoke 20 a day. But it’s unfiltered. It is not a healthy thing for lungs — absolutely not. There needs to be education around the use of marijuana.

S. McDonald: We did, through our national office. The Canadian Lung Association submitted on behalf of the provinces.

S. Gibson: My question has been answered. It was regarding marijuana, and you responded well. Thank you.

R. Austin: I was just wondering: how do British Columbians have their homes tested for radon?

S. McDonald: Anyone can visit a website called radonaware.ca, and they can purchase a radon detection
[ Page 2255 ]
device. I should have brought one. It’s like a little ant trap. It looks like a little hockey puck kind of thing. You peel off the sealant. You place that in your home for 90 days and mail that to a lab. The lab sends you your result, and you know whether or not you should take action.

We have quite a few of our research studies published on radonaware.ca, too, if you want to see some detail about the levels in various communities where we’ve placed devices.

R. Austin: A quick carry-on. If one finds that one’s house has a higher level of radon than is good for you, presumably there are things to ameliorate without having to move, right?

S. McDonald: Right. We actually remediated 16 homes under the grant we received from the Ministry of Health. All of them were remediated from quite high levels down to under 50 becquerels per cubic metre. I think the average — I’m making this up — was around $1,500. It depends on the structure of the house and what needs to be done.

Pretty much it’s a ventilation system. It’ll be a ventilation system of some kind. It may be as simple as sealing and venting or a more elaborate venting system.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. McDonald. I appreciate you taking the time — always topical.

Next we have the Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres — Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte.

We’re a little ahead of schedule. I appreciate you being here a little early. Sorry to rush you through it.

We have 15 minutes — ten minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions. I’ll try to get your attention with about two minutes left to go. You can conclude your thoughts, and then we can go to the committee. All right? The floor is yours.

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Okay. Great. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the 2017 B.C. budget.

The Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres represents artist-run centres in British Columbia. Our association counts 25 member organizations, which are located in Vancouver, Victoria, Kamloops, Kelowna and Nelson.

Artist-run centres are non-profit organizations working in the fields of visual and media arts that present non-commercial and experimental artwork and that are geared towards the benefit of the practising artist. Artist-run centres support professional artists at all stages of their careers, pay professional artist fees, and employ cultural workers and administrators.

Artist-run centres provide essential services to the members of the cultural community. These services are fostered through peer-to-peer engagement, including socio-professional networking opportunities and access to artistic distribution and production resources and support.

Artist-run centres constitute key components of the Canadian visual art landscape. They provide community-engaged programs and activities, support the development of artists and cultural workers’ careers and foster artistic innovation. Over the years, the B.C. artistic community has greatly contributed to the development of the Canadian artist-run centre network, notably with the foundation of the first artist-run centre in Canada. Today some of the oldest Canadian artist-run centres are still in operation in B.C., and some of our members have celebrated close to 45 years of activity.

Before going into more detail about the current challenges and situations that B.C. artist-run centres face, I want to thank you, the committee, for the recommendations that you have made in the last three years as an outcome of these provincewide prebudget consultations.

Effectively, for the last three years — perhaps more, but the ones I am particularly interested in are the ones in the last three years — you have recommended increased investments to the cultural sector, notably through increases to the B.C. Arts Council’s grant budget, the development of a cultural facilities capital infrastructure program, the adoption of multi-year funding and the restoration of 2008 community gaming grant levels and beyond. Thank you for taking into consideration and responding to the cultural sector’s repeated expression of concerns regarding the adequacy of provincial arts funding in B.C.

Given that we have seen little change to the provincial arts and culture funding in the last year, it will come as no surprise that we, along with a number of other umbrella cultural organizations, put forward the sustained need for increased support from provincial funding sources.

From the 2016 prebudget consultation report that you issued: “The committee acknowledges the significant social and economic benefits associated with the provision of a vibrant and dynamic arts, sports and cultural sector for the province.” The recommendations put forward in past years to increase funding to the cultural sector are aligned with economic priorities that have been identified by the current government, notably the creation of sustainable jobs and investment in sectors that actively participate in the knowledge economy.

This increased financial support is particularly important at this time because the federal government has planned for significant investments in Canadian arts and culture, including substantial increases to the Canada Council for the Arts budget between the 2016-2017 and the 2020-2021 fiscal years. This is great news for all
[ Page 2256 ]
Canadians, including British Columbia residents, artists, cultural workers and arts organizations.

However, this does not mean that the need for increased provincial funding is alleviated. On the contrary, increases to the Canada Council’s budget puts pressure on the B.C. Arts Council to follow suit so that arts organizations and artists remain competitive on a national scale and are able to access this potential source of expanded funding.

Organizations that receive substantial provincial funding are at an advantage when applying for funding at the national level. Effectively, not only do they have more financial resources to develop innovative programming, support cutting-edge artists and engage communities; they are also able to demonstrate substantive provincial backing. With consistently low per-capita funding to the cultural sector, B.C. is at a disadvantage when it comes to securing federal funding to support its activities.

While I cannot speak to the specific issues and needs that other arts and culture organizations encounter, I can share specific concerns that artist-run centres face when it comes to provincial funding. The Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres commissioned a provincewide sectoral study to analyze the impacts of recent changes to provincial cultural policies and funding instruments on British Columbia artist-run centres and their ability to remain financially and operationally viable while maintaining their core values and mandates.

Low levels of operating funding and proportionally high levels of project funding provided by the B.C. Arts Council, as well as the instability of funding received by our members, particularly from gaming policy and enforcement branch community grant allocations, are among the areas of analysis that we would like to bring to your attention.

The study has also shown that media and gaming grants attributed to our members have diminished since 2008 and that funding is unstable from year to year. Community gaming grant levels need to be brought back, at a minimum, to 2008 levels and then increased if possible. Further, in an effort to diminish organizations’ administrative burden and increase organizational stability, funding received through these grants must be made stable through multi-year funding processes.

To increase transparency in the granting process and accountability to the artistic community, we ask that the arts and culture community gaming grants be adjudicated through the B.C. Arts Council and that this process be informed by rigorous peer evaluation, which is already in place at the council.

The study I was speaking to also makes a strong case for increased granting from the B.C. Arts Council, notably through an expanded operating funding pool and robust core funding. With operating grant averages lower than elsewhere in the country and only half of our membership receiving operating funding from the council, there is a clear demonstration of need for additional core funding.

Operating and project funding allocated to our members represents similar proportions of total public funding received — that is, 12 and 9 percent. This situation is unique to B.C., and while project funding is essential to the development of innovative initiatives, it does not allow for the organizational stability that is needed to sustain these initiatives, grow community outreach, expand human resources in this sector and respond to the growing demands for services needed by a new generation of artists.

In recent years, the province has made significant investments to support a new generation of artists, cultural workers and creative agents. The B.C. Arts Council early career and development program, investments in the new Emily Carr University campus and efforts to engage communities through B.C. Creative Futures strategy testify to the government’s commitment to making art and culture accessible to the next generation of British Columbians.

Increased operating funding is the only way to ensure the health and continued growth of artist-run centres in the province, which act as a stepping stone for young artists and cultural workers careers.

Further, in the last years, operating grants allocated to our membership have been unstable and amounts have fluctuated. Lack of stable funding that a formalized, multi-year granting process would secure precludes artist-run centres in B.C. from planning for the future and developing initiatives to ensure their sustainability and continued innovation.

It is notable that while the B.C. Arts Council budget has seen a significant increase since 2013-2014, when taking into account inflation rates, its current level is inferior to that of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In this regard, we would like to express the Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres and our members’ ongoing trust in the B.C. Art’s Council mandate and support of its initiatives. By the same token, we wish to reiterate our willingness to work cooperatively with the B.C. Arts Council and to offer our support now and in the future towards furthering the council’s mandate of sustaining and enriching arts and culture in B.C.

We are currently in conversation with other arts organizations with which we have aligned our recommendations in the past and will submit a written brief with specific recommendations for the 2017 B.C. budget. We will also transmit a copy of the sectoral study report that I have alluded to.

In this regard, I thank you in advance for considering these recommendations, as well as for taking into account the information that I have presented here today.
[ Page 2257 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Terrific. Thank you very much. I will go to committee for any questions.

First of all, I’m going to start with George, because you made a point of saying you wanted….

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation and particularly for once again highlighting the important role of arts and artists in both the economy and the cultural fabric of British Columbia.

I have a particular appreciation for artist-run centres. There is one in my constituency with which I’ve had a long relationship. They’ve been trying to grow. They have been growing. They do a great job, and there’s a lot of interesting events that happen there.

I recently had a meeting with the director, who highlighted an issue that was causing them some financial concern. You may not know anything about this, but if you find out more about it, I’d urge you to include it in your submission. It had to do with the property tax treatment, which is passed onto the society as a leaseholder.

As a provincially registered non-profit, they couldn’t avoid very substantial increased taxes as a business due to the changing zoning of the area in which they exist. Although, if they were to register, and they’re trying to do this, as a federal non-profit, that would enable them to then be treated differently. That’s, of course, a fairly onerous amount of paperwork to achieve an end that seems self-evident.

If you know about this, we’d appreciate hearing about it. If you don’t and you hear it from other societies and can help include that in a written submission to follow, that would be great, because it was causing a fair degree of stress for this society and the people who are holding it together.

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: I appreciate you mentioning that. I’m not aware of that particular issue, but I’ll reach out to them. Do you know the name of the centre in particular?

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: I think an issue is that…. Well, most of our centres, our members, if not the majority of them, are registered in British Columbia because the mandate is to serve residents of the province primarily. A number of our members are also charitable organizations, so perhaps they have a different status there.

I think that what you’re pointing to, actually, brings up a very real need for securing space — a long-term lease, affordable space — in the city, which is dwindling every day. That is a very real concern and a very real need of our members, absolutely.

G. Heyman: I’ll take a moment and give you some details after this presentation.

Next we have the British Columbia Principals and Vice-Principals Association — Mr. Kevin Reimer.

Welcome. As you’re walking up to the microphone…. We have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions from the committee. I’ll try to get your attention with about two minutes winding down so you can conclude your thoughts. The floor is yours if you’re all ready.

K. Reimer: Thank you for allowing me to come and speak to you today. As I said, I’m president of the British Columbia Principals and Vice-Principals Association. We are a voluntary membership organization. I have the honour of representing over 2,300 principals and vice-principals in the public school system around the province. I have come today to you to talk a little bit about some recommendations that we have for government. I’m going to start by just setting the context about the public school system.

Great schools have great principals and vice-principals. There’s absolutely no way of disputing that in terms of the educational research. As a matter of fact, in the educational research, there’s not a documented case of a school being turned around in terms of school leadership or student improvement without quality leadership from principals and vice-principals. Having said that, I am coming to talk to you today a little bit about funding and leadership development as our association views it.

At the outset, I do want to say that in my almost 30 years of being in public education, this actually is a very exciting time to be in public education. We have a new curriculum that’s flexible and significant. The province is really awash in innovative practices that are happening in classrooms, and we have a new reporting order that allows us to communicate student learning in a way that we haven’t been able to before.

Having said all that, we do have some recommendations for government, as you can see in my outline. I’ll go through the three of them, and I’ll talk a little bit more in detail.

Our first recommendation is that government institute a comprehensive review of education funding in British Columbia. Our second recommendation is that the Ministry of Education work with the BCPVPA and other partner groups to develop, fund and implement a strategic approach to leadership. And that the government fund the cost of total compensation improvements for principals and vice-principals and remove the inequities in the benefits package for principals and vice-principals.

As you are clearly aware, on any given news day, there will be some conversation in the media about public school funding and a variety of stakeholders who will be, at times, arguing about public school funding. Our recommendation — and we are aligned with the B.C. Association of School Business Officials — is to take a
[ Page 2258 ]
closer look at government funding and so, in a sense, be clear about what the numbers are. Our association would argue that the ongoing contention around public school funding is eroding public confidence in what is an excellent system. We’re not always talking about the great things that happen in schools. We’re talking about the funding that happens to schools.

Should this government undertake a comprehensive review of education funding, we would appreciate that they would look at the goals of the K-to-12 system, student populations who are particularly vulnerable, the geographic and economic diversity of the province, and the innovation under the education changes that are happening in government today.

I can tell you that what is happening in B.C. in public education — I am proud to be a part of it — is not happening anywhere else in the world, and the world is looking to the leadership that B.C. is showing in public education. But the funding piece is one of particular importance. What we have right now is fantastic for students, but I’m not sure that it is sustainable.

The second piece for us is that the ministry work with the BCPVPA and our partner groups to develop a leadership strategy. Our research tells us that we are one of only three provinces or territories in the entire country that does not have a framework for sustainable leadership in K to 12.

Our members will tell us that they are noticing that it is very difficult to find qualified candidates to become principals and vice-principals. They look at the complexity and volume of work that has to done, the minimally different compensation levels between being a teacher-leader in their school and being a principal and vice-principal, and a workweek that might be twice or three times as long as teachers. They’re saying that they don’t want to be involved in that.

It’s important for us, for the sustainability of the system, that we have a concrete leadership strategy in place. More districts are having trouble recruiting and retaining people to go into school leadership.

The last piece for us is…. You may have noticed that last year we came to talk a little bit about compensation pieces for principals and vice-principals as part of a leadership strategy. The good news for our members is that after a decade of no salary increases for a number of our members — some of them are entering their second decade without an increase in compensation — PSEC has now opened the door for them to begin receiving some salary increases, as they have lagged significantly behind the union groups within schools. We’re very supportive and happy to hear that news.

One of the challenges will be that without government directing, funding those compensation increases, we are going to have a PR problem in the sense that whatever salary increases come to principals and vice-principals will come from operating budgets. Those people critical of our sector will say that that money was taken from kids in the classrooms. It’s very difficult for me to say to our principals and vice-principals around the province that maybe we need to hold off on accepting a salary increase when it has been almost a decade for many of them before they have received that.

We encourage government that as unionized groups within the public school system have had their compensation increases, increased and targeted funding — we don’t believe that that should come from the operating budgets of school districts, who are struggling these days to keep services to kids intact.

Those are our three recommendations from our association. I’m happy to take your questions.

J. Yap: Thank you for your presentation. To your point regarding the challenge in recruiting new administrators, vice-principals and principals, how are you…? Do you have metrics on the challenge that X number of years ago you had a waiting list of teachers who wanted to be administrators, and today it’s a different situation?

K. Reimer: Yes, we do. We’ve done a provincewide survey of our members, in 2013 and again in 2016, to talk about…. First off, I’ll back up a little bit. The number of years of experience they have coming to the role is a significant factor. What we’re finding is that it used to be that people would be in the classroom for a decade or so before they became a vice-principal, and they came in with a very good understanding of how the schools work.

We’re finding now that when people do opt for it, it’s with significantly less experience. They’re not coming with the kind of experience that we think they need in order to be as successful as they would like. Part of it is job security. In an area of declining enrolment where teachers are also struggling to find work, they might find that they have more job security coming to the leadership position.

We have stories to share from around the province, without question, but almost all districts in the province are saying that the quality of leaders applying for the position has significantly declined. The most extreme example of that is that we had one rural community that had a principalship posted. The only person who applied for that was a substitute teacher who, of course, being the only applicant, received the job but, unfortunately, with a lack of experience and not really understanding schools, didn’t last in the position very long. So it is a growing concern for our membership, yeah.

K. Reimer: I think — if I could use Vancouver as an example — Vancouver is probably anticipating 40 principal retirements this coming school year. You know, when I first started — and this goes back almost 30 years — there was this talk about a teacher shortage, right? I think the piece that was missing was that student populations were declining. We never really saw that teacher shortage that we were expecting because enrolments tended to decline.

I do think we have to have significant concerns. Four or five years down the road from now we’re going to have a great deal of difficulty filling those positions within schools.

I should mention one other thing about the compensation piece. One of the challenges for our association is that while the government has opened the door for principals and vice-principals to receive compensation increases, we’re finding our members are paying for their own increase in the sense that admin time is lowered or there are fewer people in the position. We have principals and vice-principals who are responsible for two or three schools as opposed to one school. So by cutting back on admin time and the number of people in administration, that is funding some compensation increases. But we would all agree that’s not sustainable for our system.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I think you’ve kind of answered it. I was going to also ask questions…. I think it could be helpful to have information around districts and the lack of applications or comparative numbers.

The other piece — which, certainly, I hear a lot in my own district and, I know, districts around the province, as well — is the issue of the time to do the job, the increasing time now that vice-principals, in particular, have to take on as teaching load along with the vice-principal job. I just wondered if you wanted to add to any of that pressure or discussion.

K. Reimer: You know, it’s an increasing challenge. We do have districts where if you wanted to be an elementary vice-principal, it’s 100 percent teaching time, and you’re expected to do your admin position above and beyond that. So we’re looking at a significant increase in hours, a significant increase in the complexity of the work that people have to do.

That’s a difficult one — to tap people on the shoulder and ask them if they’re interested in that. Of course, if we want to ensure that we have one of the leading jurisdictions in the world, then we have to give people the time to do the job.

S. Gibson: Well, you used Vancouver as an example. That’s one that you would know. What would be the average compensation for, say, a principal in Vancouver school district, and a vice-principal — approximately?

K. Reimer: I can take a guess at Vancouver numbers. I will let you know that up until two weeks ago, Vancouver was not a chapter in the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association. More recently, in the last two weeks, they have decided to become chapters. Part of the reason for them joining our association is that they needed support and our association provides contract legal support, and they’re going through a contract talk right now.

I will characterize it in…. When we make comparisons about compensation, we make comparisons to the highest-paid teacher in the district. The highest-paid teacher in the district is making around $85,000 to $95,000 a year. It wouldn’t be out of place to say an elementary vice-principal might be making $8,000 to $10,000 more. An elementary principal might be making $15,000 more. A secondary vice-principal or principal might be making $15,000 to $20,000 more than that.

If I can add to your question, as well, I will say, just to make a comparative…. I am married to a master kindergarten teacher. I hope if you ever meet her, you will tell her that I said that.

In terms of compensation, when we each compare our paycheques, it’s not significantly more. Her benefits package is better than mine, as a public school teacher. She helped to pay for my glasses. The difference is that she would be responsible for 21 kids in the school. I’m responsible for 560 staff members plus all of the needs of their families as well. So you’re not just comparing salary to salary; you’re comparing the breadth and the depth of the work.

S. Gibson: Maybe, if I’m allowed a supplementary…. I was talking to a superintendent, and he told me that it’s not so much the compensation, in his view, but it’s the fact that the more mature teachers don’t want to leave the union. They like the comfort zone of being in the union and the security, where the younger ones — this is his view at least — are more ambitious. They’re willing to take that risk. They’ve only got five or six years, as you state, as teachers, so they take that plunge, where the more mature teachers, that they wish would apply, are preferring to stay in a more comfortable setting.

K. Reimer: I think there is some truth to that, and I think, also, there’s a factor of vulnerability. Within the
[ Page 2260 ]
language of a collective agreement, you do have some protection.

I will add that all of our principals and vice-principals have a personal services contract. We are not the bargaining agent for principals and vice-principals. They negotiate their personal services contract individually. That means they are highly vulnerable within the workplace.

When you look at the increased measure of grievances and so on, when a principal or vice-principal faces those kinds of employment relationship challenges, if they’re our members, it’s our association that’s responsible to help support them through that.

Yes, you’re absolutely right. There is some security with working within a collective agreement. There is increased risk, in terms of the employment relationship, when you become a public school principal or vice-principal.

D. Ashton: Sir, further to that, how many principals or vice-principals have lost their jobs? I’m just asking, sincerely…. You know, you say that it’s a privately negotiated deal between the school board and….

K. Reimer: I can tell you that in our office, it’s almost a daily occurrence that we are supporting a member whose position might be in jeopardy, for a variety of reasons. Now, that might be that there is some concern about their performance. It might be downsizing in a district, which we are dealing with more and more, in terms of them losing their positions.

D. Ashton: That’s a question that I was going to ask and will ask you. I come from an area where two schools were going to close. There’s a smaller base population for the schools. They’ve appointed principals. Why wouldn’t there be a sharing when a school is 3½ miles away? Why couldn’t there be sharing at this point in time?

It’s probably not fair for you, because there are different circumstances, but you touched on it. There are opportunities, I think, where maybe we could be a little bit more practical during some of these downturns in student population to keep schools open, where school boards might look at shared services — i.e., shared off between principals and vice-principals.

K. Reimer: Right. I would completely agree with you. There are always efficiencies we can find in the system. I guess the counterargument I would make is that while we’re in a time of increased budget pressures and we have to look at efficiencies, I can tell you, having been a building principal or vice-principal for 18 years, that the volume and complexity of the work has increased significantly. So while sharing two schools for one administrator certainly makes sense from a financial standpoint, I would argue it doesn’t necessarily make sense from a student-learning standpoint.

D. Ashton: No, I understand — two points to it. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’re plumb out of time, but I do have one quick question. You are a voluntary subscription organization. You represent 2,300 principals and vice-principals. What is that as an overall percentage of the number in British Columbia?

Ms. Audain, welcome. We have ten minutes for a presentation, five minutes for questions of the committee. I’ll try to get your attention with a couple of minutes left. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

T. Audain: What I’m going to do is read the presentation, and you can follow or underline the paper that I have. It’s two pages. It’s the white one. I’m bringing in some interesting terms, which you might not have experienced before, regarding education. I’m warning you right now. The title is Domino Effect in B.C. Education.

Concerns are being raised about policies and practices in B.C. public schools. Are decisions being made provincially or leapfrogging to some global agenda?

Is 21st-century learning an umbrella term that masks the co-optation by international forces and their gurus of a vulnerable government ministry? That’s the Ministry of Education. Is this a foreshadowing of things to come in government generally? Are we moving from elected government, which is yourselves as MLAs, to governance by default? An appropriate question to raise before a B.C. government committee.

These concerns have become more meaningful due to recent events in the B.C. education world. When I applied to talk with this committee, I fully intended to concentrate on a promising finance model to address the portable classroom problems in B.C. Nevada has a similar problem but is attempting to solve it with an education savings plan by releasing per-pupil funding to parents to find educational resources beyond their normal public school buildings.

The concept of unbundling would enable parents to find or create options for children fitting to their needs, whether special needs or talents or simply obtaining basic academic services. B.C. touched on this concept briefly in 2014, when during our longest teachers strike in his-
[ Page 2261 ]
tory, the Finance Minister paid out $40 a day for 13 days in September to parents deprived of public schools in primary years.

Let’s figure. For 180 days of a school year, that would be $7,200. An education savings account in that amount would be an interesting option for solving the portables problem as well as a welcome opportunity for parents to find alternatives.

For your information, I gave a link about Nevada, and there are 20 pages there to read on the topic.

Who am I? I am a grandparent with grandchildren in a mix of education settings. I follow their progress as I follow the education field internationally. I have been active in promoting parents’ rights and duties in education for the past 45 years, helping establish home education in British Columbia and helping codify a parents’ rights document in the ’70s. This is the green paper attached in your package. I follow the trends and cultural changes as they affect education and enlightenment generally, and this is what brings me to the meat of my presentation.

In the ’70s, family rights and family and personal privacy were concerns. Amongst the rights was this one about safeguards: to expect strict supervision over new programs, innovations and experiments and that parents have special rights in these instances to receive a written description of the program rationale, goals and supporting references; to grant or refuse permission for their child’s attendance; to receive satisfaction that the program is run by qualified, well-prepared personnel; to be involved in the ongoing evaluation.

Well, a front-page story in the Globe and Mail on Friday, September 9, highlighted a program at the Norma Rose Point School, in the Vancouver school board system, seriously deviating from that normal procedure. There are two links to the Globe and Mail stories. I wondered what cultural change had occurred that would cause such a school experiment to not only bypass standard procedures but also pull parents in to actually actively betray their own children.

There was no information or consultation with parents for this project started from the very first day of school. The students, 12- and 13-year-olds, were given numbers as ID and separated into factions. Teachers arbitrarily assigned rewards and punishments. An email to parents asked them to keep the project confidential from the children. The aim was to put education on trial and to cause atrocities and crimes to be committed, with the expectation that critical thinking would result. The process drama was suspended as soon as media became involved. A concerned parent had reported this to the Globe and Mail.

Hopefully there will be lessons learned and new protocols developed, as this is still an unresolved issue that awaits more public feedback and reassurances. Meanwhile, we can only speculate as to why such an event can happen with such impunity, in a city school, to the extent that at least one child was distraught and asked parents for removal from this exercise.

What is the atmosphere like in B.C. education today? Well, B.C. has a new curriculum. It is widely promoted in the schools and through media releases.

My first inkling that this was not a homegrown effort was in the spring of 2013 when I attended a parent meeting in Burnaby at which a ministry official spoke. We were told about deeper learning, emotional competencies, collaboration, etc. We were given the impression that much consultation had already been done and that this was unstoppable. We were a month away from the May 2013 B.C. provincial election, where you were all elected, and were informed that regardless of the political party that gets in, the plan goes ahead. It’s global transformation.

My second real clue about international involvement came in January of 2015. A B.C. education forum for invited guests had a number of international speakers. This is what David Albury, a leading coordinator with the Global Education Leadership program from the U.K., said on video:

“This is a pivotal moment for British Columbia…. If we can continue to work together in this way, we can build on how far we’ve got and really accelerate and sustain this. We’ll achieve what nobody else has yet achieved, and that is to transform the system across the whole province…to enable all young people to have the skills and knowledge to be successful in the 21st century…. I wish you all the very best.”

From other clues, we get the impression that the stage has been set for a long time. Michael Fullan, from OISE in Ontario, visited B.C. in 1986. His name is prominent in school transformation literature. A domino effect was being set up. A good number of other international gurus have been in B.C.

Somehow a social licence has emerged that B.C. is a leader in innovation and inquiry. It is the spirals of inquiry project literature, consultants, a network and a UBC department that seem to be part of the theory behind the NRP project.

An education team, Whole Education in the U.K., glowingly praises the inquiry approach and says that 70 percent of B.C. schools, 1,650 schools, have adopted this approach, which is also being implemented in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. The principle of NRP, in her broadcast to parents on the movement’s blog and workshops, supports this approach. Even while, in the education reform literature, inquiry is not well supported as a pedagogical style or method — it is often discredited — it is widely being adopted in B.C.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Ms. Audain, just so you know, we’re down to the ten minutes. We’re into question time. It’s your time. You can use it however you like.

The inquiry process is built into the program. One might wonder why there is urgency behind the new B.C. curriculum and why there is an aim to have B.C. the first in total system change. What is the end-game of this transnational contest? Why does B.C. have to be the first to fall in this domino plan?

I have tried to show that outside factors seem to be involved in our education system and that the new curriculum is influenced by outsiders. I’m wondering why the government is so vulnerable that it cedes its own responsibility to international and vested interests.

I will close by saying that education savings accounts, which I originally wished to speak about, have never seemed more appealing than they do now — $7,200 for each child’s education choices. Education savings accounts are worth examination by this committee for the sake of costs, choices and education reasons.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. We do have a few minutes left for questions, so I’ll go to the committee.

I do have one. Could you just take an opportunity to expand about what you define as “international influences” just a little bit and maybe be a little more definitive as to what you’re referring to?

T. Audain: “International” means foreign. It means outsiders of the province. There has been very little consultation locally in B.C. At least, parents and the public know very little. There have been no royal commissions of investigation, no white papers, no green papers, no blue papers, whatever, to ask the public to be involved in this new curriculum.

Now, as far as saying “international,” internationally, the United States is having the common core. New Zealand, Australia, the U.K. are having all kinds of 21st-century developments. They all have common features to them.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I see. So by “international influences,” you’re talking about international governments at one level or another.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Now, more specifically, who are these agencies you are referring to, I guess?

T. Audain: I mentioned that GELP, the Global Education Leadership program from the U.K., was assigned British Columbia for their jurisdiction to look after and to develop. And there are other such groups that are from various kinds of agencies that want social change that are involved in these kinds of coordinating procedures.

S. Gibson: Thank you for your presentation. I just had a chance to look at this document. You seem to be implying that parents wish they could have more input into the education of their young people. I’m hearing, at least in my community, that parents, through various organizations being involved in their schools, actually are involved very much in their schools and appreciate that involvement. The teachers make them feel welcome, the principals as well. So I’m not sure about this lament. Maybe your elaboration would be appreciated.

T. Audain: On the periphery, in lip service and in all kinds of overtures, parents are welcome to be involved, to talk and so on, but not in the substance of what goes on in the school — not about the programming or about choice of staff or principals and things like that. Also, parents are having a very hard time, those that have a problem and concern. They are upset about the hoops that they have to jump through to get any kind of satisfaction from the school.

Also, my parents’ rights thing did focus on the fact of an experiment or an innovation. The new curriculum is full of innovations and experiments and departures from the traditional way in which I have been raised and brought up in school — and most of yourselves — and which produces results in the academic sphere. This new curriculum is emphasizing competencies such as creativity, collaboration, communication and character — all those Cs — which are not measurable and not accountable.

E. Foster: I spent 15 years in the public school system. It’s been my experience — and you just brought up the hiring of administrators and so on — that committees hired or made the recommendations. Those committees were made up of staff members, administrative people from the district and parents from the PAC group.

As far as this new curriculum goes, this is a curriculum that’s been developed jointly by parents, post-secondary educators and members from the teachers associations around the province. You know, to say that….

I went to the same school system you went to. That was the system. I heard from many, many young teachers as they came out into the schools that what they were being taught in university as far as taking that information to the schools and work…. They weren’t prepared to go to the 21st-century schools. It didn’t go over very well with some of the post-secondary educators, but in fact, they did not feel that they were ready to teach in the 21st century.

The new curriculum was being developed to teach 21st-century students. I give that to you. But the world has
[ Page 2263 ]
changed a whole lot since I went to school. I know that. Students learn differently, and this new system that’s being developed will address the needs of 21st-century students.

T. Audain: I agree that this is a topic about 21st-century education and the 21st century in which we are living, with different cultural changes and so on. But I dispute and challenge you that the new curriculum was developed jointly by parents, post-secondary people and teachers associations. Mr. Bernier, the Minister of Education, keeps stressing that 200 teachers were the ones that developed the new curriculum.

I agree with you that the teachers from university are not trained or even prepared to be teaching in the 21st century, according to the new curriculum style which is being imposed now.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Ms. Audain. We are now out of time. I appreciate you taking the time to present to the committee.

Okay. Next we have A.J. Brown and Barbara Brown. Along with them, we have Ava Hawkins, who is going to be our sign interpreter for either A.J. Brown or Barbara Brown. Welcome.

Just as I mentioned to previous groups, we have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions by the committee after the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention when there’s just a couple of minutes left, and as time winds down, you can conclude your thoughts and we can go to questions. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

B. Brown: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I realize this is the final presentation today, and you have listened to a number of submissions, so I am grateful for your presence.

Perhaps this is the first time that some of you have attended a gathering where communication is enabled by using American Sign Language. Our ASL interpreter today is Ava Hawkins. My name is Barbara Brown, and I am the mother of A.J. Brown.

B. Brown: A.J. is an accomplished artist. She especially likes painting whimsical pictures of cats. She has also earned a BA degree in literature and awards in music.

A.J. is the face in front of the story about the clawback of Canada Pension Plan disability pension by the B.C. government. This happens because A.J. receives B.C. persons with a disability pension.

A.J. was born in Vancouver and lives with the consequences of a birth accident that left her profoundly deaf and with a progressive form of cerebral palsy. She also lives with the after-effects of recurring surgeries to correct scoliosis, a curvature of her spine.

I am speaking for A.J. today as her progressive cerebral palsy has taken away her voice. A.J. uses a special program in her iPad to communicate, or ASL or email.

It took five years, but following graduation from Gallaudet University, A.J. found a job that she worked at for eight years, paying taxes and contributing to her CPP plan. Fatigue and cerebral palsy eventually took their toll, and A.J. applied and qualified for CPP disability pension and the PWD pension.

Stephen Hume, a journalist with the Vancouver Sun, recently wrote about A.J.’s life as a disabled person living on PWD and CPP disability and the effect of the clawback on her quality of life.

A.J. subsists on combined federal and provincial disability benefits. With no clawbacks, those benefits would total $1,450 a month — $554 from CPP and $906 from PWD. But B.C. reduces its payment by the amount A.J. gets from CPP and instead contributes only $342. B.C. characterizes this as “topping up” her CPP, although it reduces her monthly income to $886.

After deductions for rent in subsidized housing, A.J. is left with $546 on which to live, half the average monthly income in Botswana. People with disabilities living in B.C. are expected to live on Third World incomes in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

A.J. says: “It is really punitive being on a B.C. disability. I have difficult choices on what to eat.” She cannot go to physiotherapy because of the $75 cost per visit. She cannot afford cable TV with its closed captioning. Closed-captioned TV is an essential service for the deaf because it is the only effective, universal, emergency communication that deaf persons can easily access, but A.J. cannot buy this service on her $546 net monthly income.

A.J. says: “I don’t get any of my CPP. The B.C. government helps itself to that money. Clawing back is stealing money I earned.” A.J. labels the clawback policy as “abuse.”

In June 2014, Accessibility 2024 was a summit that brought together the disability community, the government and the business sector to discuss strategies to support the goal of B.C. becoming “the most progressive place in Canada for people living with disabilities.” Premier Christy Clark presented the 2024 report, and pledged to separate disability assistance from income assistance and to raise rates for people who live on disability income.

At the Accessibility 2024 summit, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation released a disability consultation report. Referring to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the report states that government has a responsibility “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”
[ Page 2264 ]

In Canada, year after year, provincial human rights commissions report that discrimination on the basis of disability is the most frequent type of complaint they receive. More than half the complaints received by the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission relate to disability-based discrimination.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal benefit and protection under the law. The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based upon physical or mental disability and is the place where the buck stops as it enforces fair treatment in an environment free of discrimination. At the international level, Canada has ratified seven principal human rights conventions and covenants, including the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Why all these references to disability rights? It’s because in B.C., A.J.’s human rights are protected only on paper. For example, to continue receiving her monthly PWD benefit, A.J. must complete an official monthly financial disclosure form. This form compels her to declare three cents of interest income earned by a bank account or face losing her provincial benefit. It is humiliating.

She lives in a province where a $45 bus pass program is replaced by a program where a $75 PWD increase nets recipients as little as $11 a month after the new bus program deductions. Will this committee recognize the injustice, the prejudice and the inequity of the current PWD program?

The disability consultation report summarized messages received from all over B.C. The consultation posed four questions to use as a guide to get the conversation started. Question 3 asks: “What would make it easier for people with disabilities to make contributions to the community, and what needs to be in place?” The answer to this question is straightforward: freedom from want; respect; equality.

This committee here has the power to eliminate discrimination and advance the dignity of disabled persons in B.C. We ask this committee to make the following recommendations: stop the CPP disability clawback; raise the rates and establish a living rate for the PWD pension; align the PWD benefit with the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement rates — this would provide a PWD pension income of about $1,200 to $1,300 a month; restore the bus pass benefit to the previous $45 fee. How can the B.C. government crow about a $77 rate increase that is really just $11?

There is a B.C. precedent regarding the CPP disability clawback. In September 2014, the B.C. government allowed single parents receiving the PWD benefit to keep child support payments that had previously been clawed back. This is really the same principle. I implore this committee: be bold. Breathe life into your terms of reference. Make recommendations that give effect to Canada’s federal and provincial democratic rights.

As a disabled person, A.J. is a protected person under the charter’s laws. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that section 15 of the charter not only requires governments to refrain from discriminating against protected groups, but may also require governments to adopt positive measures to ensure equality or adopt positive measures of protection from discrimination by others. In other words, governments must go beyond the basics and adopt measures necessary to address the needs of disadvantaged groups.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time. I’ll go to the committee for questions.

R. Austin: Barbara and A.J., thank you very much for your presentation today. As I’m sure you’re aware, this has been a very controversial topic in the Legislature. There’s been a lot of back-and-forth on the whole issue of one level of government clawing back benefits from a different program, both within jurisdictions and also within the province. I think your presence here today sends a very powerful message, because instead of just being a statistic of so many people on disability, you coming forward and speaking to us makes it very real.

I think it’s fair to say that this committee very often passes recommendations unanimously which do not necessarily reflect the will of the government of the day. In that sense, it is an independent committee. I’ll give you one example: for a number of years, this committee has passed a recommendation to increase public education funding.

I am sure that your recommendations will be taken very seriously by this committee as we move forward to coming to those recommendations that we decide to put forward. I think it’s fair to say that…. Certainly, I myself have been very moved. I’m sure that others around this committee have been moved, and we want to live in a society where we treat those who are the most vulnerable in a much better way than we have done. I’ll leave it at that.

B. Brown: I’ll just say a couple of words. A.J. is a very talented artist and does a lot of volunteer work in the community. Cerebral palsy does force disabled persons to be extremely sensitive.

A. Brown: I’m sorry. I just wanted to explain that I was very touched and moved by your comments, and that’s what I’m reacting to. Thank you for the respect.
[ Page 2265 ]

D. Ashton: Mrs. Brown, A.J. and Ms. Hawkins, thank you for very much for your presentation.

A.J., while you were speaking through your interpreter, I was looking at some of your art. I’m not surfing. I just want to say that it’s very commendable. Thank you very much.

If I remember from my days in school, thank you is…. Is that correct? So thank you for coming today.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I’ll echo, as other members have, thank you, Barbara, and thank you, A.J., for making sure your voice is heard. I think that’s critical if we’re talking about people with disabilities and their rights. One of their rights is to ensure that their voices are heard. I think you’ve done a very important service at the committee today.

I think the other point I just want to emphasize from your presentation…. I’ve had many people come into my constituency office with the same kinds of concerns. I think the important point that’s often raised, and I think you described it well in the presentation, is that the CPP was earned. The CPP was earned resources. These are dollars that came in through work and that are now being clawed back. I think it’s important.

It doesn’t take away from people with disabilities who aren’t able to work and should also be able to earn enough resources to be able to survive on. I think it’s another important point to emphasize that these are individual dollars that were earned by individuals that are now being taken back by government.

B. Brown: And in A.J.’s case and the same case for anyone else who is disabled, A.J. began work as a disabled person, and her general health declined over that eight-year period. She particularly struggled the last couple of years, because she really, really, really wanted to be independent. And she is.

A. Brown: All of your kind words have meant a lot to me. But I do want to emphasize: could you please back it up with some action.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I could conclude just by saying that I can certainly appreciate, especially the type of effort that it takes for a person like A.J., with your disability, to actually come here and represent not just yourself but other people in the same sort of category, if you will, to use a probably inappropriate term. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your courage and your tenacity.

A. Brown: Again, I’d like to thank all of you for listening to our presentation.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I like ending the day on a note like that. Thank you very much.

That was the last presentation of the day, unless there is someone here for open mike. No, we don’t.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Susan Sourial

1) Robin Tavender
2) Yorkville University	Dr. Daren Hancott
3) Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education	Maggie Milne Martens
	Amanda Hillis
	Andrea Sinclair
4) Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia Division	Beverley Gutray
	Jonny Morris
5) Tahani Hejazi
6) Public Education Network Society (PENS)	Dr. William Bruneau
	Dr. Michael Zlotnik

7) Vancouver Community College Faculty Association	Taryn Thomson
	Karen Shortt
8) Pacific Salmon Foundation	Dr. Brian Riddell
9) British Columbia Construction Association	Manley McLachlan
10) Cement Association of Canada	Ken Carrusca
	TJ Parhar
11) DTES Adult Literacy Roundtable	William Booth
	Lucy Alderson
	Suzanne Smythe
12) Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia	Dr. Michael Conlon
	Dr. Jim Johnson
13) Geoscience BC	Bas Brusche
	Carlos Salas
	Robin Archdekin
	Bruce Madu

14) Central 1 Credit Union	Anna Hardy
	Helmut Pastrick
15) Families Against Cuts to Education	Jennifer Stewart
	Carrie Bercic
16) Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser University	Pierre Cenerelli
	Melissa McGregor
17) Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia	Richard Rees
	Dr. Heather Banham
18) AMS Student Society of UBC Vancouver	Kathleen Simpson
19) Genome British Columbia	Suzanne Gill
	Pascal Spothelfer
20) British Columbia Lung Association	Scott McDonald
21) Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres (PAARC)	Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte
22) British Columbia Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association	Kevin Reimer
23) Tunya Audain
24) Barbara M. Brown, AJ Brown

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES