Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 104 — Monday, October 3, 2016 (HTML)

Orca Room, North Coast Meeting and Convention Centre
240 West First Avenue, Prince Rupert, 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

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

8. The Committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. and from 5:15 p.m. to 5:16 p.m.

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	2517
C. Nelson
S. Starr
J. Aster
R. Lincoln
C. Moore
E. Wilson
R. Sawka
U. Kristiansen
C. Bomben
A. Poynter
K. Veldman
S. Jones
R. McElroy
G. Swan
D. Tablotney
T. O’Dell
L. Roth
P. Nelson

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good afternoon. 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. I want to start by apologizing to everyone for the lateness. Of course, no one has ever experienced being late coming to Prince Rupert before, but nevertheless, we’re going to get underway now. I do appreciate your patience.

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 even Skype. There are numerous ways to submit your ideas to the committee. British Columbians can complete an on-line survey or send written, audio or video submissions through our website, which can be found at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance.

We invite all British Columbians to contribute to this important process. For those of you in attendance this afternoon, we thank you for taking the time to participate. 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 submission is midnight on Friday, October 14, 2016.

Now, the meeting format will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. If time permits, we’ll also have an open-mike period at the end of the meeting. Five minutes are allotted for each presenter at the open-mike period. If you wish to speak, please register with Susan, to my left, please.

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

J. Tegart: Jackie Tegart, MLA for Fraser-Nicola. I’m thrilled to be in Prince Rupert.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m sorry. We’re trying…. Can we recess the committee, please.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We will continue with John. Did you have a chance to introduce yourself?

C. James (Deputy Chair): Hi. Carole James. I’m the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

G. Heyman: Good afternoon. George Heyman. I’m the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview. Good to be back in Prince Rupert.

R. Austin: Good afternoon. Robin Austin, MLA for Skeena. I was here on time today.

J. Rice: MLA Jennifer Rice. I’m the MLA for North Coast, including Prince Rupert. Welcome.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Also assisting the committee today is Susan Sourial, to my left. Steve and Alexa, from Hansard Services, are also recording the proceedings.

Having said all that, I will go to our agenda and ask the first presenter to come up. Just a reminder — ten minutes for the presentation. We’re running late, so I’m going to have to stay the schedule. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you about a two-minute warning when it’s time to conclude your thoughts, and we can go to the committee for questions after that.

C. Nelson: Good afternoon. My name is Christina Nelson, and I’m the northern organizer for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union–Unifor. We would like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the opportunity to present our concerns regarding the cannery closure
[ Page 2518 ]
of the Oceanside plant in Prince Rupert and the impacts it has made to our shoreworkers, the north coast and the province.

As you can see, we have a number of shoreworkers in the audience. The majority of the members here today have between 20 and 50 years seniority working in the fishing industry. They are here to let you know that they have been financially devastated by the loss of work that canning salmon provided — the loss of work.

Eighty percent of the shoreworkers employed at the Oceanside plant are First Nations, and 53 percent of them are women. Canadian Fishing Co.’s decision to discontinue canning salmon has already impacted our workers in the worst way possible. The majority of shoreworkers did not work enough hours for EI, and they will have no choice but to apply for social assistance.

There has been a long, proud history of fish processing on the north coast. Fish-processing jobs used to provide thousands of workers and their families with a decent income. Odd Eidsvik, a community leader and local accountant, estimated in the 1990s that $28 million was paid to Prince Rupert area shoreworkers. This year the wages will be more likely to be less than $1.5 million.

In the Prince Rupert area alone, in 1980, there were ten fish plants, which dropped to seven in 1990. Today there are four. DFO has lowered salmon catches, but there is still $400 million wholesale value of fish caught on the north coast. With no provincial regulations to stop it, more and more fish is shipped out for processing elsewhere. This has left our shoreworkers and our communities in a desperate state.

This salmon season Canadian Fishing Company stripped the guts from approximately five million pounds of salmon. Canadian Fish shipped this salmon south to Vancouver or China, where it will be processed into consumer-ready products. Only approximately 125 workers were needed this year to unload, gut and ship out this huge volume of fish. In the past, there would have been approximately 750 workers canning salmon at the Oceanside plant.

These are the impacts. Last summer we canned three million pounds of salmon at the Oceanside plant, which provided 78,000 hours of work. In 2016, we gutted and shipped out five million pounds of salmon, and that only provided 34,000 hours of work. If we had canned the fish caught this year, the five million pounds would have provided 130,000 hours of work. Just to be clear, five million pounds of gutted salmon gave us only 34,000 hours of work. If we’d canned that same fish, we would have worked 130,000 hours.

On a personal level, here are two examples of workers’ hours for this season. A worker with 44 years seniority has 247.5 hours and will not qualify for EI benefits this year. And 2008 was the only other year since 1972 that she did not work enough hours to qualify for EI.

Another worker, with 38 years seniority, has a total of 436 hours. This worker has a job classification that enables her to work sporadically year-round on herring-, salmon- and groundfish-unloading. Even though she works throughout the year, she does not have enough hours to qualify for EI.

These two examples show why unloading and gutting fish are not enough and why we must process fish to a consumer-ready product.

We brought some tins of salmon here today. You will no longer be able to buy Canadian-canned salmon. These three cans bear Jim Pattison labels. All these labels are being canned in the United States. These three cans were canned in Pattison plants in the United States and sold in Prince Rupert. Canadians, unfortunately, can no longer buy Canadian-canned salmon. This can was canned in Thailand.

In front of you, you have a copy of various labels. The bottom two pictures are of frozen filleted portions of salmon — salmon caught in B.C. and shipped to China for consumer-ready processing, then imported back to B.C. to be sold in Canadian stores. As you can see, the middle picture is B.C. fish, probably caught by Pattison boats, processed in China and marketed in Canada under the Pattison Overwaitea–Western Family label. If Pattison wants to abandon canning in Prince Rupert, there is no reason why we cannot fillet, portion and freeze salmon, like you see in the packages before you.

We are requesting that the provincial government implement adjacency regulations that would ensure that communities close to where the fish is caught reap the benefits from the fishery in their area. We would also like to request that the provincial government provide incentives to companies that will provide or increase employment for their workers.

The provincial government needs to create policies that would ensure we process our fish into a consumer-ready product in the plants in our communities. We have the workers. We have the fish. Meanwhile, the Oceanside plant sits underutilized, and the workers are starving. This is wrong.

The union respectfully submits that the province of British Columbia has an obligation to help the shoreworkers on the north coast so that they will benefit from fish-processing jobs. I want to let you know that many of the workers here today would have been eligible for EI if we had canned. They and their families will have no choice now but to collect welfare. We need adjacency. We should have processed that fish.

The union also has a concern. It’s regarding the allocation of earnings while on social assistance. We would like to tell you that the welfare eligibility rule that allocates small salmon earnings forward and renders people ineligible for benefits until the allocation runs out is unjust. Workers may earn $2,000 in August, and they may not see any assistance until the allocation of their earnings runs out. Our members are poverty-stricken while
[ Page 2519 ]
five million pounds of salmon was caught in Jim Pattison boats in the Prince Rupert area.

We would like to thank you for your time, and I’d like to thank my shoreworkers for being here in support.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you to you all for being here. It’s very much appreciated.

Actually, we’re a little ahead of schedule, so we’ve got time for lots of questions.

C. Nelson: I was going to ask if my members could, perhaps, give a comparison of their years of seniority and their hours, those who are willing to do so.

S. Hamilton (Chair): By all means. Your presentation has got about 2½ minutes left to it, before we go to questions.

C. Nelson: Would you guys like to provide your hours for this year and last year?

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’ll need you on a microphone and to identify who you are when you’re speaking, please.

C. Nelson: I’ll just say that what we’re going to do is…. You can just say your years of seniority and, perhaps, your hours you had last year as opposed to this year.

S. Starr: Hello, committee members. My name is Shelly Starr. I’m a resident of Prince Rupert. I’m a shoreworker, and I’m sanitation cleanup on day shift.

I’d like to thank everybody for coming up here on the north coast: Jennifer Rice; Robin Austin; Carole James, Victoria–Beacon Hill.

I’m not going to be able to finish what I have to say, but I’m affected by, you know…. I don’t remember the hours I got because I haven’t looked at my hours yet. But I’ve been off work for a while now. It hurts when you can’t make EI, to live off the winter and survive. I’m making ends meet right now, and it’s not easy. I’ve got friends who have to….

J. Aster: I think I have just under 600 hours. I’m one of the lucky ones. I’m one of the fortunate ones. I managed to make enough hours.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Sorry, June. Could you come forward and state your name. Gladly, we’d love to listen to you. It’s just for the record. Thank you for sharing.

J. Aster: Well, I had more than enough hours last year for EI, but this year I just managed to squeak by. I’ve worked in the industry since 1972. Like I said, I’m one of the fortunate ones.

R. Lincoln: My name is Rose Lincoln. Last year I made 452 hours — just enough to get my EI. This year I’m making 230 hours. Not enough this year. I’ve been in the company since 1977. So it’s a really big loss.

C. Moore: Hi. My name is Cecily Moore. I’ve been a worker at Canadian Fish for over 30 years. I was a millwright last year at Canadian Fish. I had over 690 hours. This year I’ve got 350.

Really, for how many years I’ve been employed and to have to go somewhere to ask somebody for assistance…. It’s not on my table. We’ll just have to go without. That’s the way a lot of our people are, too. So I’d just like to let you guys know that.

Thank you to all the shoreworkers that have turned out today. Thus far on the Finance Committee, I haven’t seen quite the turnout as we have today.

In regards to appurtenancy, my understanding is that when you’ve gone to the province previously, you’ve been pointed in the direction of the federal government. Then when you’ve gone to the federal government, they point fingers and say: “Fish processing is a provincial matter.” Where are you at with that, and what do you see as needing to be done?

C. Nelson: We are just hoping that the provincial government, with the federal government, can put those regulations into place. I don’t have all of the particulars of how that would be done. To us, it’s as simple as…. This resource is right here on our doorstep. As you can see, 34,000 hours as compared to 130,000 hours has a huge impact to our community and our shoreworkers. That is our fish, and we should be processing it.
[ Page 2520 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): If you want to yield, I’ll go to anyone else with questions.

One of the areas that I’m sure is having a huge impact — and I just wondered if you have anything you want to share — is the impact around the rest of Prince Rupert. The workers’ salaries are paid in the town of Prince Rupert. This isn’t money that goes overseas. When people earn money in communities, they spend the money in communities. I would imagine that’s going to have a huge spinoff, a negative spinoff, on businesses and other groups and organizations in the community.

I just wondered if you’d had stories shared or experiences that you’re hearing about in the community itself.

C. Nelson: Well, we had a very poor season last year. We actually caught more fish this year, and because it was shipped out, that’s where the hours are lost. I know that the end of last year…. I believe Joy had spoken to a number of business owners in Prince Rupert, and they had confirmed that they were very, very hard hit by the downturn in the fishing industry.

It impacts the community in a huge way, and I can only shudder what it will be if we ask them how this season went. It is worse than last year. So, yes, I think it has far-reaching devastation for our community.

J. Rice: Do they have adjacency or appurtenancy on the east coast? Do fish caught on the east coast get processed on the east coast? Or how does it work, and how does it compare with the west coast?

C. Nelson: My understanding is yes. That is, they have an adjacency program on the east coast. If you want to know more about that, that would probably be better answered by Joy Thorkelson, when it comes down to how those regulations and policies work. I’ll just be honest. But yes, that is our understanding.

So we are wanting something similar to that. It, of course, can’t be the same, but it needs to work for our communities and our fish processing.

G. Heyman: Just quickly, first of all, thank you all for appearing and making the issues you’re facing very present here.

You didn’t leave a lot of room for questions because of the thoroughness of the impacts that you described. But I would ask that Joy Thorkelson or anyone else with information about the practical application, in eastern Canada or elsewhere, of the appurtenancy provisions you’re asking us to consider recommending submit by email or some other way to the committee Clerks so it’ll be part of this public record as well as our deliberations.

And just a reminder: that’s before midnight on October 14 in order to form part of the record that the committee needs.

S. Gibson: This is a very important issue to this area. I realize that. My question is: have you had any correspondence or communication with the Pattison folks? Have you had any dialogue with them? You’ve identified them as a part of the issue, of course, and I’m wondering if there’s been any correspondence with them.

C. Nelson: We have approached Canadian Fishing Co. with offers to do consumer-ready products. The workers actually have a new work opportunity fund. Money goes into there by hours. What has happened is that we have approached the company. The workers are wanting to spend that money to purchase machinery and equipment that would perhaps fillet salmon, take the pin bones out, to be able to produce the products that you’ve seen that are coming from China, and they have no interest.

We need a freezer in this plant. That seems to be…. They just don’t have the interest to do it. We know that it would be viable. Of course, there would be some expenditures there, but the workers are willing to put what they have in as well. We’ve had no positive response from them wanting to do any kind of secondary processing.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, thank you for taking the time, Christina, and thanks to all of you for coming out and sharing the stories. We do appreciate it. They don’t always fall on deaf ears.

The information you can get to us would be appreciated, and it will form part of the record. Thank you all again.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll welcome our friends from the North Coast Literacy Now association — Elizabeth Wilson.

E. Wilson: I do, and actually, my guest is Raegan Sawka, and she is going to be doing the next presentation, from the PRDTA. She’s here because she’s also been part of our committee for years and was co-chair last year.

S. Hamilton (Chair): So combined, you’ve got 30 minutes. However you want to format this, I’ll leave entirely up to you. Ten minutes for your presentation, and then we can go five minutes for questions, and then ten minutes and five. If you’d like to do it that way, that’s great. The floor is yours, Elizabeth.

E. Wilson: Mine is not going to take that long, so I will give my extra minutes to Raegan.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Elizabeth Wilson, and I’m speaking on behalf of North Coast Literacy Now steering committee. The committee sincerely thanks you for listening to us during your travels — and in past years as well.

We sincerely thank you for your commitment to provincewide community literacy initiatives as reflected in your budget recommendations over the past years. It is particularly heartening to know that there is so much support at a senior level for the many initiatives and relationships that have been built around the province to support literacy.

As you know, North Coast Literacy Now is part of the provincial network of community literacy committees established, funded and supported through the leadership of Decoda Literacy Solutions. Our area of the north coast includes six communities: Prince Rupert, Port Edward and the villages of Gitxaala, Kitkatla, Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla.

From the amount provided by the provincial government to Decoda Literacy Solutions, North Coast Literacy Now receives $27,473 each year. This money funds literacy coordination and contributes to the community literacy programs that we support.

We are here again to respectfully request that you continue to recommend ongoing, sustained funding for the coordination of community-based literacy work.

As I mentioned the last time you came, life for many is exceptionally complex. All of us are faced with seemingly unresolvable and unsolvable challenges, conflicts and problems. For better or worse, the world as we once knew it no longer exists. Jobs that used to sustain communities and provide families with a comfortable living wage are no longer plentiful. Conflicts that used to be resolved through reasonable discourse now seem to continue with no foreseeable solution.

Where once we thought there was consensus, we now know that people perceive their world from passionate and dramatically diverse perspectives. Challenges and conflicts abound, and small, rural communities in B.C. are disproportionately affected.

Some of these challenges include: how do we provide for the most vulnerable members of our communities with respect and dignity? How do we create viable jobs and opportunities for people in a rapidly shifting world? How do we plan for and adapt to the effects of climate change? How do we develop and use energy resources in ways that respect the needs of all concerned and protect a fragile environment? How do we work effectively within diverse social, cultural and religious world views and perspectives?

People do not magically acquire the literacy abilities needed to consider and tackle these challenges. Literacy evolves through steady, long-term effort and requires ongoing investment. It is crucial for the government to invest in literacy for everyone from birth through the life span. Only by doing so can we stay healthy, make positive contributions to our families and community, adapt to rapid societal changes, work with others and succeed in our jobs and professions.

North Coast Literacy Now and other community literacy groups support early learning through programs such as Books for Babies and Mother Goose programs. We join with others to advocate for high-quality, affordable child care; accessible daycare programs; and smooth transitions to the early years in public schools. We work with others in our communities, such as Success By 6 and Children First, to help make our communities safe and vibrant places for young children to grow and thrive.

We support programs for children and youth by funding mentorship programs between youth and elders, and school-based talking and learning circles, so that learning can occur across generations. Each year, we give out many free books to children and youth at our literacy celebration. We receive generous donations for these books from our local Success By 6 council of partners, our early-years groups and the Prince Rupert Rotary Club. We have worked, over many years, with the Prince Rupert public library to help them purchase special collections of local interest and to continue to provide the Books for Babies program.

We are mindful of those in our community who are vulnerable. Last year one of our committee members helped start a group so that people could come together to plan meals and better provide for their families. Many groups across the province work with others in their community to remove barriers by advocating for, and supporting, accessible post-secondary education, well-funded public libraries and sustainable adult education and training programs.

With strong literacy abilities, we are able to build better lives in many ways. We can read with our children and support them through their education. We can help our
[ Page 2522 ]
youth choose and train for viable employment. We can contribute to and support our families and communities. We can comprehend ideas from a range of perspectives. With strong literacy abilities, we can understand and respect the diversity of values, goals and experiences that others bring to our lives.

Decoda Literacy Solutions and North Coast Literacy Now both define literacy as making sense of our world. We believe that when all of us work together to make sense of our world, we will be able to meet the goals of providing for a comfortable life and meeting the major challenges of the world today.

In this endeavour, the relationships that we build are as important as the programs we are able to provide. Through our regular steering committee meetings and membership in community groups, we are able to communicate easily and regularly with others who are also involved in enhancing literacy. We are able to maximize our resources by purposefully working together to leverage funds and apply for grants. We are able to share information about the needs and gaps in our community and how to meet those needs. We are able to build strong relationships and support culturally, educationally and socially relevant literacy programs.

In addition to the usual work of our steering committee, for the past seven years, we have put on an annual literacy celebration. This celebration includes over 25 organizations and many hundreds of people of all ages. Groups set up interactive displays to engage everyone from very young children to adults. A range of literacies are represented, including financial literacy, family literacy, workplace literacy, health literacy, historical literacy and cultural literacy. Youth are involved through performances by cultural drummers and lion dancers.

Through the annual celebration, people discover new opportunities for learning, and groups and organizations are able to remove some of the barriers to access.

Increased literacy has an incalculable positive effect on all aspects of life. We believe that investing sufficient resources to support community literacy is crucial. We truly appreciate your commitment to literacy as integral to the future of B.C. We ask that you once again recommend that the government provide the ongoing annual funding of $2.5 million required to continue this work.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your ongoing work. We appreciate it. Thank you for the update on how things are going.

I wondered if there’s any particular demographic where you’re seeing an increasing pressure in the area of literacy. Most people think of literacy as reading. I think you’ve covered well the range of literacy issues. But I wondered if there…. Are you seeing more seniors or people retraining? Are you seeing more youth and families? I just wondered if there’s an area that you’re seeing increasing pressure in.

E. Wilson: There is, I think, probably increasing pressure — without any data or figures at my fingertips — in the area of adults and work training. As you know, there are a lot of changes going on in our community and in our region. There is the possibility of employment in a variety of different areas, although we don’t know yet how that’s going to work. That is requiring both initial training for young adults going into that kind of work, and it’s also looking at retraining.

I think what we’ve found is that the training is often available. The missing piece in the training is the strategies that link from maybe slightly reduced, or sometimes severely reduced, literacy levels and the training that’s being offered.

We have been contacted, for instance, by people who have been contracted to set up training programs in our area asking: “What are the organizations within the community that can custom design the literacy to go along with it?” Because there’s one thing to learn how to do something, but there’s another thing to learn how to comprehend and apply what you’re learning. That’s where our gaps are — I think probably fairly significantly.

E. Foster: Thank you for your presentation. I’m from Vernon. We have a very active Literacy Now group in Vernon. They’ve been very successful.

Just a little further to Carole’s question. We’re major forest industry employers in the area, and we’ve found the same situation with the mills. I mean, some have closed, but a lot of them have really ramped up their machinery, and the same in the bush. It’s not jumping on an old $25,000 skidder anymore. It’s now a half-million-dollar buncher.

What they found when working on, as you say, getting from a low literacy level to the point where they’re able to take the course and the computer training and so on…. Are you working on that as well? Because you can’t even run this machinery now without some computer skills.

E. Wilson: Our committee, as a committee, is not specifically working on that, but members of our committee are actually involved in that fairly significantly. We have the college, and we have Hecate Strait Employment Development Society and a number of other people on our committee.

We actually, as a committee, don’t receive funding to run long-term programs. We haven’t received any implementation funding since 2011. We get funding for coordination, and we use some of that, as well, for supporting the programs.

We don’t have enough money for that, but members of our community are involved in that. And then I have been the coordinator for quite some time, and I meet with people to talk about what kinds of things can be done to incorporate comprehension strategies and literacy within the whole area of training.

It is a major focus area in our communities — not just Prince Rupert and Port Edward, but also the villages. It is a whole area of people who are very willing to be trained, very willing to take part in the programs and, because of any number of reasons, don’t have the literacy background to do that — but are very willing to do it.

When people have asked…. We do have people that can come close to custom designing programs, but I think we’re in the early stages of that, really. I really think we are, because that’s a skill in and of itself. It’s being able to incorporate literacy within a training program, because the people who do the training programs may not have the training in literacy, and the people who have the literacy training may not have the training in how to do that thing.

I’d say it’s in its infancy here — and I’d say it’s probably in its infancy in many places — but I think a lot of places are facing that same situation.

J. Rice: Just a quick comment, really. I was just looking at all the…. Well, I don’t even need to look because I live here, and I know all the work that you do.

J. Rice: I attend every year at the Literacy Now celebrations. But it does amaze me; all that’s pulled off with such a minimal budget. I just wanted to acknowledge that we appreciate the work that you do. It sounds like you’re on your way out, so I’ll take this opportunity just to say thank you. It’s very invaluable.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll echo that; $2.5 million sounds like a lot of money, but with all the programs and all the organizations like yours around the province, I don’t think I’ve met anyone else that could stretch a buck like you guys can.

S. Hamilton (Chair): You’re pretty spectacular at it, and we do appreciate your advocacy and all your hard work. And believe it or not…. You said you weren’t going to take 15 minutes. Well, you came awfully close.

Now we’re going to move on to Ms. Raegan Sawka from the Prince Rupert District Teachers Union.

Ms. Sawka, you already know the routine. Ten minutes. I’ll try to wave you with a couple of minutes left, and then we’ll go to questions. All right? The floor is yours.

Good afternoon. My name is Raegan Sawka. I’m a non-aboriginal person who has been born and raised in Prince Rupert. Thank you for having me.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging that this presentation is happening on the traditional and unceded territory of the Tsimshian nation.

I’m currently the president of the Prince Rupert District Teachers Union. I’m on a leave from our aboriginal education department. Previously, I was the secondary math, science and special education teacher.

I’d also like to mention that I’m the mother of four boys in the public education system. We adopted our two eldest sons from ministry care, and of our two younger children, one has autism. The reason I bring this up is because the recommendations that I bring forth today from the teachers also resonate strongly with the parent and community advocacy groups I belong to as well.

Our overview is…. We want to recommend government put an end to the underfunding crisis in our B.C. public schools. We need funds for the new resources needed to implement the revised curriculum and increased aboriginal content as action for truth and reconciliation. Increase funding to restore front-line education services for all learners through specialist and classroom teachers. Eliminate the lengthy wait for children with special needs to get support. Address inequities facing children living in poverty and in ministry care, acknowledging the impacts on learning and life chances.

Since 2001, B.C. schools have lost almost 1,700 specialist positions — 39 percent of our teacher-librarians, 12 percent of our school counsellors, 24 percent of special education teachers, 22 percent of English language specialists and 4 percent of aboriginal educators. We are pleased, for the past three years, that the select standing committee has recommended predictable, stable and increased funding.

Still we see that B.C. has the second-lowest education funding in the country — nearly $1,000 per student lower than the national average, according to the most recent data from Statistics Canada. The increase in funding hasn’t become a reality.

Prince Rupert teachers are strongly concerned about the effects of chronic underfunding of the system. Our local school board has faced budget cuts for this school year of $1.9 million and, in previous years, was forced to close schools and impose other cutbacks to balance their budgets as required by provincial law.

Since 2001, we’ve lost five schools, while across B.C. we’ve seen over 250 closures and teardowns of schools. Our schools were closed with the promise of a new building if we reached capacity, and now there’s no consideration of a new school.

The last school year alone we lost 12 full-time-equivalent teaching positions and a similar number of educational assistants. I was just discussing these cuts this morning with our superintendent and assistant superintendent. They both shared that they wished there was more funding. They’ve received requests, this month alone, from school administrators for tens of thousands of dollars needed to address the needs, and all they can say is: “No. There’s no more money.”

I told them that the PRDT was making this presentation, and they were glad we are making a case for more funding. They added that there is an increasing tension in the system when we’re trying to create the best possible schools with less and less money, and it’s only getting worse. That’s what she said.

This means fewer counsellors, specialist teachers, librarians and supports for students with special needs. With fewer classroom teachers, classes are at capacity, meaning less of the necessary one-on-one time for students. Our students have diverse strengths and challenges, which we welcome as inclusive schools, but it doesn’t work without support. Otherwise, we are set up for failure.

We want to be able to offer our learners more hands-on projects, individual inquiry and experiences such as field trips. Yet due to chronic underfunding, resources and materials have been dramatically reduced.

In our secondary schools, we have classes at capacity in chemistry, foods and nutrition, and shop. Imagine 30 students all trying to participate in hands-on learning with one educator to guide and supervise them. Some of our classes are so full that students have to complete senior math and science classes on computers in our library in order to meet their graduation requirements.

The research is clear. Investing resources to reduce class sizes substantially improves outcomes for students. It exerts an equalizing effect by helping disadvantaged students the most. Our children deserve better. This is an investment in the future. Quality public education pays major returns down the road in a stronger economy and a reduction in poverty and creates positive social impacts.

Underfunding of public education essentially downloads taxes, calling them fees. The education system continues to rely on parents to fundraise for things like playgrounds, classroom technology and hot lunches and to pay for a growing array of fees for field trips, supplies and transportation. Our PACs and DPAC parents are experiencing growing frustrations and stress, continually being asked to raise money to subsidize the system. They are tired of fighting cuts to services for their children to be safe and access their education.

One example is our loss of bus service. Elementary students are now expected to cross a busy, four-lane provincial highway during a potentially three-kilometer walk each way to school. Students as young as ten are riding our city transit unsupervised, navigating transfers on their own, due to neighbourhood school closures.

Teachers continually subsidize school funding by paying large sums out of their own pockets for classroom supplies. Most concerning, class sizes are growing, and classrooms host an increasing number of students with learning challenges or other special needs, with too few staff and resources made available to support them.

We’ve seen a drop in the share of our total economic resources dedicated to public education from 3.42 percent of our province’s gross domestic product in 2001 to a projected 2.19 percent in the budget of 2016. The decrease to education funding represents about $2 billion per year. Since 2001, we’ve also seen unprecedented tax cuts for wealthy and corporations, with an erosion of funding needed for services such as education.

But there’s good news. With a $1.9 billion surplus, there’s an opportunity for substantial reinvestment. We want to say strongly that the province must invest more for the public K-to-12 system. We urge the committee to bring forward once again recommendations from its previous two reports and replicate those going forward.

We need to increase public education funding to ensure that front-line supports are there for all students in the classroom. We have made progress with graduation rates, but we can do much better for many students, particularly aboriginal students, students with special needs and our English-language learners.

Lower graduation rates are not the fault of those students. It’s a symptom of a system failure that needs to be addressed. That’s going to take a restoration of specialist positions, such as counsellors, librarians and learning services teachers, providing the direct-line supports in our systems that have been eliminated or have been disappearing over the past decade or so.

The overall base funding for education is not keeping pace with inflation and downloaded costs to school districts. The K-through-12 education fund needs to be increased to cover an estimated $94 million of additional costs facing school districts in the 2016-17 school year. These costs include things such as MSP premiums, inflation, funding for our next-generation networks and provincially negotiated agreements, not just with teachers but with all workers in the system.

We are requesting that these dollars come to school districts to match what the province has committed to, so we don’t end up unintentionally eroding services to students. We need the Ministry of Education to provide the school district with the necessary funding to support time and learning resources needed for the redesigned curriculum implementation, K to 12.

The current funding for curriculum change works out to about $50 per teacher. That’s a small fraction of the true cost needed. For the year 2000 implementation, hundreds of millions of dollars were dedicated over a ten-year period.

To give a sense of what’s required, we have a more recent example. We had a Changing Results for Young Readers program. Our district participated in it over two years. Small groups of teachers from each district took part in an inquiry project around improving reading in primary grades. It had a Ministry of Education commitment of $10.7 million. The summary report from the program identified it successfully reached 10,080 students and 672 educators. Accordingly, per-student and per-educator program costs were about $990.74 for students and $15,922, respectively.

These two examples show change costs money. Considering the magnitude of this curriculum change, coupled with our current working conditions, we need to make sure the resources are there for people to do their jobs and to help students reach their potential in their neighbourhood schools regardless of where they are from.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We have it here. Thank you for that. I will go to the committee for any questions they might have.

J. Yap: Thank you, Ms. Sawka, for your presentation. As you may know, in the last 15 years, across the province, enrolment in K to 12 has been on a declining trend. What’s the enrolment here in this district?

R. Sawka: We’ve had somewhat of a decline in enrolment, but it’s not nearly the percentage of the number of teachers and education assistants that we’ve lost. It’s definitely out of balance.

J. Yap: You made a comment that there’s been an improvement in graduation rates. Is that the trend here, as well, in this district?

R. Sawka: Yeah. We’ve seen an improvement, especially in areas…. Our overall graduation rate has increased — in fact, Elizabeth here works on a report each year, so she can speak to it as well — and for aboriginal learners. But it’s not on par. Aboriginal learners, English language learners and children in care graduate at rates far lower than the average. It’s not acceptable.

J. Rice: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve heard quite a few presentations from folks from the public education system talking about the need for sustained funding. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about locally what that looked like, the cuts this year. I understand there were issues around transportation, French immersion, kids taking courses in the library because their class was full.

R. Sawka: Cuts have been made across the board. I think it’s unfortunate. The leadership of the school district and school board has looked really carefully at where to make those cuts and tried to have the least impact on student learning.

It’s been everything from supplies…. Transportation was completely cut. Then there was a bit of it brought back through a transportation fund. But definitely fewer classroom teachers. There are counsellors. We have to share librarians now. There are fewer classroom teachers.

We are definitely seeing that pressure at the secondary. There are full and at-capacity classes all the way through, K to 12. But at the secondary, we do have students that are taking on-line Moodle courses in the library for things like senior calculus, physics — things that they need for university. They’re having to navigate that with some support from a teacher available in the library.

There are definitely frustrations from parents. The DPAC and PAC have been talking with us, and there are a lot of upset families.

J. Rice: Just one more question quickly. Kids with exceptionalities. Where are we at with providing services locally for kids in Prince Rupert with exceptionalities?

R. Sawka: One thing that we don’t have is a local educational psychologist or even very regional. Students are on long wait-lists if they’ve been identified as needing some assessment in order to develop an individualized program for them and to get the proper services. There’s a wait-list, and then when the person does come, it’s only for a few days. If that child is sick or away for any reason, they have to wait again to get back in the line for services.

We do have a slight increase in speech and language pathology. We were able to secure a couple of people for positions. But again, it’s not nearly enough to address the range of needs that we have.

J. Rice: I have one more quick question. You mentioned earlier in your presentation that one of your children has autism. It made me think about the fact that through our community…. Well, with the tragic death of Angie and Robbie Robinson, there were quite a few recommendations out of a coroner’s report to support kids with autism and other special needs. I’m wondering if the school system has seen any improvements based on the outcomes of that coroner’s report.

R. Sawka: Well, definitely there’s some good news on that front. We have had increased parent advocacy. Just this past few weeks, we’ve had experts come through…. The Ministry of Children and Families hosted a regional event for parents and people working in health care to come and learn more about autism. So we’re seeing some movement on that.

In the schools, we have a higher number of students identified with autism than we’ve ever had before. I think the school district has been working very hard on that and bringing in all the resources possible. It was more of a community gap, I think, identified through respite and education for families and supports that way.

We don’t have any registered autism specialists in our…. Or now I think we have one person for the entire northwest that parents can access. Having that kind of infrastructure would really help families.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. And if you check your phone, you’ll see that’s 15.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for taking the time, Ms. Sawka. I appreciate you coming.

E. Foster: Could I just ask: how many students did you say you had in the school district?

Next we have the Prince Rupert Unemployed Action Centre Society — Mr. Ulf Kristiansen.

Mr. Kristiansen, good afternoon and welcome. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention with a few minutes left, and you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions.

U. Kristiansen: Thank you. Before I do that, I’m going to give you all my card, because I have an odd Danish name that you’ll forget as soon as you leave this room.

U. Kristiansen: My name is Ulf Kristiansen. I’m a coordinator and advocate at an advocacy program here in Prince Rupert called the Unemployed Action Centre. We help people dealing with issues stemming from poverty, unemployment and underemployment. The areas of work we deal with are on the card, but they’re things like unemployment insurance, employment standards, landlord-tenant, social services, pensions. I help people apply for all those things, and I help them appeal if there’s a turndown. It’s a one-person operation — me.

The way I describe what I do is I help unsophisticated people navigate bureaucracies. Sometimes they’ve got rights for unemployment insurance or welfare or tenancy rights. But they don’t have the sophistication to assert themselves, and they don’t have the $300 or $400 or $500 or $600 an hour that a lawyer charges to help them assert their rights. I do my best for that.

In the course of doing that, I deal with landlord-tenant issues. I’ll say right off the bat that the reason I’m here is to persuade this committee to try to recommend to the government that it spend some more money on social housing. That’s why I’m here, just so you know where I’m going.

I took some statistics from my work over the last three years, 3½ years. In 2013, when I started, I had 738 clients; 38 of those were with housing issues — in other words, five percent. In 2014, I had 1,017 clients; 189 of those had to do with housing issues — in other words, 19 percent. In 2015, I had 1,249 clients; 183 of those had to do with housing issues.

In 2013, I dealt with three evictions over the whole year. In 2014, I dealt with 57, which is about one a week on average. In 2015, I dealt with 46, which again is one a week on average. If I said 2015 earlier, I should have said 2014. There were 189 housing issues, and 57 of those were evictions — about one a week. The first half of this year is shaping up to be about one eviction a week.

I think it’s no secret that there’s a very, very low vacancy rate all over B.C. It affects our northern communities. I can’t speak for the south, but in our northern communities, in my area — that being Kitimat, Terrace and Prince Rupert — it affects tenants deeply. The way it affects them right now is because of various reasons that construction workers here in Prince Rupert are coming to town.

The available rental housing that was there for people of limited means to rent has been taken up by construction workers with a lot higher income. When I first started, there were empty rental units in Prince Rupert. There aren’t anymore. They’ve been taken by construction workers. I think some of them were because of the building of the infrastructure in preparation for what we still hope is going to happen one day — liquid natural gas. Some of us are hoping. Lately it’s also in Prince Rupert because of expansion of the container port and building, I think, storage facilities and other things. Anyway, there are a lot of construction workers in town.

I can speak from personal experience. I live two blocks from the Anchor hotel, which, for ten years, was empty. It had no guests. It now is often full, and the vehicles you see parked in the parking lot are all trucks. These are not tourists passing by. These are construction workers.

The result for my clients, who are the poorest of the poor, is that if they fall behind on the rent or are a little
[ Page 2527 ]
short on the rent…. Three or four years ago they were able to have the landlord give them a grace period. Now the landlord seizes the opportunity to evict them, because if he can get them out, he will have somebody in paying 1½ or two times the rent. Landlords are eager to do that in Prince Rupert. I know, because they come to me to deal with evictions.

Some of the landlords suddenly have close relatives moving in, where they have to do major renovations that require evicting the tenant. If they succeed in that, they can re-rent it at, like I said, 1½ or two times the rent.

As far as I know from reading a city report — I don’t have it here — 44 percent of the population of Prince Rupert is aboriginal. My clients, typically, are in the 80 percent range — being aboriginal. They typically are not high-income earners, and they typically have difficulty paying their rent. Complicating matters is that the agreement that allowed Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to pay for subsidized housing across Canada…. These agreements are coming to an end all over Canada.

As far as I know, the only funding that is happening now or will be happening is from the provincial government. I’m asking the provincial government to chip in even more or to somehow work in cooperation with the federal government and try to persuade them to again renew funding for social housing. It’s very, very much needed in our community and, I think, in many communities across B.C. where there’s close to a zero vacancy rate.

I understand that there might be a concern that this is just a temporary condition that might one day correct itself and there will be lots of housing available for rent. I ask the committee to think if that’s really going to happen, given how long it’s been continuing in this way.

In the paper last week was a story about a young single mother who was living in the social housing here in Prince Rupert, administered by M’akola Housing, which, I think, has a contract with B.C. Housing. She was sent a letter saying: “Your subsidized rent of $400 is going up to $1,200 because we’re not getting the funding anymore.” That was because of the cessation of federal funding. It’s affecting people in B.C.

People come to me, and they’re desperate. They ask: “I need an apartment. I can’t afford anything out there. What have you got?” And I have to tell them: “I don’t have a secret list. I wish I did, but I don’t have a secret list of cheap, empty apartments in my back pocket that I can give you and say: ‘Here’s something nobody else….’” I just say: “Look at the back of the local paper. Look in the want ads. Phone them all and see what you can get.” That’s the best I can give them. Part of that is because social housing…. There’s not enough here in Prince Rupert.

I phoned M’akola this morning to find out their typical waiting list. They didn’t get back to me. I phoned them in Victoria, their basic office. I can tell you this, though. Some of my clients have reported to me that they’ve put their names on a waiting list for social housing in Prince Rupert, and the waiting time was a year. That’s too long to wait and somehow try to survive on a limited income while you’re waiting to get into social housing.

I’ve had more than one client come to me and say: “I slept outside today.” I’ve had a client sit in a chair in my office, teeth chattering, in November, begging me for help to find them a place to stay, and when he left, there was a pool of water by the chair because he had been outside. For that reason I’m asking the committee to recommend to the government that it somehow find more money for social housing in every community that has a zero or close to zero vacancy rate and where it does not look as if that’s going to change any time soon.

I appreciate very much that citizens of B.C. and Canada want more services and less taxes. That’s quite a balancing act if you can do it. It’s quite easy to say what you want. It’s hard to say what you would cut to pay for what you want. I understand that too. But I’m asking you to look at social housing as a priority and make that recommendation to our government.

I’m wondering if you have a group that has a proposal in for a social housing project here in the city.

J. Tegart: Well, I mean, my understanding from the minister in charge of housing is there is a significant bump in dollars available. I would suggest that the way we get that done is you make the application.

I would just confirm what Jackie has said. I would also suggest that the next person coming up, Corinne Bomben….

We’ve been very successful in Penticton by doing a three-legged stool where B.C. Housing gets involved, the city of Penticton gets involved and a group that may or may not be represented by somebody like yourself gets involved. It makes a substantial difference, where municipal land has been given to a society to run. It has made a substantial difference in being able to get funds for affordable housing.
[ Page 2528 ]

U. Kristiansen: I do recall — and this is to maybe answer your question as well — that, talking to the mayor and city council here, there was some talk about providing money for a capital project for building social housing but no money for running it for the years afterwards. That was the stumbling block.

D. Ashton: Well, sir, I didn’t say money; I said land. There are ways to skin a cat, so I would encourage you strongly to get a proposal in.

E. Foster: I’m just going to go further to that. Question: do you have a land trust here?

E. Foster: You would know. You would know if you had one, so I would suggest you don’t.

A land trust is…. Take my card when you go, and I’ll send you all the information on how to develop a land trust, because it could be very, very beneficial.

The other thing is to Jackie’s comment and the suggestion I make to the agencies in our area that do social housing. We’d say: “Having one in the can.” Put together proposals for ten-, 15-, 20-unit housing, and have them ready — shovel-ready, if you will, or on the shelf. Quite often, either from the feds or the province, the calls come out, and if you’ve got one in the can ready to go, you’re in quick. Lots of times the money is short-term money or it’s only over a short term, so it’s an opportunity to jump in.

I was living in northwest B.C. when the first northwest B.C. unemployment action centres opened in, I think, 1981. I believe Ms. Thorkelson was the first coordinator here in Prince Rupert. As a matter of fact, I remember at the time thinking this would be a temporary measure for a couple of years, and I can’t imagine now why I ever thought that. I’ve given up hope that they’ll ever disappear.

I think just before you came into the room, we heard a presentation from representatives of United Fishermen and Allied Workers, Unifor, as well as a number of cannery workers who were no longer even qualifying for EI because of the movement of fish to be processed offshore.

I think there’s a clear connection between existing demand, future demand, for housing and need. I’m just wondering if you would care to comment on…. You’ve commented on the situation as you see it today. I’m wondering if you’re anticipating even greater need and greater gaps in housing as well as other support systems in Rupert as a result of resources being shipped off without being processed to provide jobs for local people.

U. Kristiansen: I’m going to defer to the UFAWU ladies sitting in the back there. You brought up one aspect that perhaps I should have talked about, and that is that perhaps the economy of Prince Rupert is changing. Perhaps more of the money will be coming from the port and its expansion and whatever else. Perhaps tourism. But the workers that work there, they are the ones that will be renting high-cost rental units. It still doesn’t help the typically unemployed, underemployed and poverty-stricken clients that I have.

Just because there’s work there…. My client base is typically not going to be able to access that work because of their skill level, or because they’re single parents and really can’t work with young children at home. So there’s always going to be a need for affordable housing. That’s sort of side-stepped your question, but we’re in agreement on one thing: that the economy of Prince Rupert is changing right now.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’re out of time, but I want to go to Jennifer for one quick question, please.

J. Rice: Quick comment, and just from earlier dialogue…. M’akola Housing, which is the social housing provider in Prince Rupert, does have a proposal in to the province, and the city of Prince Rupert has been phenomenal in taking a leadership role as far as trying to address some of the housing challenges. Maybe Corinne, in her next presentation, will even touch on it. But the city has offered up properties that could be used for social housing. So I just wanted to clarify that.

It sounds like, as Jackie was mentioning earlier, that other groups — people that you work with and that you know, other service providers — are more than able to do a proposal as well.

I just wanted to talk a little bit about your clients. When you’re talking about the fact that no matter what happens, if the port continues to expand and grow as it is, there’s still a sector of our province that’s not going to benefit from that economic development…. If you wanted to talk about the housing amount for social assistance you’ve mentioned before. How does that work?
[ Page 2529 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’re not going to be able to talk about that much at this stage. Could I take that on notice? If you wouldn’t mind submitting your answer to that question to the Clerk of Committees, it can form part of the public record and come back to us and we can all read it.

U. Kristiansen: Give me 30 seconds. Every person on welfare spends some of their food money on rent. Every person on welfare.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate your advocacy for the people of the communities.

Next, we have the city of Prince Rupert — Corinne Bomben. Ms. Bomben, good afternoon. Welcome. So you know, you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to get your attention when you have a couple of minutes left. You can conclude your thoughts and then we’ll go to the committee for questions after that. So if that works for you, if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

C. Bomben: Good afternoon. Thank you for including Prince Rupert in your tour cities as part of your consultation process. On behalf of all presenters today, we appreciate the opportunity to contribute ideas towards the 2017 provincial budget. My name is Corinne Bomben, and I’m the chief financial officer for the city of Prince Rupert. I will be speaking on the city’s behalf.

Last year at UBCM, our mayor announced our long-term vision for Prince Rupert. He called it Hays 2.0, a reboot of Charles Hays’ original vision for the community where he championed the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to Prince Rupert for the purposes of connecting North America to markets in Asia. Mayor Brain signalled at that time the energy and optimism our leadership has for seeing that original vision propelled into this century and retooled to meet the modern demands of a port city with a potential to be world-class.

Prince Rupert has shared in the spotlight that LNG has shone on our region. This new industry comes with great possibility and great pressure.

In response, we have undertaken an exercise called Planning for Major Projects, which has challenged us to identify where we are today, how we can accommodate the positive and negative gold rush effects of an investment announcement, and where we want to be tomorrow. This work is unique in that it is considered planning-led development rather than development-led planning. It further exemplifies our desire to be masters of our destiny instead of leaving it to chance.

It is with this attitude that we seek to utilize our attributes and not put all of our eggs in the LNG basket. Just as Charles Hays recognized 100 years ago, Prince Rupert is blessed with natural advantages. We have the deepest ice-free harbour in North America, have a temperate climate and are geographically closer to Asian markets than any other North American port.

Our man-made advantages include our airport, our road connectivity and a rail network extending east to Atlantic Canada and south to New Orleans. Our cultural advantage is a community rich in Tsimshian tradition, sprinkled with multicultural diversity from around the globe.

It is the combination of these advantages that has made our city one of the fastest-growing ports in North America. This fact is sometimes overshadowed by the recent interest from LNG. However, it is one we are embracing and working towards leveraging to further our diversification.

With this in mind, we are improving logistics and local access by upgrading our airport and focusing our attention on connecting our First Nations neighbours via the ferry link from our city to the airport. This road and improved ferry access will help connect labour markets opening in our region, expand commercial and recreational opportunities on the other side of our harbour and enable our participation in air cargo, which would expand our shipping capacity to include the airspace.

This new connection is a large undertaking and is still being explored. However, it is one our community and our First Nations neighbours eagerly support. Not only could this address access to our community; it also addresses the ferry infrastructure. Both ferry docks are underrated for weight and are in constant need of repair. The current ferry is at the end of its useful life, and so we are exploring the options for replacing it.

The airport connection is seen as a critical link in the development of our port and is considered a tenuous logistical component should LNG make a positive final investment decision. We are mindful that improvements to this infrastructure should strike a balance for the capacity needs of today and tomorrow. We encourage the province to continue a dialogue with all stakeholders and impacted First Nations, given the importance of this logistical connection.

Our water infrastructure was developed when Charles Hays brought the railroad to Prince Rupert 108 years ago. Every component in the chain to supply water from our watershed is over 100 years old.

Phase 1 of our water project is underway — which we thankfully received Build Canada funding for. Phase 2, being designed right now, is the replacement of our 102-year-old water dam. Phase 3 will see the replacement of our submarine line which brings our water from the mainland to Kaien Island, where Prince Rupert is located.

We encourage you to watch our video on YouTube called Re:Build Rupert — Securing the City’s Water Supply, which explains our unique water challenges and our plans to improve the system. Phase 1 is estimated to cost $7 million, with phase 2 and phase 3 estimated at $7 million and $3 million, respectively. There is no greater in-
[ Page 2530 ]
vestment in a community than the supply chain bringing clean water to its citizens. Our plan is to apply for grants on each of the next two phases, given the insurmountable but necessary costs involved.

Prince Rupert has suffered through an economic downturn since the mid-1990s. Our two top employers, the pulp mill and the fishing industry, were lost or significantly diminished, resulting in a community struggling to get by. Those struggles see us now tackling an infrastructure deficit of $300 million, an investment which would bring our community to the level of service required to support the northern trade gateway. We have much to do, including replacing critical emergency response and policing infrastructure, expanding our landfill capacity and revitalizing road and bridge networks.

In support of reinventing ourselves, we have embarked on campaigns called Re:Build Rupert and Re:Design Rupert. These projects see us not only upgrading our infrastructure but reimagining a vibrant community which can be considered a great place to live, work and play, no matter the weather outside. Our Hays 2.0 vision captures the essence of what we want to be, and it starts with reinvesting in the northwest.

Join us as we connect British Columbia to expanding markets, to jobs and to community well-being. Thank you for listening.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. We’ve got lots of time for questions, so I will certainly go to committee.

E. Foster: If I could go back to the previous presenter, on housing and the idea of a land trust and so on. Is the city — and Dan mentioned this — looking at partnering on moving forward? You can’t grow if you don’t have a place for people to live. I’m just wondering what your long-term community plan and your zoning is and so on. Are you looking at that?

C. Bomben: Yes. Part of the housing strategy and policy-making is investigating all avenues in order to ensure that people are sheltered.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I remember the presentation well last year, around infrastructure in particular and how important that was. Congratulations on the city doing a lot of work, pre-planning work. I like your description of planning ahead of time for the projects, not planning for the project.

I wondered, in following up on the question around housing…. The other infrastructure, of course, is education, and I think we’ve heard about some of the challenges on education. I just wonder about health care and challenges around doctors or access to health care. Again, I think that when you look at expanding projects and bringing a larger population base in, those are critical services that people are always looking for in communities. So I just wondered if that’s part of your planning.

C. Bomben: Certainly, we have considered it. We do recognize that it’s not really our realm of jurisdiction. We have actually had conversations. We are well cognizant of the fact that everything is connected.

Should an LNG industry in Prince Rupert not come to fruition, how is the city positioned to actually deal with the water infrastructure issues that you speak of?

C. Bomben: We are planning on applying for grants, and there was an announcement recently about water and wastewater that we will certainly be applying on. We are not, like my speech said, putting all of our eggs in the LNG basket. We don’t expect that the LNG proponents are going to fix that particular piece of infrastructure. It is a piece of infrastructure that was built to house the community long before LNG was ever here.

J. Rice: In regards to the ferry link, I guess I just wanted to…. I think that used to be called the Tsimshian access project, and now it’s called PRAC. Am I mistaken?

I do understand the importance of that project not only just for Prince Rupert residents but for Lax Kw’alaams and for Metlakatla and how that would provide in so many ways. How much would be required to actually get that project off the ground?

C. Bomben: Preliminary estimates are just that; they’re preliminary. We’re hopeful that there will continue to be a dialogue that will actually be able to identify and nail down approximately how much the costs are.

Thank you very much. And just for the record, in case I missed it at the beginning of your presentation, you are the chief financial officer for the city of Prince Rupert, correct?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. Thank you for coming, for taking the time to present. We do appreciate it. Always important issues.
[ Page 2531 ]

Next we have our friends from the British Columbia Pediatric Society — Aven Poynter. Good afternoon. Welcome. You have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll try to get your attention. You’ve got your watch. I’ve got mine. Here we go. Then we can go to the committee for questions when you’re done, okay?

A. Poynter: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for taking the time to listen to our presentation.

I am a community pediatrician, and I am currently the president of the B.C. Pediatric Society.

B.C. Pediatric Society is asking that the government of B.C. publicly fund the human papillomavirus vaccine for all youth. That’s the HPV vaccine, to make it easier to say.

Based on strong scientific evidence that HPV cancers affect both males and females, this vaccine should be made available this fall to both genders to prevent HPV-related cancers. Currently in B.C., the publicly funded vaccine is given to girls in grade 6, and has been for the last eight years, and has recently also been offered — publicly funded — to males who are deemed to be at risk.

These males are defined as those aged nine to 26 who have sex with men, including those who are not yet sexually active and are questioning their sexual orientation; boys and youth who are street-involved or who are in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development; those who are HIV infected; and those aged 12 to 17 in youth detention centres. But the high-risk males may not take advantage of the vaccine in the province’s current program structure because of the stigma associated with disclosing any of these high-risk situations.

Men as well as women should have access to the vaccine before their first sexual relationship, which is why it’s offered in grade 6, but many will not identify as gay or bisexual until their 20s or 30s, and thus they’ve missed the window for adequate protection.

Why do we want all boys vaccinated? Because there’s a link between HPV and cancer, a very clear link. The Canadian Cancer Society reports that three out of every four Canadians will be infected with HPV at some point in their lifetime. HPV is an infection that is well known and documented to lead to cancer in both women and men. In women, at least, it’s cervical cancer, primarily, and as you know, we have good screening programs and treatment. Among the cancers infecting men, HPV infection is associated with anal, penile, oropharyngeal — which is mouth and throat and tonsil and larynx cancers — and throat cancer.

Currently, men are two to four times more likely to be diagnosed with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancers than women are. In the U.S., actually, it’s projected that oropharyngeal cancers will become the most common HPV-related cancer by 2020, exceeding cervical cancer. Additionally, anogenital warts, which are caused by HPV, represent a considerable public health issue with respect to quality of life and economic burden for both males and females, with rates that have shown to be consistently higher in males than females in Canada.

The HPV vaccine effectively reduces infection associated with HPV-related cancers among both males and females. In B.C., the vaccination rate for females has stagnated, with rates ranging from 50 percent to less than 80 percent. This is insufficient for optimizing herd immunity. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that while boys can receive some protection from female HPV immunization, it’s to a lesser extent than females. For example, in countries where the coverage rates are more than 50 percent, anogenital warts decreased by 61 percent in females — compared to only 34 percent in females. So males are left at risk if they engage in sexual activity with individuals in jurisdictions where the vaccination rates are low or there are no vaccinations for HPV at all.

In addition, we feel that boys should be vaccinated because there is now no evidence of herd immunity. It has been assumed that there will be herd immunity for boys through immunizing girls, but a recent study in Ontario concluded “a significant impact of the Ontario HPV vaccination program on anogenital wart rates in young adult females, but there was no evidence of herd effect on males.”

We also believe that all males should be vaccinated for reasons of equality. The HPV vaccine prevents infections when it’s given before exposure, which means before the onset of sexual activity, so the current publicly funded program requires boys to identify as being gay at a very young age — in grade 6 — to receive maximum protection. A vaccine program that singles out gay children is discriminatory. Can you imagine if access to other preventative health services required children to identify as gay or at risk at such a young age?

The decision to include some at-risk males is a half-measure with numerous pitfalls. Boys in government care, boys in youth detention and boys who are questioning their sexual identity are already stigmatized and should not be singled out for a vaccine that should actually be administered to all children, regardless of their gender or sexual identity or guardianship status. HPV is not simply a female issue. Males are at risk of acquiring and suffering from HPV-related diseases, such as genital warts, cancers of the anus, penis, tonsils, larynx, tongue and mouth. HPV-related cancer in the throat in males is increasing.

We believe that it is cost-effective. According to the provincial Finance Committee, the cost of HPV vaccination of all boys, publicly, in the age group of nine to 26 is estimated to be $4 million. The vaccine did start out as three doses, but starting two years ago, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended
[ Page 2532 ]
that two doses was sufficient. This could result in savings that could offset the additional cost that would come from vaccinating all boys.

Six other provinces now vaccinate all boys in school. That would be Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. In Alberta and Ontario, the Ministries of Health found that it would be cost-effective to immunize the boys. In P.E.I. and Quebec, it was felt by the government that it was equitable and that they wanted to protect boys from HPV infection and cancer, as well as protecting girls.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization makes recommendations for the use of vaccines currently or newly approved for use in humans in Canada, including the identification of groups at risk. There are two immunizations which are approved for preventing HPV, and it’s recommended that Gardasil, the quadrivalent one that contains four strains, is the best one for boys. NACI recommends that it be administered to males between nine and 26 years of age — and males nine years of age and older who have sex with other males, so that would include males older.

Currently B.C. does have a focus on men’s health. B.C. is funding men’s health research and health promotion. So immunizing males is a good fit with British Columbia’s current health care priority.

In summary, I would like to say that HPV infection does not discriminate between males and females. Both males and females deserve a vaccine that prevents cancer. I would like to remind you that HPV head and neck cancers are on the rise in men in British Columbia. These cancers are estimated to surpass cervical cancer rates by 2020. Cervical cancer rates are decreasing because of our good screening and treatment programs. Within a generation, the beneficial effect of HPV immunization in girls is starting to become apparent.

Vaccinating only girls helps to perpetuate the belief that the primary responsibility for health, especially sexual health, should be borne by females. Preventing ill health should actually be a responsibility held by both sexes. We believe, also, that the province should not stigmatize specific groups of males.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Poynter. I appreciate you taking the time. Am I to understand that you came all the way up here from the coast to make this presentation?

A. Poynter: We happened to be here for meetings and also happened to not be able to attend the sessions in the Lower Mainland.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I see, okay. I thought it was just all about us. I just thought it was about us. Anyway, thank you for the presentation.

R. Austin: Thanks, Dr. Poynter. Actually, we have heard, in another community — I can’t remember where — last week, a very similar presentation on this issue.

My question to you is: in your discussions with senior civil servants in the Ministry of Health, what has been the reason thus far for not proceeding with what it is you’re suggesting when so many other provinces have already done it? You’ve made a very good case. I mean, I don’t think any of us are scientists here, but you’ve made a very good case. What’s the holdup? What’s the reason why B.C. hasn’t joined the other provinces?

S. Hamilton (Chair): While we’re talking about cost, can I…? The estimated costs provincially — what would be considered appropriate?

J. Yap: Where in the list of priorities for the Canadian Cancer Society…? Where is this in their mix of issues that they’re advocating for?

A. Poynter: It’s very high in their priorities. We actually are partnering with the B.C. Cancer Society and Canadian Cancer Society to advocate for universal immunization of boys.

A. Poynter: Yeah. There was an editorial in the Vancouver Sun I just happen to have with me — September 12, co-written by the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon, and myself — regarding this issue.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If you’d like to give that to us, we can put it as part of the public record and everyone can read it.
[ Page 2533 ]

A. Poynter: Okay. The Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Paediatric Society are also strongly advocating.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much, doctor. I just wanted to note that this isn’t the first year that the committee has heard presentations along these lines. In fact, we addressed it along the lines you’re requesting in the last report from the committee.

Having said that, I think questions were raised about cost. There is a chance — up to October 14 or 15…?

G. Heyman: It’s the 14th, at midnight — to submit any additional information electronically, which can form part of both the public record and our deliberations.

In addition to the question about cost…. My assumption is that in most cases where there’s a vaccine for diseases that are becoming more and more prevalent in society, the cost of administering the vaccine on a more universal basis is likely less, or certainly not appreciably more, than the cost of treating the illness itself.

Any statistics you have with regard to the cost of the vaccine versus the cost of treatment of this particular disease, as well as past experience with other universal vaccination programs, would be very useful in addressing the question of cost — which does appear to be the only stumbling block that implementing your recommendations faces.

I would like to point out that if the number of immunizations was increased, there’s bulk buying, so the cost per immunization also drops.

A. Poynter: Well, that’s it. Yeah. It’s like the hepatitis B vaccine, which started up in the early ’90s.

S. Gibson: This, of course, is a laudable initiative. My query goes back to the big picture. If young people are participating in behaviour that is potentially problematic for their health, there are also other dimensions to that as well — sexually transmitted diseases and that kind of thing. I’m wondering, paralleling this initiative, if government was to proceed….

It seems to me that there’s some value in encouraging young people to evaluate their behaviour and how they treat other people — respectfully, etc. — to avoid situations that would accelerate exactly what you’re talking about. I’d be interested in your comments on that.

A. Poynter: Definitely, I agree. There is always ongoing education, and a lot of it takes place in schools, in fact, as you know. Sexual health education in schools has increased tremendously over the last two or three decades, probably, compared to what most of us had in school.

HPV, itself, is a sexually transmitted infection. It is the most commonly sexually transmitted infection in Canada. The rates of gonorrhea and syphilis do tend to have blips upwards, but in general, the rates have been decreasing for several decades.

The age of sexual debut in adolescence actually, for the most part, population-wise, has increased over the last few years, as per the results of surveys like the McCreary Society surveys. So I think these educational efforts that generally take place in the schools are helpful, but HVP is such a common infection that I think that that’s not going to be the entire answer.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much for taking the time to present, and have a good conference while you’re here. We appreciate you taking the time. Take care.

Okay. Next, we have our friends from the Prince Rupert Port Authority — Mr. Ken Veldman.

Mr. Veldman, welcome. Good afternoon. I saw you sitting here long enough, so you probably know — ten minutes.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. I won’t say any more. If you’re ready, the floor is yours.

K. Veldman: Thank you, and welcome, to the committee. Welcome to Prince Rupert. Always nice to have you up. I’ll give a quick background and then delve into some specific recommendations for the committee.

As most of you know, the port is not a federal government agency, but rather, we are an independent organization mandated by the federal government, through the Canada Marine Act, to steward federal Crown lands and oversee safe shipping, in support of a national trade agenda — and, importantly, to do so in a commercially self-sufficient manner.

We import and export a broad variety of goods — containers. We bring consumer goods and industrial inputs into North America, and it provides a vital supply chain back, including for things like northern B.C. forest products in terms of exporting back to Asian markets, like China.

Our bulk exports include coal from northeast B.C.; wheat, canola, barley and other grains from across western Canada; biofuel, in the form of wood pellets from
[ Page 2534 ]
communities across northern B.C. In addition, our cruise and ferry terminals are vital links for the tourism industry in northern B.C.

Our success over the past ten years has certainly been B.C.’s success as well, and 2015 saw an excess of $5 billion of Canadian exports — a lot of that being B.C. exports — moved to international markets through the port. The gateway industry needs women and men working the trucks, the rails, the terminals, the water on a real 24-7 basis.

It involves many different companies. It also involves many different communities across northern B.C. along the corridor. Direct jobs associated with moving goods through the port have grown by 1,500 jobs to over 3,000 direct jobs in northern B.C. in the past five years, representing a doubling of employment in this industry.

On a government level, public investment in competitive infrastructure and policy has provided visible return. Total tax revenues from gateway activity have grown to over $80 million each and every year. More specifically, the B.C. government portion measures over $20 million. The local government portion measures over $6 million annually — a significant payback in terms of public revenues as well.

By looking at our diversified project development portfolio, the future looks bright. We have an excess of $25 billion in proposed private sector capital expansion moving forward on port lands, including a Fairview Container Terminal expansion that’s halfway complete. This project will expand the terminal’s annual capacity by half a million containers and is on target for being on stream by next summer.

The next phase of that terminal’s expansion is actively being investigated for further expansion of another one million containers. That would occur after this current phase is completed. The $400 million propane export terminal is currently being assessed, with the capacity to export propane sourced from natural gas production in B.C. and Alberta.

Four different LNG projects are at different stages of assessment in Prince Rupert, including two located on federal Crown lands, port lands. They represent not just a new cargo class for the port but an economic lifeline for northeast B.C. as well.

New break-bulk handling capacity has been proposed that will support expansion in other projects in western Canada but has particular benefit for the export of forestry, mining and agricultural products from industries in B.C.

To put Prince Rupert into a national perspective, by most measures we are currently the third-largest port in the nation. That surprises a lot of people, given the size of this community. We expect to pass Montreal within the next decade and move into the No. 2 spot in total tonnage, container traffic and the value of trade moving through this port.

What are we doing to prepare? Well, we’re planning for growth in ship traffic to ensure we can continue to enhance navigational safety and security as vessel visits grow and we can accommodate the introduction of new types of vessels and new cargoes.

We’re using our expanded capacity as a port authority to strengthen environmental stewardship programming that would anchor sustainability through this period of growth. We’re building and maintaining a local understanding of our activities with effective engagement with our communities. In particular, local First Nations play a critical role in participating in major developments within their traditional territories.

I think we all know this, but it’s important to remember that there’s also an acknowledgment within local Tsimshian First Nations that their economic future is well aligned with the future success of the gateway. We have a track record in Prince Rupert of reaching agreements and sharing benefits and have successfully executed on economic opportunities with Tsimshian First Nations, including employment growth, over $100 million in contract agreements and an increasing engagement in the ongoing management of gateway businesses.

I hope I’ve painted a picture of success. I also hope I’ve painted a picture of a future that’s following a real planned, practical, sustainable development initiative that benefits the province as a whole.

The B.C. government has played an important historical role as champions of Asia-Pacific gateway initiatives through investment, through strong competitive policy. These are the foundational pillars that have really allowed us to compete — compete with ports like Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle — and compete well. They’re also the foundational pillars that allow B.C. export industries like forestry, agriculture and mining to compete internationally as well.

The need for B.C. government engagement has not diminished. Continuing to increase capacity on the west coast is a critical trade, economic and employment issue in B.C. Our unparalleled access to Asian markets, our capacity for growth, the local support for industry provide all the ingredients for a long-term, market-based, market-financed solution.

On that note we have the following recommendations for the government. One, integrated gateway planning. The key to current and future growth in Prince Rupert has been and will continue to be a coordinated approach to ports and trade corridor development with the federal government, other provincial governments, municipal governments, as well as the port authority.

Successful coordination and planning will ensure that no individual project will impair the performance or existing or future operations, or impair the effectiveness and integration of the gateway as a whole. It will mitigate the impact of port activities on surrounding com-
[ Page 2535 ]
munities and the surrounding environment. It is much more efficient and affordable to plan and design the gateway with these principles in mind on the front end than spending billions of dollars later to eke out incremental improvements.

Two, maintain leadership in the development of trade corridors for the B.C. economy through strategic investments. Timely investment and critical infrastructure enhance the competitiveness of the gateway, its associated trade corridor and the B.C. export industries that depend on it.

Investment in strategic common-user infrastructure. By that, I mean infrastructure with multi-industry focus, multiple investment partners and identified as having the highest return on investment. It’s critical to unlock private sector investment in terminal infrastructure. In our definition, investment in trade corridors also includes seeking partnerships and initiatives that advance marine safety, environmental stewardship, competitive tax policy and regulatory frameworks, not just bricks-and-mortar infrastructure.

Third, we ask that the provincial government recognize the challenge that many northern communities may face as they deal with growth issues related to the Prince Rupert gateway. As we realize the opportunity that’s before us, our collective ability to manage growth challenges will have a direct impact on its success. Many northern communities may grapple to deal with aspects of this change, including economic, social and infrastructure issues. A poor economic decade in the 2000s has left many particularly ill-equipped to deal with these issues by themselves.

The port authority believes that a commitment to our communities will need to be shared by all of our public and private sector partners. That’s not an easy nut to crack, I appreciate, but it’s really going to be vital to our success. Strategic partnerships and investments that enhance broad transportation infrastructure, public health, safety, education, training, municipal government efficiency, quality of life — all of these will be critical to positive transitions.

In conclusion, Canada’s port assets on the west coast — Vancouver, Prince Rupert — are vital strategic assets for both the national and provincial trade agenda and, in themselves, are foundational drivers of the B.C. economy. Prince Rupert’s access to international markets, capacity for growth and the regional support you see for the port are providing the ingredients for long-term, market-based and, again, market-financed access solutions.

There is a critical role for the provincial government to play. Generally speaking, sound fiscal fundamentals will provide the economic stability that is crucial for competitiveness. But more specifically, coordinated gateway development and planning, strategic gateway infrastructure investments and strategic community capacity investments are going to be important. The seeds of success are sown here. A strong alignment of interests between the provincial government, the port and the many partners in the gateway will ensure its fruition.

R. Austin: Hi, Ken. Nice to see you again. Could you be specific in your recommendation around the provincial government investing in common-user infrastructure? What specifically, as an example, can you give to this committee?

K. Veldman: The most current previous example, just to give you an example of what that looks like, is the road-rail utility corridor — common port infrastructure that wasn’t developed with one single terminal in mind or a single industry in mind. Rather, it’s very base infrastructure that affects all industry within the port and is done with a real forward look so that it actually….

As we go forward and build new terminals going into the next decades, this is the kind of upfront planning that ensures that as we succeed and as we grow traffic, we’re going to make sure that we’re dealing with congestion. We’re going to be dealing with the most efficient way to provide transportation, whether that be measured by dollars or whether that be measured by GHGs. Those are the kinds of efficient pieces out in front. They don’t benefit any one single terminal or one single industry, but rather are really basic port infrastructure.

As a result, they don’t intend to provide the same return on investment that most private sector infrastructure pieces would. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the port authority and, on a more general basis, plays a role for public governments to be involved in.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate it and appreciate the work. I think you’ve described it well, as the city of Prince Rupert did, around the need to be proactive. If you’re looking at planning and moving ahead, make sure you deal with the issues up front instead of dealing with them after the fact.

I’ll ask you the same question that I always ask the Port of Vancouver, which is: what kind of coordination goes on between the two ports? What kind of work? You mentioned integrated gateway planning. Is there work that needs to be done, or supported by the province and others, between the two ports?

K. Veldman: Yes and no. There are certainly ongoing conversations that happen all the time between port authorities — and certainly between Vancouver and Prince Rupert — sharing best practices, especially when it comes to port operations, marine safety, environmental stewardship. Those are the pieces that make a lot of sense.
[ Page 2536 ]

That being said, we’re also competitors on certain elements of traffic. That’s really quite healthy, actually, not just for B.C. industry but for Canadian industry. So there is a level of co-opetition, if I can use that.

K. Veldman: Yeah. That happens. Certainly, we share a common goal in terms of support of the national trade agenda. And it certainly isn’t every niche that we compete on. But generally speaking, having that redundancy in gateways is a positive thing from an economic perspective.

S. Gibson: Good to see you again. Always impressed by your presentations and the energy you give to the role, so thank you. As I shared with you the other day when we were chatting, I think in Victoria, when I talk about the Prince Rupert port, people have no idea how big this operation is, down south. So way to go.

My question, I guess, is a simple one. Is there value-added that you can do? You know, stuff moves through here, back and forth. You do a great job. It hops on trucks or goes onto trains, and it goes on ships going outbound. Is there anything that you can do, value-added, here to create wealth maybe from the material coming through so it doesn’t just go through but stops here and is manufactured or there’s some kind of additional enterprise that could be attached to the harbour, the port?

K. Veldman: Sure. I’ll break it down to three pieces. One, there’s a lot of value that is added just by moving it through. You can see from the job numbers and the GDP numbers that the gateway service industry, even as is, is a significant contributor across northern B.C.

Two, our model is so based on not having a local population aspect of things. It has always put us in a very specific niche in that we hardly have any trucks, for example, beyond some local exports, and customs or Border Service Agency inspections that are a part of our intermodal traffic, for example. As a result, that simplicity lends itself to so much of our efficiency. The reason we can do that is that there isn’t a local market that we’re serving. It’s moving through. It’s simple and efficient. That value-added aspect tends to be the extra handling of goods.

I’ll finish that by saying that as we get larger, there is more demand from shippers to provide that kind of flexibility, so we do have that sort of logistics and warehousing value-added activity built into our larger port development plan. That’s going to be key for us. As that gets introduced, as volumes continue to grow, how do we do it in a way that we’re not sacrificing efficiency and congestion issues and so on and so forth?

We truly believe that we do have a plan to move that forward, but that’s always the challenge, as you move through it. So yes, there is a plan, with the caveat that we don’t want to sacrifice our core value….

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’ve just hit our 15-minute mark, and we’re already running way behind time, so I’m sorry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Veldman. I appreciate you taking the time. It’s always a pleasure to hear about all the activities up here that are port-related.

Mr. Jones, welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Hamilton. I’m the Chair of the committee. I just want to let you know that you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll rudely interrupt you with a couple of minutes left — because I can’t wave you down — to let you know to conclude your thoughts, and then we can go to the committee for a few minutes’ worth of questions after that. So if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

S. Jones: Hello, hon. members of the committee. Thank you for taking the time to hear my presentation today. My name is Steven Jones, and I am representing the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C. We have over 5,000 members from 35 clubs across the province. Our membership is comprised of a diverse group of non-motorized back-country recreationalists. As an organization, we believe that the enjoyment of these pursuits in an unspoiled environment is a vital component of the quality of life for British Columbians.

B.C. Parks is a permanent institution, and it must be managed as such. Short-term financial savings generated by underfunding of the park system today will result in a much greater cost to the taxpayers over the medium to long term.

B.C. parks deliver great economic value to our province. B.C. government statistics show that tourism contributed $7.1 billion in GDP in 2014. B.C. Parks research shows that “every $1 invested in the protected areas system generates $8.42 in visitor spending on food, entertainment, transportation and other goods and services.”

It is our position that we will dig ourselves into a hole at the current funding levels in six unique ways and that we will end up paying a much larger price in the medium to long term to get out of the hole.
[ Page 2537 ]

First, we are turning away visitors. Destination B.C. receives significant government funding to promote B.C. to local residents and the rest of the world. They are doing a great job, but we are now hitting a capacity wall. When local and foreign visitors try to plan a trip in B.C., they are finding that there is no room in the campsites or even in the parking lots. If tourists can’t visit the park system as a part of their trip, they are more likely to visit Alberta or Washington instead. In July of 2016, the Hon. Mary Polak stated: “There are simply too many people chasing too few campsites. There are fewer than 6,000 reservable campsites in B.C.”

Once we lose our reputation as a place that is welcoming to tourists, we will have to spend much more money in the future to convince these visitors to give us a second chance.

Second, there is deferred maintenance. At current funding levels, large amounts of maintenance in B.C. parks are being deferred. Facilities and trails that could be fixed with small repairs today will soon be in need of comprehensive rebuilding efforts at a much greater cost. The Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C. has been collecting a library of pictures from our membership of examples of maintenance issues across the province that are turning into major repair and rehabilitation projects.

Third, there is environmental damage. Current levels of funding are not adequate for ensuring that the environmental values of the park system are protected. As visitor numbers increase, new facilities, such as outhouses and alpine meadow boardwalks, must be added. As parks reach capacity, thought must also be given to providing provincial park status or funding to environmentally sensitive areas that are receiving the overflow crowds that can’t get into the existing provincial park facilities. Semaphore Lake and Watersprite Lake are prime examples of this.

Increased ranger presence is also required to monitor the environment, reduce human-wildlife interactions and enforce rules. All forms of environmental damage are more affordable to prevent than to repair.

Fourth, volunteers are being discouraged. Volunteer work in a provincial park must occur with the approval of, and coordination with, B.C. Parks staff. Recently, a new volunteer strategy was launched. However, B.C. Parks staff are currently stretched so thin that volunteer groups are having to postpone or even cancel their projects. Obviously, there is massive leverage in utilizing volunteers, so it’s important to not let these groups lose momentum.

Fifth, there are the transferred costs that are not being considered. Some of the costs that are being “saved” by underfunding of the B.C. park system are actually just being absorbed by other departments in a very inefficient and unsustainable way.

Missing and broken signage and a lack of trail maintenance are the cause of a number of search and rescue operations each year. Although search and rescue is performed by volunteers, there are many expensive costs that are covered by the provincial government, including helicopter time and the following hospital stays.

Finally, sixth, there is the opportunity cost of delays to the planning process. Each provincial park is operated according to a management plan document. If that document does not exist or is out of date, the park is essentially put on hold.

Due to extreme staffing constraints, there were over 300 protected areas in the province that did not have a valid management plan as of 2015. As an example, Pinecone Burke Provincial Park was founded over 20 years ago, and it still does not yet have a management plan. The result is that it is a vastly underutilized park, so it is not delivering economic benefits to the province.

There is no debate. Increased visitation to the B.C. parks system is a good thing for the B.C. economy. Funding to B.C. Parks must increase with increased visitor numbers, or the economic benefits that we are experiencing will be short-lived, and future expenses will be much larger than they need to be.

This is not news to this committee. The recommendation of this committee last year was to “increase funding for B.C. Parks and protected areas management and maintenance and provide more park rangers.” The 2015 budget did not address that request. The apportionment remained essentially identical.

We urge the committee to make the same recommendation this year, but with much stronger wording, and to explicitly comment on the growing challenges that B.C. Parks has faced in the previous 12 months.

Thank you very much for your time, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

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

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Jones. Much of what you’ve said mirrors a lot of the public discussion this summer, as well as things we’ve heard for a period of time.

For the purposes of the record of this committee and our deliberations…. You focused particularly on deferred maintenance in parks, as well as staffing and other actions to prevent environmental damage. If you were able to send some specific examples to the committee by email prior to October 14, that would be very useful.

I would comment, as well, that in terms of B.C. Parks reporting, I think that there’s an opportunity for improved transparency on exactly what staffing levels are and what the deferred maintenance budget is. I’m not confident that the parks system has an accurate estimate
[ Page 2538 ]
of the deferred maintenance budget or of the impact that we may see in the future from deferred maintenance.

Something as simple as a culvert on a trail, which might cost a very small amount to repair today, can turn into that trail washing out, and then you might need heavy equipment to repair it in the future. I don’t think that anyone really knows what the true economic cost will be, but it certainly is large.

G. Heyman: Just as a follow-up, I wasn’t necessarily asking you to quantify or pull out of B.C. Parks records what the cost of deferred maintenance is — just to give us, perhaps, some of the most egregious examples of places where maintenance is clearly required, at least in your opinion or in the opinion of your members in a particular community where it has not happened for a number of years.

Seeing none, thank you very much for taking the time to call in. We appreciate you and, of course, the work and the advocacy you do on behalf of the people you represent.

Next, we have our Coastal Invasive Species Committee via teleconference. On the line, we have Rachelle McElroy from the Coastal Invasive Species Committee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Just so you know, you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll try to interrupt you — gently, if I can — with a couple of minutes left so you can conclude your thoughts. Then we can go to the committee for questions. So if you’re ready, the floor is yours.

My name is Rachelle McElroy. I’m the executive director of the Coastal Invasive Species Committee, or Coastal ISC.

I know that you’ve heard from other regional committees on your tour. I’m going to highlight our region, which is Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast. Our area covers approximately 60,000 square kilometres — so quite big. We have nine regional districts in our area, 37 municipalities, 15 Gulf Islands and 57 First Nation groups. That’s a lot of partners. Because we have such a large area, it does instil our own problems in terms of managing invasive species. I’ll get to that a little bit later.

I’ve been the executive director for about five years now, and I feel like I have a good sense of the problem and the solutions that we face in this area around invasive species management. We are a non-profit organization. We were established in 2005, and we’re one of 13 regional committees in B.C.

I did include a handout or a link to our brochure. On the brochure, if you have it in front of you, it actually has a map of our region. Then, if you open it up, it actually has a poster with some fun pictures of different invasive plants, which you can take home with you and put on your fridge, I hope.

I really want to acknowledge the province for funding the work that we do as regional committees and also for funding such a collaborative program. I’m not sure if you know, but how we manage invasive species in B.C. is unique to the rest of Canada. The fact that we have 13 to 17 committees and one provincial group working together to protect species from the threat of invasive species is unique. Also, it works.

Since weeds know no boundaries, we have to work together as well. That’s why we use a partnership delivery model. This helps to lessen the debate of who’s responsible and pointing the finger at each other. Instead, it’s all of our responsibility. We look at how we can pool our money, our resources and our time to really get the job done. It’s such a refreshing way to work. So thank you, again, for supporting this approach.

Our committee receives an education administrative grant from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. We receive about $13,500 to help us leverage additional funding to address invasive species in our region. Our total revenues are $450,000. That was in 2015. So 25 percent of that is from government sources. Then the rest is fundraised either through grants or from fee-for-service type….

Our role as regional committees is really important, and it is diverse, depending on which committee you speak to. However, our main role is to ensure…. In our region, we have a shared vision about how to address invasive species, collaborative action plans and also funding to deal with invasive species management so that our actions are strategic, they’re timely, they’re cost-effective and in line with the rest of B.C.

If we’re going to reduce the negative impacts of invasive species in our communities, we can’t do it alone. How does Coastal Invasive Species do this? We use the collaborative force that we have and the reason why we exist to hold operational planning meetings with key land managers to ensure that we’re all working on the same priority species and, together, that we can identify gaps or holes in the map of what target species we want to address and also identify partners that still need to be engaged or funding that’s missing in order to address those gaps and treat all priority species in our region.

This is how we bring other partners to the table to leverage the funding that we receive from the province. Just to give you a sense of who’s at the table, we have all levels of government, private forestry companies, utilities, First Nations, invasive plant technicians, farmers and stewardship groups. We’re connected to around 60
[ Page 2539 ]
groups and partners in our region, with our goal to ensure the delivery of efficient, cost-effective and coordinated invasive plant management programs with each regional district and within our region as a whole.

That’s really the important role that we play, what you’re funding and what I’m really encouraging you to continue to fund. Just to highlight that, also, we are the boots on the ground. Money alone isn’t enough to get partners to the table, and that’s really the role that we play. It really takes building relationships and working together and celebrating those successes. That’s really our role.

Other programs that we’ve put in place as a result of the funding that we’ve received from the province. We actually have a toll-free hotline. So the public can call us, send us a picture of an invasive plant that they’re dealing with, and we can help them identify it as well as connect them to management strategies that they can use. That really goes a long way. That’s also how we bring other partners to the table.

I know in previous meetings it was brought up: “How do you balance education with on-the-ground work?” Well, this is a great way, just by showing that action is happening or people seeing signs on the side of the highway or being able to have their questions answered in a timely fashion. That encourages not only their…. It raises their level of education but also helps them address those issues on their properties, in their communities. When we talk about invasive species, we really talk about how we need to be able to identify those invasive plants quickly and respond quickly as well. I want to continue to highlight that, just really encouraging you to continue to fund us.

However, to really protect beautiful B.C., the province needs to double its investment — we’ve been asking that since 2012 — or really look at reallocating the money to give invasive species a real push, for three years, to at least get containment on those priority species. My recommendation is to provide stable, long-term funding and also establish a trust fund so that we can really hit invasive species hard and quickly. Also, other areas where…. My sense is that the province requires more dedicated staff to work on prevention tools.

Just to highlight a couple issues that I continue to deal with on the coast. From one of the previous meetings, I know that you’re aware of this: regulations to prevent the sale of invasive species. It’s so frustrating when you can still buy yellow flag iris by the bucketload in Coombs, and at the same time, we’re spending thousands of dollars to remove them from our wetlands. It’s really frustrating. Members of the committee, that’s really taxpayer dollars out the door and profits for the horticulture industry. I know that nurseries are just running their businesses, but we could help them by taking the guesswork out and letting them know what plants not to sell that can cause these impacts on the ground.

The other piece that’s missing is really around research. I know in most fields there’s a disconnect between folks that are researching and then working on the ground and really helping to bridge that gap — so mobilizing that knowledge so that it’s readily available.

Also, one big issue that is top of mind for the coast is this plant called knotweed. We have different types. It’s originally from Asia and was brought here to grow hedges and for erosion control.

Knotweed. I don’t know if you’re aware, but it grows four centimetres a day. A blade of grass grows 15 millimetres a day. It can grow through a metre of concrete, so it can cause a huge infrastructure issue for sightlines, impacts to bridge footings, etc. Right now we have the tools to deal with knotweed outside of the riparian areas, but inside the riparian areas — so along streams and lakes — we don’t have those tools in Canada to manage knotweed in those riparian areas.

That lack of leadership from the province to put forward a pesticide use permit, for instance, so that we can use herbicides in the riparian area…. It would really help our program. It really hurts that we don’t have this already.

Just in closing, B.C. is funding a great program. If you continue to invest in regional committees, you’re investing in a solution, and you’re also investing in jobs and the protection of our biodiversity. And not only will you be investing in protecting B.C., but you’ll be investing in British Columbia as well. I just want to encourage you that this is really doable. It’s not too late, but let’s not lose our momentum and continue to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species in B.C.

Thank you, members of the committee, for your time and attention this afternoon.

I’ll go to the committee for questions. I’m going to start with Simon Gibson, please.

I represent one of the Fraser Valley ridings, where we have tansy ragwort, which I always thought was a country and western singer’s name. But anyway, my query is…. We’ve got invasive species, some of them that can be eliminated and some of them that can only be controlled. For example, I have a lake in my riding where I’m advised that the weeds can never be actually extirpated but they can be controlled.

I’d like your comments on that in terms of making priorities for invasive species. How do we go about eliminating those that can be eliminated and just moderate those that can only be controlled?

R. McElroy: So how do we go ahead and deal with that? I think it really points back to my point in my pres-
[ Page 2540 ]
entation around strategy. Unfortunately, we do need to have a realistic approach, or else we’re going to be spending our money in the wrong way, I guess, so to speak. So really understanding, like you said, which are the species that we can eliminate and which ones are the ones that we can only control or contain.

Also, part of that — we’re talking about prevention programs here — is being knowledgable, as a resident, as well, as to what species we do not want to see in B.C. and being aware of what they look like and what to do if you do see them so that we can respond quickly and rapidly.

Just to give you a highlight, I know Scotch broom is a species that we deal with on Vancouver Island. It’s just so brightly yellow when it’s in flower, and it’s a difficult conversation to have with the public in terms of: why aren’t we focusing more on Scotch broom?

Honestly, if you look back at the biology of Scotch broom, what you can see is that it cannot tolerate shade. So we have comfort that, because of its biology, we won’t see it infest our forests and shaded areas. At least we know that it won’t take over all Vancouver Island, and we can focus our energies in the high-value conservation areas where Scotch broom might be impacting rare and endangered species. And how can we engage our local community groups like BroomBusters, for instance, to be getting the public out to manage Scotch broom in their yards and public properties?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. We’ve got time for one more question. I’m going to go to Jennifer Rice, please.

You’ve phoned in today, but the committee today is in Prince Rupert. We’ve heard other presentations, and it’s not a secret that Prince Rupert is experiencing port growth. We have an increase in shipping traffic, and we’re forecasted to see an increase in shipping traffic. There’s also the possibility that an LNG terminal will be operational here, therefore increasing the amount of shipping traffic that we experience with LNG carriers.

I’m wondering what your thoughts are on how prepared we are for increased shipping traffic and what we should be focusing on, should a lot of these projects and expansions come to fruition.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll get you to use brevity with your response, please, Rachelle, because we’re just about out of time.

R. McElroy: It’s good that you know these are coming. A great mechanism to just bring awareness to these different industries is to create some kind of fund for dealing with the invasive plants that are not here yet. As you know, similar with highways, the more we infiltrate, the more invasive plants we bring with us. Right now they’re not there. Once these developments are put in place, we might see more invasive plants in those areas. So why not build in a fund now to deal with those invasive plants or the prevention of those invasive plants being established in those areas?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Rachelle. I appreciate you taking the time to call in. An important issue we hear from other groups just like yourselves around the province, so the message is getting across loud and clear. I appreciate you taking the time.

R. McElroy: I’m really happy to hear that. Thank you so much for your time and attention.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay, we have on the line with us, from the British Columbia School Trustees Association, Mr. Gordon Swan.

Just to let you know, you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll interrupt you with a couple of minutes left, and then we can go to the committee for up to five minutes worth of questions after that.

G. Swan: The British Columbia School Trustees Association, representing 59 of our province’s 60 boards of education, appreciates this opportunity to participate in the budget consultation process. As locally elected officials, we are the stewards of over $4 billion of public money and fully recognize our responsibility in helping to ensure the greatest value possible is provided through each and every dollar entrusted to us.

Likewise, we recognize there are limitations of both personal and corporate taxation as sources of funding for government initiatives, including public education. With this in mind, I’ll put forward to you what I believe is a strong case for public education to be a spending priority for government as well as a core investment in this province’s future. We trust this committee, representing the entire Legislative Assembly, will give full consideration to our submission and see it as a significant contribution to your future deliberations.
[ Page 2541 ]

Let me start by emphasizing that boards of education from across the province tell us that they have reached the limits of program and facility sustainability within current budgets and that further underfunded expectations cannot be met without cuts elsewhere in the system.

Current school district operational budgets, already under inflationary pressures from rising energy, transportation, infrastructure and labour costs, simply cannot support current programming unless overall funding is increased or service cuts are made. Increasing expectations and the expanding mandate of the public education system have outpaced current funding.

So, yes, I am today advocating for increased funding of our public education system at a level that will realistically allow us to sustain what is recognized as one of the top performers in the world. Trying to do more with less will not allow us to maintain the system as it currently exists. Increased investment in the K-to-12 education system is an appropriate policy choice and one that can be justified as a valuable financial commitment to public priorities and the future economic well-being of British Columbia.

I would also like to provide you with a number of specific recommendations on how current funding might be better utilized and how we can improve our joint management of the $5.5 billion kindergarten-to-grade 12 education system. With the support of our membership, I respectfully make the following seven recommendations to you.

(1) Sustainable, stable and predictable funding of our K-to-12 public education system. While we appreciate the additional funds provided to boards this past summer, they could have been used much more effectively and efficiently had they be provided in a timely manner. If government wants us to meet goals identified in the taxpayer principles, funding that is sustainable and predictable would greatly assist us.

(2) Appropriate funding for exempt staff compensation increases. The acknowledged leaders of our K-to-12 education system should receive fair and equitable compensation improvements in line with unionized staff contracts. Failure to invest in system leadership will have a significant, long-term and negative impact on our schools.

(3) A review of the current Ministry of Education funding formula, with specific attention to the distribution model for school districts and funding protection.

(4) The immediate dismissal of the public administrator overseeing the B.C. Public School Employers Association and the return of a co-governance with school trustees overseeing their own employers association. How can boards of education properly manage our education system when they have no real voice in the sector’s bargaining or labour relations processes?

(5) Resourcing of a professional development program for school trustees and senior management officials to address areas of focus identified by the Office of the Auditor General and other system audits.

(6) Implementation of common financial management measures and terminology across the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education and school districts.

(7) Clear policy guidelines and reporting measures regarding appropriate financial reserves for school districts, which we believe are currently misreported and misrepresented as school board surpluses.

It is time to put aside the politics that have recently distracted us from sound educational funding and instead focus on actually improving how we deliver services to students in B.C. These seven recommendations are intended to both ensure the future of a world-class public education system and to improve financial management practices and policies within the sector. Putting them into practice will require the cooperation and support of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education and all boards of education.

We believe there is room for improvement in how funding is allocated and its effectiveness measured. This cannot, however, be accomplished without a willingness to work effectively together as co-governors of the education system.

There are significant financial policy issues that need to be addressed. Asking boards of education to effectively manage a system where they have no representation in the governance of their employees’ union contracts, including pay scales, cannot be appropriate. Likewise, singling out a small group of employees to shoulder the burden of government trying to balance budgets is simply bad public policy. The BCSTA, on behalf of our member boards of education, is seeking changes to these financial management decisions.

The truth is that every BCSTA member board of education in this province has delivered on a balanced budget year after year. Boards of education have done exactly what was asked of them — to make tough decisions regarding the appropriate allocation of limited resources, even when the answers weren’t popular. It is in everyone’s best interest, and certainly that of the education system, to stop assigning blame and instead to work together to determine and foster best practices. I’m certain the taxpayers of B.C. would understand and appreciate that initiative.

We believe that public education is the key to unlocking a prosperous and well-functioning society, and investment in K-to-12 education is a wise investment in the future of this province. So we ask you to work with us to ensure that appropriate funding is provided and that those taxpayer dollars are used most efficiently.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Gordon. We’ll go to questions now.

J. Tegart: Good afternoon, Gordon. I think I saw you — what? — two days ago in my riding at a regional meeting.

J. Tegart: I certainly appreciate the presentation from BCSTA. Just in conversation with school trustees, the talk is around how we improve with the kinds of dollars and the stability that’s needed. So I really appreciate the work you do.

I’m very interested in your recommendations and, certainly, in the conversation around how we provide good administrators and a competitive environment for people going into administration in a way that reflects the workload after a time of having it frozen for quite some time.

I don’t have a question for you. I really appreciate the work you guys are doing, and I appreciate the recommendations that have come forward.

S. Hamilton (Chair): And to another former school trustee — Carole James, please.

C. James (Deputy Chair): You have two former presidents around BCSTA sitting at this table.

Thanks, Gordon, for your presentation, and thank you to boards of education for the work that you do around the province. It’s, again, not a question, but more for information. I know BCSTA has done a good job of getting this information out, and we’ve certainly had boards of education around the province who have been presenting to us. If you could quantify the downloading issue — whether it’s Hydro, whether it’s MSP, whether it’s contracts, as you’ve mentioned.

If there are any documents that you think would add to the record for this committee, could you make sure that you get those in before midnight on the 14th of October? I think it would be helpful for us just to have some of those documents. As I said, I know BCSTA has prepared some of those previously, but if you have more documents, or those pieces, it might be helpful to the discussion.

G. Swan: Okay. I’ll make sure you get those. I know we’ve worked with BCASBO on the financial health. What they’ve seen is some structural deficit, so I’ll certainly talk to Joan and Kevin over there to get some documents to you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for taking the time to participate and call in. It’s always interesting to hear from our friends at the school boards and school trustee associations. Once again, thank you. Take care.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to report that we are now back on schedule. Next, we have another teleconference.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We have the board of education, school district No. 38, Richmond, via teleconference. We have Debbie Tablotney on the line.

Good evening. I’m Scott Hamilton. I’m the chair of the committee. I’ll just let you know you have ten minutes for your presentation. I’ll interrupt you with a minute or so left, you can conclude your thoughts, and then we can go to the committee for up to five minutes’ worth of questions after that.

D. Tablotney: It’s Debbie Tablotney, board chair of the Richmond school district 38. Good evening, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views and the needs of the K-to-12 public education system and, in particular, the needs of our students here in Richmond.

We’re doing this presentation today as a joint effort with the board of education. We have our stakeholders here — all of them present.

First of all, I’ll introduce the trustees: trustee Donna Sargent, who’s the vice-chair; Jonathan Ho; trustee Ken Hamaguchi; trustee Sandra Nixon; trustee Alice Wong; and trustee Eric Yung. We have our superintendent here, Sherry Elwood, as well as some senior staff.

We are doing this presentation jointly with our stakeholder groups, so we have Mr. Ross McLuskie, who is the president of CUPE Local 716; Mr. Al Klassen, president of the Richmond Teachers Association; and Liz Baverstock, who is the first vice-president. Sean Harrington is the president of the Richmond Association of School Administrators.

Dionne McPhee is the president of our Richmond District Parents Association, and Anders Galleon is the vice-chair of the Richmond District Parents Association. Lori Campion is the co-chair of the Richmond management and professional staff. We are all here today presenting to you.

Our recommendations. I will move on to that. Our school district has presented to your standing committee each year for the past five years in person or through a written brief. We believe that you’ve heard us and other advocates of the public school system in B.C., since your recommendations have consistently supported the need for adequate and sustainable funding of school operations as well as capital and maintenance needs.

We feel that we must continue our advocacy for adequate and consistent funding because our need has not diminished in any significant way. Funding for the public education system in B.C. continues to lag behind that of other provinces in Canada.

The requirement that school districts reduce their administration costs, imposed as part of the budget in 2015, has further exacerbated the budget management problems for districts throughout the province. While the decision by the provincial government to reinvest $25 million of the $54 million in administration costs that have been cut has helped, school districts need to have the entire $54 million returned to the system.

In addition, education funding has not kept up with inflation for many years, which has eroded the ability of school districts to provide the level of services required by our students.

Funding levels simply have not kept up with the service demands that school districts face. We continue to have increasing numbers of students with complex needs, students who face mental health issues, and a changing curriculum that demands more personalization and new approaches to learning. We cannot implement the new curriculum and provide the services that our students require without sustained additional funding, and this needs to be remedied as soon as possible.

The Auditor General for B.C. has recently published a report on budget and expense management practices in B.C. school districts and has concluded that districts do a good job in this area. As one of the school districts that was part of the Auditor General’s audit, we believe that this is an important report for us as a sector since it gives the public assurance that the moneys are well managed.

Additionally, a report on administrative costs commissioned by the B.C. Association of School Business Officials has documented evidence that the administrative costs in B.C. are the lowest of all in Canada and amongst the lowest in North America. Reports such as these demonstrate the efficiency with which the public education sector operates and suggests that additional funding to the public education sector will be money well spent.

We appreciate the select standing committee’s strong support for the need to integrate technology and technology-related skills in the classroom. Technology is not a luxury for our students in the modern world. Technology is an absolute necessity. Currently, school districts are expected to fund technology acquisition from existing budgets. As previously demonstrated, existing budgets are insufficient to keep up with inflation, let alone provide for ongoing investments in technology tools for education. We ask that the provincial budget provide new funding targeted for technology investment that would allow school districts to acquire, maintain and replace technology so that students are best prepared for the new curriculum and are able to acquire the skills demanded by a modern society.

Your select standing committee has consistently supported the need for school districts across the province for capital funding to meet emergent needs, especially as they relate to the need for space and seismic remediation. In Richmond, 23 of our 38 elementary schools have been evaluated to be high-seismic-risk. Factoring in the possible liquefaction of soils in the Richmond area makes these high-risk schools even more vulnerable. We also recognize that our schools will need to be an integral part of any local community support plan in the event of an earthquake, so the need to ensure that they are safe is paramount. Our district has therefore been working very closely with the capital branch of the Ministry of Education to develop a plan to remediate our schools.

As a board, we recognize that the ministry must have guidelines to ensure that facilities are well-utilized in all districts so that investment in infrastructure is made efficiently. We welcome the Minister of Education’s recent announcement that the 95 percent capacity target will no longer be in place, since we believe that the target afforded districts little flexibility in dealing with changing student demographics.

Our community places a tremendous value on daycare and preschool programs that are located in schools. We believe that these uses should also be given value when determining appropriate utilization levels. We urge the ministry to work with individual school districts to determine what a reasonable utilization rate is — taking into account local circumstances, including community uses, that may fall outside of the district mandate of the Ministry of Education.

Our board has been working hard on a public consultation process over school closures. We expect to have a final decision within the next month, and we are looking forward to sharing our long-range facility plan with the Ministry of Education. For our students, it’s imperative that the approval of seismic remediation projects occurs on an urgent basis and that there be flexibility around the determination of appropriate capacity utilization rate levels.

In conclusion, we appreciate, again, the opportunity to present the standing committee with this brief. Trustees, staff and parents in Richmond are committed to ensuring that our K-to-12 system continues to be strong, vibrant and efficient. We’re hopeful that our continued advocacy will result in improved funding for our sector, because
[ Page 2544 ]
we believe that there is no better investment than an investment in the children of B.C.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you very much, Debbie, for taking the time to present.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I want to say thank you and say that the lack of questions isn’t a lack of interest or commitment on the part of public education. I think you have been well represented by your colleagues on boards of education around the province as well, as well as the provincial association.

Thank you to all of you for your work. I think you’ve presented a very clear picture of the challenges. I know in your district, in particular, when it comes to school closures and when it comes to the seismic issues, I think you’ve presented your case very well. Thank you to all of you for the presentation.

J. Yap: Thank you, Debbie and all the stakeholders, trustees, for all the hard work that you do and the dedication to running Richmond school district. We all know that it’s a very efficiently managed district. It was good to hear that the Auditor General’s report affirmed that. Thank you for all that you do. I know it’s been challenging in the last while, and I wish all of you trustees the very best as you make your deliberations in the coming weeks.

D. Tablotney: Yes, well, we’re moving forward in our closure process. Parents are increasingly asking us questions. It’s going to get interesting.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Debbie. And just to echo what Carole said, don’t take this as disinterest or indifference. You’re probably familiar with this committee’s recommendations over the last three years. For the most part, this committee’s composition has actually remained fairly stable, so you sort of know the position. Again, we hear from a lot of groups — a lot of teachers associations, school boards and the like. Quite often the message is the same, so all the questions have been pretty much asked and answered.

Nevertheless, thank you all — Debbie and your colleagues — for taking the time to call in. I know you’re very busy, and we do appreciate your advocacy.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Yes, we do have copies. They’re available to the committee.

D. Tablotney: Okay. Well, thank you very much again for hearing us. We appreciate it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Debbie. I appreciate it. Take care. Have a good day.

S. Hamilton (Chair): On the phone, we have representatives from the B.C. Hazelnut Growers Association — Thom O’Dell.

C. James (Deputy Chair): We have Thom O’Dell, from the B.C. Hazelnut Growers Association. Ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll let you begin.

T. O’Dell: Well, thank you for your time today. We’ve provided some documents, but I have written an executive summary that I think is a little more to the point. I’m going to start with that, and then I’ll proceed through the other written materials, which I think you already have, and try to avoid the repetitious parts to the best of my ability.

Hazelnuts have been grown commercially in British Columbia for over a century, but the industry has been decimated by the natural disaster of eastern filbert blight, which was introduced around 2006. Harvests declined from over a million pounds per year to less than 40,000 as blighted orchards are removed and yields are suppressed. With the decline in harvest, supporting infrastructure for processing nuts is also threatened, because without a supply, the processors go out of business.

The B.C. Hazelnut Growers Association has several initiatives underway to rebuild the industry. A trial of new blight-resistant varieties began in 2011 with support from the Investment Agriculture Foundation of B.C., and we are partnering with the University of the Fraser Valley and the Abbotsford Community Foundation to develop small-scale harvesting equipment and to market hazelnuts as a crop for farmers to consider growing.

The Abbotsford Community Foundation funding is limited to the township of Abbotsford. To extend and leverage these marketing and communication efforts, we’re seeking provincial assistance of about $22,000 per year for five years. A dedicated corps of growers is slowly pulling the industry back out of its hole, and we’re seeking your help to increase our chances of success.
[ Page 2545 ]

Hazelnuts are a terrific crop for B.C. The B.C. Hazelnut Growers Association is working to get the message out to new growers about the many reasons why to rejuvenate and expand our industry. The BCHGA is appealing to the province for support of our marketing, communication and outreach efforts. We want to tell people about the crop’s potential and to encourage and support new growers. Hazelnuts can once again be part of agriculture in B.C., and the support of the province would be very helpful in achieving this.

Hazelnuts are no longer a contributor to B.C.’s agricultural economy. The Hazelnut Growers Association is working to ensure that the crop is not lost to eastern filbert blight, a windborne disease that arrived in the Fraser Valley early in the last decade. Prior to the advent of EFB, we had between 800 and 1,200 acres of hazelnut orchards in the region, averaging about a million pounds of harvest a year — which has been reduced, as I mentioned, to 40,000 pounds or less per year.

The opportunity is that new varieties of EFB-resistant trees, currently being evaluated by the BCHGA in variety trials, are showing great promise for disease resistance and yield. In addition, with our funding from the Abbotsford Community Foundation and our partnership with the University of the Fraser Valley, we see a great opportunity to promote the crop.

We want to expand the promotional effort across the Lower Mainland and elsewhere in the province to increase hazelnut production, make use of small agricultural parcels and diversify B.C. agriculture. There’s a significant potential for hazelnut production in the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan, Gulf Islands and Vancouver Island.

There are very few places in the world where hazelnuts will grow. Certain areas of B.C. are uniquely suited for the crop because of their mild, yet adequately chilling, winters. A successful industry, once established, should encourage additional growers and continued increase in use of small farmland parcels, much of which is underutilized presently. Of course, there’s a lot of other value-added potential, which I’ll get into in a minute.

There is strong consumer demand for hazelnuts and lots of potential to create value-added. I should also mention that historically, most of the crop was exported to the U.S., and much of their crop gets exported to China. So in addition to the local demand, there’s a huge global demand. The U.S. supplies about 5 percent of the global market currently.

The benefits of hazelnut farming. BCHGA is asking for the province’s help in getting the message out about the many benefits of this crop. If more people know about the hazelnut crop and it’s potential, more will want to plant and establish orchards.

Hazelnuts are a source of high-quality protein and oil and offer many opportunities for value-added products. They are a perennial, sustainable crop. They’re becoming increasingly valuable. Recent wholesale prices in Oregon are almost double what they were a decade ago.

They’re not perishable off the tree, as other fruit crops may be. As a low-input crop and one that doesn’t require a lot of time for care once the orchard is established, it’s very well suited to part-time farming or growers with other main crops. They also offer beauty, shade and privacy for landowners and neighbours.

We can increase the use of our currently idle and underutilized farmland with hazelnuts. You can, for example, achieve your farm tax status with two acres or less of nut trees in an orchard. This helps small parcels continue to be productive within the ALR, which we think is very important.

Of course, locally grown hazelnuts are in demand, and currently there’s almost no supply. They offer great potential for value-added products, including roasted nuts, nut-butter oil, protein powder, hazelnut milk and even face cream. Of course, this would add to the agricultural job base, with the need for orchard maintenance, processing and value-added sorts of services.

Quite a few of our growers have other agricultural operations that they find are very compatible, such as chicken quotas and so on. Also, hog farmers find a type of hazelnut is an exceptionally valuable source of feed. Traditionally, they’ve been used in Europe for the finest prosciutto, for example.

Once again, hazelnuts could be part of the circle farm tours, agritourismand other public agricultural education initiatives.

Pardon me for being perhaps a little stilted. I’m trying not to…. This document has a little bit of repetition.

C. James (Deputy Chair): No worries. You’ve got just a couple of minutes now, Thom.

T. O’Dell: I have about two minutes. I want to cut to the chase, then, don’t I?

Well, how we sit with the priorities are that hazelnuts will increase the amount of land in active agricultural production, build the domestic market by increasing domestic purchases of B.C.-grown nuts and contribute to food security in B.C.

How the province can help us is with, particularly, support for our communication and outreach efforts. We already have this trial underway, and we have a little bit of help from some other places to get the word out to farmers. We’re asking for additional support for having events at trade shows, rebranding, a logo design for our organization, advertising in trade publications, building a social media presence, as well as outdoor signage on major roads around the region at hazelnut orchards, branded merchandise and similar kinds of activities.

There is a more detailed budget that accompanies this document. I would refer you to that. We’re looking for
[ Page 2546 ]
financial support in the amount of $111,350 to leverage the current funding and to expand the geographic scope of our marketing efforts.

I think I’ll turn it over for questions now. I don’t want to waste your time.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Great. Thank you so much, Thom. We’ll go to questions then.

R. Austin: Thank you, Thom, for your presentation. I and, I think, many of my colleagues here were aware of the crisis that’s hit the hazelnut industry because our colleague Lana Popham has spoken about this in the Legislature on a few occasions.

I wasn’t aware — up until now and your presentation, so I’m very glad you made it — that you see some light at the end of the tunnel in that you’ve found some new strains of hazelnuts that are resistant to the blight that has devastated you.

My question is, Thom: have a lot of the hazelnut growers, because of what they’ve gone through, packed up and left? Or are they simply waiting now to be able to take advantage of these new strains?

The amount of money that you’re asking for here from the Finance Committee, I think it’s fair to say, is a relatively small amount of money to do a lot of good and make use of our agricultural land. Can you tell me what the status is of some of these farmers who used to be in the industry?

T. O’Dell: I have to say it’s all over the map. Historically, the industry was mostly older, part-time and semi-retired farmers, so a number of them were old enough that when they saw their orchards cut down, they didn’t feel like they had the energy to plant these new varieties. Others, though, have stepped up and are doing so, and we’ve seen a few hundred acres of new plantings initiated now.

I should say, as an aside, we didn’t just find these varieties. They’re the result of 40 years of traditional breeding work out of Oregon State University, funded by the hazelnut growers down there. It’s not like this was just a fortuitous accident. This is the result of a long-term effort with planning and a lot of support.

The largest hazelnut orchard in B.C., historically, was the one at Seabird Island. It was 100 acres. That has been removed, but the Seabird Island band, or the Stó:lō Nation, is in the process of replanting another 100 acres, so they will then have the largest orchard in B.C., if not Canada.

I come from the Fraser Valley, and as you know, hazelnuts are perhaps, in B.C., most prevalent in the valley. My query is: how long will it take to get up into production again, in terms of hazelnuts? How many years does it take before you’re ready to pick a good crop?

T. O’Dell: Just the past few weeks I’ve been going out and visiting some of the trial orchards, and plantings of three-year-old trees are producing up to six pounds of nuts per tree. That’s on the light side for commercial harvest, but it’s only three years in the ground. It’s three to five years for a commercial yield.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I’m aware that water supply for a variety of crops is increasingly becoming an issue. I’m just curious as to how water-intensive the growing of hazelnuts is.

T. O’Dell: Excellent question. Historically and even currently, once they’re established, hazelnuts are a dryland crop. In Oregon, in the Willamette Valley, where it’s hotter than here, they usually irrigate during the first two to four years. Beyond that, most growers do not.

Now, do you get better yields with more water? That’s an open question until we actually do the experiments. But right now and historically, it’s been dryland. You won’t do irrigation after a year of fruit.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Thom, and thank you for sharing your presentation with us today. We’ll have the document, as well, to go back and take a look at.

T. O’Dell: Well, thank you so much for your time and attention. I really appreciate it.

C. James (Deputy Chair): We now are moving to the open-mike presentations, and we have two individuals. Thank you, both of you, for your patience in sitting through all the presentations today. Luanne Roth is first, and these presentations are five minutes long. Luanne, I will turn it over to you.

L. Roth: Well, thank you very much for coming up to Prince Rupert. I’d like to acknowledge that we’re on Tsimshian territory. I’ve lived here for years, and it’s a really important part of our life here.

The reason I’m coming here is that I’m a commercial fisherman. My husband and I are entrepreneurs. We developed a niche market, built up a business here, and
[ Page 2547 ]
some other fishermen also came in. We’re doing live ling cod right now, live rockfish, shipping them out live from here.

Over the years, I’ve seen so many opportunities here and so many ideas that other commercial fishermen have worked on. There’s so much potential here that’s just not being addressed. I know that it’s a federal issue, but I really think that we need the provincial government to help, to figure out what the problems are and why things aren’t happening.

One place I fish is out in Hecate Strait. There are so many octopus out there. It’s such a rich area. I was just looking at…. Mauritania has a hundred-million-dollar business with octopus. I didn’t find out what it is in the Mediterranean, but it’s huge. We used to get a little bycatch, and people love them. It’s just not happening. I know people that tried to get the industry going. I’m not sure what the reasons are.

Another industry we have here is a live shrimp industry, just in the harbour. But there are other inlets up on the north coast that have the shrimp available, but it’s not happening. We have the port now. We could start shipping live out of the port. There are just so many opportunities.

I know that the provincial government has some people involved in liaison with federal fisheries, but I just want to recommend that a little bit of money or a little effort go into looking at what the possibilities are and what the opportunities are.

Another example is our salmon fishery here. They’ve been changing the management of it and shifting some of it upriver that doesn’t have to be shifted upriver for conservation reasons. I know the Cohen commission that you probably have heard about — the loss of Fraser salmon — actually made a recommendation that very few people know about suggesting that the federal government review that policy, because he said there wasn’t conservation scientific evidence for that.

It’s losing our region here, I think, between $10 million and $20 million a year. It’s huge. We’re talking about…. The Pacific NorthWest LNG might give us about 240 jobs, but that fishery may be costing us 500 jobs. Those jobs are just people here. Half the commercial fleet is First Nations here, and it’s really important for us to have those kinds of jobs. That should be looked at.

Another thing that I wanted to talk about is the nutritional value of seafood. Joy was here talking about the problem with the cannery. Well, I was just doing a little research, and I found that the United States pays $30 million a year buying canned salmon from Alaska canneries for their food and nutrition program. So our cannery is competing with that right next door.

The reason they’re doing it is to…. Well, they didn’t say it was to support Alaska…. They said it was for the nutritional benefits. I looked a bit into the economic value of that. You know, we’re paying for our health care here, and with just a little bit of omega 3, the amount of dollars saved in health care is just tremendous.

I know that there are pink salmon that are not being utilized. The omega 3 in them is just phenomenal. People want salmon, and they’re not being able to get a hold of it.

There are just so many opportunities. I don’t have a specific plan, but I do hope that maybe you have some roots to start looking into that and see if you can help.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much, Luanne, for sharing your passion. That was very clear.

D. Ashton: Don’t they use urns or something? I’ve seen them over there, where it goes into….

L. Roth: Yeah, and they just tend to crawl in. Right now, I think, sometimes divers collect them.

D. Ashton: But in Hecate, they don’t collect…. Divers aren’t collecting them.

L. Roth: There are some. But it’s very small and not nearly what could be done.

S. Gibson: I was intrigued with your remarks at the outset where you were talking about these shrimp and how you’re frustrated because there’s all kinds of potential with shrimp and others, and we don’t know why, but we can’t get people engaged and get people out there more involved. It sounds to me almost like a marketing problem.

Having taught a little business over the years at university, a lot of times a person can have a great business or a great product — but how to actually raise the profile to the degree you’re talking about, where people say: “Hey, I want that product”? I think that’s a little bit what you’re talking about, isn’t it?

L. Roth: Yeah. There are different problems with each one. A lot of the times it’s conflict between the users and trying to…. I think that might be the problem with the shrimp fishery — that there’s a market, there are fishermen, but there’s a conflict. You know, there are the drag-
[ Page 2548 ]
gers versus the net versus the trap. But there have got to be ways through that, if we have the will. I think Ottawa’s too far away. We need to have some input here.

J. Rice: Just quickly, I’m going back to when you spoke about the fact that we know fisheries is a federal issue. However, I just want to acknowledge that it is such an important part of our British Columbian economy. What kind of leadership would you like to see the province take in promoting and better assisting the fishing industry?

L. Roth: Well, I was thinking about doing some feasibility studies for these fisheries and doing a little analysis of what the federal policies are that are preventing them from going ahead. That was one idea I had. I know Joy had ideas.

L. Roth: And I definitely think maybe purchasing canned salmon for hospitals, for old age homes, for school lunch programs would have health benefits and build up the fishery at the same time.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for your presentation.

Peter, thank you again for your patience. We have five minutes for the presentation. I’ll just give you the high sign when we get to one minute, if that’s all right.

[A First Nations language was spoken.] Welcome, ladies, gentlemen and honoured guests and all of you coming here today for your ridings and all the things that you are doing, because it is the public that voted you in to do what your passion is, what you wanted to do where you come from.

I just wanted to share some of the things that some others had spoken about earlier. I didn’t come here with an agenda. I was invited to come here. But I’m really happy and pleased with all of the things that were said and done today, because I did not know of what you guys are doing. It’s not very easy, the things that you are doing, because when it comes to monetary, it’s not really easy to balance sometimes some of the things that are going on with you.

I’m really happy with the gift that you have given to me. I’m not a politician. I was raised by my mom’s apron, meaning I was right beside her when she was giving me some of the things that I need to do in where I am today. In other words, I’m no hunter; I’m no carver. But all my brothers are gifted in that way.

Now, leading up to what was said by the first presenter, there, about the fishing industry, some of the things may be related to other things on here about the fishing industry.

I’ve been married to the fishing industry for 47 years. I’ve seen a lot of things come and go, and I’m seeing a lot of changes within the company. I have had a lot of role models in the early years of growing in the industry. I always echo this from time to time because I’m really happy to have those men in my upbringing. Peter Scow was one of them, and Danny Chang was the other one. They always instilled in me: “Do the best quality work that you can do. Quantity will look after itself.”

I don’t say this to be unkind about the industry today. Other companies are always looking for quantity, quantity, quantity, but they lose the value of what the product…. Like I mentioned earlier, I don’t say that to be unkind.

I’ve become of age now, meaning that some of the hardships that are going on with those of my generation…. I could quit a job and get another one back in the day, but today you need grade 12. You need college. You need high school. That is very hard for us, in our generation, to try to get back into the work field.

I wanted to share with you because I like…. I’ve only heard through that that they are compassionate for those who are in this field here — that they are opening doors for those who would like to go back and do their English, like to do their math and like to do whatever needs to be done.

On another note, a lady came up and was speaking about linguistics and those who are having problems going through school. I was very fortunate in my upbringing because I was one of them. I don’t have that knowledge, growing up on it. The teachers I had were very patient with me, my teaching, because I was very slow on some of the things. They said that when I was in the special class, I was really happy. I did not know that the special class was something that was a different thing altogether.

With so many schools that are shutting down at the moment…. Mr. Wolfe was saying earlier about having a hard time for those who are trying to look for a living, responsibilities and stuff like that. The same way with the school trustees with all the schools that are shutting down nowadays. They are dormant right now. Why can’t they do something like they do with the transition homes for the ladies? Why can’t they do the same for the men? I want to encourage you. I know it’s probably happening in your region, in your area, as well. They can utilize the schooling.

The other thing that comes to mind…. If I was a school trustee, I think I would probably have a lot of enemies. Watching and learning and understanding. Outside this window here, that’s my classroom. That’s my school. If I was a school trustee, I’d be going to them and saying: “I’m only going to pay you for what you teach your students.” Because the lack of our students in B.C. and throughout Canada…. It’s quite low compared to the Europeans. We need to be up there with them.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Sorry, Peter. I do have to get you to wrap up, if you don’t mind.

Before I close, I would like to thank you for inviting me, and I would like to welcome you to the island of Prince Rupert. I wish you all the best that you guys do. It’s not easy for you guys to leave your family and your spouses back home. They also care for you and hope that you are doing well.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much, Peter. That was a lovely way to close our hearings in Prince Rupert. We so much appreciate that. Thank you for the very warm welcome and for the summary of our meeting as well. Thank you very much for being our final presenter.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

2) North Coast Literacy Now	Elizabeth Wilson
3) Prince Rupert District Teachers’ Union	Raegan Sawka
4) Prince Rupert Unemployed Action Centre Society	Ulf Kristiansen
5) City of Prince Rupert	Corinne Bomben
6) British Columbia Pediatric Society	Dr. Aven Poynter
7) Prince Rupert Port Authority	Ken Veldman
8) Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.	Steven Jones
9) Coastal Invasive Species Committee	Rachelle McElroy

12) BC Hazelnut Growers Association	Thom O’Dell
13) Luanne Roth
14) Peter Nelson

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) United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union	Christina Nelson
	Shelly Starr
	June Aster
	Rose Lincoln
	Cecily Moore

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES