The committee met at 8:45 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d first like to recognize that our public hearing today is taking place on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people and the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. Of course, we’ll be hearing from people — different First Nations and Indigenous people — from all over the province. We would like to recognize that as well.

We are an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with the mandate to hold public consultations on the next provincial budget. The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper that was received recently by the Minister of Finance, which includes the following three questions: “What are your top priorities to help make life more affordable in British Columbia? What service improvements should be given priority? What are your ideas, approaches and/or priorities for creating good jobs and to build a sustainable economy in every corner of our province?”

The committee is holding a number of public hearings in the communities around the province, and British Columbians can participate in these public hearings in person, via teleconference, video conference or Skype. There are numerous other ways that British Columbians can also submit their ideas to the committee. They can complete an on-line survey or send us a written, audio or video submission. More information is available at the committee’s website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance.

We invite all British Columbians to contribute to this important process. For those of you in attendance, we thank you for the time to participate today. All public input will be considered carefully by the committee as it prepares its final report to the Legislative Assembly. Just a reminder that the deadline for submissions is 5 p.m. on Monday, October 16, 2017. The committee must issue a report by November 15, 2017, with its recommendations for the 2018 budget.

Now, today’s meeting format will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter has ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. All meetings are recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services. A complete transcript of the proceeding will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast as live audio via our website.

I’d also like to take the time to allow our members to introduce themselves. Stephanie, if we could start with you.

S. Cadieux: Stephanie Cadieux, Surrey South.

T. Redies: Tracy Redies, Surrey–White Rock.

P. Milobar: Peter Milobar, Kamloops–North Thompson.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Good morning. Dan Ashton, Penticton, Peachland.

J. Brar: Jagrup Brar, Surrey-Fleetwood.

R. Leonard: I’m Ronna-Rae Leonard from Courtenay-Comox.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much. Assisting our committee today is Susan Sourial, Lisa Hill and Stephanie Raymond from our Parliamentary Committees Office. Also, Simon DeLaat and Steve Weisgerber from Hansard Services are recording the proceedings as well.

I’d also like to welcome some special guests from the Parliament of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana who are here on a parliamentary staff exchange. Welcome. Observing the proceedings this morning are Claudia Daniels, Clerk of Committees; Cheryl Ann Archibald, Hansard senior editor; and Eton Moses, documentation and preparation assistant, Hansard. Thank you so much for attending.

All right. I’d like to first call the Northern Brain Injury Association via teleconference — Will Lewis.

W. Lewis: Good morning, everyone.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning, Will.

Budget Consultation Presentations

NORTHERN BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION

W. Lewis: My name is Will Lewis, and I’m the program developer for the Northern Brain Injury Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and for being willing to take on such an enormous and critically important task.

[8:50 a.m.]

I’m addressing you in order to bring attention to an issue that impacts all British Columbia — in particular, the north. That issue is brain injury. Certainly not a cheery subject first thing in the morning and one that’s terrifying to those who experience it, brain injury is an issue that rarely makes its rounds at dinner parties. However, we really need to talk about it and, even more important, do something significant about it.

Please humour me for just a moment, and imagine that you awoke this morning to find that your whole life had been a dream — that you were a completely different person in a completely different body, with completely different abilities, living a completely different life in a now completely different world. This is the world of brain injury.

The Northern Brain Injury Association was created with the belief that no person living with a brain injury should go without education and support, and it currently serves an area that encompasses the entire northern two-thirds of the province, excluding Smithers and Prince George. Needless to say, we face serious geographic and climatic challenges, such as vast distances between communities and very unpredictable weather, so fulfilling our mission can require some very creative adaptability.

Brain injury ranges from very minor to very severe and has eight primary causes. They are trauma, such as a blow to the head; stroke, which is a burst or blocked blood vessel in the brain; anoxia, which is a lack of oxygen to the brain; infection, such as meningitis and encephalitis; tumour; surgery; toxicity, defined as damage due to exposure to substances such as heavy metals, solvents, pesticides, alcohol, drugs, etc.; and explosion or blast injuries, such as experienced by military and first-responder personnel.

There are many reasons for the 22,000-plus brain injuries that occur in B.C. every year. One is that British Columbians are amazingly active and adventurous people, living and playing in a beautiful but often dangerous terrain. Another reason is that B.C. is also a very industrious province with limited transportation arteries. Unfortunately, the most frequent reason for brain injury remains a lack of care and concern.

Per capita, northern B.C. residents experience some of the highest rates of brain injury and deaths due to brain injury in Canada. Among First Nations populations, rates can be four to five times the national average, with up to 80 percent less likelihood of brain injuries being reported, diagnosed and treated.

The two current primary sources of brain injury are crashes and falls. Sadly, and partially due to horribly outdated beliefs, social stigmatization and confusion about brain injury terms, the true scale of brain injury is much, much worse than is reported, with so many brain injuries going undiagnosed, misdiagnosed and/or unreported.

To make matters worse, often because of health care and social service silos, injured persons often go unsupported or untreated. This lack of post-injury support frequently has catastrophic effects on the injured and their families, as lives spiral quietly out of control, leading to statistics such as those found during a study conducted in Ontario and B.C. that found 53 percent of all homeless people reported having a brain injury, with 70 percent of those having a brain injury prior to becoming homeless.

Other studies have found up to 87 percent of prison populations report at least one brain injury, that there is a strong correlation between substance abuse with survivors of brain injury and that 40 percent of people living with a brain injury suffer two or more psychiatric disorders.

The current estimated fiscal burden of brain injury in British Columbia is $2,974,755,200 per year. To respond and reduce costs, community brain injury associations struggle on dwindling fundraising dollars, decreasing grants, when given, and sharing the $1 million of Brain Injury Alliance funding that’s available per year.

But the real costs are known by the injured and their families. In addition to direct and indirect costs, there are other obstacles and burdens that come with brain injuries, and these issues often have a very negative effect on the lives of brain-injured persons and their families, often complicated by changes to the individual’s ability, identity, intimacy, mobility and emotional stability. When all is factored in, it quickly becomes evident that brain injury exacts a terrible toll from us all.

[8:55 a.m.]

A further challenge faced by survivors of brain injuries and their families is that medical professionals receive very little brain injury education and training, which can be very detrimental to diagnosis, treatment plans and outcomes and make it very hard for persons to receive the help that they desperately need.

The good news is that there is so much help that can be and is being done today. Because of recommendations from previous committees, the Brain Injury Alliance has received a total of $6 million from government to distribute to community non-profit brain injury associations. The funds were provided to maintain and expand existing programs and services and to develop new and innovative community-based rehabilitative strategies. Some of those funds have already made such a wonderful difference to so many lives in the north.

Our staff witness these positive results firsthand. From the mists, myths and magic of Haida Gwaii to the highly productive expanses of the Peace region, the boreal forests of the Interior and all the way out to the foothills of the Rockies, lives are improving, costs to taxpayers are going down, and the quality of life for many is taking a very real turn for the better. Much of this is a direct result of funds received from the Brain Injury Alliance, thanks to this committee’s recommendations.

Another challenge that’s rarely factored in, in health care funding decisions, is that over the last few decades medical techniques and procedures have improved dramatically. So the persons who survive brain injuries — their numbers have increased as well. This ever-increasing demand for programs and services has led to needs that far exceed the current funds available to service providers, even with the limited funds that the Brain Injury Alliance is able and allowed to provide.

Without further stable funding to acquire staff and resources, community brain injury associations simply are not able to meet the current or the future needs of persons living with a brain injury.

I cannot stress enough that the community non-profit brain injury associations provide a very real and valuable and important service, and at very little cost to taxpayers. They are often the last resort for those who reach a point in life when they have nothing, no one and nowhere else to turn. Because of their size and structure, these associations and societies can provide help much quicker than health authorities and government agencies, are much more flexible and adaptable in the types of services and programs they are able to provide, and their staff generally have much more experience, education, training and skill regarding brain injury.

Beyond helping those affected by brain injury, we educate the public and professionals and create programming to give first responders the tools they need to help those in crisis. We develop tools to help survivors of brain injury understand the effects of brain injury and to help others understand what they are going through.

We firmly believe that competent and compassionate care is not just a matter of a degree earned from an educational institution. It is the degree to which we care. To help survivors of brain injury reach their full potential, it’s critical for us to rid ourselves of the mindset that brain injury is permanent. No matter how severe a brain injury is, there will be recovery to some degree. But healing processes are often inhibited or prevented by a lack of services and trained personnel to deliver those services.

Another obstacle for many in our regions is that there is such a lack of specialized brain injury housing in the north. Currently there is only one facility anywhere north of Hope, and it can only serve five residents. This means persons living with a brain injury are frequently placed in inappropriate facilities far from home and family, such as long-term care facilities serving the general population in the south, where they often receive little to no rehabilitative or educational services and programs to help them reach their full potential.

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and we thank previous committees for their faith and support. We so appreciate the opportunity to share some of the many challenges we face as we do our best to help those in need in northern B.C.

Before I turn the floor back to you, please know that the Northern Brain Injury Association fully supports the Brain Injury Alliance’s forthcoming submission and ask of this committee, which, I understand, will be a written one this year.

[9:00 a.m.]

We ask that you please support the alliance and recommend that government provide what is asked, for we need to remember that all of us face the very real possibility that one day we may wake up to find that we are completely different people in a completely different body with completely different abilities, living completely different lives in a now completely different world.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

Any questions from the committee?

S. Cadieux: Can you explain to me the relationship between your organization and the B.C. Brain Injury Association? Are you completely independent in terms of funding, or are you linked?

W. Lewis: Absolutely. The B.C. Brain Injury Association is simply a website. It has no staff. It has no physical address. It provides no services, other than general information, and it is not even run by a brain injury association. It’s run by a third-party web management service.

S. Cadieux: That’s not my experience.

Okay. How much of the neurotrauma fund comes to you guys, then?

W. Lewis: None.

S. Cadieux: Why is that?

W. Lewis: Since 2009 or ’10, I believe.

S. Cadieux: How much of your funding is government funding, and how much is fundraising?

W. Lewis: For the Northern Brain Injury Association, most of our funding is, in one way or another, government. We receive funds from gaming, we receive funds through our Northern Health Authority, and we receive money courtesy of the Brain Injury Alliance, provided by the government of B.C.

S. Cadieux: Okay.

T. Redies: Thank you for your presentation and your work in this important area.

You mentioned that you currently have access, I think, to $6 million in funding, but that’s not sufficient. Do you have a number, what you think would be sufficient in terms of providing adequate support? In terms of a facility, as well, where would you need that facility to be built, ideally?

W. Lewis: Well, from my understanding…. First, let’s address the funding issue. I’m not sure how much money will be needed. The Brain Injury Alliance talks to all the associations and calculates their ask based on what their current and future needs are, as expressed.

Right now there is no brain injury facility anywhere in B.C. Of course, we would love to have one in the north. In fact, our sister organization, the Prince George Brain Injured Group, is in the process of trying to build a stroke recovery group that will be available to people in the north so that they don’t have to travel all the way to G.F. Strong.

The $6 million that was provided is restricted, to be distributed as only $1 million per year. Don’t get me wrong. We’re very grateful for the money, but that $1 million a year falls very short of what the actual need is.

I hope that addressed the question.

J. Brar: Thank you, once again, for your presentation. I just want to ask you what is different at your organization that is not either available or not being offered by the health authority. Secondly, I want to know where your clients come from. Somebody refers them to you, or they just walk in?

W. Lewis: Many of the people we serve are referred by health authorities, by doctors or, indeed, call in on their own.

J. Brar: How are your services different from the health authorities?

W. Lewis: Our services are different because we serve so many other communities. The Northern Health Authority does have an acquired brain injury service. Unfortunately, it’s very regional, and they’re located in Prince George. They really don’t have a lot of outreach services to the outlying communities, and those are the communities that we serve, to avoid duplication of services.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, time’s up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis, for your presentation and for your work in this area. We really appreciate your presentation.

[9:05 a.m.]

W. Lewis: Thank you all very much for taking the time to hear our concerns.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Next up we have Victoria Residential Builders Association — Casey Edge.

Hello, Casey.

VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION

C. Edge: Good morning, Chair and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I’m Casey Edge, executive director of VRBA.

I’m going to outline the challenges and costs of housing affordability and energy efficiency and, at the end, tell you what I would do if I were building a new, affordable, energy-efficient home.

First, I’d like to dispel two housing myths. Myth No. 1: houses are unaffordable. In fact, B.C.’s over-housing stock is very affordable, but the land it’s sitting on is not, according to the B.C. Assessment Authority. In Saanich, the average price of a home is $800,000, and about $700,000 of that is land value on large lots.

Myth No. 2: there is no land. Land is available, but many councils object to rezoning into smaller lots. Affordable density is often discouraged in urban containment areas intended for housing. For decades, governments have been zoning affordability out of the market. More than 100 years ago, in James Bay, homes were built on lots under 2,000 square feet. In 2004, the city of Victoria disallowed new homes on lots under 2,500 square feet. We’re going in the wrong direction. The reluctance to rezone land in urban areas intended for housing is driving up home prices, partly because those areas are surrounded by ALR. There’s nowhere else to go.

Each of the 13 CRD municipalities, with their own community plans, demonstrate that B.C.’s policy of municipal self-determination is a failed governance model that undermines responsible regional planning, infrastructure, transportation and, ultimately, housing affordability. As an example, the city of Calgary started their LRT with about the same population Victoria has today, but they had an amalgamated city and received funding from higher levels of government. They continue to get funding from higher levels of government for expansion.

The exception in the CRD is Langford, with small lots under 2,000 square feet creating affordable homes for young families, priced, just last year, at $350,000 for a new-build green home. Three bedrooms. So far this year, Langford has 734 housing starts, while Saanich is down 27 percent. Central Saanich is down 44 percent. Highlands and Metchosin together have built only 16 homes during a building boom.

In addition, prices continue rising because housing is a primary source of government revenue. The property transfer tax and GST, which did not exist 35 years ago, continue to generate billions of dollars for provincial and federal coffers. Even at the municipal level, Victoria’s development fees generated a $500,000 surplus in 2016. But that’s still not enough. This year, council boosted their fees by double digits.

The reality is that builders have little control over what can be built and the cost. Three levels of government tell us where and what to build, through zoning; when to build, through permits; how to build, through the building code; and how much revenue they require — taxes, fees and amenities.

The second issue I will address today is the step code, intended to make already energy-efficient new homes more energy efficient. It’s a classic case of costly diminishing returns, but it’s easier to pass regulations on a home not yet built than on the majority of owner-occupied older homes leaking air changes like a sieve. Older homes have ten to 40 air changes per hour. New Built Green homes have three. The step code will reduce this to two or one, at an additional cost of up to $100,000 on somebody’s mortgage, which is actually closer to $200,000 after 25 years at 6 percent.

The step code was signed off by the previous government in April, and then a cost-benefit analysis was undertaken after it was approved. Cost analysis is normally done before the minister’s approval. Our review of the step code cost estimates indicates they’re not credible. The Housing Ministry claims that a tier 5 or passive home costs only an additional $20,000 to build over a basic code home. A survey of my builders, including passive home contractors, say it will be at least triple that amount and as much as $110,000 more.

Unless the B.C. government plans to get into the home-building business, consumers calling for quotes under the step code will get a big shock. Keep in mind that most home construction, other than spec, is cost-plus these days, so the builders would actually make more money from the step code. What they understand that the Housing ministry does not is that there will be fewer customers.

Last week the Housing Ministry backed out of a meeting to explain their report to my builders. This demonstrates a lack of confidence in their report.

[9:10 a.m.]

They also expressed concerns that VRBA has been discussing the step code with the media and with councillors at our UBCM booth. Councillors need to know the pitfalls. The step code empowers municipalities to increase energy efficiency beyond the national code for home construction, including simple building permits, based on their assessment of builder competence in their region.

First, municipalities are not qualified to assess builder competence. That is the responsibility of B.C. Housing’s licensing and consumer services.

Second, municipalities don’t have agreement by builders in their community to increase energy efficiency outside of the national code as when a builder applies for higher density. When a builder applies for higher density and council agrees, the builder agrees to build to higher energy efficiency. In this case, with the step code, there is no agreement, and the municipalities take on more liability.

Third, there is no certified education program, as there is with Built Green.

Fourth, if there are unintended consequences, such as a leaky condo, a liability issue arises. Was it the province’s code or the municipalities, based on their assessment of builders? That’s a critical piece in this. Many councillors were concerned these issues were not addressed in the province’s presentations.

Now, at the end of this presentation, perhaps you were thinking: “What would this guy do to improve housing affordability and energy efficiency?” Develop policies accommodating affordability by listening to builders in the business of affordable, energy-efficient homes. It’s their business. It’s not the business of bureaucrats, consultants and environmentalists. They simply don’t know. The costing report is ample evidence of that. Also, start to demand regional governance and planning, without which affordability and efficient transportation systems are unattainable.

As for energy efficiency, launch a renovation tax credit using a small portion of the $2 billion property transfer tax revenue, reduce air changes in older homes from 40 to 3.5, and at the same time, remove toxic materials like asbestos and install anchor bolts for the big quake that’s definitely coming.

I would allow builders to build to the national code, and let the National Building Code council do their due diligence in the interests of consumer protection for future energy efficiency. If the step code is necessary, do it only in cases of density rezoning when you have the builders’ agreement.

Last, if I were building a new home, I would choose an affordable Built Green home with three air changes per hour, and if I had an extra $60,000, I would buy the Tesla Solar Roof shingles with Powerwall battery that’s just basically been developed. If your home has unlimited sustainable energy from the sun, does it matter if your home has three air changes or one? It doesn’t.

Bill Gates believes the climate change issue will be solved by technology, and I agree. It won’t be solved by wrapping your home with two feet of petroleum by-products and cutting one or two air changes per hour from an already energy-efficient home.

Thank you very much. I’m happy to take questions, and on the back of my presentation is what you need to know about the B.C. step code. Those are bullet points that will, hopefully, help with the understanding.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Questions?

J. Brar: Thank you very much for coming and for your presentation. Can you tell me two things we can do as a government to make housing more affordable?

C. Edge: As I stated, one of the biggest challenges to housing…. The two biggest challenges. First of all, regulatory changes to new homes ratchets up the cost, and they offer diminishing returns. That’s a problem. The step code is a prime example of that.

We are building Built Green energy-efficient homes — as I stated, $350,000 — on small lots. Your template for affordability is right here in Langford. I have explained this to municipalities in the CRD, and the response from councillors has been: “We’re not Langford. We’re never going to be Langford. We’re special. We’re different.”

The problem is 13 councils feeling that they’re special. They’re not particularly interested in regional planning or housing affordability. The large lots — $700,000 worth of property with a house worth $100,000 from 1945 sitting on it. Those lots have got to be rezoned with good planning.

One of the things I think that’s ignored, often, is actual design. If you have beautiful design, the density doesn’t matter as much. I find that councils focus far too much on density rather than great design.

[9:15 a.m.]

J. Brar: Recently I think there have been some changes so that if anybody wants to build a house — I’m talking about the person who owns the house or who’s building a house — they need a licence. They have to go through a test, pass the test and get their licence to build the house.

This, in my opinion, doesn’t make much sense to me. At the end of the day, the house will be built by trained tradespeople, right? Then the city is there to do inspections and all that. That could cost any person anywhere close to 30,000 to 40,000 bucks, because somebody else has to build the house, and they will charge a fee. Do you think it’s necessary that if anybody wants to build a house, they have to pass the test and get a licence before they can do it?

C. Edge: Absolutely, it’s necessary, and it’s long overdue. British Columbia was the first province in Canada to pass mandatory education and training, and it still hasn’t been done for the renovation sector. If Mike Holmes has taught us anything…. He ripped apart these homes and showed us what a mess these homes were. These homes were passed by municipal inspectors. If you look at leaky condos, they called it a systemic failure. Well, that systemic failure was inspected by municipal inspectors and signed off by engineers. Trained trades — not necessarily. There’s no guarantee that trained trades built your home.

The step code ratchets up energy efficiency significantly in new home construction. You’re talking about the building envelope. That’s not carpentry; it’s physics. It’s air barrier. It’s vapour barrier. Your mom always said: “Never put a plastic bag over your head.” This is what we’re doing with homes. Yes, water is all around us all the time — as a vapour, as a liquid, as a solid. How are you going to manage that water?

There’s absolutely no question in my mind that mandatory education and training are required for anybody building a modern home. In fact, I would extend it into the renovation sector.

Most of the calls that I get, actually, referred to me from the Better Business Bureau are from people, often seniors, who have hired somebody. Anyone in this room could put out a shingle, call themselves a renovator, take somebody’s life savings, do a renovation on their home and perhaps walk away, and then a senior has to pursue you through the courts. There needs to be licensing and education and training for the renovation industry as well.

J. Brar: But the complaints, you’re saying…. We have heard those complaints even on the housing built by developers. What do you think about that?

C. Edge: I get very, very few complaints regarding construction by my members. One of the reasons is my members…. We send a builder from my board of directors out to do a site visit. You can’t just write a cheque and become a member of my association. Yes, there will be complaints — in any industry — regarding construction. But there is a licensing office, run by the province, which can review those complaints and decide if that builder should continue to be in business.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sir, thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. I don’t think it is necessarily just contained to the Island. It’s elsewhere in British Columbia. I come from the Okanagan. I really appreciate your comments and look forward to reading your presentation a little bit more in depth.

I do have to disagree with you, though, on opportunities, and I use myself as an example. I’ve built three homes for myself, which other family members now occupy. No complaints. They’re still there — I started in 1970 on them — because I took the care. I’m not one of those 1-, 2-, 3-, 4- or 5-percenters that are in and out all the time, as those you just spoke of. I concur that sometimes, I think, we are too regulatory in a lot of ways.

There are checks and balances, in my opinion, with good building inspectors at municipalities. I’m a former mayor and councillor and also a chair of a regional district. I think the opportunity presents itself to be a little bit more affordable for some people that have the skills, have the technology and are building homes for themselves, not building homes to flip and move on to the next one.

Just a point. Again, I thank you for your presentation. I really do.

[9:20 a.m.]

C. Edge: I appreciate that. The overregulation…. Well, as I pointed out, a lot of the cost of the housing is in the land. The land portion of this is something that needs to be dealt with. If you want affordable housing, the land component has to be dealt with.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just to interject, it’s also the municipalities taking a big piece of it for the servicing. People like myself question some of those costs that seem to be prorated over X amount of time for replacement and that. Again, good points, and I may be in touch with you ASAP.

C. Edge: If you read today’s TC, we gave an award to Gordon Denford. He told a story at the CARE awards, which is our event for honouring great housing.

Back in the ’50s, he built a small apartment block. Very affordable, $98 a month to rent a unit. He went to the city of Victoria. There was no planning department. There was an engineer there, behind the counter. He talked to the engineer about what he wanted to do. The engineer said: “Sounds like a good idea. Draw it up, and we’ll give you a permit.” There you had affordable housing.

The regulatory component now is oppressive. Municipalities or governments trying to get money out of housing is oppressive. But on the education side, absolutely you need a basic education to build today’s modern home.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. We’re out of time, but thank you very much, Mr. Edge, for your presentation.

Next up we have Northern Confluence Initiative, via Skype. Nikki Skuce, what have you got to tell us this morning?

NORTHERN CONFLUENCE INITIATIVE

N. Skuce: Thank you for the opportunity to make this oral submission to the budget committee.

As mentioned, I’m the director of Northern Confluence, which is a small initiative based out of Smithers, British Columbia, that focuses on land use decisions in northern B.C. We strive for greater conservation and protection of wild salmon watersheds.

I’ll mostly be addressing the third question that was there: what are your ideas, approaches and/or priorities for creating good jobs and to build a sustainable economy in every corner of our province?

I think one of the major impediments to responsible development that respects First Nations rights and title and a clean environment is in our regulatory system. The northwest of British Columbia has been subject to a number of bad project ideas over the years, from fish farms in the Skeena River to coal bed methane drilling at the headwaters of three major salmon watersheds to Enbridge northern gateways pipeline and tanker project to, most recently, Petronas’s LNG liquefaction plant at the estuary of the Skeena River.

I think that through leadership from First Nations and solidarity from our salmon culture communities here in the northwest, we’ve managed to stop these destructive projects that are destructive to our economies and our cultures and social well-being.

I think a renewed provincial environmental assessment act is a great opportunity to align with court decisions and international law to seek consent of Indigenous peoples and prevent some of the conflicts that we’ve seen over the years, as well as the boom-bust cycles familiar to many rural communities.

In British Columbia, where most First Nations have unceded territory, court cases have repeatedly emphasized the need for consent for development projects, from Delgamuukw to Haida to Tsilhqot’in. The recent provincial commitment to implement the U.N. declaration means that it should be a key part of all legislation affecting land use and watershed decisions.

This isn’t the committee to go into detail about this, but I think there are a lot of models that exist around collaborative decision-making and joint assessments with Indigenous governments. Whether the Voisey’s Bay example in the east or…. There are collaborative consent models from the Northwest Territories and, also, Indigenous governments around here, like the Gitanyow, who have clear engagement protocols for potential proponents. I think all nations are unique with their laws and governance structures, but it’s imperative that government-to-government decision-making be the new norm on land use and watershed-based decisions.

[9:25 a.m.]

In its absence, I think we’ll see less investor certainty, as the Fraser Institute report regularly reminds us in its ranking about B.C. mining attractiveness, and fewer projects achieving social licence. Without it, we’ll all see more independent environmental assessments, as with the Secwepemc Nation, for the proposed Ajax mine in Kamloops, or the Tsleil-Waututh, regarding the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I think any new provincial EA legislation must adopt the UN declaration and include free prior and informed consent.

I recognize that perhaps much of what I’ve said is around policy. I think it also very much impacts the success of economic development projects, especially in rural B.C. The commitment to review the environmental assessment and all legislation to comply with the UN declaration will take resources. Engaging with Indigenous governments and the B.C. public will require funds within this budget, I think, to ensure that the outcome of a new environmental assessment is a process that focuses on sustainable development and respects rights and title while restoring the public’s trust.

In line with this is my MLA’s and Minister Donaldson’s mandate to modernize land-use planning with Indigenous governments and communities. The province conducted land-use planning in the north in the 1990s and early part of this century. These plans did not always acknowledge First Nations rights or governance, and they did not always remain living documents that got updated.

I think having comprehensive plans in place that identify which lands are protected and which areas are open for development helps everyone communicate and be clear on where development should and will be welcomed. I think it offers more certainty, whether it’s to industry representatives or families living on salmon rivers here in the north. We’re excited about the opportunity for a new land use planning process, and we hope that there are funds in the budget for moving this commitment forward.

The other, last piece I just wanted to mention is more of a cost-gap measure that we feel is needed in the budget. Again, this probably is more around policy. The financial assurances framework in the mining sector has been deemed woefully inadequate. As last year’s Auditor General report on monitoring and compliance in the mining sector highlighted, B.C. has a $1.3 billion liability, although this figure is from 2014, which is the last that publicly reported these numbers, so we’re hoping that transparency returns to the budget.

Given the inadequate regime and historical lack of bond requirements, B.C. also has a legacy of contaminated sites for which no responsible party can be found. The estimated cost to clean up mining sites that the province has assumed responsibility for is assessed as $275 million. This doesn’t include things like the Tulsequah Chief mine that’s been leaking acid, rock and mining drainage into the Taku River for about six decades. It’s partly why the Alaskans are so concerned about the impacts on their salmon.

Just this morning there was another article about Imperial Metals, hoping that, again, billionaire Murray Edwards will bail out. The company, who is in financial trouble, is the same company responsible for Mount Polley and operating two other mines in British Columbia. We know that their financial bonds for their estimated reclamation costs have not been paid to the province, so taxpayers could potentially be on the hook there.

I think a strong financial assurances regime creates incentives for mining companies to adopt best available practices and technologies. But it also helps limit the public liabilities associated with the mining sector. I think this is an item that needs to get out of the red and into the black in the B.C. budget while addressing the realities and legacies on the ground.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Any questions from the floor?

R. Leonard: I’ll just make a comment. Thank you very much for being with us today here in Victoria. I appreciate your comments. You’ve hit a number of points. Just to reiterate, to make sure I’ve got them right, you’re interested in seeing more funding going towards a public engagement processes for the environmental review process.

[9:30 a.m.]

You want to see a better program for financial assurances for the mining industry, and you want to make sure that we see First Nations more engaged in all of our processes. I’m just wondering if….

N. Skuce: Yeah, that’s great. Thank you, Ronna-Rae. Also, ensure that there’s some funding towards the land use planning process and those government-to-government relations.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate you making the time to present to the committee and wish you the best with all of this.

N. Skuce: Thank you, and best wishes to you guys.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Next up we have the Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence, in person. Great. Fantastic — live and in person.

PACIFIC INSTITUTE
FOR SPORT EXCELLENCE

R. Bettauer: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you again today.

My name is Robert Bettauer, and I’m the CEO of PISE, the Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence. Joining me is my colleague Stacey Lund, our business development manager.

PISE is a not-for-profit organization that opened in 2008 in Victoria, in large part through a major capital contribution from the B.C. government. As of April 1, 2017, we are also now a charitable organization.

Through a collaborative model of successful partnerships with Camosun College and Canadian Sport Institute Pacific, PISE has been able to contribute successfully to the enhancement of post-secondary sport and exercise wellness education, a world-class training environment for Olympic and Paralympic athletes and overall health and well-being of citizens in our community.

PISE’s purpose statement is “Transforming lives through healthy activity in sport.” We provide this through the community and throughout the province through our dedicated service and leadership, highly qualified and passionate team of individuals who care deeply about their work.

We’re a financially self-sustaining sport organization and physical education organization that has been able to develop a successful business model through multiple partnerships with the public and private sectors. These partnerships have allowed us to help make a significant impact in the lives of thousands of our citizens.

Your investment in PISE and your ongoing support to sport and physical activity is being levered multiple times not only in our region, but also throughout the province through our partnership with ViaSport and membership in the expanded Regional Alliance of centres, whom we know you are hearing from in other presentations.

Some examples of how PISE is making a positive impact through our programs and partnerships. Last fall, we completed and officially opened our new 400-metre, fully accessible track, for which we raised $1.2 million, including a generous $250,000 contribution from the B.C. government. The track serves the athletes and students at PISE and is available to anyone in our community.

This April we hosted the Invictus Games training camp for the Canadian national team going to the Toronto games just completed last week. The previous year we hosted Soldier On. We are committed to helping wounded soldiers reintegrate into the community through our sport and physical activity programs. As part of that commitment, we are part of a local group of sport leaders exploring the possibility of hosting the Invictus Games in this region in coming years.

PISE has played a leading role in helping develop the B.C. physical literacy activation plan, completed this spring, involving participation from leaders in multiple sectors, including health, education, recreation and sport. I was chair of the committee, and we are committed to following through on key recommendations, linking resources and programs through sector partnerships for our common goal of healthy, active communities.

We believe that we are contributing to health in our province through a preventative, proactive approach that links daily physical activity with physical, mental and emotional health.

S. Lund: As Robert has mentioned, PISE continues to make wonderful impacts in the community around healthy, active living. Can you imagine a province where every child receives opportunity for quality sport and physical activity?

We know that regular participation in physical activity and higher levels of physical fitness have been linked to improved academic performance and brain function such as attention and memory. Almost immediately after engaging in physical activity, children are better able to concentrate on classroom tasks, which can enhance learning. We also know active children are more likely to become healthy, active adults, which helps to reduce the burden on our health care system.

[9:35 a.m.]

This is where PISE comes in. Not only do we offer a beautiful facility that the public can access for physical fitness, education and sport performance training; our team also spends the majority of its time in different schools, rec centres and community centres providing first-rate programing to over 5,000 children each year, many from lower-income or at-risk situations. Our staff are highly qualified, and many of them are graduates of the Camosun Centre for Sport and Exercise Education. Not only are we giving children and teachers opportunities for quality physical activity; we are also developing future sport and physical activity leaders.

In addition to working with school-age children and teachers, Island Health has contracted PISE over the past few months to educate daycare providers and staff to incorporate physical literacy programming so that they can achieve the new requirements of 60 minutes of physical activity per day.

We also recently received a significant contract to work in the Indigenous community at Lau Welnew Tribal School in Saanichton. This project will employ a full-time PE teacher to mentor other teachers in leading quality PE programming into the future.

We will impact 180 students and 25 teachers. There is also a research component that will show the correlation between physically active students and academic performance. We also work regularly with several schools in school districts 61 and 63.

In addition to the work we do with the Indigenous community in elementary and middle schools, we are seeking corporate support to continue a program titled Fueling Youth Performance, a program for Indigenous youth athletes. We provided this program in the summer, pro bono, for approximately a dozen athletes going to the North American Indigenous Games.

This training was so well received. These youth have never received such high-calibre training. As you may know, the athletes from B.C. and those who trained at PISE had great success at NAIG.

We continue to have a great focus on inclusion and are seen as a leader in the community around working with persons with a disability. In the past year, we offered nine different programs for children with a cognitive or physical disability and provided 40 adults with a disability strength and conditioning services.

We are proud to let you know that PISE is now a charitable organization in the areas of health and education. We are currently working on a campaign titled “Give the gift of play.” All proceeds from this campaign will provide children from disadvantaged backgrounds with opportunities to participate in programs at PISE or led by PISE in the community.

In the words of a parent with a child with a disability in our program, “PISE’s ability to have all the kids together, playing and laughing, was fabulous. It did not matter what walk of life you came from. They found a way to bring integration for everyone.”

R. Bettauer: Thank you again for providing us time to speak to you today to share our work and vision.

We look forward to continuing to build on our work, helping develop healthy and active communities. We ask that you consider increasing your investment to sport and physical activity, with the evidence that our collective work is levering a substantial return in investment to sport and community health across the province.

We also ask that you apply your influence and direction to enhance the growing dialogue and sharing of resources between health, education, recreation and sport, as working together, we truly have very positive solutions to enhance quality of life for all in our communities.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Robert.

Thanks, Stacey. We really appreciate that.

I just want clarification for the committee. In your presentation, you mention that you received $250,000 from the province. I was just wondering where that came from. Was that gaming?

R. Bettauer: Sport branch.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sport branch. Directly from the ministry?

R. Bettauer: From the ministry, yes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. In anticipation of one of the questions…. Is there a specific need that your organization has? Your ask is generally to sports. I’m just wondering: are there needs within your organization, specifically?

R. Bettauer: Our organization will benefit in the overall investment in sport and physical activity in the province. We play a leadership role, and we interact with the other regional centres throughout the province. An increase in overall support to the sector enhances our ability to not only continue our work in our region but also to interact throughout the province with the other centres.

[9:40 a.m.]

So, really, that’s our position here, just to recommend an increase in investment — and based on evidence that the work we’re doing is having a profound impact and that we have established partnership models that are very effective in levering resources.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. It sounds very, very worthwhile, your project. I don’t know how many years you’ve been operating. You mentioned….

R. Bettauer: In 2008. Next year will be our ten-year anniversary. So quite new.

R. Leonard: I think you started to answer the question that I had. With such a great program, it seems to be centred in the south Island. But it sounds like you’re starting to create partnerships. My mind was like: why isn’t it everywhere? Then you also talked about a facility. Do you bring kids in from outside of the south Island?

S. Lund: We have a facility out at Camosun Interurban here in Saanich. We also do work outside of our facility, because we don’t have the space. We go into all different schools throughout Victoria, school districts 61 and 63. We would do work in rec centres and different community centres. We really have engaged with the community outside of our facility as well, especially to reach the children.

R. Bettauer: Including the Indigenous community. We provide programs and support to about 5,000 children. I would say most of those programs are delivered outside of PISE. We were able to establish a community network of programs. It’s a model that other regional centres across the province are trying to emulate and, to some degree, have been able to achieve as well.

Our uniqueness is that we have a state-of-the-art, 75,000-square-foot facility. That’s very helpful in us being able to provide that quality of service, both within our facility and then through the partnerships. For example, we’re good partners with Saanich Commonwealth Place, University of Victoria, Bear Mountain resort.

Part of what I think we’re effective at is linking all the facilities that offer like-minded services and having a coordinated approach, a common language, with respect to physical literacy and the different stages of growth and development that children, in particular, go through.

J. Brar: Quickly, how much is your total budget, and what percentage of that budget is money that comes from the province?

R. Bettauer: Our budget is about $3 million. We receive $100,000 from ViaSport to help assist our programs. When I say we’re self-sufficient, we truly are. We appreciate the support from government, but we’ve had to…. I think the deal that was made when PISE was built ten years ago was…. There was great appreciation for the capital investment, but the indication was that there would not be the requirement for ongoing operational dollars to sustain it.

I’ve been in the sport world — as an athlete, coach, manager, administrator — for over 40 years. This is the first organization in sport I’ve been involved with that is not sustained by a huge amount of money from government. We’ve had to develop the business skills. I think, in many ways, we’re a model for sport, going forward — of how not-for-profit sport organizations can become self-sustaining.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Wonderful. Any other questions?

Well, thank you very much for your commitment to sport and to health in British Columbia. Obviously, a very successful program. Thank you for your presentation.

All right. Next up we have the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training — Janet Morris-Reade.

ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE
PROVIDERS FOR EMPLOYABILITY
AND CAREER TRAINING

J. Morris-Reade: Good morning, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you and the committee, on behalf of the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training, also known as ASPECT B.C., for allowing me to present here today.

Despite our provincial scope and representation, and despite our rich history of delivery and contributions to communities throughout the province, this is a significant occasion for us to speak to this committee. It provides hope that our sector will be given future opportunities to contribute to the labour market strategies that will best serve British Columbians in the coming years.

[9:45 a.m.]

ASPECT B.C. represents employment services organizations delivering programs across the province. Our members play an essential role to upskill individuals and provide them with the best opportunity to find and maintain success in the workplace. Our members also work with employers within their communities to provide a bridge to a trained workforce and to provide training in response to employers’ needs.

Our sector currently serves clients through four federal-provincial labour market transfer agreements and through provincial funding under the Ministries of Social Development and Poverty Reduction; Advanced Education, Skills and Training; Education; Health; and even Agriculture. We work with government and stakeholders to ensure that the needs of those seeking a meaningful and sustainable livelihood are met. This is our top priority — to help make life more affordable in British Columbia.

We are seeing employment shortages in some sectors because, although employees have received training, they are dealing with other barriers to employment, such as transportation, housing, addictions, mental health and access to safe, affordable, quality child care. It just isn’t as simple as pairing someone with an available post. Supports need to be in place with the employer and the employee to navigate the early days.

Clients who have had a prolonged absence from the workforce will need ongoing coaching. It may cost more to support them in the short term but increases the rate of long-term success significantly and reduces the probability of those same clients returning for future supports. With a more holistic approach to programs and services, the employment sector will thrive, as will our economy.

How do we help British Columbians succeed in the workforce? As I visited our members throughout the province, I asked the same question at every place that I visited. “What are the barriers to employment for your clients?” The responses were pretty much the same no matter where I was in the province. The four responses I heard over and over again were: “Lack of services for our clients with addictions and mental health issues, lack of affordable housing, lack of transportation for those trying to get to their jobs and difficulties finding affordable and high-quality child care.”

Our members are telling us that addictions and mental health challenges are impeding their clients’ opportunities for employment. In many communities, social services cuts have been so drastic that if a client does need mental health supports, there are little or no facilities available, and those communities that do have facilities face a lengthy waiting list.

Affordable housing and transportation is another catch-22 that exists in the employment sector. For many who access the employment services, their choice is to live in town and pay unaffordable rents or live outside of town and have difficulty getting to work.

Many do not have a driver’s licence or access to a car. In some cases and in some communities, public transit is spotty or nonexistent, and because of the winter conditions, walking or cycling to the job is out of the question. Those who cannot find a home near their work must resort to couch-surfing and shelters. Although we see this situation covered in the media in urban areas, it is even more pronounced in the smaller communities throughout B.C.

Affordable and available child care is also an issue. This is no secret, but we would be remiss if we didn’t address it here from the perspective of our members. There are many available retail and hospitality jobs, but child care is too expensive to pay for a minimum-wage job and too little to support a family on one income.

There are also many skilled parents who are unable to find quality child care at any price in some communities, which means that a population of British Columbians who want to work are being left out of the job market.

As we head towards an environment where there aren’t enough people to fill the jobs in demand, we are missing out on an opportunity in B.C. by creating a situation of not only keeping qualified people out of the workforce but keeping them from keeping their work skills current.

[9:50 a.m.]

We have four recommendations for the committee today. One, invest in mental health and addiction services. Although we are heartened to see investment promised in the last provincial budget, the employment sector can only do so much to support individuals seeking employment when there are challenges of mental health. We would like to see the provincial government help get people to work by investing in more resources for clients to access services as they transition to the workforce.

Two, continue to fund affordable housing initiatives. Continue to look for innovative ways to house people closer to their work so that they can have sustainable employment.

Three, support investments in transportation infrastructure. Especially in rural and remote communities, transportation is a dominant issue.

And the last one: fund affordable, quality child care. Affordable child care is not just a federal government issue. It needs to be supported at a provincial level. Public investment into child care infrastructure and training is urgently needed. We are losing out on a talented, employment-ready workforce that has had to make the decision to stay home.

We hear from employers and our members that there is a shortage of trained child care workers, and employers have a difficult time finding qualified people to staff their centres. Prioritizing quality training and upskilling for child care workers is a must.

B.C. has had an opportunity to be a leader in this area, and ASPECT and its members welcome any opportunity to be a part of any initiative. Currently many of our members are providing these supports for free, having to turn clients away. Public supports for mental health, affordable housing, consistent transportation and quality child care are needed to make British Columbia thrive, both now and in the future.

We all want the same things. We want a healthy economy that reduces poverty and supports plenty of financially sustainable jobs. We want British Columbians to contribute to the economy through income taxes and disposable income. We want every British Columbian to have access to a meaningful and sustainable livelihood. However, we need to recognize that our most vulnerable populations need more assistance along their employment journey to meet the future needs of employers.

We also need to recognize the important role the community-based trainers and employment service providers play in our society and economy towards supporting British Columbians and their employment goals.

I want to thank you for this time that you’ve offered ASPECT this morning and welcome any questions that you might have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Janet.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. It’s kind of exciting to have somebody who’s travelled the province and gotten the flavour of something that is so consistent throughout communities.

The biggest one that I’d like to address right now is the transportation issue that you say is so dominant as a barrier to people’s employability. I absolutely concur with you that we hear about it in the Lower Mainland. But in fact, communities…. I know it was true in my community, so I’m reassured to know that my community is not alone, that public transportation is a big issue in rural B.C.

I’m just curious if you can tell me where your reach is.

J. Morris-Reade: I’ve got some examples. In Nakusp, the service provider there operating employment programs…. They have to do their programming on a Wednesday because that’s the day that the food bank stocks up. It’s also the day that the one bus runs, once a week. So you can imagine the frustration for some of the service providers. Here they are, training people, getting them ready for employment but knowing that their future is doomed if they don’t have transportation or affordable housing close to their jobs. And if anybody here has couch-surfed ever, it’s not a sustainable model either.

T. Redies: Thank you for your presentation and the recommendations. I think there’s a lot of good information here.

[9:55 a.m.]

What I’m trying to get my head around is the size and scope of the problem. You’ve gone around the province. You speak to organizations around the province. Are you able to provide or give us insight into the numbers of people affected? It’ll help in terms of formulating potential solutions, the dollars, if we understood the scope of the problem.

J. Morris-Reade: Yeah, I think that that’s probably the challenge. I don’t have exact numbers for you at this time. When I spoke to people in the urban areas, the golden triangle, although the issues are identified, the barriers are identified, it’s when we get out into the outlying areas…. In our efforts to be fair to all British Columbians…. There really is a disparity between what’s available in the urban areas versus what’s available in the rural areas. It’s never going to be fair unless there is that consideration taken forward.

Especially in some of the smaller areas, I’m sure that this committee is aware of the transportation and housing challenges. I mean, in the Fernie area alone, and other resort communities, there’s no place for people to live. We see it on the news all the time, every year with Whistler, but Whistler is just one very slight example, compared to the other areas of the province. Smithers, for example, is another challenged area. When you go farther north, it’s very difficult for a lot of employers to find places for their staff.

J. Brar: I agree with you on all four recommendations you’re making. You summarized it very well.

My question to you is different, though. In my previous life, I’ve been part of the non-profit sector for almost ten years, maybe more than that. There’s no feedback on this one as to how the mechanism of funding between the non-profit sector and the province is going on. Is there any reason for that? That’s not part of this presentation.

J. Morris-Reade: No, it’s not. It’s a case-by-case situation, depending on where the funding is. ASPECT works with the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, and now Advanced Education, Skills and Training. Those are where the majority of our funding comes from. They’re dealing with those funding models and those issues as well.

What I had hoped to bring to the committee today was to talk about the larger picture of where the funding needs to be focused. I know that there are initiatives in the recent budget. I know that there are discussions in the media and discussions as the politicians are working through the issues with their staff. That’s what I had hoped to accomplish today — to draw attention to how those bigger issues affect employment in the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you for your comments about child care, transportation, housing and mental illness. Those are all priorities and important things.

I have a question. We had one presenter who was talking about the changes in terms of the move to automation — so many changes in technology — and the concern about retraining. I’m just wondering if ASPECT has thought about the future of retraining and training and what the future of employment looks like in this province. Not to take away from all the wonderful things you’ve talked about, I’m just interested in hearing your views on that.

J. Morris-Reade: Yes, of course, especially in certain areas where there are industries that have been automated and communities have seen large swaths of people being laid off. That’s what our members do. They train them for skills for the future.

For an example, one of our members in the Kootenays had a lot of miners and a lot of forest industry personnel who had never touched a computer before. So on their job board, it’s not pieces of paper stuck to a bulletin board. Creston is the name. They actually have touch screens so that people entering the front door will have a first experience with computer technology.

That’s just an example of what all of our members are doing across the province. They’re looking for ways to upskill and train people for automation for a world of computers.

[10:00 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate your time.

J. Morris-Reade: Thank you very much. Do you mind if I take a quick picture of the committee — is that a problem? — for social media?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, we could.

Next up we have First Call: B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition — Adrienne Montani.

A. Montani: Shall I begin?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes, you may.

FIRST CALL: B.C. CHILD AND YOUTH
ADVOCACY COALITION

A. Montani: We will be submitting a more detailed written brief and recommendations in a few weeks, but we really appreciate the opportunity to speak with the committee today to just flag some important issues from our coalition’s perspective.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with First Call, our full name is First Call: B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition. We’re a non-partisan, cross-sectoral coalition of 102 member organizations who believe we all share responsibility for our children.

Why is it important to focus on children and youth in budget development? I’d like to review some points I hope we all can agree on.

Children and youth are wholly dependent on their families and communities. They have little voice in government policy development, and they can’t vote. So it’s our job to make sure their rights are protected and that families have the supports they need to raise their children in a healthy way.

Many children and youth in B.C. are doing well, yet we know that many families are struggling to get by. Many are raising their children in deep poverty, and not all families have the skills and resources to effectively advocate for their children. There’s ample evidence that socioeconomic position is the most important determinant of health. Children who are raised in poverty face risks to their health over their life course.

We also have extensive knowledge about how children’s brains develop and how crucial their early-years experiences are to their later chances of becoming successful, contributing members of our communities.

We know that many children in British Columbia are removed from the care of their families, who cannot keep them healthy and safe. At last count, about 7,000 children and youth were living in government care, and nearly another 3,000 were living outside the parental home in kinship care, or on their own with some kind of government support. We know that these children will need special help to overcome the trauma of their life experiences and that they’ve not had the benefit of stability to support their development.

Aside from our moral and ethical obligations to care for our children that I think most British Columbians share, we’ve made some more formal, principled commitments to them. Canada and B.C. have both signed the UN convention on the rights of the child, which promises to uphold their rights to special protections, education, health, child care and family supports and to put their best interests firsts in all matters affecting them.

Then there’s the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and the Green caucuses that pledges support for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and the newly signed UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. Many of these recommendations have direct impact on Indigenous children, while others have a major impact on their circumstances over time. We ask that the 2018 provincial budget reflect these commitments as well.

A few critical facts about vulnerable children and youth and service inadequacy in the province at the present time. According to First Call’s last poverty report card for the province, B.C. has a child poverty rate of about 20 percent, and more than half of all B.C. children in lone-parent families are poor. The majority of poor children live with parents who are in paid work, either full- or part-time.

For Indigenous children in B.C., the alarming statistics show that over 50 percent of children living on reserve and more than 30 percent living off reserve are living in poverty. In some cities and regions, this statistic is much higher. Indigenous children and youth are also much more likely to be in government care than non-Indigenous children and youth, despite comprising a small percentage of the child population in the province. They make up 62 percent of the children and youth in care.

Among youth leaving government care at age 19, over 50 percent are on income assistance within six months of aging out of the system; 40 percent of homeless youth in B.C. have been in care at some point in their lives. Youth with experience in care are nearly 200 times more likely than their peers to become homeless. Clearly, we are failing in our role as parents for these youth by allowing this extreme situation to exist.

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the child care crisis affecting families with young children: a crisis in affordability, access to quality care and, for child care providers, a crisis in recruiting qualified early childhood educators because the wages are so low. This crisis is affecting parents’ ability to return to work after the birth of a child and their decisions to even have children.

[10:05 a.m.]

You should also know — I’m sure you do — that young children with special needs still face long wait-lists for assessment and early intervention therapies or access to child care because of limited government funding. Long waiting times mean irreplaceable developmental opportunities are lost for these children. When they get to school age, school-based services to meet their learning needs are also in dire need of restoration.

The inadequacy of mental health and addictions treatment services for youth has become a major issue. Too many tragic deaths are being chronicled, yet we have been slow to respond.

Programs serving women and children fleeing violence have not received budget increases for years, leading to cuts and services and lack of support for front-line staff doing very difficult work. This is the situation for many other provincially contracted child, youth and family services at both the prevention and the crisis intervention ends of the spectrum.

In spite of recent increases, welfare rates remain below the poverty line, affecting the health of parents and children depending on this income. For many B.C. families, the impacts of poverty are compounded by the housing affordability crisis. Food insecurity is on the rise, particularly for lone-parent families.

Last but not least, cuts to public post-secondary funding have led to unaffordable tuition fees and crushing levels of student debt for a lot of young adults.

In summary, it is clear we’re not meeting our responsibilities to our children and youth on a number of fronts.

What does First Call recommend? Well, we ask your committee to remind government, in your report, of the importance of addressing the social determinants of health for children and youth as a way of preventing harm and preventing escalating social costs. We can provide lots of evidence on why that’s important.

In our Child Poverty Report Card, we make a number of recommendations annually to address the issues I’ve just outlined. Chief among them are poverty reduction measures and significantly bigger investments in supports for early childhood development and care. Evidence shows that these two preventative actions will have the most significant impact and downstream savings for the long term.

We are encouraged, indeed optimistic, that government’s commitment to develop a comprehensive provincial poverty reduction plan will bring significant relief to many struggling families. At this point, I also want to commend government on the recent policy changes that have already been announced or implemented, such as the $100 increase in social assistance rates and the restoration of bus passes for people on disability benefits and the return of fee-free adult basic education and English language classes, the tuition waivers for youth from care and the planned reduction in MSP fees. All of these changes will make a difference, especially for low-income people.

Our advice for next steps include, in the area of childhood investments: address the child care crisis for parents by starting to implement the $10-a-day child care plan and improving access to quality early child development and care programs for Indigenous children, both on and off reserve; eliminate wait times for children with developmental challenges who need access to assessments and therapies; provide stable and enhanced funding for parent and family support programs, which often survive on shoestrings and which are accessible and welcoming for all families.

With regard to poverty reduction, additional measures we’d like to see in the provincial plan include redesign the B.C. early childhood tax benefit into a B.C. child benefit that covers children up to the age of 17, or under 18, as in other provinces; and increase the maximum benefit to $1,320 per child per year, which would mean doubling it.

Increase income and disability rates significantly to bring them in line with actual living expenses, indexing them to the annual rise in the cost of basic living expenses.

Build more social and affordable rental housing, while better protecting renters from rent-related evictions.

Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour as soon as possible, and index it annually. Ensure living wages are paid to all direct and indirect government employees, including in the health care sector and the contracted social services sector.

Eliminate MSP premiums completely.

Reduce post-secondary tuition fees, reintroduce a needs-based grant program, and provide interest-free student loans.

With regard to supports and services for vulnerable children, youth and families, we ask that the budget look to ensuring that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has sufficient resources to support more services to keep children at home with their families when it can be made safe to do so and to strengthen the system of guardianship workers, foster parents and caregivers when it is not.

Ensure that government-contracted services for children, youth and families receive sufficient funds to respond to the needs of their clients. This means acknowledging the need for annual increases to match growing needs and rising costs.

Increase the capacity of transition house services for women and children fleeing domestic violence, and provide women with legal aid — two more areas that need urgent attention.

Develop seamless financial, educational and relational supports for youth transitioning out of government care at age 19, and offer the extension of foster care to youth up to the age of 25, if they choose it.

Develop policy to address the financial support needs of children being raised by grandparents and other kinship caregivers. That includes those with and without legal guardianship.

[10:10 a.m.]

Increase access to timely and appropriate mental health services for children and youth, including addictions treatment.

With regard to public education, which has a powerful role to play in reducing inequalities and improving opportunities for children who live in impoverished circumstances or are otherwise vulnerable, we recommend: continue to restore funding to the K-to-12 public school system. Beyond more teachers, provide funding and resources to support the early identification, designation and appropriate education programs for students with special needs. And provide adequate funding for facility repair and maintenance, including seismic upgrades, as well as building new schools for growing districts.

In conclusion, I know that’s a very long list, and we will be sending our recommendations to you in writing. I know it’s a lot to take in orally at this point. Our coalition members are looking forward to supporting all government efforts to make upstream investments that will dramatically reduce the preventable risks and vulnerabilities currently facing too many children and youth and help all young people to reach their full potential.

That’s my presentation. I welcome any questions you have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you. Wow. That was exactly ten minutes. Well done.

T. Redies: Thank you, Ms. Montani, for your comprehensive presentation. I’m sure you’re aware that government, obviously, has to make choices, and you’ve given us quite a long list of things that need to be done, none of which I think probably anybody around this table would disagree with. I guess my question to you, given that we can only do so much in a period of time…. What would be your top three items that you think we could concentrate on?

A. Montani: Could I just ask committee members to identify themselves? Since I can’t see you, I don’t know who I’m talking to or whose question I’m responding to.

T. Redies: My name is Tracy Redies. I’m the MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

A. Montani: Okay. Thank you.

My top three. I never like doing that because we see children and youth…. This is a whole package that serves their needs. I think I identified in my remarks, though, that the key things would be poverty reduction and investments in the early years.

If I had to choose among those, investments in the early years…. Get the child care system started soon, because it’s just trapping people in poverty, both single- and dual-parent families. It’s a huge burden, so we really need to get that universal child care, a quality child care system up and running. That would be one of my top priorities. Obviously, poverty reduction…. And we see that as a poverty reduction measure. Then people can work and earn. As well, it has benefits for vulnerable children in their long-term growth and care if they’re in good quality care.

Another one would be addressing the needs of youth aging out of care right now. Right now it’s too much of a pipeline into homelessness, and it’s just so much work. We are the parents of those children, so it’s urgent that we do a much better job in treating them the same way we would if they were our own children. We would be supporting them through, probably, their 20s, and maybe even beyond, to get the post-secondary they need, to make sure they don’t end up homeless, to get the health and other relational kinds of supports they need. That’s another urgent one, I would say.

Then in MCFD…. That ministry needs an infusion of funding. Its residential care system for those who have been taken into care needs some serious support. We know from the field that kids sometimes are just being warehoused. They’re not getting therapy and the kinds of supports they need. Some of those — a lot of them, actually — have special needs, and they’re waiting for assessments. Again, we know developmental windows come and go. If you don’t…. Early intervention is always better. So they’re waiting for assessments and supports, both in the school system and outside the school system. That’s urgent, I think, for all of those kids.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I have just a comment, just to make sure that you’re aware that the deadline for the written submissions is Monday, October 16 at 5 p.m. Given the number of points that you brought up, it would be really very helpful for us to have that written submission. I think all of us would benefit from that.

A. Montani: Yes, absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Are there any other questions from the committee?

Okay. Well, thank you very much for the work that you do in youth advocacy and for your very detailed presentation. We look forward to the written submission. Thank you so much.

A. Montani: Thank you very much for the time. Goodbye.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Camosun College Student Society, and that is Michel Turcotte.

CAMOSUN COLLEGE STUDENT SOCIETY

M. Turcotte: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today. Before beginning, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

[10:15 a.m.]

As you mentioned, my name is Michel Turcotte, and I’m the executive director of the Camosun College Student Society. As I’m not an elected student representative, I remain hopeful that what I lack in youthful enthusiasm can be made up for with grey hairs and insight into B.C.’s post-secondary educational system. I started working at the Camosun College Student Society in November of 1998, and as such, I have had a front-row seat to watch the massive changes that have occurred at Camosun and in other institutions across this province.

I know that our provincial student organization that we belong to, the British Columbia Federation of Students, is submitting a large written report outlining a number of priorities that students believe are key to moving forward with post-secondary education and our economy. We helped formulate and fully endorse the five priorities that you’ll see there in those recommendations.

I’m going to not submit a written report, and I’ll save you from having to read much of the same information twice. Consequently, for the purposes of this presentation, I’d like to focus on three recommendations, which are increasing funding to colleges and universities — I might be biased towards colleges — regulation of tuition fees for international students and a funding increase for BCcampus.

I realize that there are many demands on the public purse and that very few of the people that are sitting in front of you today, or that already have, are going to be asking you for less money. There could be a few, but I doubt it. That being said, I have watched for nearly two decades as funding for institutions in this province has failed to keep up with inflation. The operational grants for institutions have actually declined by 20 percent since 2001, when adjusted for inflation.

Students across the system experience the underfunding of institutions in their everyday lives on campus, from massive program cuts to tuition increases and reductions to all campus services, from advising departments to counselling.

I come from a college, and when it comes to operational and capital dollars, it always seems that colleges seem to be at the bottom of the government’s Christmas list, after research and other universities. Colleges should receive the same level of funding because they have fewer resources to raise outside revenue. As well, they have large numbers of marginalized students.

For years, I have looked with envy up the road at the University of Victoria as it has leveraged its name and prestige into tens of millions of dollars in donations and special government envelope funding, while Camosun is largely left surviving on its reduced B.C. government operational grant and tuition revenues.

The lack of provincial funding means a lack of services for students. It also means institutions need to find ways to make up for that funding shortfall. This cost is put onto the backs of students through high tuition fees, ancillary fees, cost of food and even parking costs — of which, incidentally, Camosun has some of the highest.

Students and their families should not be forced to make up the shortfall for the lack of public funding to institutions. Camosun’s budget for the last fiscal year was over $112 million, of which only 49 percent was coming as a result of grants. Many of us jokingly refer to Camosun as a private institution, but really, it’s no joke when one considers that over $41.5 million came from the tuition that my members pay, to say nothing of the extra millions being raised on the backs of students for food, parking, locker fees and the like.

During the last decade, some institutions have become very good at circumventing the tuition fee policy of the Ministry of Advanced Education. I would even go so far as to say that my institution was likely the most creative in its attempts to raise tuition revenue, with courses and programs being constantly tweaked and renamed to justify significant tuition increases far beyond the 2 percent cap.

While my members suffered as a result of the devious efforts of Camosun’s administration to raise tuition revenue, I could hardly blame those same administrators and would not myself want to be faced with those same terrible choices as the college’s provincial grant continually decreased.

The British Columbia Federation of Students is recommending the restoration of funding back to 2001 levels for post-secondary institutions. Adjusted for inflation, this would come out to about $200 million for the next fiscal year, and I would urge you to support that request.

The next issue I would like to highlight is international student tuition fees. At Camosun College, we have over 1,500 international students. When you consider I represent a membership of about 9,500, that means international students make up over 15 percent of Camosun’s credit population. The number of international students has more than doubled in the time I have worked at Camosun.

[10:20 a.m.]

In addition to playing games with domestic tuition, years of flat or reduced core funding to colleges like Camosun has resulted in reliance on ever-increasing numbers of international students, and the inflated fees that they pay, to make up budgetary shortfalls.

Many international students at Camosun end up using their post-secondary education as a means to eventually become permanent residents. They pay taxes and contribute to the economy. This fact, which I’m sure is not limited to those who attend my institution, makes the way in which they are treated, as virtual ATMs, rather shameful.

By having no regulation on the increase in tuition fees for international students, institutions are free to set prices at whatever they see fit. There is no consistency across the province nor is there predictability in the amount of potential increase each year. Camosun’s international students lack that predictability. In fact, they crave it. Tuition could go up by 3, 9 or even 10 percent without much warning, because there’s simply no regulation.

For this year’s budget, we and other student societies are recommending that the province commit to amending the tuition fee limit policy to include fees for international students. Such a regulation would create fairness, consistency and predictability to changes in international student tuition fees and would respect those who are travelling great distances and paying substantial fees to participate in our educational system and in our communities.

The final item that I would like to address in this presentation is one-time funding for open educational resources. Tuition fees and auxiliary fees are not, by far, the only financial barriers that students struggle with these days. The high cost of textbooks has become a serious obstacle.

Textbook prices have risen 82 percent from 2002 to 2012. Now many typically cost more than $200 each. For many students and their families who are already struggling to afford tuition fees and the cost-of-living expenses, this unpredictable expense can be a very huge burden. Other students compromise their educational experience by opting not to buy books at all or being very selective in their choices, shortchanging their academic goals. I have met several students who are forced to violate a number of copyright laws just to be able to study and get good marks, and that’s not fair.

There is a solution to this problem: open educational resources, notably in the form of open textbooks. They are high-quality resources that are available in digital format for free or for very low-cost to print. OER can ease the burden of expensive textbook costs. The B.C. government has already identified this as a solution to the textbook dilemma and empowered BCcampus to oversee its implementation provincewide.

Our recommendation is to provide one-time additional funding of $5 million to BCcampus. This infusion of funding would allow BCcampus to create and adapt open textbooks, develop sustainable systems to maintain these open textbooks and create and adapt required ancillary resources, such as assignments and quizzes, to support these open textbooks. These are ways that the textbook companies currently use to sell their textbooks to professors now, and BCcampus needs to provide these resources as well.

In closing, I hope that this committee will once again recognize the financial hardship and personal debt that students and their families are being forced to bear in B.C. just to pursue an education and support our recommendations for inclusion in the 2018 budget.

I appreciate your time and would be happy to answer any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Any questions from the committee?

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. We’ve heard from other student organizations regarding international students and the whole issue of open-source textbooks, so I appreciate hearing that over and over again. It’s important for us to know that it’s not unique to one college institution.

You mention parking as an issue. That’s an issue in my community, so I was curious about the cost to students on parking and what you see as a solution, and also, to ask about student housing on campus.

M. Turcotte: Firstly, the parking on campus is an issue at many institutions. I’m happy that North Island College recently made it free again, but it’s quite an issue right now, even on this Island at Vancouver Island University.

[10:25 a.m.]

At Camosun, the major issue related to parking relates to cost. We’re one of the only institutions, or the only public institution in the province, that doesn’t offer a pass of some sort. Students are paying over $6 a day to park. Some of them have no choice but to drive because they have family and other issues and jobs. Some live above the Malahat, even, and commute to Camosun every day. There’s no cheap way. The ministry has never considered parking to be an auxiliary fee or sought to regulate it in any way, but it does create a huge degree of unfairness in students being able to access their education and meet their other commitments.

In terms of housing…. Student housing, believe me, is just not one of the priorities we’ve chosen for this year. But student housing is a huge priority, and we’re seriously hoping that the government will, at a minimum, allow institutions to borrow money to build student housing. The previous solutions of trying to use PPPs and other things, at least at Camosun, have never come to volition because it’s never been a decent deal for the college or for students. If the college were allowed to borrow money to build residences on campus, it would be self-sustaining in terms of the revenue coming in and would seriously assist students, particularly in a market like Victoria, where there’s almost a zero percent vacancy rate.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a quick question. This might be personally motivated because I’ve written two textbooks for college.

I’m just curious because I do believe…. Obviously, getting access to textbooks is critical for student learning. I’m just wondering if there’s any thought being put into how you balance the…. I mean, you want to have great textbooks, but you can’t give them away for free. Presumably, the creators, the writers, of the textbooks need to get compensated. I’m just wondering. Within this open education, is there a balance between making sure that the people creating these textbooks are also compensated as well as students being able to get access to that?

M. Turcotte: One of the things that open campus does is…. If they got this $5 million, the individuals would be paying people to help create these resources, essentially. There would be compensation there, but it’s much like open source and stuff on the Internet. Teachers can take this information, and it can be adapted for their particular needs, which makes it very flexible.

Currently a professor may like one chapter in a particular book and may put that on his book list, but the rest of the book may not be even relevant to the course at all. They have no ability to adapt that. So students will then pay $250 or something for, essentially, one chapter, which is immensely unfair.

Yes, it’s hoped that sustainably, if the government…. It’s a much better arrangement for the government to fund the production of these open resources than for students and professors to be involved in the market that currently exists now.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, I understand. Are we talking about adapting existing texts or creating new texts or a combination?

M. Turcotte: These are new ones.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I see. It’s a different model.

M. Turcotte: BCcampus has some out there in several different disciplines, currently. They were created for that purpose and are adaptable.

In the short term, I don’t think it’s possible to replace every for-profit textbook, but at least making a dent towards that direction would seriously help students in British Columbia.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just to follow up on student residences, is there land on Camosun to build residences? Is there land there?

M. Turcotte: There have been several plans over the years that I’ve been at Camosun. Like I said, the biggest challenge has been finding a partner with which to do it, where it makes sense. Most of the partners wanted Camosun to take all the risk, and they would take the profit. That turned out not to be a good deal. I spent two years on the Camosun board of governors and actually watched as a few of these plans came into volition. They were just lousy deals for the college and, probably, lousy deals for the public.

Yes, if Camosun were allowed, like I said, to borrow money to create those residences — currently, colleges can’t borrow money — they could do that in rather quick order. They have land earmarked for that purpose, yes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Were there any more questions?

Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Okay. We’re going to take a break. We’re going to adjourn for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 10:29 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’d like to call the University of Victoria Students Society. Come on up.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
STUDENTS SOCIETY

A. Swaich: Hi, everyone. My name is Anmol Swaich, and I’m a third-year business student at the University of Victoria. Today I’m here to represent the University of Victoria Students Society as their elected director of campaigns and community relations.

The UVSS represents 18,000 undergraduate students that attend UVic. We are a $14 million non-profit run by students. We are separate from the university and run a successful social enterprise that includes nine unique businesses.

As an organization, our mission is to be a leader in providing high-quality and accessible services, advocacy and events that enhance the student experience. We also work on several different student issues, including post-secondary funding, textbook affordability, mental health awareness, public transit, sexualized violence, campus sustainability, harm reduction, student employment and affordable housing.

I’d like to begin by thanking the government of B.C. for restoring funding for and making adult basic education and English-language-learning programs free, as well as for expanding the tuition waiver for former youth in care.

For the B.C. budget of 2018, the UVSS has four key recommendations to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Our first recommendation is to create an up-front, comprehensive needs-based grants program for low-and middle-income students, with initial funding of $50 million per year.

Most students from low- and middle-income families need to take out student loans to pay for their education. However, when these students graduate, they start at an economic disadvantage in the labour market due to their huge amounts of debt. Because of interest rates on student loans, a poor or otherwise marginalized student might actually end up paying more for their education than someone from a privileged background that did not need loans.

Last year the government of Ontario reformed its student aid system to make post-secondary tuition free for 185,000 low- and middle-income students. Now in Ontario, full-time students from a household with a combined income of less than $50,000 per year receive non-repayable needs-based grants that allow them to access post-secondary education.

Currently B.C. is the only province without a comprehensive needs-based grants program. Here students receive the lowest proportion of non-repayable student assistance in Canada. This is creating the most indebted generation in history, a situation that will have long-lasting negative consequences for British Columbians and the long-term health of our economy.

In order to lay the foundation for a strong economy and a more socially just society, the new B.C. government should take a lead from the government of Ontario and create a provincial system of up-front, needs-based grants. Although the government’s intention to provide completion grants is laudable, we’d like to see this money reinvested in up-front grants, as up-front grants provide the opportunity to enter the post-secondary system for people that might not be able to otherwise, as opposed to completion grants for students that already had the chance to get through the system.

There is no magic number when it comes to a funding amount for a needs-based grants program. In 2013, the Research Universities Council of B.C. recommended the adoption of a $30 million program, and in that same year, the B.C. NDP promised to create a $100 million program as a part of its election platform. We propose $50 million as a modest start, with room to grow.

Onto our second recommendation — to provide targeted funding to post-secondary institutions for support services for students in the areas of mental health, sexualized violence and harm reduction. Over the past decade, post-secondary institutions have faced reductions in core funding, which have severely limited their capacity to provide support to students in the areas of mental health, sexualized violence and harm reduction. Institutions need decent financial resources to support students and provide them with the tools that they need for their academic success and well-being.

While attending university, students experience significant developmental change. They explore their values and identity and make important academic, social and life choices. And 18 to 25 is also the age range when many mental illnesses first appear and are initially diagnosed. Investing in students’ mental health and increasing their access to counselling and peer support services will result in a healthier and happier British Columbia in the long term.

[10:40 a.m.]

Students in B.C. recently celebrated a huge win by successfully lobbying the government to pass Bill 23, which, as of 2016, mandated post-secondary institutions in B.C. to have a sexualized violence policy. In order for this policy to succeed, funding for its implementation and support services is needed. Allocating human and financial resources to support this policy will help fight the systemic violence and prevalence of rape culture on university campuses. Through this work, the systems that perpetuate violence on and off campus can be broken down.

In the midst of the massive opioid crisis in B.C., it’s important for students to have accessible information and resources regarding harm reduction. The culture of binge drinking, drug use and partying is prevalent throughout university campuses. By recognizing that many students will engage in these high-risk behaviours, the need for support and resources to encourage healthier and safer practices is evident. The current lack of prevention and response policies surrounding substance use means that students must overcome their battles with addiction and mental health with minimal supports.

The government of Alberta recently announced $25.8 million over three years for mental health resources for post-secondary students across Alberta. We’d like to see the B.C. government adopt a similar but more holistic approach by including support for the issues of sexualized violence and harm reduction alongside of mental health.

Our third recommendation is to increase funding to B.C. Transit to improve service for students and community members by adopting the following. The first is to amend the Motor Fuel Tax Act to increase the dedicated fuel tax applied in the region under the B.C. Transit Act by two cents per litre to support transit system development in the capital region.

The second is to amend the B.C. Transit Act to move from an operating grant based on contingent funding to a dedicated operating grant set at, at least, 46.49 percent.

The third is to amend the B.C. Transit Act and the Carbon Tax Act to allow revenue allocation from the provincial carbon tax to public transit funding. Public transit in greater Victoria has faced chronic underfunding for many years, resulting in B.C. Transit being unable to provide consistent quality service. Major impacts of this include bus pass-ups, limited late-night service, reduced service hours and limited funds for major infrastructure investments that would make the system more efficient.

We asked that the government approve the Victoria Regional Transit Commission’s request for a two-cent fuel tax increase to bring in $6.6 million in desperately needed funding. This request is supported by both municipal politicians and citizens. The one-cent fuel tax increase in 2008 brought in $2.3 million in new funding to public transit in Victoria. This noticeably benefited service levels in the region.

Much of the money that the provincial government puts forth for public transit in B.C. goes unused, as it is contingent on local municipalities matching funds through property tax increases, which are unpopular with mayors and their constituents. Contingent funding makes for an unpredictable and unstable annual budgetary process for B.C. Transit.

We ask that the government dedicate a block of funding that is not contingent on local funding to introduce stability into our transit system. The majority of funding for public transit in Victoria comes from a provincial operating grant, property taxes, the fuel tax and fare revenue. The provincial government should amend legislation to include revenue collected from the provincial carbon tax, ensuring that the carbon tax works to tangibly reduce climate change.

Our stake in improving transit in all areas of the region is shared with B.C. Transit, members of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and community members, as accessible transit is not just a student issue.

Our fourth and final recommendation is to remove the legal and financial barriers that prevent post-secondary institutions from borrowing money to build on-campus housing. In greater Victoria and across the province, a critical shortage of student housing exists. The vacancy rate has been at about 0.2 percent. At UVic, some 10,000-plus of 20,000 students apply for just 2,700 of on-campus units. Camosun College has 18,000 students, of which 9,500 are full-time, and they have zero on-campus units. As a result, some 35,000-plus students must turn to off-campus housing. Although there might be some family accommodation, most will be marketplace rental.

The issue is so severe that local city councillors brought forward a resolution to the Union of B.C. Municipalities in September 2016 to address the student housing crisis in B.C. Lifting debt restrictions to allow construction of student housing is a no-cost solution to a pressing housing crisis that effects the broader community. Increasing the amount of student housing would remove students from the competitive market and drive down the price, making housing more affordable for low-income students. We encourage the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to advise the government to remove the legislative policy or other impediments that currently limit post-secondary institutions from financing self-supportive capital projects.

[10:45 a.m.]

In conclusion, I’d like to highlight that high-quality, innovative post-secondary education and research generates a strong economy and widespread social benefits. These benefits are only possible if post-secondary education is funded appropriately and made accessible to all those who wish to pursue it. When inflation is taken into account, the provincial government’s per-student funding has declined by more than 20 percent since 2001. UVic has had no choice but to pass these cuts on to students in the form of fee increases.

It’s our hope that by adopting these recommendations, the provincial government can provide post-secondary institutions with the funding that they require to improve quality service and access for students.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. I was on student council as well. It’s good to see that UVic student council is still very active and out advocating for students just like we were a few years ago — many years ago, to be honest.

P. Milobar: Thanks for your presentation. I just want to maybe go into recommendation 3, your second one around B.C. Transit. Up until a couple of months ago, I was actually on the board of B.C. Transit. I’m just trying to wrap my head around what you’re asking, because I’m unaware of very many times — over the last five years, at least — that we’ve said no to cities that want more transit. There’s that partnership between B.C. Transit and municipalities. Usually, municipalities don’t have any more money to spend on transit.

I’m not sure…. Where would the other money come from, even if B.C. Transit increased their funding portion, to still run the bus if the municipalities don’t want to pay?

A. Swaich: We’re asking the provincial government to put more money into B.C. Transit. With municipalities right now, if they increase…. The way it works is that, I think, the provincial government matches the municipalities, whatever they put into B.C. Transit in the area. However, property taxes need to be increased for that, and they often aren’t. That’s quite unpopular with mayors, because of re-election, and constituents don’t want that.

We’re hoping for a switch in the funding formula so that there is just a dedicated block of funding that goes into B.C. Transit.

P. Milobar: Okay. So you want B.C. Transit to pay a higher percentage of the overall costs of transit?

A. Swaich: Yeah, essentially.

P. Milobar: Okay. I’m just trying to get clear what the ask is. That’s all.

A. Swaich: Essentially, what else we think would be really beneficial would be a two-cent gas tax increase. Right now it’s at about 3.5 cents, compared to Vancouver, which is at 17 cents. Of course, they are a much larger urban centre with a lot more needs, but an increase to 5.5 cents in Victoria would be quite reasonable and still modest.

J. Brar: Thank you, Anmol, for your presentation. You did a good job. This is probably our fourth proposal we have heard from students. They’re pretty similar in terms of the recommendations they’re making.

I want to ask you a couple of questions very quickly. One is: how do you arrive at these recommendations? Is there any participation from the students, or are they research-based?

The second one is mental health. You mentioned that in Alberta, they have whatever the amount of money they have already allocated. I just want to know from you where you actually deliver these services, particularly mental health. Is that in universities? Or do they access, basically, ongoing services available in hospitals or somewhere else?

A. Swaich: I’m not entirely sure, for the mental health funding, how it was allocated. I believe it’s distributed based on how many students are at the institutions, and it’s given to the institutions to increase their own mental health resources and what they have available. I’m not entirely sure, but I can follow up on that with proper information around how the money is allocated.

Also, our asks are all quite similar because we’re actually working alongside several student societies across B.C. on our issues of needs-based grants, as well as mental health and housing, because these issues affect students across B.C., not just here and not just there. That’s probably why a lot of asks have been similar.

We arrive at the asks through a lot of…. Post-secondary funding, affordable education, mental health, better public transit — these are all issues that are a part of the UVSS’s values and things that they fight for, for students.

[10:50 a.m.]

These have been ongoing issues from way before my time as being part of the board. That’s kind of how we arrive at it. Every year we see what could still be done to move forward, make things better for students and increase their student experience.

R. Leonard: Thank you again for your presentation. It was very clear, and I appreciated how you fleshed out the subjects.

One of the issues that you brought up that you want to see funding allocated for was education around sexualized violence. It’s a prevalent issue throughout our society, and obviously the culture in the universities is sort of the point of opportunity here. I’m just wondering if you can expand a little bit on what kind of opportunities you see funding being applied to, to help reduced sexualized violence.

A. Swaich: At UVic, for example, we have an on-campus sexual assault centre. Now, with the policy in place, students are becoming a lot more aware of what’s going on with sexualized violence on campus and are actually reaching out for support more. So more funding being allocated to services like that.

UVic also now has a sexualized violence resource office. When you begin the dialogue around such a sensitive topic like this, you want students to actually have somewhere to go with whatever they’re feeling. If they need help, there should be an appropriate place for them to go and be able to receive that help. So more funding towards our sexualized violence resource office that the university just opened and our on-campus sexual assault centre.

More funding towards…. We run a campaign called “Let’s get consensual” that just raises awareness about sexualized violence and healthier practices around consent culture on campus. More funding ends up being able to properly relay that information to students and actually offer them somewhere to go after they hear that. Sometimes you hear about something, you learn about sexualized violence, and you might be able to look back on your own experiences and realize: “Hey, maybe that’s something I experienced.” Then we don’t want to just leave them there without anywhere to further go on with that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time now, unfortunately. I want to thank you for your time and also encourage you. Maybe one day you’ll be on this side of the table. I was on the student council, and now I’m here. I’m sure some of us were as well. Thank you for your advocacy and thanks for your presentation.

A. Swaich: Thank you for listening.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the British Columbia Real Estate Association. Thank you for your patience. It’s your turn. When you’re ready.

B.C. REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

D. Stathonikos: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to present the B.C. Real Estate Association’s recommendations on making life more affordable in B.C. We appreciate your time and especially appreciate your commitment to this consultation process.

My name is Damian Stathonikos, and I’m the interim chief executive officer of the B.C. Real Estate Association. I’m joined today by Brenda Jackman, an experienced realtor here in Victoria and a director of our board.

Our association represents 11 real estate boards and more than 22,000 realtors across British Columbia. We provide continuing professional education, advocacy, economic research and standard forms to help realtors provide value to their clients.

When it comes to affordability, housing is, of course, a major concern across the province and must be made a priority. BCREA advocates for evidence-based policies that improve affordability for buyers, renters and owners. We offer four key recommendations to address affordability now and into the future.

Our first bundle of recommendations focuses on the property transfer tax. As you may know, the property transfer tax was introduced in 1987. Here in B.C., we have the highest provincial land transfer tax in Canada, and we feel it places an unfair burden on homebuyers.

[10:55 a.m.]

Currently 1 percent is charged on the first $200,000 of the fair market value of a home. Then 2 percent is charged between $200,000 and $2 million, and 3 percent is charged on the remainder. In addition, foreign buyers, other than those in the provincial nominee program, are also charged a 15 percent tax on homes in the greater Vancouver regional district.

In 2016, revenue from the property transfer tax totalled over $2 billion — a new record and a 32 percent jump from the $1.5 billion raised the previous year. Given this significant revenue, BCREA recommends several measures to help ensure the property transfer tax system better reflects the real estate market.

First, we recommend that the government increase the first-time-homebuyers program property transfer tax exemption to $750,000 from the current $500,000. In 2018, the average B.C. home price is projected to be $745,000, meaning many homes would be out of range for this exemption. Increasing this exemption would also ensure consistency between government programs and would expand choices for buyers.

Second, the government could use the housing priority initiatives fund to increase the 2 percent exemption threshold from $200,000 to $525,000. This measure would help consumers across the province, whether they purchase new or existing homes.

Third, we recommend that the government index thresholds for the property transfer tax, using the consumer price index, and make adjustments annually. The thresholds are not indexed currently, meaning that B.C. homebuyers pay an increasingly unfair amount of property transfer tax per transaction, every single year. When the tax was introduced, that 2 percent threshold was expected to apply to only 5 percent of sales. Last year that 2 percent portion applied to 88 percent of all homes sold.

Fourth, we ask that you expand the exemption to the 15 percent foreign buyer tax in the greater Vancouver regional district to include all foreigners with a work permit. This exemption was introduced to ease the burden for foreign residents who live and work in our communities. However, registrants in the provincial nominee program comprise only 9 percent of permanent residents and foreigners with work permits living in British Columbia. Moreover, we recommend the government not expand the foreign buyer tax beyond its current geographical scope. Analysis by our chief economist has shown the tax has not significantly impacted housing sales and is, therefore, not an effective tool.

Fifth, for any future changes to the property transfer tax, we recommend ensuring that real estate transactions that are already underway are exempt. Fairness and market stability should be prioritized. Exemptions for contracts already signed has been standard operating procedure in the past.

Our second set of recommendations asks for greater density in urban areas. While demand-side measures are important, we agree with the government that greater supply is also needed. We recommend increasing the supply of smaller market homes in lower-density neighbourhoods, particularly along transit corridors. Gentle density is a strategic way to increase the capacity of urban spaces while retaining the charm of each neighbourhood.

Our third recommendation is to delay implementing a provincewide absentee tax. The city of Vancouver is currently implementing a similar policy through its empty homes tax, and the impacts are not yet known. The provincial government could wait until results are available from the city of Vancouver and review these prior to considering a similar provincewide policy.

Finally, our fourth recommendation asks for sufficient government expertise and capacity to implement flood mitigation initiatives. Property and citizens should be protected from the impacts of climate change. Insured losses due to severe weather averaged $400 million annually in Canada until 2009 but have been at, or exceeded, $1 billion every year since. Conversely, mitigating impacts in advance can have significant economic benefits. For example, every $1 spent on flood plain maps results in $2 of taxpayer benefits.

Our provincial real estate market and economy are robust. The government is well positioned to review current revenue and expenditures and to make adjustments to prioritize affordability. We believe our recommendations will best assist those who struggle to enter the housing market, while providing support for homeowners and renters now and into the future.

[11:00 a.m.]

There are more details on each of our recommendations available in the written submission in your packages. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, for the opportunity to present our recommendations. We are available for any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Just to note that the packages we have are all the same page over and over again. So we didn’t actually get your full presentation.

D. Stathonikos: The handout you have is that one page regarding the summary of the analysis. We submitted, electronically, our full submission through the process.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. So there was only one page for us today, and then there’s a full…. Just wanted to make sure because it was a bit confusing that way.

D. Stathonikos: Thank you for clarifying.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. So that was just a clarification.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation.

One of the recommendations that you spoke about was the work permit in B.C. One of your recommendations is not to expand it beyond its geographic scope.

D. Stathonikos: That’s correct.

R. Leonard: In terms of evidence-based actions, I’m wondering if you have evidence of there not being an impact through the rest of British Columbia of real estate investment dollars migrating out of the geographical area where it is 15 percent to other communities.

D. Stathonikos: Our chief economist’s analysis showed that the tax that was implemented for foreign buyers in Vancouver didn’t actually achieve the stated objective that the government had at the time, in terms of reducing the percentage of sales to foreign buyers. We haven’t seen a huge increase in other parts of the province either. In fact, when you look at the numbers, the percentage of foreign buyers remains roughly around 5 to 6 percent across the province.

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation.

I’m just curious. I think everybody would agree that we need greater density. But there are a lot of challenges, it seems, in terms of getting it done. Have you got any specific recommendations to government in terms of what you think might work to help encourage municipalities, etc., to pursue more density?

D. Stathonikos: I can speak from what I hear from our members that are working in communities where the development permit process can take years and years — whatever the provincial government can do to encourage municipalities to speed up that process. We are also at the mercy, sometimes, of the market. When times are slow, nobody wants to build because they’re not sure. Then, when times are big, everyone wants to build. So you have this mismatch between supply and demand.

I think, from what we’ve heard from our members, the number one initiative that would make an impact is to encourage municipalities to speed up that permitting process.

J. Brar: Thanks for coming today.

What I normally hear, one theory, is that when we talk about housing affordability, the market will look at this issue itself kind of stuff. When we try to intervene…. That’s the push-back we get from the industry from time to time, which is understandable. At the same time, then the industry comes back and says: “You intervene in it because we need help.” Whether it’s a first-time buyers program, that’s really an intervention into the market.

I don’t understand these two arguments. They are basically contradictory. So I would appreciate if you could put light to that. Specifically, I want to ask you how delaying the implementation of a provincewide absentee tax is going to make housing more affordable. I just want to ask you for a specific response to that.

D. Stathonikos: Our concern is that an absentee tax, without any foundation or evidence, doesn’t make sense. That’s why our recommendation is: let’s see how it plays out in the city of Vancouver and look at the data that comes from that to see whether there is an impact on making more homes available for rent, for example. That’s one of the stated objectives the city has, in terms of saying to homeowners: “Well, if you’re not going to live in your home, then here’s a tax. But if you rent it out, then you’re not eligible to pay the tax.”

[11:05 a.m.]

Our concern is that, as we saw in 2016, many policy decisions were made without the basis of actual facts. Any future decisions should be grounded in evidence, rather than trying to address a perceived opportunity or challenge.

J. Brar: Well, we do talk about demand and supply all the time. If there are 1,000 houses in one particular city and somebody buys them and leaves them empty, they do somehow…. That is an issue of demand and supply. People want housing, but this housing is sitting empty. It’s common sense, right?

D. Stathonikos: We agree with you. I think the question is more: let’s see what happens and whether or not that tax is the right tool to encourage homeowners who currently leave their homes empty to rent them out. Our concern is that the tool may not be the right one. Rather than applying a tool that doesn’t work across the province, let’s take a step back and see how it does impact the rental market in the city of Vancouver.

Absolutely. If it’s an effective tool, I don’t see any reason why the association wouldn’t support that. The opportunity is, though, to see what impact it has on the market first and then make a decision based on that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a quick question for you. In regards to the property transfer tax…. I can understand, with housing prices going up as they have, it obviously has increased the property transfer tax and the way it’s structured. Would you recommend, though, that if there’s a correction to the housing market, your formula would then adjust down again?

Right now…. I can understand the rationale that obviously the 1 percent on the first $200,000 was based on a different market than now. But if that market then changed, if there was a correction, would you recommend that that adjust? Could there be a formula that allowed for that?

D. Stathonikos: That’s why we recommend using the consumer price index.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So if it goes down….

D. Stathonikos: If it goes down, then use that to mitigate the thresholds lower — if that’s how the consumer price index goes.

Our goal is not to end up with a massive number that exempts every single home. We recognize that the revenue provided by the property transfer tax funds many valuable programs in the province. Our goal is more to have adjustments that make it more reasonable and, as it was intended to in the beginning, apply to a smaller subset of homes rather than every single property transaction in the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Are there any other questions from the committee?

Seeing none, thank you very for your presentation. We look forward to your formal written submission.

D. Stathonikos: Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Next up we have B.C. Alliance for Healthy Living — Mary Collins.

Hello, Mary.

B.C. ALLIANCE FOR HEALTHY LIVING

M. Collins: Good morning. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to visit with you this morning. I know you’ve been hearing many, many presentations, all asking for more money, as we’re going to do as well.

I’m not going to actually read the brief per se. I think you have copies of it. What I’d like to do is highlight some of the recommendations. We have four areas of recommendations: one around poverty reduction; around active transportation; on health promotion; and — something that I hope will be music to your ears, Mr. Chair — on revenue generation as well, because that’s important.

Just to bring you up to date, the B.C. Alliance for Healthy Living is a group of 12 organizations. We first got together in 2003 to improve the health of British Columbians. Our vision is a healthy British Columbia, and our focus is on the risk factors and the inequities that contribute significantly to chronic disease.

So what’s the problem? Well, we know that many of the chronic diseases are preventable. In fact, it’s been said that 80 percent are. The human toll is really high, as are the health care costs. It’s estimated that 80 percent of the combined Medical Services Plan, Pharmacare and acute care budget is spent on chronic disease. So much of that could be prevented.

I’m just going to highlight a few areas. One of the ones we think is really important — and we’re very pleased that the government is already taking action on it — is a poverty reduction plan. We’ve been asking for that for a number of years.

[11:10 a.m.]

We know that British Columbians who live in the poorest communities are between 24 and 91 percent more likely to die early from cancer, from respiratory diseases, from circulatory diseases and diabetes. We know that the social-economic inequities in health are estimated to increase health care costs by around 20 percent.

What we would like to see, of course, is a strategy that will include specific timelines and targets, but most importantly, to recognize that it really needs a cross-sectoral, cross-government approach. This is not just something one department can do. From what we understand, that is the approach that’s being taken. We really would encourage that to happen.

One of the things that we think is very important is that a poverty reduction strategy has to look at the cost and availability of healthy food, as well as housing, because housing is such a critical element. We know, from the Housing First projects, that if you don’t have housing, it’s really hard to get out of the poverty cycle.

Of course, child care, as well…. I know that MLA Cadieux knows this so well — how important that is not only to the economy of the province but how it establishes such a foundation that leads to school readiness, educational achievement and, ultimately, contributes to long-term employment, income security and health. We ask you to build on the government’s commitment to provide families across B.C. with high-quality, affordable early care and learning programs. That kind of investment is so important for the B.C. economy.

At the moment, it’s estimated that the government pays between $2.2 billion to $2.3 billion on the direct costs of poverty, but the cost of inaction is higher, because British Columbians currently pay between $8 billion and $9 billion to maintain the status quo.

Our second area of interest is around healthy transportation, or what we’re calling our communities on the move. We’re working with a whole range of partners for a shared vision on a transportation system that supports healthier communities. You may have seen the communities on the move declaration. We now have 84 signatories. They range from municipalities to senior citizens groups to student groups to groups with disabilities — all of whom are coming together to support that declaration.

As we see, the need to invest in community planning and infrastructure — a significant influence on whether people in a community can be active. The stats are very clear. An example is a study in Metro Vancouver that found that people who took transit were 22 percent less likely to be overweight or obese, and those who commuted by bike or on foot were 48 percent less likely.

We know that regular physical activity and healthy weights are critical factors in the prevention of chronic disease, so we’re asking the province to support local governments to design active communities by leading an active transportation strategy for B.C., with $100 million in annual funding to build cycling and walking infrastructure as well as active school-travel planning and cycling education.

We know that’s a big ask, so what we would suggest to start is that you could start to boost the BikeBC fund by $50 million. That would be a good way to get this started.

We also appreciate that government is already committed to funding the mayors’ plan for Metro Vancouver. We encourage you to follow through on that commitment but also to look at the transit needs of citizens outside of the Lower Mainland. Local governments have been working with B.C. Transit, as our colleague well knows, to develop area transit future plans. We recommend that the province provide adequate funding to expedite these plans and achieve the targets set out in the B.C. Transit’s Strategic Plan: 2030.

Beside the investment in disease prevention and health promotion…. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer has estimated we could avoid up to $2 billion in yearly health care costs with properly funded strategies around health promotion and prevention. We believe that the health promotion budget could be significantly increased. A figure that’s often used is that it should be 6 percent of the acute care budget. We would suggest a doubling and, particularly, funding to support very robust healthy eating, physical activity and tobacco reduction strategies.

[11:15 a.m.]

On the revenue generation side, we can see some areas here that not only generate revenue but also are very important to prevention of chronic disease, and the first one is a tax on sugary drinks. We’re one of the few provinces that doesn’t have a provincial sales tax — because many provinces have the GST — on sugary drinks. We’ve been working with a coalition of groups across the province — and nationally, actually — to ask the federal government for an excise tax, making some progress there. In the meantime, the province could certainly introduce a provincial sales tax, which we think would certainly make a difference.

There has been so much recently in the media about the impact of sugary drinks on children and the long-term impacts on their health. There’s a study done nationally that showed that we could be saving over 13,000 lives if we reduced our sugary drink consumption over the next 25 years.

Finally, increasing the cost of tobacco. Now, I know people complain about the cost. But did you know that the provincial government tax on tobacco is still a lot less than a number of other provinces? Even if we went to where other provinces are…. B.C. is only $47.80 for a carton of 200 cigarettes. Manitoba is $67.20, and Nova Scotia is $64.90.

There’s a lot of room to move, to get up there. The Yukon just recently announced a tax increase of $18 a carton. Perhaps that’s a good way to go — to have a big increase rather than just slow, incremental increases. We know that tobacco still is one of the major contributors to early preventable death through various diseases.

Finally, I just want to mention that mental health is on everyone’s mind, and that’s certainly a part of what we’re working on as well. Many of the budget recommendations that we put forward also have implications for mental wellness as well as physical wellness, because of those linkages between the protective factors for good physical health and positive mental health.

Population health evidence also tells us that we need action on the behavioral risk factors, such as encouraging physical activity, reducing consumption of drinks high in sugar and preventing tobacco use. But it’s also critical to address the social elements of health by ensuring access to housing, food security and early childhood development to bridge the gap between disease and wellness.

In your deliberations, we urge you to consider investing in policies and programs that address the holistic needs of individuals and communities that will make B.C. a healthier place for all.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mary. That was a wonderful presentation.

Any questions from the committee?

P. Milobar: Just on the tobacco tax size. Now, I’ve never smoked, thankfully, even though I was born and raised in a hospitality background, where it’s very prevalent for people that work in it.

Did you have a chance to look at…? We know what the taxation rates of those jurisdictions are. But much like we’re even hearing the Premier talk about the upcoming marijuana pricing, you have to be careful that you don’t price it so much that the black market takes hold.

Have you seen any corresponding numbers around what the black market of cigarette volumes would be in those jurisdictions where the taxes are that $20 a carton higher than B.C.?

M. Collins: I don’t have statistics on that. I know Ontario is perhaps the place which is most vulnerable to the black market in cigarettes. We certainly have it in B.C. too, but I don’t think that should prevent us from moving ahead to taxation.

It shows that increased taxation, in all the studies that have been done, has a positive impact on decreasing smoking. It’s one of the most effective measures, and the World Health Organization recognizes that too. There are many other things we need to do, but that, at least, is one we can move on.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much, Mary. I appreciate how you’ve packaged this.

I wrote down “prevention” a few times as you were going through and when you were talking about prioritizing spending. Could you comment on that aspect of the priorities?

M. Collins: I’m going to say this a little more from a personal point of view. At the moment, the big priority is around looking at the social inequities, the poverty reduction piece. It is so clear that those who live in poverty have the highest incidence of poor health and poor health habits too, obviously — smoking and inadequate diet. I think that’s where we really need to move in terms of a greater, more equitable society.

[11:20 a.m.]

The taxation ones we can do. It doesn’t have a cost to government. We need to help to educate people. We have found, for instance, that so many young people today don’t have any idea how to cook. They don’t have any idea how to buy food. Some of the programs that we actually ran through the Canadian Diabetes on food skills for families have been really effective.

We need to be doing those kinds of things. We need that kind of education, and we need to be sure that it reaches out to the far reaches of the province and in our First Nations, our Aboriginal communities. We’ve done some great work in those communities. It’s really important. Things aren’t just concentrated in the major centres.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation and all of your work to make people more healthy in British Columbia. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

All right. Next up we have the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture — Brenda Leadlay. I’m very pleased we were able to get you in.

B. Leadlay: I’m very grateful. Thank you so much, Bob. It was much appreciated, for sure.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No problem, Brenda.

B.C. ALLIANCE FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

B. Leadlay: As Chairman Bob D’Eith mentioned, I’m making this presentation on behalf of the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture, which is a provincial arts service organization with over 450 members around the province, and it’s been serving the cultural sector for over 30 years.

My name is Brenda Leadlay, obviously. I’m the alliance’s executive director and have lived on the unceded ancestral territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations for over 35 years, working as a professional theatre artist, an arts educator and an arts administrator.

I know that I speak on behalf of the entire B.C. cultural community in thanking you with the greatest of enthusiasm for your pledge to double your investment in the B.C. Arts Council. This is a long-awaited and much-needed investment to bring British Columbia back on par with arts council funding in other provinces and territories. Currently B.C. is ranked eighth, behind all the western provinces, Quebec, Ontario and all the Territories. The doubling of the B.C. Arts Council budget that you have pledged will make a real difference to both artists and British Columbians.

The arts affect almost every aspect of our lives, from schools and health to prisons and probation to tourism and the economy to urban regeneration, museums, heritage and B.C.’s profile on the international stage. We need to start measuring the multiplicity of ways that arts and culture are assessed — for their value as well their cost.

What if there was a currency to measure a young person’s self-confidence, a convict’s understanding of their crime, another country’s view of who we are as Canadians or, more importantly, our own understanding of ourselves? We know that the arts tell our stories and shape our identities, that individual creative expression is integral to the health and well-being of everyone and that the arts are an important tool for reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in British Columbia.

The social and intrinsic benefits of arts, culture and heritage are difficult to prove, but they are not hard to experience. All the studies and research coming out of the U.K., the U.S., Australia, etc. — around the world — clearly state that the arts make us feel happier, healthier and more connected to each other, which is especially important in these times when technology is breeding isolation.

What we can prove unequivocally — what a big word — are their economic benefits. The United Nations, for example, has identified the creative economy as one of the world’s fastest-growing sectors for income generation, job creation and export earnings. A recent UNESCO report also noted that creative industries and cultural tourism have become strategic assets for local economies.

We in B.C. have a combined workforce of over 81,000 cultural workers and a cultural GDP of $6.7 billion, consistently the third-highest in the country. The cultural GDP represents 3 percent of B.C.’s economy and 12.2 percent of cultural GDP in Canada. This is from the cultural satellite account’s provincial and territorial cultural indicators between 2010 and 2014.

[11:25 a.m.]

Did you know…? Here’s my “did you know” list. British Columbia has more artists per capita than any other province. B.C. residents rank in the top three provinces with the highest cultural consumption rates of arts. B.C. also has a higher volunteer rate per capita than any other province and the second-highest number of arts donors.

Why, then, according to Canadian Arts Data statistics, or CADAC, do B.C. arts and culture organizations receive comparatively lower revenues from federal public funders than other provinces? It’s a great question. I believe it’s due to the lack of investment by the province in the form of partnerships at all levels of government in arts and culture.

The federal government has started to recognize the value of arts, culture and heritage and invested heavily in the sector over the past two years, doubling the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts and investing more than $88 million in the new digital technology fund. The budget for Global Affairs, what used to be Foreign Affairs, has almost tripled. Canadian Heritage recently announced a $300 million cultural spaces fund for creative hubs to nurture and incubate the next generation of artists and cultural entrepreneurs, $35 million for cultural trade and another $125 million for creative exports.

Other countries are following suit. Even the Chinese government is getting on the bandwagon, investing heavily in arts and culture and sending their artists around the world.

In order for the B.C. cultural sector to take advantage of this new federal money, we need you, the provincial government, to step up to the plate, especially for the cultural sector. You need to meet Minister Beare’s mandate letter commitments, follow through on your election promise and double the B.C. Arts Council budget. This is so important to our sector.

The increased investment is needed in areas to stabilize core funded organizations so they can be more innovative and have more creative development. Increase funding for equity-seeking and Indigenous artists and organizations. Currently, there is not enough money. There’s such limited funding at the B.C. Arts Council that they’re not fairly represented in the funding pool. Establish a capital fund for arts, culture and heritage organizations so that they can leverage this federal money. Increase funding to the regions in B.C., particularly the north, where there is more creative activity happening than ever before.

We also need to enable more research and innovation. Currently we don’t have the statistics and the data to prove the impact of arts, culture and heritage, but we know it.

People are starting to engage more frequently in B.C. culture. Here’s a snapshot of growth for you in attendance at numerous B.C. organizations just in the past year. The Arts Club subscribers have increased by 4,000. That’s huge. The Museum of Anthropology has had its largest attendance ever, with over 200,000 people in attendance this year. The Nisga’a Museum, which has about 2,000 visitors annually, had 1,000 people go through their museum in July alone.

The culture crawl in Vancouver had over 30,000 people participating. The Caravan Farm Theatre in Armstrong, B.C., completely sold out their summer show. Tourism Vancouver saw ticketing revenues jump 20 percent at Tickets Tonight. All this despite the fact that U.S. tourism was down due to the wildfires in B.C.

The people of B.C. are becoming more aware of the significant role that the arts play in their lives. They know that arts and cultural organizations help attract skilled workers to their communities, enhance the mental health and well-being of individuals in their communities and contribute significantly to economic development.

With an emphasis on self-expression, innovation, creativity, enjoyment and social inclusion, the arts are getting more attention than ever before from health professionals, researchers, clinicians, policy makers and the general public as a means of improving health and mental well-being. In fact, there was an article today in the Times Colonist about that very issue around mental health, and it lists arts and culture as one of the three most important things in a community to exist to support that.

Show us, please, that the new government is smart and savvy and understands the economic, social and intrinsic value of arts, culture and heritage.

[11:30 a.m.]

What we’re asking for is very simple: keep your promise. Double the investment in the B.C. Arts Council by starting with an $8 million increase in the next budget. This is very important. Create a capital fund for the arts by investing in a cultural facilities infrastructure program to enable B.C. organizations to leverage federal funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage. Restore multi-year gaming grants, and restore gaming levels to 2008 levels. Increase funding for the arts so that everyone can have access to the arts, not just those who can afford to purchase tickets.

We are asking you to invest in the power of creativity and acknowledge that it positively affects everyone’s life, from professionally funded arts organizations to the people who work in the creative industries to individuals that participate in creative activity every single day. Just like health care and education, the arts are vital to our lives and should be accessible to everyone. We’re asking for you to follow through on a $24 million pledge as part of your $50.2 billion balanced budget. The question is not, “Can you afford to double your investment in the B.C. Arts Council?” but rather: “How can you afford not to?”

Thank you so much for the opportunity to present, for your attention and for your support.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Brenda. As a longtime season ticket holder for multiple organizations and as an arts fan, I appreciate your presentation. And as a former chair of a theatre company, I certainly understand the value of the Arts Council funding.

I’ve been out of it for a little bit, so I’m not entirely clear on the ask around the cultural infrastructure grant program. I understand there’s a federal program. What’s the dollar value that you’re looking for, for a provincial fund, and what sort of size grants do you see it making out of that fund?

B. Leadlay: It varies greatly. The large organizations, obviously, in order to keep their facilities fresh and looking good so that people will come, could need as much as…. Their ask could be upwards of $5 million, maybe even $10 million. Small organizations who are looking to do upgrades to maybe their rehearsal halls or their touring vans or whatever might be looking to raise a total of $2 million or $3 million, and they’d be asking for grants of $500 to $750,000.

In terms of the whole capital infrastructure budget, I think probably…. Gosh, I don’t have those numbers, and I hesitate to guess because I’m sure my colleagues will not like it if I say something too low. We know that there’s $300 million in the cultural spaces fund in new money coming in at Heritage — $300 million for the country. I think if you look at that…. Those are for creative hubs. So I would say that $25 million, $20 million might be a good place to start, but again, that’s not based on any real facts that I have.

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. I liked the end — good punch.

You said that it was absolutely critical for an increase of $8 million, but you didn’t say what exactly that was going to do for the arts alliance.

B. Leadlay: The $8 million will bring the B.C. Arts Council in line with other provinces. Right now it’s $8 million less funding, so we’re No. 8 when it comes to funding. We used to be better than Ontario. They’ve just increased their arts council funding, so now they’re ahead of us as well. So that will just bring us on par with other provinces.

What’s happening in other provinces across this country — except for the Maritimes, I have to say — is that everybody is increasing their arts funding, because they’re starting to realize and understand its value.

I can tell you what it’s needed for. I listed those. It’s needed so that core funded organizations can be stable and actually engage in creative development and innovation. It’s needed for equity-seeking artists who…. Right now there’s no budget at the B.C. Arts Council to serve that sector. It’s needed for Indigenous artists to be able to play ball with everyone else.

It’s also needed for the regions. The regions are really, really important. There is more activity happening in the regions in B.C. than ever before. Even the economic development people are talking to the B.C. Arts Council about how the arts are the economic driver in many small communities in B.C.

[11:35 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Just really quick. I fully support the arts, and I agree on the economic benefits of them. In terms of overall funding, you mention, though, that B.C was ahead in terms of…. There seems to be two revenue streams. There’s government, and then there’s the benefactor, donation-type private stream.

B. Leadlay: Private sector, where we have more donors, yes.

P. Milobar: Right. When you add those two together, where are we in relation to the other provinces? In other words, we may be lower on one, but are we ahead and it’s a wash?

B. Leadlay: Well, I think the reason we’re higher on the private donations is because of the lack of provincial funding and there are people who recognize and who have the ability to give.

Those numbers…. Unfortunately, the best thing we have are the cultural and territorial indicators. There’s so little money invested in research in the arts that it makes it very difficult for us to prove beyond the economic argument.

We know that the economic argument is strong, but it doesn’t even come close to the social argument or the intrinsic argument. There is so much evidence now — studies, research being done, particularly in the U.K., about the idea of everyday creativity and how people using their creative potential in their lives every day is such an important part of contributing to society. It helps you think outside the box.

At the alliance, we want to initiate a program to sort of rebrand the arts so that all people feel that they are part of the creative community. I think that is the key. We have to develop public will so that they better understand the value that the arts bring to their communities.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Brenda. We’re out of time, but I appreciate your presentation and all of your dedication to the arts in this province.

B. Leadlay: Thank you so much for fitting me in. I so appreciate it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Our pleasure.

All right. Next up we have B.C. Teachers Federation. I think we just have Glen Hansman.

G. Hansman: Travelling solo.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Please go ahead.

B.C. TEACHERS FEDERATION

G. Hansman: I won’t take you word for word through this document but just at a high level. There are 17 recommendations in here that have been grouped into six or seven specific areas. Some of them are ones that we’ve brought forward to this select standing committee in past years. Others are more relevant to the present situation, in trying to attract sufficient numbers of qualified, certified teachers into this province from other areas.

I’ll just go briefly through some of these. I very much appreciate the time today to be able to present on behalf of the 42,000-and-counting members that we have in all regions around British Columbia.

I count myself to be in a very privileged position because I do get to travel in all communities around the province. The only school district I have yet to go to is Nisga’a. I hope to be able to cover off that this year. I have spent time in schools in every region of the province, talking to our members, students, principals and vice-principals and other folks.

In working with the excellent staff at the Ministry of Education and across the other partner groups, I have worked over the past few years on this very important project, which the previous government initiated about seven years back, to revise all the curriculum at the same time.

There are numerous recommendations in here that are attached directly to that — in particular, the need to ensure that teachers and the other front-line workers in our schools have available to them a wide range of materials that enable us to teach the true history of the residential school system in Canada, as well as incorporating Indigenous knowledges and understandings that are current, culturally appropriate and relevant to the local First Nations communities.

The folks around the table here might not be aware, but one of the things that we’re proudest of with this new curriculum is that — on paper, anyway — Aboriginal content and understandings are incorporated into all the subject areas at all grade levels. When we’re teaching math or science or the fine arts, we have to make sure that the teachers and support staff and principals and vice-principals in schools have materials, access to professional development opportunities and other supports to do this right.

[11:40 a.m.]

We want to make sure it’s sustainable, that we do it in a respectful and appropriate way, and there’s a lot of undoing we have to do. Most of the people who are working in the education system came through the public education system themselves at a time when a lot of this information was buried or hidden or simply not acknowledged. This is an achievable thing. There are a few recommendations in here that speak directly to that, both on the resources, in French and English and other languages, and on the professional development and in-service side.

There’s also a nod given to the need to address the fact that the sexual health curriculum has been moved over into a different subject area. We have a lot of people inheriting that curriculum that perhaps had never taught it before. Even without that move, the access to accurate, up-to-date and LGBTQ-inclusive materials is pretty hit-and-miss around the province. There are some opportunities for the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health to work with us and others to develop things and make them available so that this is done right, in the field.

Then, on top of that, making sure that teachers have basketballs that bounce, Bunsen burners that burn, full textbooks — class sets of textbooks for the things that we use. We’re gradually making available to school districts the financial capacity so that we can get rid of outdated things that perhaps repeat colonial narratives of the past, aren’t addressing topical issues like we appropriately should be doing in 2017, and moving forward from there.

There are also several recommendations here that acknowledge the fact that we have several thousand more people added to the workforce and how we can make sure that they’re successful in their first few years of teaching.

There has been an ongoing mentorship program that has been a joint project between ourselves, the University of British Columbia and the superintendents, and we’re hoping to have funding renewed. It’s aimed to support school districts, to help them support teachers who are either new to the profession or new to their subject area. We want to be able to grow and expand that work.

There’s also a pressing need — right now, here, in the fifth week of the school year — to make sure that we not only get the 400 remaining contract positions filled a.s.a.p., but also to make sure that we have enough teachers teaching on call in school districts around the province so that children with special needs and English language learners aren’t having their programming disrupted on a regular basis.

The Moore decision at the Supreme Court of Canada was very clear on this a few years ago: that special ed should not be considered to be a dispensable luxury. Unfortunately, the disruptions being caused by the unavailability of teachers teaching on call is compounding that problem.

What are we going to do about it in both the long-term but also the here and now? We’ve proposed several ideas about how we might attack that problem and try to get more people to come west of the Rockies that are both qualified and certified to be in this province, as well as a number of other areas, too, that need to be tended to.

I won’t go into all the other ones. I want to acknowledge that the province recently did restore funding for adult education programs in both K to 12 and on the post-secondary side.

We still think that there’s an opportunity to be had to look at making sure that the funding for adult ed programs is comparable to what is given to school districts for K to 12 students, as well as looking at the scope of the classes that are made available. It’s a solid economic investment to make that will allow people to enter into post-secondary programs or the field of work that they choose. If we can continue to build upon that and support school districts resurrecting those programs, that would be really great.

I’m happy to take any questions on any of those or other things in here. Again, just thank you for your time — and just to underscore that there’s a lot more work to be done.

We support the notion of doing a review of the per-student funding formula overall. I know there’s some interest in having a look at that. Obviously, there are different approaches that you might take in rural and remote areas around the province and school districts, like Kamloops, that have a mix of urban and rural that they have to tend to.

There’s no one perfect solution, necessarily, but it’s an important dialogue to be had this school year and moving forward so we can start to address some of the inequities around the province and seriously face some of the challenges that school boards have around the province on both the operational and the capital side of their funding streams.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Glen.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sir, thanks for coming — greatly appreciate it. Page 16. Why is the BCTF so opposed to private education?

[11:45 a.m.]

G. Hansman: Well, we’re not the only organization. The B.C. School Trustees Association has the exact….

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): The question was asked, though, of BCTF. I’m just curious.

G. Hansman: We’re not opposed to there being independent schools in this province. The question is whether the province should be funding them. Certainly, you could break this down. There’s maybe a different conversation to be had for our faith-based schools, as opposed to what some would characterize as being the more elite programs that, perhaps, could be self-sustaining and completely self-funding. But this is a position we’ve long held, alongside others.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay. My question was on faith-based, where kids get a phenomenal education, as good as what you provide in public schools. I have always just been curious why.

G. Hansman: A lot of it is the very same as the conversation that many Canadians feel about having a two-tiered health care system in this country.

It is very concerning, especially in the era that we’ve had of late, where the sorts of programming and the supports we’re able to provide in the public system haven’t been the same as in some of the independent schools. It’s a bit frustrating, for those of us that work in the public system, to see smaller classes and robust fine arts programs and science programs being advertised by independent schools, when those very same programs and supports should be available for free to any child in the public education system in this province.

Certainly, here in British Columbia and elsewhere, the public has resisted the notion of having a two-tiered health care system. Yet we’ve allowed that to unfold in this province. We need to do something about that. Our position has been a blanket “it should be funded” — period. But we recognize that perhaps there’s a different conversation to be had around the faith-based programs, as opposed to the elite ones.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I hope so. Just one other question: how do we work with you to ensure that those public institutions and schools are made available to the public? I come from a small area where the gym would be very well used as a community centre. There are issues, whether it’s with school districts or school boards or whatever, but your help and your organization’s help would be greatly appreciated.

G. Hansman: Absolutely. That’s a conversation that we’ve partaken in and are open to. I know when Premier Campbell first became Premier, there was a lot of conversation about using schools as neighbourhood hubs, and there are a lot of opportunities around the province to have overlap between, say, public library services in the same facility as the public schools use, or daycares and any number of things. That’s an important area for the province to look at, not just in urban centres but in rural and remote places too.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I’d love to have you as a partner in it, sir.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, I know. In our community, in Maple Ridge, they’re building a new elementary school but also adding a community centre to that. That model is really great.

J. Brar: Thanks, Glen, for coming today and making a presentation. I just want to ask you about the issue of bringing in new teachers. The number you listed here is 24,900 in the next, almost, four years. I would like to ask you: how many teachers do we actually train here? What is the gap? What can we really do to bring in that number of teachers in that short period of time?

G. Hansman: Well, there’s certainly room to do sort of a task force approach, because there are nine teacher education institutions in this province. UBC and SFU were directed, about four years ago, to decrease the number of candidates that they were accepting and graduating, and the green light needs to be given to turn that number up again, so that we could actually — ourselves, within this province — create a greater supply. That’s one thing that needs to be looked at.

I’d have to get back to you on the exact number. At this present day, though, the B.C. Public School Employers Association, through its Make a Future website, has, I believe, as of this morning, 435 FTEs, or full-time equivalents, that are still posted and have yet to be filled. Because a lot of the individuals that would have accepted some of the jobs that were available in the spring and over the summer were teachers teaching on call last year, it means the supply of individuals who could fill in for contract teachers who are absent, due to illness or other reasons, isn’t as great. Friday, last week, in Surrey, there were 55 unfilled absences.

[11:50 a.m.]

Typically, what happens is that principals or vice-principals, or resource teachers and special ed teachers, are redeployed. Their programming is cancelled. The supports they’re supposed to be providing to children with special needs or ESL don’t happen on that day, and they’re doing something different. There are some school districts like Langley that, so far this year, haven’t even started up their resource and special ed programs because of all these unfilled positions.

There are a number of cost and non-cost ideas that we’ve floated. We had some really great conversations with the previous minister and deputy before the election, and those conversations have renewed over the summer and since then. Some might be long-term solutions. There may be public sector–wide solutions that could be adopted — like a student loan forgiveness program — that might have utility beyond K-to-12 but also for health and post-secondary. Hopefully the province will look at those seriously and come to us with some other ideas. We don’t claim to have the monopoly on all the good ideas. There are others that have ideas in this area that might have been tried in health and other sectors too that might be really useful on a provincewide basis or perhaps just regionally.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a quick question for you. I mean, you dealt very adequately with the needs around special needs, and I appreciate that. You did bring up in your comments about enhancements…. I know I grew up in a very sort of robust period where we had amazing music programs, amazing artist programs, shop programs — all that. A lot of my kids haven’t had the ability to get access to a lot of those things. Is the BCTF also looking, as part of the hiring, to make sure that there are specialty teachers that are going to be able to fulfil those roles that have been sort of…? You know, the first thing to go is arts. The first thing to go is sports or the extra stuff. Is there a thought of getting into that as well?

G. Hansman: No, there is. There have been conversations on that. I mean, there is the ability to specifically sort of target people in the outreach that’s done in other provinces. So if it emerges that there is sort of a key area — say, like, math 12 or senior science teachers — certainly specific outreach or strategies can be done around that.

There are also conversations to be had around what sort of people are we attracting from undergraduate programs into the teacher education programs. Are we getting the right numbers of the right sorts of people that will then enter the K-to-12 system? Perhaps there has to be specific outreach into some of the science undergraduate programs and working with people who are graduating from those programs and saying to them: “Look, teaching is a viable career. We need people in your field right now to be coming into the teacher ed programs and going from there.”

On the resourcing side, I know one of the problems that some school districts have been facing has been the ability to run some of these specialized programs, especially in the trades area, where just trying to start up a program…. If the registration of students is low in the first year, the class might get cancelled because of cost pressures.

One variable that the province might want to think about is equipping school districts with the ability to run some of those courses, at least for a few years, to get them off the ground. You also have to invest in the infrastructure — auto hoists that aren’t broken or trades equipment that actually looks like what’s used in industry at the time. There are some start-up costs associated with that. So will a school district be able to take the risk on buying all of those things if they don’t have the funding stream to actually run the course?

It’s important that those opportunities are provided to students. All kids in their neighbourhood public school should be able to access fine arts programs, trades programs — what we think of as being the more academic courses — knowing that there are challenges for some of the rural and remote places too. Obviously in the Stikine, you can’t offer every single course in every single school, but those are some of the conversations that we’ve been having for the past few years. Hopefully we can continue, because we want to be able to expand and diversify the opportunities that are available for students.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, Glen. We’re out of time now, but thanks for your comments and your very thorough presentation.

[11:55 a.m.]

Next up we actually have a Skype presentation. Is this Northern Lights College?

A. Graff: Yes, it is. This is Anndra Graff.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Hi, Anndra Graff. Are John and Dr. Loren Lovegreen there too?

A. Graff: No, it will just be me today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Go right ahead, please. You have the ear of the Finance Committee.

NORTHERN LIGHTS COLLEGE

A. Graff: Thank you very much. My name is Anndra Graff. I’m the vice-president, finance and corporate services, Northern Lights College.

[Audio interrupted] post-secondary [audio interrupted] opportunities in [audio interrupted] B.C. Construction is underway of our $33 million new trades [audio interrupted] centre on the [audio interrupted] campus. [Audio interrupted] will create jobs and research [audio interrupted] innovation throughout the region.

The new trades will greatly affect how NLC offers access and opportunity for all learners and, finally, how we use innovation, delivery models, on-line learning and new technology to give our students a competitive edge in the job market. It will also increase support for Indigenous learners as they prepare for careers in a skilled trade — by increasing apprenticeship enrolment, addressing barriers that prevent student success and improving completion rates.

Increased investment by the province will help us respond to the significant labour market challenges and economic opportunities facing B.C. in our region. In addition, it will enable us to continue to provide the range of programming and services essential to the economic and social health of our region.

The provincial association of B.C. colleges is also providing a presentation, and today I will be just addressing Northern Lights College’s specific requirements and opportunities.

For those of you who don’t know, Northern Lights College’s geographic region comprises the northern third of British Columbia. Our region is approximately 325,000 square kilometres, with about 71,000 people. We have physical campus locations in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge and access centres in Atlin and Dease Lake.

Our organization is spread out across large distances. We serve about 2,500 learners in credentialed programs and another 2,400 learners in continuing education and workforce training. Learning needs of our students are met with approximately 80 instructional faculty members. We have non-degree credentials — certificates, diplomas, associate degrees and post-baccalaureate diplomas.

Northern Lights College is committed to building on its history in post-secondary education by developing the strengths of its staff and its people in northern B.C. The college continues to focus on the preparation of a skilled workforce and plays a critical role in the enhancement of the economy and the quality of life in our vast region. Through strategic collaboration with industry, community and secondary school partners, NLC has continued to meet the need for delivering education that is career-focused in order to develop a highly skilled workforce.

Over the past five years, Northern Lights College has maintained a balanced budget despite reductions at the level of the base operating grant and despite the disappearance or reduction of a number of soft funding and project-based resources.

In order to do all of our strategies, we’ve implemented a few saving measures. We are participating in shared services, which is the administrative services delivery transformation initiative. We also are increasing tuition, obviously applicable to the tuition fee policies. We’re also increasing international enrolments and partnerships.

Despite funding pressures, NLC served approximately 1,644 full-time-equivalent students last year. We remain committed to providing the educational means for the continued growth and prosperity of our students and the communities and businesses across northeastern and northern British Columbia.

We provide leadership throughout the NLC region and the province of B.C. through the work of NLC’s centres of excellence in oil and gas, aerospace and clean energy. In addition, NLC continues to participate actively in initiatives such as the Northern Post-Secondary Council and Northern Opportunities, which is our very successful dual-credit program. NCL collaborates with Northern Health to provide target areas of health career programs. Such innovative partnerships hold promises for ensuring seamless education pathways to employability and for aligning education and training to job market demand.

B.C.’s colleges offer individualized attention. Smaller class sizes, teaching excellence, flexible programming, on-line learning and innovative delivery models ensure the highest quality education in B.C.

[12:00 p.m.]

Despite our continued efforts to remain accountable and effective and to use short-term funding envelopes to fill resourcing gaps, continued reliance will ultimately lead to organizational fatigue and reduced capacity to meet the significant and varied needs across our vast region.

There are three significant changes that we believe are required. The first is a move to multi-year funding allotments. By providing operating grants and deferred maintenance grants in three-year agreements with institutions, it will make it possible for us to initiate things such as program rotation, multi-year education planning cycles and to be more easily and effectively able to plan.

The second is to increase funding to advance to Aboriginal post-secondary education in our college region. The northeast population of Aboriginal people is over twice that of B.C. NLC undertook advances in various aspects of Aboriginal education over the past two years to strengthen its programs and service delivery to Aboriginal students and communities throughout the northeastern region of the province.

We’ve also taken steps to deepen our understanding of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission initiative and connect with other organizations involved in this important work. Staff attended multiple conferences related to Indigenous issues, such as the B.C. Post-Secondary Truth and Reconciliation Summit that was held in October 2016 in Vancouver. Meetings have also been held with all the treaty 8 chiefs, as well as the Tahltan community in Dease Lake, the Telegraph Creek and Iskut communities in the northwest.

Our third request is the need for new student housing funding. NLC’s international education student numbers continue to grow significantly, with healthy student cohort numbers arriving from countries around the globe to study in the Peace region. In particular, the Fort St. John campus has experienced the majority of this growth, with the increasing number in international. Campus services, such as on-site campus residence, have been negatively impacted by the inability to meet the housing needs of in-coming international students. They must seek alternate arrangements, such as private rentals and homestays.

Wait-lists for student housing are a significant obstacle to students seeking to obtain a satisfying, on-campus experience. In considering a further expansion will require a budget for a comprehensive review of current housing, maintenance and the required infrastructure costs for additional housing units. The college’s ability to move forward with this project requires significant capital funding.

In conclusion, for more than five years, NLC has maintained a balanced budget in spite of status quo levels or reduction to the institution’s base operating grant, the disappearance or reduction of a number of soft funding or to project-based resources for revenue, and aging facilities. NLC’s ability to absorb these types of reductions has been increasingly difficult, and any further cuts, in our opinion, will be detrimental to the college’s ability to continue to effectively meet our mandate.

We continue to believe that access to training in the north and for the north is critical to support industry and communities and also to ensure that local community members are accessing the necessary skills. As a regional community college, we provide critical access to academic, vocational, trades and apprenticeship, continuing education and workforce training programs. Without this local access, many of our students would be unable to participate in post-secondary education, and by extension, they would be unable to access the jobs that keep our economy moving forward.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation.

Are there any questions from the committee?

I actually have a couple of questions. Obviously, given the fact that you have so many different sort of campuses, I guess that probably presents a lot of unique challenges for the college. In your request, is that part of…? You say that you’re sort of maintaining the status quo, with the balanced budget and all that. But are there specific challenges around the number of locations that present funding challenges? What are the real pressure points for the college?

A. Graff: Yeah, there definitely are funding challenges. For example, the smaller access centres, like Dease Lake and Atlin [audio interrupted]. You have to do snow removal. The basic requirements just to keep a campus operating are quite extensive. With the low population…. We do have smaller numbers going through there, so that’s where the challenges come in. There isn’t a lot of numbers and there’s not a lot of tuition rolling in, but we definitely need to keep those doors open. Specifically, in Dease Lake — it’s the only place where students can access Wi-Fi.

[12:05 p.m.]

R. Leonard: The only place in all of their seven campuses is Dease Lake?

A. Graff: No, in the community of Dease Lake.

R. Leonard: Oh, I see. Okay, got it.

A. Graff: It’s the only place where the students can access Wi-Fi. They may not be at class, but they come in to access computers and the Wi-Fi.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Anndra. I really appreciate you calling in, and we’re very sorry we couldn’t get up there to meet you personally. Hopefully, next year we’ll be able to get up to the north. We just had a lot of challenges this year. We appreciate you taking the time.

The committee recessed from 12:06 p.m. to 12:07 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): The NEBC Resource Municipalities Coalition, via teleconference. It looks like we have a number of people. Did you want to introduce yourselves first, before we get going?

L. Ackerman: It’s Mayor Lori Ackerman, city of Fort St. John.

C. Griffith: And Colin Griffith, the executive director of the coalition.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Please go ahead.

NEBC RESOURCE
MUNICIPALITIES COALITION

L. Ackerman: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present. Sorry we could not make it in person.

The coalition is a partnership of municipalities, businesses and service sectors that are focused on all aspects of resource development in northeast B.C. We provide a unified voice for local governments on several different topics just to ensure that our voices are heard and that we look forward to healthy, robust, responsible and sustainable industries working within good communities.

Because we only have ten minutes, I think it’s important for us to tell you that we are very interested in ensuring that we have a good, solid understanding in our province of the opportunities for industries to move forward. I think, at this point in our economy, we don’t have the luxury of choosing which industry will move forward in the province of British Columbia.

As we struggle nationally to find a North America free trade agreement with our neighbours in the U.S. and the softwood lumber issues that we’re facing, I think it’s important for us to look to other opportunities. We must grasp the opportunity for LNG. I think, in order to do that, we need to have a good understanding of what competitiveness is going to be required to get the natural gas off of Canada’s west coast. If that means we need to revisit some of the taxation and regulatory framework, we should do that.

[12:10 p.m.]

I think we need to ensure that we have recommendations to both levels of government that can achieve the four conditions that are required for LNG, as well as any opportunities to be global citizens and ensure that climate action is taken from a global perspective. On that note, we believe that a road map for B.C. energy is something that we should really take a look at. I think that strong leadership is really required to develop a long-range B.C. energy plan that’s based on science and evidence-based data.

C. Griffith: Basically, the coalition believes that the current quality of life and the capacity, if you like, of the province to fund all of the services and meet the future needs of the citizens are going to be largely influenced by the resource industries in the province. Certainly, in northeastern B.C., we are home to vast non-renewable resources. We also have hydroelectric and wind and geothermal. So we epitomize, if you like, the whole spectrum of energy sources.

There is no question we do not believe that…. There is a fundamental agreement that we need to move to a low-energy, low-carbon future. The discussions and the processes of determining how that is going to happen, we believe, should be led by the provincial government. We have polarized debates right now that could easily be creating some long-term disincentives, if you like, or harm to government’s financial capacity and, as well, to the future capacity to provide an ongoing quality of life and services for the citizens of this province.

The coalition firmly believes that good, strong planning and leadership by the province are going to be integral to moving forward in a positive fashion.

L. Ackerman: One of the considerations that we really believe needs to be looked at in the long run is…. The province should understand that as resources move forward, there needs to be respect for the rule of law, respect for the rights of First Nations, respect for the environment and respect for the culture and the vision of the communities that these resources are being developed in.

We believe that along with the science and evidence-based approach, we are going to be able to take advantage of economic opportunities that are married to a solid regulator that is, in the case of the Oil and Gas Commission, a world-class regulator. We’re going to be able to take advantage of the revenue from these industries and share in some of this opportunity to increase the services to our residents and ensure, at the same time, that our grandchildren have the opportunity to do the same.

With that, if you have any questions, we’d be happy to answer them.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Mayor Ackerman and Mr. Griffith. We appreciate your time. We’re also very sorry we couldn’t come to you this time. We’ve tried very hard to get to every territory we could, but we had a very condensed travel plan. So thank you for getting on the phone.

I just wanted to open up the floor to questions. Any questions?

Well, we appreciate the time that you’ve taken to make your presentation. Just a reminder. I’m not sure if there was a written submission. Okay, good. I didn’t have a chance to see that. Fantastic. I’ll have a chance to review that.

[12:15 p.m.]

Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate the balanced approach that you seem to be taking in regards to the environment and industry. We appreciate your comments.

Next up we have board of education, school district No. 60, Peace River North. I believe this is via Skype. This is Ida Campbell and Brenda Hooker. Welcome, and please go ahead.

SCHOOL DISTRICT 60,
PEACE RIVER NORTH

I. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to let us speak today. You have our written submission. I will just highlight a few of the comments that we have, starting with transportation.

Since 2011, our district has been expressing concern in inadequate funding for transportation services. Then it goes on to give you a little bit of background on it. We continue to spend $200,000 to $300,000 more than we receive to provide basic busing services for our rural families, yet we are prohibited from charging fees to make up the differences.

We respectfully request that the standing Finance Committee provides their support to review and change the transportation formula to create equity amongst districts and transporting of students. We feel that this is access to education in our district.

Then we’ll go on to the new facilities. We received funding for a new elementary school. All schools in Fort St. John are over working capacity. We have added 16 portables to our elementary schools in the last two years to create classroom space. Enrolment count, September 30, 2017, is an increase of another 235 FTEs.

Currently we are working with the capital branch to secure funding for another elementary school. Then we are hoping to begin with the capital plans on the middle school. Timing is an issue as we only have a small window of working weather in our area.

Then I’ll go on to the replacement schools and existing facilities. Two of our active elementary schools were built in 1945, yet we are still required to utilize them beyond working capacity. The delay in replacing old schools has resulted in increased costs for both the district and government to maintain these facilities.

The annual facility grant for capital maintenance is insufficient for growing demands on our aging infrastructure. Now in this we’re thinking that we’re putting in a lot of money into the maintenance of these schools, and they still need to be replaced.

Recruitment and retention. Every year we have this problem. We’re struggling with our teaching positions, particularly specialty teachers in the rural settings. Now with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding class size and composition, we’re even having more challenging times finding certified staff to meet our students’ needs.

A similar issue is related to support staff, especially tradespersons, bus drivers and educational assistants, often resulting in an inability to hire. For example, tradespersons wages in the public school sector were last reviewed provincially three bargaining rounds ago. There was an insufficient discrepancy between existing CUPE salary grades and the current markets. We’re finding this not only in…. A lot of them say: “Well, it’s in the oil fields in our area up here.” But we also find it with our municipalities and other government agencies up here. They pay quite a bit more than we are allowed to pay.

Then the exempt compensation and funding. The district has fully allowed the Public Sector Employers Council increases to our exempt staff, principals and vice-principals. However, these increases are not funded and require the student districts to pay the increases through general operating funds.

[12:20 p.m.]

We believe the wage increases should be funded by the government in the same manner as unionized staff collective agreement. We require flexibility at the local levels to staff appropriately.

I will submit this.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

Did you want to add anything, Brenda? Did you have any comments at all?

B. Hooker: We were just wondering. Were there any questions from the committee on our presentation?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Are there any questions from the committee?

I just wanted to say, obviously, there are unique challenges in your area. Can you just tell us maybe a little bit about the pressure points, in terms of the difference between, let’s say, urban area schools and what you’re dealing with — in terms of some of the challenges that you might want to tell the committee that are unique?

B. Hooker: Well, our district is definitely a mix of urban, within the city of Fort St. John, schools and remote facilities. Recruitment and retention is particularly a challenge at some of our larger remote schools. We have a K-to-12 school in a community called Prespatou. We have a difficult enough time recruiting qualified teaching within the city of Fort St. John let alone a community that’s two hours north of us.

We really need some assistance with programs or student loan forgiveness or some kind of incentives in order for us to be able to attract applicants to these areas. We have a number of teaching positions that are unfilled at this point this year. You know, the Supreme Court decision really impacted our ability further. We always had challenges in that area, but it made it even more difficult to core recruitment.

That’s one of the main things, but also maintaining these facilities. We have a lot of needs as far as maintenance in regards to all of our facilities. They’re all aging, and it’s really a challenge within the amount of the annual facility grant we get in order to do proper maintenance on the facilities.

I. Campbell: On the facilities, even our new schools…. The timing of when we get the funds for these schools, because of the weather situation up here…. We can only build the outside of the schools at certain times of the year. This has put us behind for the one school that we are…. We are above capacity in all of our schools in this area.

That is a concern. We are working on the second one just to get preparing for it, but we haven’t had the okay to do the school yet. Timing on these is really imperative because we want to be able, if we can do it, to get on the ground as quickly as we can.

I’m going to just touch a little bit on transportation. It’s a little bit different than a lot of areas. With our busing, the way the roads are, we can’t go down one road, go across and come back a road to pick up students. We have to go down one road and come back. We don’t have grids, so that’s challenging. We really feel that’s access to education — to get these kids to school.

B. Hooker: There’s a shortfall in our transportation funding. It was exacerbated once the funding formula changed a number of years ago. It hasn’t been rectified yet, and we’re really hoping that that can be looked at — whether within the transportation funding formula or within rural education, looking at that topic.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Any other questions?

Seeing none, I’ll thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate the unique challenges that you have, and we’ll certainly take that into consideration. That’s it for now.

All right. Next up we have Dze L K’ant Friendship Centre — Annette Morgan.

Welcome to the Finance Committee public presentations. If you would like to tell us a little bit about your issues, please go ahead.

[12:25 p.m.]

DZE L K’ANT FRIENDSHIP CENTRE

A. Morgan: Good afternoon. First of all, I’d like to introduce myself. My name is Annette Morgan. I’m Gitxsan, from the community of Gitanyow. As executive director of the Dze L K’ant Friendship Centre Society and president of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, I’m honoured to be here today to participate in the provincewide public consultation on the next provincial budget.

Today I’ll be discussing matters of public safety, health, social services, and elder and senior care. They include increased funding for programs and services for those who face mental health challenges, including children and youth, and that assist B.C. families to target resources towards those in need.

The first item is with public safety — Aboriginal domestic violence funding. The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres is currently administering Aboriginal domestic violence funding on behalf of the province. The funding was part of the province’s provincial domestic violence plan announced in 2014 that includes a $5 million investment. Of that $5 million, $2 million was target to Aboriginal communities and organizations. The B.C. Association of Friendship Centres was chosen to administer $1.3 million of the $2 million, which supported 24 projects in the communities across B.C. — 14 projects on reserve, ten projects off reserve.

The province invested another $850,000 in 2017-2018 to continue supporting those 24 projects. Although at a reduced amount, the current investment ends as of April 2018, and we’re requesting renewed funding. To give you a sense of the need across the province, the B.C. association received over $4 million in funding requests of the $1.3 million in funds we received in 2015-2016.

Aboriginal domestic violence remains a concern for B.C. families and urban Aboriginal people. We request that this funding be included in the upcoming budget, with an increased support to the needs in the communities across B.C.

With employment, skills and training, reducing barriers and enhancing access to training and jobs remains a need through the northern corridor. Currently seven centres in the north are receiving this funding, and there are more than 1,000 Aboriginal people. This funding supports Aboriginal people in urban Aboriginal communities in northern B.C. It is administered through the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres as a part of the association’s 5 by 5 Aboriginal jobs strategy.

The target population for the project includes urban off-reserve Aboriginal individuals in Prince Rupert, Prince George, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, Terrace and Smithers, including members of surrounding First Nations who live or access resources off reserve. The key component of the project is to establish a 5 by 5 employment centre in seven Aboriginal friendship centres across the north. The centres act as hubs that connect people to employment-related services.

Job placement coordinators provide support to the centres and develop employment advancement and job plans to assist urban Aboriginal people in finding stable employment and economic independence. The coordinators build relationships with local employers and industry and connect urban Aboriginal people to relevant training and in-demand jobs.

Currently this project is funded through the B.C. Aboriginal skills training development fund introduced in 2015 and has contributed to poverty reduction. I’m seeking your support in this renewal.

With the elders and youth, friendship centres across this province would like to see resourcing targeting Indigenous youth and elders. Friendship centres are well positioned to deliver youth and elder programing, often in conjunction with one another, and have done so in the past successfully. This includes operating youth centres and programs that support youth, particularly outside of nine to five, where youth are most at risk.

Friendship centres also work closely with Aboriginal elders. Those elders living in the city do not have family to take care of them and deal with issues of social isolation, poverty, lack of health care, transportation and affordable funding. We’d like to see more resources dedicated to assisting Aboriginal elders to lift them out of poverty and social isolation.

[12:30 p.m.]

Increased support for adults and youth mental health. Adult and youth mental health issues continue to be challenging issues for Indigenous individuals and families. Friendship centres are often the first point of contact for those Indigenous people living in the city. Many of the people are considered high risk and face multiple barriers.

The province needs to do more to address this segment of the population, and friendship centres from across the province would like to see targeted supports for mental health and substance use, both for prevention and treatment.

The B.C. association works with the First Nations Health Authority and Métis Nation B.C. to develop an Aboriginal mental health and substance use plan, and we’d like to see resourcing to support the goals and objectives contained in the plan.

For maternal child and health funding, the B.C. association has created a doula support program, in partnership with the friendship [audio interrupted] First Nations Health Authority. This program involves supporting Indigenous families to access doula services that increase the likelihood of healthy births, reduce instances of infant mortality and premature births, and reduce child apprehensions at the hospitals due to doulas acting as advocates for families in this context.

The B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres supports, on an average, 40 families per month across the province at up to $1,000 per birth. With staffing, we would be seeking about $600,000 per year to continue this program, which has been extremely successful. We have had a business case that we would also be using when engaging funders in the weeks and months to come.

This concludes my submission to you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Any questions from the floor, from the committee?

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. It’s always a challenge to listen without seeing a person’s face, but I can tell you’re very passionate about your work.

I have a question. You had talked about the domestic violence funding having been reduced. I’m just wanting clarification on whether you’re asking for a return to the 2014 funding. Or where are you at with that ask?

A. Morgan: What we would like is an increase. Right about now, the requested proposal is $4 million in funding. Right now we receive $1.3 million.

R. Leonard: And the request is for four?

A. Morgan: Correct.

T. Redies: I just had one question, Annette. Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned the side-by-side employment centres beside their friendship centres. I think you gave us a bit of an indication of past experience with this, but could you just elaborate a little bit, please, in terms of the benefits and potential impact?

Did we lose her?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Let’s see if we can get her back on the line. We’re just going to call back.

A recess. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 12:33 p.m. to 12:35 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Annette, are you back on line? We lost you there for a second.

Tracy Redies is going to ask you a question.

T. Redies: I was just curious. I think you mentioned the side-by-side employment centres beside the friendship centres, and I think there was a little bit of information about the success of these programs. Could you elaborate any further, in terms of how the side-by-side programs would help in terms of increasing employment?

A. Morgan: Absolutely. I’ll give you an example from our Smithers location.

What we do is provide services. We’re also able to provide drop-in services, and we have time in every day for that. What happens is the client will come in and receive support through other programming — whether that’s addictions, mental health, family support services — and they’re quickly connected to an employment worker, if that’s what they’re seeking.

When that client goes in, they’re able to provide support with resumés. They’re provided with kits that they can assist to bring them around town, portfolios, doing pre-interviews. Also, they’re provided with a small subsidy. If they’re required to have a certain pair of shoes or clothing for a place of employment, their employer is actually required to write a letter, and we’re able to provide a small subsidy, up to $250.

Although the projects aren’t very large, the success rate of ensuring employment is really the partnership with the worker and the employees within the communities. I recognize that a lot of the communities that are funded are smaller communities, so it’s probably easy to get that done, but this strategy would work in any community across the province — really, doing those checks when those job postings come out, connecting with the businesses and really making that connection and making the right fit.

T. Redies: Just as a follow-up, are you able to provide some indication of what percentage of the Aboriginal employees go on to stay working, etc.?

A. Morgan: I don’t have the percentage in front of me right now. In our contract for a year, I think it was 150 employable people, and certainly every contract I’m aware of has exceeded that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, Annette. We really appreciate the time and the effort you’ve put into your presentation.

A. Morgan: Sure. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to present to the select standing committee. I recognize that you guys have a large job in front of you in sharing the stories across B.C., and I wish you luck.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. We’re going to take a short recess again, just while we wait for the last presenter.

The committee recessed from 12:38 p.m. to 12:39 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Next up we have Save Our Northern Seniors via teleconference — Jean Leahy and Sheila Barker.

If you would like to go ahead, we’d love to hear what you have to say.

[12:40 p.m.]

SAVE OUR NORTHERN SENIORS

J. Leahy: Okay. I’ll begin. I’ve got a page. Page 2 is our situation. Lack of spaces at Peace Villa, which is the long-term care facility. Lack of residential care, assisted-living facilities, accessible housing. But we do know that Cranbrook is getting 150 new beds, so we’re green with envy. Lack of transportation. HandyDART — we need another handyDART for sure. We need another accessible taxi. We only have one. It’s totally inadequate.

We want to make sure we keep our public facilities public. No privatization of our facilities. Air ambulance service for Fort St. John and Fort Nelson needs updating. Recruitment and retention re our long-term-care facilities. A proposed nursing school in Fort St. John where we can train people. And the lack of spaces at Peace Villa. We note that since 2002, it’s the same story. Nothing has changed, so you’re getting the same story again.

I’ll let Sheila start on page 3, which is the chart. We’ll both participate in it from time to time.

S. Barker: Good afternoon. I am part of Save Our Northern Seniors. I’m the treasurer on their board.

I was quite intrigued by all these numbers of people waiting, so I wanted to put it in a chart form. It is symbolic, somewhat geographical, of north to south — so north on the top of the page, where the buildings are. In the triangles are the number of people on the waiting list to get into these facilities.

One of the things that I wanted to point out is apartment 1 and 2 of the North Peace Seniors Housing has 100 beds, and there are 102 people waiting to get in. The same story with Heritage I and III. Combined, there are 78 people waiting.

My note that I’ve really thought about lately was: what other demographic of people have over 100 percent housing shortage? There aren’t young families or middle-aged people needing to find housing that there’s such a shortage for. That really concerns me that there are people in the community that hear there’s such a long waiting list, they don’t even bother going and putting their name on the list. I think the numbers are way higher, and that’s quite alarming.

The other point. I have volunteered at the apartment 1 and 2, cutting hair as a service there, and there are many people in these independent housing places that are not so independent. But because they know that there is no other place to move to, they stay there.

That’s a big concern to me too, that they are living in an independent setting but are actually causing themselves to be in a dangerous situation and putting other residents in danger, especially with cooking — and their own health, being able to get proper care. That would lead up to home support box closest to the bottom that Jean will address.

J. Leahy: The home support or home nursing care in their own home, 177. Better at Home clients, 163. Those people are not in the above figures. They’re not included in those above figures.

We’re very concerned about the home support and the home nursing, because as you probably know, anything could trigger somebody getting much, much sicker. Then the wait-list for the care home or the hospital would be that much longer. But they have nowhere else to go to, except to the hospital or the care home. We don’t know what to do for these people.

As you probably noted, since 2002, when Heritage I opened up, there have been no new facilities for low-cost housing or seniors built within that period of time to date. There is a Abbeyfield House that we included. It’s a private facility. There are only 12 units, and there are two empty. It’s a very small place. That’s why there are two empty.

[12:45 p.m.]

Those are our concerns. What we’re wanting, of course, is the facility. You’ll see that we are asking for a third house at Peace Villa. The care home in Peace Villa, and the hospital, have the acreage there to build another pod attached to Peace Villa. We’re asking that it accommodate 60 patients. We want a room for activities. Right now, there is no room at Peace Villa or the hospital available to house the 123 residents that are there if they want to go to listen to some music or some such event.

There’s no daycare, and the young people who are care aides would love to have a daycare that they could bring their children to and leave, and pick them up and take them home when they go. They’re very supportive of this idea of a daycare. Now, we’re not proposing that it be free, of course, but they would be willing to pay for it.

The social activities are part of the care. You can’t just sit in a room all day. The activity people — there are never enough activities for each pod, so they get left out on a lot of issues.

Those are big concerns. We just want people to understand that it all works together. It’s a matter of care and what kind of care the people are getting. There are a few beds that could be opened up at the hospital yet, but they can’t afford to do it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Is there anything else that you’d like to add before we go to questions?

J. Leahy: Just that we want you to build that pod. It’s about $25 million, approximately, but some of that would be by the Peace River regional district, so it wouldn’t all be government.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Are there any questions from the committee?

J. Brar: Thanks a lot of your presentation. I just want to ask you one quick question.

Basically, what you’re saying to us is there’s a chronic shortage of housing. But I would like to ask you…. In the private housing, which is called Abbeyfield House, there are two vacancies. Is that because of the cost or for any other reason?

J. Leahy: No, I don’t think so. I happened to live in Abbeyfield for four months myself, at one point, for convalescing. The rooms are very small. You have to go down the hallway to have a shower or a bath. People don’t like that, especially elderly people. They just won’t take us unless they really have to.

J. Brar: So the situation you have presented to us means that a significant number of people don’t have access to affordable housing. So where are they now?

J. Leahy: Wherever they can find a spot. It’s certainly not with us and with the apartments that are here today.

J. Brar: So are they homeless, or are they living…?

J. Leahy: No, they’re not homeless. There are not very many homeless people here because of the weather. They live with relatives, or they find some old place that they try to fix up a bit.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great, thank you very much. Are there any other questions from the committee?

Well, I just wanted to thank you very much for your presentation. We see, obviously, the need there, and we will look at your presentation. We really appreciate….

We have one question from Ronna-Rae Leonard.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. It’s not that we’re not interested in your situation. We’re actually having lunches delivered in front of us.

You have identified the need for 60 new beds, or is that relative to the space that’s available? I’m trying to figure out where 60 is, because at the bottom of the page, the need looks a lot bigger than 60.

J. Leahy: It’s relative to the size of the property that’s available to build on.

R. Leonard: I see. Has anything been put forward by the health authority or by any…?

J. Leahy: No. No, they have not.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very, very much. We appreciate your time and the effort that you’ve put into your presentation.

That was our last presentation, so I guess we are adjourned. Thank you very much to the committee.

The committee adjourned at 12:50 p.m.