Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services

Surrey

Friday, October 6, 2017

Issue No. 6

ISSN 1499-4178

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.


Membership

Chair:

Bob D’Eith (Maple Ridge–Mission, NDP)

Deputy Chair:

Dan Ashton (Penticton, BC Liberal)

Members:

Jagrup Brar (Surrey-Fleetwood, NDP)


Stephanie Cadieux (Surrey South, BC Liberal)


Mitzi Dean (Esquimalt-Metchosin, NDP)


Ronna-Rae Leonard (Courtenay-Comox, NDP)


Peter Milobar (Kamloops–North Thompson, BC Liberal)


Tracy Redies (Surrey–White Rock, BC Liberal)


Dr. Andrew Weaver (Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Ind.)

Clerk:

Susan Sourial



Minutes

Friday, October 6, 2017

8:15 a.m.

Guildford Ballroom, Salon C, Sheraton Vancouver Guildford Hotel
15629 104 Avenue, Surrey, B.C.

Present: Bob D’Eith, MLA (Chair); Jagrup Brar, MLA; Stephanie Cadieux, MLA; Mitzi Dean, MLA; Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA; Peter Milobar, MLA; Tracy Redies, MLA
Unavoidably Absent: Dan Ashton, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dr. Andrew Weaver, MLA
1.
The Chair called the Committee to order at 8:16 a.m.
2.
Opening remarks by Bob D’Eith, MLA, Chair.
3.
The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

1)BC Gaming Industry Association

Peter Goudron

Chuck Keeling

Shiera Stuart

2)BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils

Andrea Sinclair

Jen Mezei

3)Kwantlen Student Association

Caitlin McCutchen

Nicki Simpson

4)BC Association of Farmers’ Markets

Heather O’Hara

5)AMS of UBC Vancouver

Sally Lin

6)Mining Association of British Columbia

Bryan Cox

Lindsay Kislock

7)Retail Council of Canada

Greg Wilson

8)Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education

Heather Legal

Maggie Milne Martens

9)David Suzuki Foundation

Ian Bruce

Alisha Clancy

10)Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC

Phil Klapwyk

Pete Mitchell

11)Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association

Carol Paetkau

12)Scott Olson

13)TRIUMF

Dr. Jonathan Bagger

Sean Lee

14)Guide Outfitters Association of BC

Scott Ellis

15)Kwantlen Polytechnic University

Marlyn Graziano

Alan Davis

Salvador Ferreras

16)Students’ Union of Vancouver Community College

Jenelle Davies

Zahra Hashemi

17)Manufacturing Safety Alliance of BC

Lisa McGuire

18)John Harvey

19)Dave S. Hayer

4.
The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 12:44 p.m.
Bob D’Eith, MLA
Chair
Susan Sourial
Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2017

The committee met at 8:16 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 like to begin with the recognition that our public hearing today is on the traditional territory of Semiahmoo, Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem, Qayqayt and Tsawwassen peoples. We recognize their territories.

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 recently released by the Minister of Finance, which includes the following three questions.

What are the top priorities to help make life more affordable for British Columbia? What service improvements should be given priority? What are your ideas, approaches and/or priorities for creating good jobs to build a sustainable economy in every corner of the province?

The committee is holding a number of public hearings in 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 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 on 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 taking the time to participate today.

All public input will be carefully considered by the committee as it prepares its final report to the Legislative Assembly. Just a reminder that the deadline for submissions is 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 format. The meeting will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. All meetings are recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services, and a complete transcript of the proceedings will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast as live audio via our website.

I’d like to ask the members of our committee to introduce themselves. I’ll start with Stephanie.

S. Cadieux: Good morning. Stephanie Cadieux, Surrey South.

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

R. Leonard: Ronna-Rae Leonard, Courtenay-Comox.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m Bob D’Eith, Maple Ridge–Mission.

Assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial and Mariana Novis from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Simon DeLaat and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services. They are recording the proceedings, and we thank them very much.

Let’s bring up our first presenter. B.C. Gaming Industry Association.

[8:20 a.m.]

Budget Consultation Presentations

B.C. GAMING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

S. Stuart: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Shiera Stuart, and I’m the director of government relations at Gateway Casinos and Entertainment and the chairperson of the B.C. Gaming Industry Association. With me today are Chuck Keeling, vice-president of stakeholder relations and responsible gaming at Great Canadian Gaming Corp. and the vice-chairperson of the B.C. Gaming Industry Association; and Peter Goudron, the executive director of our association.

This is the third time that the B.C. Gaming Industry Association has presented to the Finance Committee, and we are honoured to have the opportunity to do so again.

The B.C. Gaming Industry Association, BCGIA, was formed in 2015 to act as the unified voice of private sector gaming operators in the province of British Columbia. The aim of the association is to provide strategic leadership for the B.C. gaming industry on behalf of private sector gaming operators, while enhancing relationships, education and advocacy through involvement with community stakeholders, government, media and the public.

British Columbia’s private sector gaming operators play a significant role in the provincial economy and their local communities. The BCGIA represents 13 of the 16 private sector gaming operators in B.C. Our members manage 38 gaming properties in the province and directly employ well over 8,300 people, paying wages and benefits of $267 million and property taxes of over $10 million.

Gaming operations generated a revenue of $1.9 billion to the B.C. Lottery Corporation, BCLC, in 2016-17. BCLC delivered $1.3 billion in net income to the provincial government, which helped to fund health care, education and other important programs and services in B.C.

The gaming industry accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the province’s annual budget, generating more revenue for the provincial government than forestry, mining or liquor.

The provincial government shares gaming revenue with host local governments. Local governments that host gaming facilities, both casinos and community gaming centres, receive a 10 percent share of net gaming income, which is paid after commissions and BCLC operating expenses are deducted. And $97 million was disbursed among 32 host local governments in 2016-17 to fund programs and projects determined by these municipalities. Some example are the Greater Victoria Library, Calvin Kruk Centre for the Arts in Dawson Creek, South Okanagan Events Centre in Penticton, Percy Perry Stadium in Coquitlam, the Anvil Centre in New Westminster and the Richmond Olympic Oval, just to name a few.

BCGIA members manage casinos, community gaming centres, bingos and horse racing as well as non-gaming amenities such as food and beverage facilities, show theatres, conference centres and hotels.

Private sector gaming operators invested more than $2 billion in B.C. from 2005 to 2017 and continue to invest in their properties to ensure that they are best in class. The gaming industry has created 37,000 jobs directly and indirectly in the province.

The gaming policy and enforcement branch, GPEB, of the provincial Ministry of Finance regulates the industry to ensure a fair and safe environment and the provision of responsible gambling programs, while BCLC conducts and manages gambling and contracts private sector gaming operators to provide gaming services to British Columbia.

I’ll pass it over now to Peter Goudron.

P. Goudron: Thanks, Shiera.

BCGIA members are strongly committed to preventing money laundering at their properties. Gaming operators in B.C. strictly adhere to anti-money-laundering, or AML, protocols, policies and procedures set by BCLC in accordance with federal anti-money-laundering requirements.

FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, and GPEB audit BCLC’s anti-money-laundering program and the adherence of gaming operators to that program to ensure the implementation of effective anti-money-laundering procedures at gaming properties. At our largest properties, BCLC investigators are stationed within operations as another tool of BCLC’s AML program.

B.C. casinos are legally required to follow the same rigorous anti-money-laundering protocol as banks. All cash transactions of $10,000 or more and all suspicious transactions of any amount are reported to FINTRAC. Casinos must also complete a casino disbursement report for any payout of $10,000 or more resulting from chip redemption, withdrawals from gaming accounts, payment of winnings and other similar transactions.

[8:25 a.m.]

Casino cheques are only issued in two instances: for verified wins and for return of funds. Both cheques are clearly branded this way, and the return-of-funds cheques can only be issued to an individual up to once a week and only for up to $10,000 of their original cash buy-in.

BCGIA members are also strongly committed to providing socially responsible gaming entertainment. Private sector gaming operators play an active role in the delivery of responsible gambling programs, in partnership with BCLC and GPEB.

Nearly three-quarters of adults in B.C. have participated in at least one gambling activity in the past 12 months. According to the 2014 British Columbia Problem Gambling Prevalence Study, released by the provincial government, nearly 97 percent of British Columbians who gamble do so safely.

For the majority of the population, gambling is an entertainment option. However, there are effective programs and resources available for the small percentage of people who have difficulties with their gambling behaviours.

GameSense centres are interactive information kiosks, located within casinos, which provide information on responsible play, odds of winning, gambling myths and facts, risk factors and where to find help for problem gambling. They’re staffed by trained GameSense advisors who are able to connect with patrons on the gaming floor. GameSense advisors are contracted through GPEB and managed by BCLC.

All gaming operators in B.C. take part in the RG Check certification process. RG Check is an accreditation program created by the Responsible Gambling Council and is based on RGC’s responsible gambling index standards. These standards represent RGC’s evaluation of efforts by gaming operators to reduce the risk of problem gambling among patrons.

The province also provides a problem gambling help line and free counselling and treatment for those who need assistance.

Finally, the voluntary self-exclusion program is one of the most important tools for assisting the small percentage of individuals who are problem gamblers. This program allows an individual to voluntarily exclude himself or herself from all casino properties in the province for a set period of time and offers counselling support. BCGIA members strongly support the province’s responsible gambling programs.

Now over to Chuck Keeling.

C. Keeling: Thanks, Peter. Through the community gaming grant program, the provincial government distributed $135 million in gaming revenue to over 5,000 charitable and community organizations in 2016-17.

Community gaming grants are provided to non-profit organizations throughout B.C. to support arts and culture, sports for youth and people with disabilities, public safety, human and social services, parent advisory councils and district parent advisory councils.

In addition to community gaming grants, private sector gaming operators donated over $1.2 million directly to hundreds of charitable and community organizations across the province. They also provided the use of their facilities to community groups for events, and their employees have volunteered countless hours to support local charities.

The B.C. model for the gaming industry is one of the most profitable for a provincial government in Canada. B.C.’s return is only surpassed by Alberta and only because Alberta has video lottery terminals — or VLTs, similar to slot machines — in restaurants, bars and lounges operating across that province.

B.C. is able to realize such a big return largely by paying private sector gaming operators some of the lowest operating commissions in North America. The current commission model pays private sector operators, like the members of the BCGIA, about 30 percent of gaming revenue generated at a facility. There is also a reimbursement program to encourage capital investment in gaming properties.

This commission model was established 20 years ago, when there were far fewer gaming facilities in B.C. The marketplace is now mature. It’s very important for the provincial government, through their management of the marketplace, to allow private sector gaming operators to generate an adequate return on investment so that they have an incentive to continue to invest and improve their facilities, which will create more jobs and generate more revenue for the province.

The members of the B.C. Gaming Industry Association are proud to support and to be an active part of the local communities where they live and work. They’re also proud to provide socially responsible gaming entertainment and non-gaming amenities that provide good jobs and contribute to the B.C. economy.

The gaming industry has been operating successfully here in B.C. for 20 years and looks forward to the next 20 years of creating jobs and economic growth.

We appreciate your time and are happy to answer any questions.

P. Milobar: Thank you for the presentation.

One thing came to mind, and Peter touched on it in his presentation. About a week or so ago, a week and a half, there was a news article about the chips and money laundering with B.C. casinos.

[8:30 a.m.]

In the article, it made it seem like, basically, if I walked in, I could buy $1 million worth of chips, walk around the casino for a little while, come back, get a cheque and then go. Are you saying that that’s not doable? That’s not how…. I’m a little confused by the article, because that seems contrary to what you were just saying. Could you maybe clarify that a bit for me?

P. Goudron: Yeah, I’d be happy to. You’re exactly right. That’s what the article said. If there is a single myth, I’m going to call it, that seems to continually come back, over and over, it’s exactly what you just stated: that somebody can walk in, buy in for a large amount of chips, engage in little or no play, and then cash out and get a cheque that they can then insert into the banking system as clean funds.

It’s simply not true. It’s a problem that I don’t think the industry or BCLC has been particularly effective in pushing back on nearly hard enough over the years. I think it’s a common belief in some people’s minds.

The facts are exactly as I’ve stated them. You can get a cheque for a verified win, but you will get your original cash buy-in back in cash. Your win amount can be taken in a cheque, but that’s only after it’s been scrupulously verified. Any unverified amounts are not eligible to be paid out by cheque and would be paid out as cash.

The other alternative is convenience cheques, where, for convenience and safety of patrons, they can take up to $10,000 once a week from their cash buy-in. But once again, that cheque is clearly labelled as return of funds and not casino winnings. What that does is allow any subsequent investigation to see clearly that even if it’s claimed that these are casino winnings, they were not. So it actually attaches a traceable instrument to what, potentially, was money that was attempting to be laundered.

The reason this is important, and the reason that we highlighted it in the presentation — and I’m glad for the question — is that it’s commonly cited as the approach to actually taking dirty money and turning into a clean instrument in the Canadian economy. It’s simply not accurate. It’s something that we need to do a better job of explaining, because clearly, it’s not resonating.

Journalists, a wide variety of people, seem to make that statement repeatedly.

R. Leonard: Good morning. Thanks very much for your presentation. Good to see you again.

Towards the end, you say that the marketplace is now mature and that it is important to allow private sector gaming operators to generate an adequate return on investment so that they have an incentive to continue to invest and improve their facilities. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that, just exactly what that ask is?

P. Goudron: We aren’t really attaching an ask so much as pointing out that…. I think BCLC has done a very good job in managing the market, along with government, such that private sector operators can be paid some of the lowest commissions in North America — arguably the second-lowest commissions in North America — and still have best-in-class facilities. The reason that works is because of the careful management of the market to ensure that operators can receive a reasonable return on those investments — as was highlighted, investments of $2 billion over the last, roughly, 12 years.

There isn’t an ask, but it’s important that operators continue to be incented to invest in their properties so that they can maintain that quality and meet the expectations of the communities that they serve.

R. Leonard: So you’re not asking for a bigger piece.

P. Goudron: We’re not here asking for a bigger piece.

S. Stuart: Thank you for the question, though.

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

Thank you very, very much for your presentation. We appreciate it and appreciate the candour. The information was really great.

Next up we have the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils — Andrea Sinclair and Jen Mezei. We’re also joined by Peter Milobar, Jagrup Brar and Mitzi Dean on the committee.

[8:35 a.m.]

B.C. CONFEDERATION OF
PARENT ADVISORY COUNCILS

J. Mezei: Good morning. The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, BCCPAC, is pleased to have the opportunity to present its recommendations on public education priorities for the 2018 provincial budget to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

BCCPAC, a non-partisan registered non-profit society, represents the parents of 565,000 children attending provincial public schools. Recognized by the provincial government and education partners, BCCPAC is the collective voice of parents on educational issues within the public system. We strive to foster a culture of acceptance, diversity and inclusion in our public schools and advocate both for systemic changes and individual parent advocacy.

BCCPAC is governed by a volunteer board of nine directors elected annually by the membership. Our district parent advisory councils, DPAC members, represent 90 percent of parents in public education and parent advisory councils from 56 districts across the province.

We applaud the key priorities of the Ministry of Education under this new government and their stated commitments to public education. We are hopeful that a fully developed plan for implementation and execution and the associated funding to support this plan will be communicated shortly. Parents and families await long-overdue changes that will make needed supports and services more accessible to students across the province.

The B.C. School Act sets out the purpose of the provincial education system to enable all learners — regardless of race, gender, ability or economic means — to become literate, to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy.

The current provincial funding for K-to-12 public education has again proven inadequate to satisfy this mandate. As we stated in our September 19 media release, increasing the classroom enhancement fund, CEF, to restore language and hire more teachers is only a portion of the funding that is needed. In 15 years, many districts have made cuts in other areas to try and retain smaller classes and specialist teachers.

District parent representatives from across the province tell us their districts need additional flexible funding to fulfil other local needs, such as more educational assistants, custodial services and physiotherapists.

The September budget update pledged to boost education spending by $681 million over the next three years. However, the majority of this funding is allocated to the CEF in order to restore language from the Supreme Court ruling on class size and composition.

There was little lift in this year’s funding for other necessary operational expenditures, and this budget update has not increased capital spending from the February 2017 budget. Rather, it has been reduced — $635 million, compared to $687 million pledged in February. It is not at all in line with the NDP promises to build needed new schools, make necessary maintenance and accelerate seismic upgrades.

A. Sinclair: In light of the Ministry of Education’s key priorities, the September budget update, the current state of the public education system and the long-standing issues that still require resolution, the BCCPAC has identified four key recommendations that we believe are critical for every student to have equitable access to public education with the supports and services they need to succeed, according to the School Act.

Recommendation 1: stable funding. That the provincial government act now on the recommendations from this select standing committee of the past three years that have called for adequate, stable and predictable funding for K-to-12 education.

Recommendation 2: revise the funding model. That the provincial government, with the Ministry of Education, begin the process now to review the per-pupil funding formula and develop a new needs-based, stable and sustainable model for the K-to-12 public system for Budget 2019. Changes to the funding formula need to reflect the actual costs of operating schools to provide the supports and resources needed to meet the diversity of educational needs and offer a comprehensive quality education that includes the arts.

Recommendation 3: increase operational funding. That the provincial government increase K-to-12 public education operational funding in the February 2018 budget to reflect the actual fixed operating costs of operating school facilities and cover all the downloaded costs to school districts, as well as inflationary costs, including the per-pupil funding increase, funding for high-incidence special needs and gifted students to be significantly increased within the per-pupil funding formula, now and ongoing, to school districts to support the early identification and assessment required to obtain designations needed for intervention and support for students’ academic, physical, behavioural, social and/or emotional challenges.

[8:40 a.m.]

Supplemental funding increases. Funding for special needs categories 1, 2 and 3 to be significantly increased to meet the actual costs of delivering necessary services and supports to low-incidence special needs students. The implementation of a classroom resource fund similar in structure to the now-dormant learning improvement fund, or LIF, to address unique classroom needs.

Unique geographic factors. Funding to be increased to implement a recruitment and retention strategy for rural and remote districts and that transportation funding reflect actual costs.

Special purpose funding. Immediate increased funding in resources must be provided to address the backlog of students waiting for formal assessment. Supplemental grant for implementation of the education plan be extended in the 2018 budget to provide the necessary resources and technology to effectively implement the new curriculum.

Recommendation 4: an increase in capital funding. That the provincial government and the Ministry of Education honour their commitment to replace high-seismic-risk schools by 2025 and 2030 in Vancouver by increasing the educational capital budget now, and again in February 2018. That the Ministry of Education truly demonstrate the acceleration of the SMP program by immediately approving all projects currently prioritized by school districts and move projects forward from the stage they are at with a comprehensive plan with deliverables and timelines.

That the treasury fund portables, where necessary, for temporary accommodation during seismic upgrades. That the Ministry of Education develop a plan and timelines to replace old schools where existing schools are close to or exceeding their life expectancy, to address the soaring deferred maintenance costs.

That the Ministry of Education and the provincial government develop a strategy to proactively fund new school construction in areas of current and anticipated population growth. And that the Ministry of Education examine and revise the current ministry area standards, as it is the basis for all upgrades and new school builds.

J. Mezei: In 2002, the provincial government introduced measures that altered the funding for public education from a school- and needs-based formula to per-pupil-based funding. The long-term cuts, both direct and indirect, to public education services and supports have impeded the ability of school districts to sustain the delivery of quality education programs and services to children while also maintaining a balanced budget as required by the School Act.

Parents have asserted that a flexible funding formula that meets the varied needs of all school districts is required. Over the last two decades, parent leaders have repeatedly voiced concerns that funds allocated by the Ministry of Education do not fully meet the needs of B.C. students, and they have collectively called for more funding to public education through BCCPAC. Parents from across the province have voiced the need for long-term and stable financial support for public schools with increased levels of funding to meet the actual costs of delivering necessary services for our students.

Despite recent funding to public education to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, there were other areas of support that still require funding to the per-pupil allocation to restore services that have been cut as school districts try to maintain smaller class sizes and specialist teacher ratios, such as educational assistants, custodial services, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and English-language-learner services.

Parents across the province ask that downloaded cost pressures such as negotiated wage settlements and collective agreements and energy rate increases must be fully funded annually as additional increases to operational funding and that every year’s per-pupil funding amount be adjusted for inflation.

One of the most significant changes, however, has had direct impact on the services and supports to students with special needs. The former model provided targeted funding for low-incidence, high-cost special needs students; high-incidence, low-cost special needs students; and gifted. The current model, implemented in the 2002-03 school year, rolled funding for high-incidence special needs students and gifted into the per-pupil funding allocation and separated supplementary funding for low-incidence special needs students.

For example, in the 2001-2002 school year, districts received $20.72 per district for a student for identification planning, educational testing and IAP development. Districts received $280,000 and $3,943 per school for core special education and $132 per district student FTE and $6,916 per school for learning assistance. Additionally, districts received $3,132 per student with moderate disabilities and $341 per student enrolled in a gifted program.

Other allocations….

[8:45 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re at ten minutes right now. You do have 15 minutes total, so if you wanted to wrap it up, I’ll give you a couple of minutes. Then at least we’ll have the chance for a couple of questions. Thank you.

J. Mezei: Over the last 15 years, many have forgotten that the original per-pupil funding was intended to cover all needs of high-incidence special needs students such as early intervention, assessment, service and support for a range of students.

We strongly urge this committee to once again recommend that the government increase both operational and capital education funding to a level adequate for school districts to meet their mandate to provide quality public education to all learners in safe buildings. We strongly urge the Minister of Education to act on his key priorities and stated commitments to public education. We are hopeful that a fully developed plan for implementation and execution and the associated funding to support this plan will be communicated shortly.

Parents and families await long-overdue changes that will make needed supports and services more accessible to students across the province. BCCPAC fervently hopes that the February 2018 budget will contain a more robust spend on capital projects for public education and a clear plan to achieve the related outcomes. The February budget needs to fully fund the Supreme Court of Canada ruling and implementation of class size and composition, the necessary resources and supports for our most vulnerable learners, seismic and the building of new safe schools, funding that meets true operational costs and, last but not least, to address the issue of deferred maintenance in older, larger districts.

We ask this committee to consider the BCCPAC’s four key recommendations, which are critical for every student to have equitable access to public education with the supports and services they need to succeed, according to the School Act.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much. Sorry you weren’t able to finish the entire thing, but we’ve got it in writing. We appreciate that.

Are there any questions?

I have a quick question for you. Can you tell us a little bit more about how you see the needs-based…? If it moved from a per-student to a needs-based, what might the modern version of that look like? Have you thought about that?

J. Mezei: In our recommendations, there are a couple of areas that we talked about that are of grave concern to parents. It’s not necessarily the change…. There’s an increase that needs to happen. Basically, the services that our students require are not being…. Parents are telling us that they aren’t receiving it.

In particular, one item that is in our recommendations is the implementation of the classroom resource fund. One of the items that BCCPAC has put forth in our recommendations and as a resolution…. There are needs in a classroom that aren’t individual student needs. They’re the needs of a classroom as a cohort and as a group. Having extra funding such as the old LIF model, where funding could be used by a district to address the needs of individual classrooms, is something that we have recommended.

A. Sinclair: I think I would add, too, that the per-pupil funding is an amount per person, as in bums in seats. That money doesn’t always follow the child, and it certainly doesn’t cover the cost of the child in the school. It’s not the right numbers, but if there were 100 students in a school and two of them were to leave, the school loses that money for those two students. Of the 98 students they still have…. The money doesn’t, then, compensate for all of the costs, regardless of the number of kids in school, which are the fixed operating costs and the true costs of actually keeping the doors open with all the staffs and the resources and the other things that would be needed to run those schools. So it’s a compounded problem.

B. D’Eith (Chair): My understanding is that often with special needs kids, there will be an allocation for that special needs kid. But what happens is that ends up getting spread around. That’s a practice that seems to be very prevalent and one that doesn’t necessarily help the special needs child. It also doesn’t recognize that there are other children who haven’t been assessed, as you said, who are having to use that but they haven’t been assessed yet. I understand what you’re saying. Thank you for that.

Any other questions from the committee?

Thank you very much for your time. That’s actually perfect timing. We appreciate all the effort you put in.

Next up we have the Kwantlen Student Association. That is Caitlin McCutchen and Nicki Simpson. Thank you very much.

[8:50 a.m.]

KWANTLEN STUDENT ASSOCIATION

C. McCutchen: Good morning. Thanks for having us again. It was nice seeing you all last week. It’s a pleasure to be here, presenting on behalf of the Kwantlen Student Association this time. In front of you, we have our six recommendations. I’ve spoken to some of this before — last week as the Alliance of B.C. Students — and we’ve also lobbied on some of this before. So I’m going to just talk about the three that I think are really important and special for students south of the Fraser.

Earlier this week I attended a luncheon at the Surrey Board of Trade. TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond and Linda Hepner, Surrey’s mayor and the vice-chair of the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation, were presenting on the proposed LRT plans in Surrey. One of their goals really stood out to me as something the student association also believes in and advocates for. The city of Surrey wants its residents to live, work and play in this region to make Surrey a thriving and desirable community. I believe that our recommendations reflect this goal and show that the KSA also desires to make education accessible, affordable and attainable, so young adults who grow up in the south of the Fraser region are able to live, work and study in their hometown.

The first recommendation I’d like to talk about is the continued support for the past program and the mayors’ ten-year vision. Within Surrey, the ten-year vision includes multiple phases of LRT and expanded services and infrastructure. Improved transit service in Surrey is a necessity, given the projected addition of 300,000 more residents in the next 30 years. Surrey roads are already extremely congested, and transit needs to be a reliable, affordable and convenient mode of transportation if we want it to be a viable alternative to driving.

With the future increase in transit services, it is our hope that more students will choose to use transit as a primary means of transportation to school. Currently, roughly 60 percent of our students use the U-Pass program. This program provides lower-cost travel for students while increasing the accessibility and affordability of post-secondary education. Continued funding and support of this program, coupled with the expansion of LRT and transit infrastructure and services in Surrey, is essential to keeping access to education affordable and attainable for students south of the Fraser. The KSA recommends that the government fund the mayors’ ten-year vision, including LRT in Surrey, and continue to support the U-Pass program.

The second recommendation I’d like to speak to is the expanded full-time-equivalent count — what I’ll be referring to as the FTE. Surrey is home to roughly 22 percent of B.C.’s population. Within the next 30 years, 300,000 more residents will call Surrey home. Many of them will be post-secondary students and future post-secondary students.

Right now one-third of Surrey’s population is under the age of 19 and will soon be preparing for post-secondary education. KPU and SFU Surrey are the only post-secondary options south of the Fraser. KPU currently has funded seats for 9.1 FTEs for every 100 young adults in this region. In contrast, the rest of the province has funding for 48.7 seats for every 100 young adults. It is clear KPU is significantly underfunded when compared to the provincial average.

South of the Fraser has 22 percent of B.C.’s population and only 9 percent of the funded post-secondary seats. We do not have enough space for students in Surrey. This means that young adults are choosing to leave their communities and study elsewhere across the province and the Lower Mainland. Keeping young adults in their communities south of the Fraser strengthens our communities through outreach and support on the part of both the institutions and the students themselves. It also helps to build and maintain a highly educated population south of the Fraser. We wanted to ensure that young adults who grow up in this region do not have to leave their communities to earn a post-secondary education.

The KSA recommends that the government increase access to post-secondary education south of the Fraser to the level of access that exists in the rest of the province by funding 2,500 FTE seats over a five-year period. This is in accordance with KPU’s submission to the Select Standing Committee on Finance in 2014.

The third and final recommendation I’d like to speak to is the dedicated funding for on-campus mental health services. This was the recommendation I made last week as the chairperson of the Alliance of B.C. Students, but this ask is even more important to me as a representative of the KSA. We will all be affected by mental illness. Within any given year, one out of five people will experience a mental illness or mood disorder, so while you may not directly be affected by a mental illness, it’s expected that a friend, family member or colleague will experience challenges to their mental well-being.

[8:55 a.m.]

The typical onset of mental illness or a mood disorder will occur between the ages of 18 and 25, when most people will be attending some post-secondary education. Most students who experience a mental illness will not seek help. Stigma plays a large role in why mental illnesses go untreated. However, a lack of accessible and timely treatment services also contributes to mental illnesses going untreated and unmanaged.

With direct, targeted funding for front-line mental health services on campus, we believe that more students would seek the help they need to cope with and manage their mental illness, which will ultimately help them succeed and thrive throughout their journey through post-secondary education.

Right now at the KSA, in October, we’re having a mental health campaign, and I’ve been on the ground talking to students, faculty and staff. The first thing I say to them is: “Do you think the government should fund mental health services on campus?” There is overwhelming support for this. Everyone absolutely loves this campaign and would love to see more front-line resources on campus. I am getting massive support, and it’s been a really successful campaign so far.

With that, the KSA recommends that the provincial government allocate $40 million in targeted funding to post-secondary institutions for front-line mental health services on campus.

Thank you for your time this morning. We’d love some questions.

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

M. Dean: Thank you very much for your presentation. We’re hearing some really strong themes. I really appreciate it.

I’m interested in the mental health perspective. Students could access mental health services, for example, on line; in their home, where they originate from; in the community where they’re a student; as well as on campus. I’m really interested in the advantages and disadvantages, and how you’ve incorporated those into your proposal around the $40 million.

N. Simpson: Yeah, absolutely. The $40 million — I can expand on that. First of all, we came up with…. There are two options for how you would fund mental health services on campus. One is funding it entirely, which is very expensive, and we didn’t think it possible. So we looked into the model that was used in Alberta, where, last year, there was a very successful pilot program with $4 million of funding that they recently expanded to $25 million.

I can get the numbers up here, but $25 million is for the amount of students that they have. We have significantly more students, so we thought we could have the same impact with $40 million. Again, that doesn’t fund an entire program. That’s an additional counsellor. It means that workshops don’t have to be cancelled. I know that at our institution, the counselling department has had to cancel some workshops, which they had been running previously, because of budget restraints. So it just supplements that and kind of makes it more equitable and reliable — consistent, year to year, as well. That’s the $40 million.

Then your other question was: why on campus?

M. Dean: Yeah. I think there are unique advantages and disadvantages, and I’m not sure that the mental health support context in Alberta is necessarily comparable to the generic, community-based mental health support system that we currently have in British Columbia.

N. Simpson: On the one hand, there are a lot of resources, as you mentioned, on line. We have just launched an additional on-line resource for all of our students. It’s free for the first session, and it’s subsidized after that. But it does come at a cost. Community resources are not always as accessible.

We found, through studies in different places, particularly in Ontario, that it is very useful to have somewhere on campus that is visible and that people can get to. Ideally, it would be combined with the walk-in clinic, so it’s just health services, and mental health isn’t distinguished from this — and it shouldn’t be; this helps reduce stigma — and having somewhere that so many students go to every day and having the resources available there.

As we’ve mentioned, the university is a place where a lot of mood disorders and mental health issues present. From 18 to 24 is when this happens, particularly once you enter university. It’s a stressful environment, and you’ve often left your support system for the first time. So having visible resources there can really have an impact on the people who aren’t getting the help that they need right now.

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation.

I’m very interested — and I’ve heard this before — in the apparent underfunding of FTE seats in KPU and Surrey. It looks like almost one-quarter of what other regions get, so that’s obviously a substantial difference. Can you talk a little bit about how this is manifesting itself? You mentioned students wanting to live and go to school in their communities. A lot of students like to go outside their communities to go to school.

Are KPU and SFU actually turning away students who want to study there but can’t because there aren’t enough places? Is there evidence showing that — that they couldn’t otherwise go to, let’s say, UBC or another college?

[9:00 a.m.]

N. Simpson: Do you mean that people would prefer to go to UBC or…?

T. Redies: Yeah. I guess what I’m trying to understand is: what’s the scope of the problem? How many students want to go to school at SFU and Kwantlen but can’t because of the funding challenges? A lot of students, of course, do go outside their communities to go to school for experience purposes. I’m just wondering if you have that information.

N. Simpson: No, I don’t. I think the closest we could get would be to look at how many of the students from Surrey do enter post-secondary and the percentage of those that are able to stay in Surrey. But I’m not sure there has ever been a study conducted asking them directly if they wanted to do that or not, unfortunately.

T. Redies: Obviously, a percentage want to go outside of Surrey. That’s what I’m just trying to understand. There obviously is a serious difference that needs to be looked at.

J. Brar: Thanks for coming today. You have listed six recommendations in your submission, and you spoke to only three. My question to you. Funding is always limited. At the end of the day, we have to make a determination as to where the funding goes. So in terms of priorities, if you had to recommend three key recommendations, would they be what you spoke to or would that be different?

C. McCutchen: The three that I spoke to would be the three recommendations. Our housing ask actually doesn’t require any money. We’re asking for the red tape to be removed for the post-secondary institutions to take on debt, so you can add that one in. But definitely, the three that I highlighted were the ones that I feel would be most important to students south of the Fraser right now.

J. Brar: Okay. Just to add on to the question asked already by the member…. Roughly about 13 percent to 49 percent — that’s the spaces I’m talking about per every 100 students. Are you comparing Surrey with the whole province or Surrey versus Vancouver or…? If you can give me more information about that.

N. Simpson: The number that we have for the whole province is 48.7 seats. There are different numbers for various locations in Vancouver. I think the highest is Langara. It does vary a little bit more within municipalities, but Surrey is significantly lower than the rest of the province and significantly lower than the rest of Vancouver, the Lower Mainland.

J. Brar: If you have more information, I wouldn’t mind getting that information. Later on, you can give it to me.

N. Simpson: Yeah, absolutely. It’s all from a study conducted by the Surrey Board of Trade. I can definitely send that along.

S. Cadieux: Thanks, ladies, for your presentation. The housing issue is a big one, for sure. We know the request isn’t for cash; it’s for the removal of restrictions on debt, which do have a significant cash implication for the province except in some interesting circumstances which have not yet found success.

Leaving that issue aside for the Finance Ministry to figure out, have you at KPU had discussions with administration about the possibility of using land that Kwantlen already owns for that housing, should that debt room be available?

C. McCutchen: Yes. I believe they’re in favour. Our president is actually in talks with them about it. We have to see. If the red tape gets removed, the talks will begin even more. But I believe that they are in favour. We do have land for it on many of our campuses.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Well, thank you very much for presenting. Nice to see you again, Caitlin. We appreciate it. We’ll take all of this, and we’ll have a good talk about it.

Next up we have the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets.

Heather O’Hara, hello. We have two awesome farmers markets in Maple Ridge and Mission, which I love to go to.

H. O’Hara: Great. So glad to hear that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Whenever you’re ready.

[9:05 a.m.]

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF FARMERS MARKETS

H. O’Hara: Good morning, everyone. The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, the BCAFM for short, appreciates the opportunity to offer input into the provincial budget. I just want to share some quick facts about B.C. farmers markets. Currently, in 2017, we have 147 active and engaged farmers market members operating in all regions of the province. Our overall mission as a member-driven association is to support, strengthen, promote and develop farmers market members across those regions.

Member farmers markets of the BCAFM adhere to a 100 percent grow, make, bake, raise and wild-harvest philosophy, differentiating farmers markets from other markets in B.C. We are, in fact, a connector — the farmers markets, that is — collaborator and regular communicator with a broad group of farmers, small-scale food processors, artisans, provincial ministries of all kinds, agricultural stakeholders, municipalities, communities and non-profit organizations.

Farmers markets come in all shapes and sizes — rural and urban, small, medium and large. In our 2012 economic benefits study, farmers markets were shown to generate $114 million in direct economic activity and $170 million including all the additional farming purchases purchased by farmers market vendors.

Each year 3,000-plus B.C. entrepreneurs, including farmers, small-scale food processors and artisans, sell at B.C. farmers markets. Farmers markets are, in fact, business incubators, supporting economic development locally and regionally, and a place where new businesses start and grow.

Farmers markets are agricultural hubs and pillars of sustainable local food system policy and practice and, as we see more and more, are a growing agritourism destination. Farmers markets are great at building social capital and relationships and at connecting people amongst your communities.

In closing, farmers markets strengthen food security, and through the support of the provincial government, the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets delivers $1 million plus in B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon programming each year, in 60 communities and in collaboration with over 80 community partners. We’re very proud of that program.

I’d like to just highlight a couple of impacts and achievements over this last year since we spoke and presented last fall. Buy Local. B.C. farmers markets are uniquely and authentically positioned to provide British Columbians with an ongoing opportunity to buy local, connecting consumers directly with a diverse mix of local B.C. farmers, small-scale food processors and local artisans. This differs from other types of markets, which may feature merchandise sourced from elsewhere.

For several years, B.C. farmers markets have benefited from Buy Local funding support. Over this past summer, in 2017, the BCAFM successfully executed an extensive B.C. Buy Local campaign across the province, with support from the Investment Agriculture Foundation, Ministry of Ag, and Vancity, to increase shoppers and the purchase of local food direct from farmers at farmers markets.

This campaign included a CBC commercial that ran from July through September, digital and social media of all kinds, creating local promotional tools and resources on the ground for our 147 members, along with a #BCFarmersMarketRoadTrip contest.

We also have had some great impact achievements around small business development and economic benefits. As stated, we’ve done two prior economic benefit studies — 2006, showing a gross revenue of $69 million, growing to $170 million in 2012. We’re also keen to do a 2018 study, pending resources, to see what that growth factor looks like in 2018.

To support and strengthen farmers markets and vendors alike, the BCAFM recently executed a market management certificate across the province to strengthen our market managers. We collaborated with Kwantlen Polytechnic University on a farmer best-practices and case study toolkit, which we’ve just launched. We conducted a provincewide market research project, including regional focus groups and consumer research — one of a kind.

In 2018, B.C. farmers markets will collaborate with Community Futures offices, Columbia Basin Trust, local credit unions and Small Business B.C. to connect more and more markets and small business vendors with existing tools and resources for strengthening both their markets and vendors. As business incubators, we will develop farmers markets start-up kits for new farmers and food processors and collaborate with the Young Agrarians to support new farmer entrants.

[9:10 a.m.]

Community. B.C. farmers markets build social capital and serve as gathering places for strengthening community relationships and social connections across the province. We know that visits to farmers markets for people from all backgrounds, particularly seniors and low-income families, foster a sense of social connectedness, a key determinant of health, and also enable people to meet and thank the farmers who grow our food.

The BCAFM recently launched a #LoveBCFarmers and #LoveBCFarmersMarkets Instagram photo contest. The BCAFM will also host its annual conference this 2018 in Victoria. So we’re very excited about that. It will be March 2, 3 and 4 at the Laurel Point Inn.

Healthy living and food security. Through the farmer market nutrition coupon program, managed by our association, B.C. farmers markets are also playing a growing role as a connector and hub for supporting food security, healthy food and health living activities across the province. We sincerely thank the provincial government for the continued investment in FMNCP program.

We’d like to describe the impact that this program is having across the province. Of note, B.C. is the only province in Canada with this program, so thank you. The FMNCP program offers coupons in the amount of $15 per week for a 16-week period to lower-income pregnant women and their families and to low-income seniors for the purchase of fresh, healthy foods at farmers markets, including fruits, vegetables, herbs, meat, fish, dairy and nuts. At the same time, participants benefit from resources and skill-building opportunities to support healthy living choices.

In 2016, the farmers market nutrition coupon program expanded and was delivered in 53 communities across B.C. from Hazelton and Fort St. John to Vancouver. To deliver the program, we partner with over 85 community and social service agencies that offer nutrition and food skills programming. Over 900 farm families and 3,000 lower-income households, equivalent to 10,000 individuals, across B.C. are benefiting from this initiative. We continue to build on and leverage the investment of the provincial government in this program as we successfully secure additional financial support from private donors, such as Whole Foods in Vancouver, the Rotary Club in Terrace and many, many more.

The BCAFM also recently launched a new on-line fundraising platform, and the B.C. FMNCP program fund through Vancity Community Foundation. That just launched, and we’re excited to see where that goes.

Opportunities and recommendations. In March 2017, and with the support of a grant from the Growing Forward 2 strategic outreach initiative, our association completed a strategic plan with ambitious goals and exciting initiatives which strongly align with the goals to Grow B.C., Feed B.C. and Buy B.C. We welcome expanded investment and deeper collaboration with the B.C. government, along with municipalities and the many, many other stakeholders, to accomplish our shared goals.

Our current focus moving forward includes strengthening the B.C. farmers market brand. What do we mean by that? Regionalization. B.C. farmers markets operate in all regions across the province from the Kootenay and Cariboo to Vancouver Island and beyond. Moving forward, the BCAFM and our market members in all ten regions will embark on stronger regional collaboration and capacity-building, seeking more cooperative marketing and small business and economic development opportunities to strengthen and promote markets and agrifood vendors.

Tourism. B.C. farmers markets are recognized as unique tourism destinations in the 100-plus communities across B.C. in which they operate. However, we know we can do much, much more with new investment and new relationships. With its emphasis on regionalization, the BCAFM is building a new relationship with Destination B.C. through its cooperative marketing program to better promote farmers markets regionally. Our application in November will include the Kootenay and the Cariboo, to start, with the idea that we would expand that to other regions moving forward.

Also, in regards to strengthening the B.C. farmers markets brand, hub and connector, the BCAFM and our network of farmers markets and 3,000-plus vendors in both rural and urban locations support, strengthen and catalyze the connections between stakeholders across the food system, particularly underserved small-scale farmers and food processors, including new entrants, who sell and market their offerings domestically through farmers markets. We are a conduit and a connector, and we welcome deeper collaboration with the B.C. government to reach this segment of the agricultural sector.

Buy Local, Buy B.C. As the most visible and accessible component of local food systems, B.C. farmers markets fill a critical role in the provincial economy, and as mentioned, directly generate over $114 million in annual revenues. As unique places for local food producers and processors and local consumers to shop and connect, B.C. farmers markets serve a growing consumer demand for locally produced, fresh, nutritious food.

Farmers markets also provide a primary and unique sales and marketing channel for small-scale family farms and new-entrant farmers and food processors. In response to the upward demand for local food, the number of farmers markets in British Columbia is growing.

[9:15 a.m.]

We welcome ongoing and multi-year Buy Local investment for our association and the 147 farmers market members we support, whose core mandate is to buy local. We welcome investment to complete a 2018 economic benefit study — a continuation of the studies we completed in 2006 and 2012. These studies represent a valuable and critical environmental scan and body of research, in collaboration with the University of Northern B.C., focused on a unique segment of the B.C. economy and agricultural sector: small-scale farmers and local food economy.

Information gathered and analyzed in both research studies is widely used by stakeholders of all kinds, including individual farmers markets, community planners, local economic development offices, municipal and provincial policy-makers, in addition to farmers, food processors, local food initiatives and the BCAFM organization. Completion of the 2018 study will provide continuity for this critical body of research, fulfil a practical information gap and enable ongoing comparative analysis to assess the overall growth of the local food system year over year.

B.C. farmers markets are also a vital incubator and innovation space for new entrants and existing agrifood entrepreneurs. Today’s farmers market vendors often become tomorrow’s agricultural success story in B.C. Farmers markets are a critical force in the agricultural ecosystem and a local economic development catalyst.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Heather, sorry to interrupt. We’re at 11 minutes and 24 seconds, so if you could please wrap it up. I think people would like to ask some questions.

Thank you so much.

H. O’Hara: Sure. Just one final note on diversity and inclusion. The farmers market nutrition coupon program is an opportunity to really reach out to different socio-economic and cultural groups. We know we can do more, particularly around First Nations, so we’re looking to expand that as well.

Thank you for your time. Sorry for the overrun, by the way.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, no. That’s fine. I was enjoying it so much.

It’s great — the coupon program. We have a woman, Candace Gordon, who works in our Maple Ridge farmers market. Every time I go there, there are always people there. The coupon program is so successful. Congratulations on that. It’s a wonderful program.

Sorry to jump in. I know I should let everyone else ask a question first, but I’m going to ask a question. Could you expand a bit more? The government has launched Buy B.C. It’s an exciting program. Can you expand a little bit more to see how you might interface with the Buy B.C. program?

H. O’Hara: Obviously, we’re big fans of Buy B.C., Buy Local initiatives, however you want to frame that. I think the key message I would share is that what we particularly liked about the initiative in the last few years is our ability as individual organizations, or businesses in some cases, to take that program and apply it to our sector, as opposed to a generalist or a generic kind of buy-B.C. message. That’s important that every sector, every organization or business to be able to customize and apply those dollars in a way that is applicable and relates to their particular need, if you will.

If that program comes at it both in a generalist sense — in other words, Buy B.C., provincially — and also allows organizations like ours to implement key and particular activities related to our need for farmers markets and so forth. Does that make sense?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes.

S. Cadieux: Thank you for your presentation.

In your work, especially through the nutritional coupon program, what kind of outreach or relationship-building or visioning are you doing with the food bank system in British Columbia? Is there an opportunity there to expand, for people on low incomes and people who are relying on food banks, to expose them to healthier food options and an opportunity there to expand, perhaps, that coupon program?

H. O’Hara: Yeah, a really good question. Of the 85 community partners I mentioned, a number of those are actually food banks. Central Okanagan food bank. There’s Sooke food bank. We do actually have those existing relationships with some of those, as partners. Certainly, we welcome….

I think, to be honest with you, what we love about the coupon program is that it ups the ability to access fresh, fresh food, perishable food. I’m coming from food security prior to this role. Fresh, healthy meat, fruits, vegetables — that is a gap.

This program. The nuance of that may get lost, but that is a fundamentally powerful part of this program. In addition to the fact that in small, remote communities…. Houston is a good example, where a grocery store, with their downturn in their economy, went away. This is their only fresh food access point.

[9:20 a.m.]

I’m hoping that addresses your question.

S. Cadieux: Yes, it does. Thank you.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve had the wildfires throughout the Interior, and of course, there are a lot of farmers markets there. I’m just wondering if you have an indication, from sort of an overall perspective, on what’s going on.

H. O’Hara: Yes. A couple of things. I visited the Cariboo in August for a week. Our board president is from Quesnel and so is very, very knowledgable about the Cariboo and was impacted herself, in fact. We had a number of farmers markets that could not operate because of the evacuation, 100 Mile House in particular and McLeese Lake. So that’s one factor. There was this economic impact on those vendors and the markets themselves.

We also have a lot of farmers who were able to participate at farmers markets, but because of wildfire encroachment, like fire retardant sprayed on their property, they’re now trying to remediate that ranchland and, in some cases, farming land. We’ve had other vendors lose their food processing facilities — I believe, a sausage maker who sells at the 100 Mile House farmers market, for example.

I think a good news story is the Quesnel Farmers Market. In the midst of this crisis when Highway 97 was cut off — effectively, from filling grocery store shelves — the Quesnel Farmers Market was busier than ever because it was the only source of local food, frankly. So they were crazy busy. In fact, one of the very longtime vendors, Mackin Creek Farm, couldn’t actually get to the market, but somebody drove his truck with all his food to the Quesnel Farmers Market for those two weekends. He’s a legend in the area.

That really was their food supply. I think it’s really important to note that — how this was a de facto emergency solution to food insecurity at a very, very difficult time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Heather. We appreciate your words and everything you do and the presentation.

H. O’Hara: Thank you. Sorry for the overrun, by the way.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, no, that’s fine.

Next up we have the AMS of UBC Vancouver — Sally Lin.

AMS OF UBC VANCOUVER

S. Lin: Thank you and good morning. My name is Sally Lin. I am currently a third-year political science student at UBC, and I have the honour of serving as the VP external affairs for the UBC Alma Mater Society. The AMS is a non-profit student union that represents over 54,000 undergraduate and graduate students at the UBC Vancouver’s Point Grey campus.

We administer over 400 clubs and run numerous businesses that provide free services to our students, which vary from a food bank and an entrepreneurial hub to the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre. We also advocate for the interests and issues of our membership at the university and all levels of government.

I am really pleased to be here today to present five budgetary recommendations on four key issues that are key to our students and key to affordable and accessible education. These recommendations will cover student loans, needs-based grants, merit-based graduate scholarships, and funding for sexual violence prevention, education and support on campuses.

I will first speak on the recommendation for students loans. The AMS would like to start by expressing its gratitude for all-party support for the recent reduction of the student loan interest rate from interest rate plus prime rate of 2.5 percent to just prime rate. The AMS is pleased to see that the complete elimination of the student loan interest rate is part of the provincial mandate and urges the province to implement this change as soon as possible.

In our recommendations provided to the committee, we have detailed research on national comparisons, studies and data from surveys conducted on students in B.C. to provide further understanding of the financial difficulties that students face. However, I hope to highlight one issue that could be immediately rectified as a step towards complete elimination of the interest rate on student loans.

There is a six-month grace period attached to student loans, and it is meant to reflect the fact that it takes time for recent graduates to establish themselves in the job market and that it takes time to begin earning a steady income in order to afford regular loan payments.

[9:25 a.m.]

However, the interest rate currently accumulates during the grace period. For an average student, it is estimated to cost about $254, but only 30 percent of students report being aware that it’s actually accumulating. From the same survey of B.C. post-secondary institutions commissioned by the AMS, it also showed that 42 percent of students are not sure whether interest is charged, and a further 29 percent simply believe that it is not charged at all.

For these reasons, the AMS would like to recommend an end to this confusing practice by immediately implementing a true grace period with the continuation of in-school interest subsidies. This will help offset part of the costs that students face during their study-to-work transitions.

Next I will speak on our third recommendation, pertaining to needs-based grants. The elimination of B.C.’s student grants program in 2014 left a significant gap in B.C.’s post-secondary financial aid programs. With almost every other province offering grants or a free tuition guarantee for low-income students, B.C.’s students are left behind in this regard.

Students from lower-income families are likely to have fewer financial resources. It is likely that their parents have not saved for their children’s education, have started saving later or, ultimately, saved less than families with higher incomes. This means that a large burden of financing education falls onto the individual students, and these students are then forced to borrow to finance that education.

In 2017 to ’16, a student with no loans in B.C. paid an average of $17,696 for tuition. But a student with loans, after accounting for interest, would end up paying $23,168 for tuition. This means that students with the least financial resources are paying 35 percent more for their education than those who can afford the upfront cost.

Furthermore, students who do take on debt face lasting impacts that extend beyond their time in post-secondary. A study by Statistics Canada demonstrated that borrowers, in contrast to non-borrowers, are 8 percent less likely to have savings investments, 3 percent less likely to own a home, and have a lower average asset, with a difference of $45,600.

While student loans and grants are both really important forms of financial aid, they are not analogous, and each is critical for different reasons. Delaying the burden of paying for an education will not, in and of itself, increase access to these programs, whereas reducing barriers provides a key to upwards economic mobility and higher lifetime earnings.

The provision of upfront needs-based grants can help reduce that barrier of upfront costs, which pose a barrier to lower-income students hoping to access a post-secondary education. For these reasons, the AMS recommends redirecting the proposed $1,000 post-secondary completion grant towards creating a comprehensive system of upfront needs-based grants to target lower- and middle-income students.

Our fourth recommendation is in regards to merit-based graduate scholarships. During their studies, graduate students fulfil a number of vital roles within their post-secondary institutions by not only acting as students but also as researchers and teachers.

Creating a world-class innovation ecosystem relies upon both fundamental research and the ability to transform new discoveries into commercial and social innovation. This is work that graduate students are well-positioned to carry out. Attracting and retaining these graduate students to align knowledge to industry mobilization is thus critical for the growth of B.C.’s economy.

Jurisdictions across Canada are now prioritizing attracting the best and brightest graduate students to study in their province by offering targeted graduate student scholarships. Other provinces fund an average of $5,000 per semester or a full $15,000 for an academic year. At the upper end of these scholarships, Ontario offers the Trillium Scholarship to attract highly-qualified international students to pursue their doctorate degree in the province. This awards up to $40,000 to its recipients and is renewable for four years.

With more generous funding opportunities and much lower costs of living in other provinces, B.C. institutions require an investment in attracting graduate students if they are to contend in an increasingly competitive advanced-education environment. For these reasons, the AMS recommends that at a cost of $50 million annually, the government could support 1,000 B.C. graduate students with awards up to $15,000.

This investment would significantly increase the attractiveness of our province as a destination for quality graduate studies and for skilled workers to live, work and research. This level of funding would actually be more in line with offers across the country and be competitive with Ontario, after taking into account the proportion of graduate students currently studying in each province.

[9:30 a.m.]

Our last recommendation is in regards to funding for sexual violence prevention, education and response on campuses. Students associations across the province were very proud to support the 2016 legislation that mandated universities and institutions in B.C. to establish and implement stand-alone policies on sexual violence and misconduct.

Bill 23 was a historical step forward in addressing the endemic problem of sexual violence on campuses and one that demonstrated leadership on the part of the province. With Bill 23 coming into force in May 2017, all post-secondary institutions in B.C. now have adopted stand-alone policies.

While institutions now work on implementing the provisions of these policies, it is equally important to recognize the financial consequences that it comes with. Many institutions are expanding or developing new and comprehensive education and prevention programming, setting up dedicated offices for issues of sexual violence, recruiting new professional expertise and improving dedicated support services to survivors. These efforts require a significant investment of time and expertise at campuses across the province.

As part of a broader strategy against sexual violence, Quebec’s government has recently committed $23 million over five years to counter sexual violence in post-secondary institutions. While B.C. is ahead of Quebec in institutional responses, there has been no funding committed to support post-secondary schools’ implementation processes. Financial support from the provincial government to assist this process will help alleviate existing funding pressures but also ensure that student survivors across the province are receiving comparable levels of support.

To provide an example of cost, I would like to reference the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre on the UBC Vancouver campus. It has been funded through student fees since its 2002 creation, and it runs on an annual budget of nearly $277,000. It has provided 428 support interactions for 166 new clients in 2016-17. These support interactions through the SASC have been steadily increasing on an annual basis, which indicates that costs will be much greater for a university-run office.

For such reasons, the AMS recommends the provincial government provide dedicated funding to support successful implementation of sexual violence and misconduct policies at B.C.’s post-secondary institutions in order to ensure that institutions can provide proportional support and education to their community. Two aspects that this funding should take into account are the population size that it will be servicing as well as the level of access to community organizations with similar support capabilities.

Thank you for your time.

S. Cadieux: Thank you very much for your presentation. It’s very detailed.

I have one comment and one question. The comment is around the sexual assault policy. Thank you for bringing it up. As the former minister responsible for domestic violence, I’ve had a lot of interactions with the sector supporting, primarily, women in this area, and I very much appreciate your articulation of the need.

The question is: could you clarify for me what you mean by “non-professional graduate programs”? And why the distinction in that recommendation?

S. Lin: Non-professional graduate programs tend to be very research-based. Professional graduate programs look like people who go into law, become lawyers, MBAs, etc. Often these people who do go into professional graduate programs have a much higher capability of financing in the future for their own livelihood, whereas for non-professional graduate programs, they’re very much based in academia. They’re very research-focused.

Oftentimes, I think, there is less of a recognition of its key, crucial connection to the economy in general. Oftentimes these researchers spend their time doing research, but the product of their work helps inform company and organizational decisions all across the province.

S. Cadieux: Thank you for the explanation.

J. Brar: Thank you, Sally, for coming today. You should be proud of yourself. You represent, you said, 54,000 students. I only represent probably 32,000 constituents. So you have a bigger constituency than me.

My question to you. I would like to ask you if you can elaborate more on the $1,000, what you call the post-secondary completion grant. The way it sounds to me, this grant is given at the end, when the student completes whatever the program. If this is for access, then the grant should be at the beginning rather than at the end, because the access would be blocked at the beginning. I would like you to kind of elaborate on that one.

[9:35 a.m.]

We have received a number of other proposals from students. They have made two particular recommendations — all of them. One is about housing on the campus, and the second one is about mental health. Those two recommendations are not a part your submission. If you can just tell me as to why there is a difference between your presentation and many other student associations.

S. Lin: Absolutely. To your first question on the $1,000 completion grant, this is part of the provincial government’s mandate currently for the Ministry of Advanced Education. However, just as you detailed, the upfront costs of education pose a much more significant barrier to students who want to access post-secondary education.

These students from lower-and middle-income families often cannot even take the first step into accessing post-secondary education. Because of the differences in loans and repayment and the difference between upfront grants, we feel that this is much more urgent, as it provides the students with the ability to take that first step in starting their education, as opposed to coming at the end.

To your second question on different asks, the AMS works fairly closely with the UVSS and the SFSS. Those are the student unions at University of Victoria and at Simon Fraser. We have regular conversations with the Alliance of B.C. Students as well.

When we come to budget presentations, we wanted to make sure that we could cover a broad spectrum of topics. If mental health was an ask that other student unions were repeating, we wanted to highlight sexual violence as an ask as well.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just to clarify. It’s not that it’s not a priority for you; it’s just that you wanted to have the opportunity to say other things to this committee.

S. Lin: Yeah.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you.

T. Redies: Thanks very much for your presentation, Sally. It was really good and very professional.

As a former board-of-governor for the University of Victoria, I was really supportive of having stand-alone sexualized violence policies. I’m very much in favour of this and doing more in this area, because it is an epidemic.

Based on some of the work that you’ve done, have you seen in other provinces programs that have actually worked at reducing the incidence of sexualized violence? You mentioned Quebec was already investing. I’m just very curious on this. If you could direct me to, potentially, other sources of information, I’d be really appreciative.

S. Lin: Yeah. I think a good example would be the Quebec government. They fund a sexual violence education campaign, as well, called Sans oui, c’est non! That means “without yes, it means no.” It’s a consent campaign. Just through my readings, I’ve learned that it’s been quite successful and very well-received on campuses.

However, I think for the B.C. context, there are already a lot of existing campaigns at different campuses. I know that UVic runs a consent campaign. UBC runs one as well. These ones have been informed to have a lot of interaction with students — again, drawing back to the example of the SASC.

We are receiving more and more disclosures from students. In part, it could also be indicative of the success of the outreach that they’ve done in the past. In 2016-17, I think they reached out to over 2,000 students. It’s that awareness that could be bringing students to us as well.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time, but thank you very much. I concur with my colleagues. That was a very, very professional and well done presentation. We appreciate your thoroughness and everything you’ve said and everything you do for all the students at UBC.

S. Lin: Thank you for your time and consideration.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the Mining Association of British Columbia. We have Bryan Cox and Lindsay Kislock.

MINING ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

B. Cox: Good morning, everyone. My name’s Bryan Cox. I’m the president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia. I’m very pleased to be with you here today in the mining community of Surrey. Surrey, you might say, a mining community? Yes, it is. Every community in this province is a mining community. You’ll notice the brochure you have in front of you today: Mining Builds Communities. It’s literally true, and it touches every single part of our life.

[9:40 a.m.]

Today we really wanted to come here and talk to you about mining in British Columbia: the impact we have, the opportunity we have moving forward and the opportunities we have to be the most competitive jurisdiction to mine in Canada, in North America, in the world and to be a producer of choice for the metals and minerals we produce.

Just a little bit about the Mining Association of B.C. We are the association that represents the operating coal, metal, industrial mineral and smelters here in British Columbia. Our mandate is to encourage the safe development and operation of mining-related facilities across B.C. Our members are some of the most iconic companies in this province, which were founded in this province and continue to be headquartered in this province.

Our member companies directly employ thousands of British Columbians, 9,700 in 2016. An $8.7 billion industry in 2016, $650 million directly contributed to government through mineral taxes and income taxes. We’re a foundational industry that contributes greatly to this province.

We have a global reputation in this province as a leading jurisdiction, with diverse and rich mineral deposits in every corner of the province. We are Canada’s largest producer of copper. We’re Canada’s largest exporter of steelmaking coal. We’re the only producer of molybdenum.

The state of the industry right now. It is a challenging time still in the industry. Commodity markets are very volatile right now. Although copper and steelmaking coal have come up, it is still quite volatile. There are positive signs with those commodities coming back. It’s essential now that we need to ensure that there’s a competitive environment in place so that our operating mines can continue to be competitive and, importantly, that those developments that are moving down the regulatory process can have a competitive jurisdiction in which to look at investing and, also, a regulatory environment that provides certainty for their decisions.

There’s optimism out there right now if you look at the northeast. I hope you’re travelling up there as a committee. It’s great that you’re going around the province to hear from folks. The northeast of B.C. is a great story, with Conuma Coal reopening two of the mines up there — 550 people back to work in the communities of Tumbler and Chetwynd. That’s absolutely life-changing for those communities, directly impacting right now.

Importantly, guess what. A lot of the vendors that are supplying that mine up in northeastern B.C. come from all over the province — right here in the Lower Mainland, predominantly. You look at Brucejack in the northwest of B.C. That’s B.C.’s newest mine. It’s an amazing deposit that is going to provide prosperity to this province for the next half-century. Amazing stuff is happening there.

On the Island, Myra Falls is reopening after two years of being closed. That’s going to provide direct jobs in Campbell River and, importantly, those supplier jobs down-Island.

When you think about those 1,100 companies that are suppliers here in British Columbia and you think about all of your own communities…. Think about that. Think of Kamloops. We think of Highland Valley Copper. We think of New Afton. We know those mines are there. But how often do we think about Moly-Cop, the company that provides grinding balls to the mining industry? How often do we think of Arrow Transportation, the company that transfers copper concentrate down our highways? These are the companies that are located in communities.

When you think of the Island, you think of Myra Falls reopening and those suppliers that are located up and down the Island. Importantly, you think of Surrey and the Fraser Valley. There are literally dozens of supplier companies that are located here in Surrey and in the Fraser Valley, servicing the mining industry. So it’s incredibly essential that we have this strong industry, because it ensures that we have strong communities across the province.

Importantly, our opportunity in mining…. I want to touch on this briefly. Our largest metals and minerals that we produce are the biggest contributors to our lower-carbon economy. It takes four times more copper to build an electric motor than it does a combustion engine. It takes over 100 tonnes of steelmaking coal to make one wind turbine. You see it there in your brochure. It’s amazing, the amount of metals and minerals that we’re going to need over the next several years as we transfer to a lower-carbon economy.

B.C. is the jurisdiction that can be the provider of those products. That is our opportunity moving forward — only if we’re competitive, though. We need to ensure that this jurisdiction remains competitive and is competitive into the future.

As commodity prices continue to recover, our members are now looking at their businesses and their business models. They’re looking at where to make investments. Being that this is a global industry that competes with global jurisdictions — for copper, Chile; for steelmaking coal, Australia and several other jurisdictions — we need to view British Columbia and the system that we have in that global context.

[9:45 a.m.]

Effective tax structures and sound fiscal policy are key to ensuring that the industry remains globally competitive and continues to grow jobs and increase investment in every community in this province. B.C. mining companies compete with investment dollars with other mineral-rich mining jurisdictions, which we just talked about, and therefore, we need to be operationally cost-competitive right here in B.C.

The global market design makes mining and smelting operations unable to pass on additional costs to their customers. What does that mean? Well, commodity prices are set globally. We are price-takers in that regard. Therefore, we’re unable to pass along cost increases to the consumer per se, so we need to ensure that we’re very competitive in that regard. We’re competing tooth and nail with other jurisdictions.

Trade-exposed sectors like mining — that’s what we are. We sell our products at that fixed international price. When we’re talking about carbon tax, if you have a mine in one jurisdiction that has a carbon tax added to its cost base while a mine in another jurisdiction doesn’t, the former faces a competitive disadvantage. It’s pretty easy to see that.

If the gap is too high in a carbon tax, what happens is that you have the opportunity for carbon leakage, meaning that the production and the economic benefits that go along with it will shift to jurisdictions where carbon emissions are taxed less or not at all.

The result is that jurisdictions that act on climate change, like British Columbia, can be economically punished, while those that do not are rewarded with job creation and investment. We want to prevent that from happening here in British Columbia.

The global effect of this carbon leakage is to increase global emissions by shifting industry to areas which are not acting on carbon emissions. We have the cleanest electricity grid in North America here in British Columbia — 97 percent clean. That means that the copper and steelmaking coal and all of the other metals and minerals that we produce are the cleanest in North America. We need to continue to do that here in British Columbia with our strong regulations, our strong technology, our ingenuity and our people. We need to keep doing that here.

With the signalled increase to the carbon tax by $5 in the next budget, we need to look at developing a mechanism that will maintain the competitiveness of our trade-exposed industries. We know, and we acknowledge in the mining industry, that a well-designed carbon-pricing policy is recognized as an efficient way to drive carbon emission reductions within economies. We recognize this, but we are unable to pass along our costs.

A mechanism that balances incentivizing emissions reductions while working to maintain the competitiveness of industries like mining should be implemented. This mechanism should be based on principles that include a recognition of the differences in carbon-pricing stringency in other jurisdictions — transparency, consistency, flexibility, incentives to reduce emissions, empirical validation and simplicity. We will have more to say in our written submission, but that is the real key for this industry, moving forward, and one of the big planks to ensuring that we have a competitive jurisdiction, moving forward.

We think we’re in a position to be able to do that. We think that with a regulatory system that provides certainty and timelines for our members as they’re moving through the regulatory process, that’s essential. We’re an industry that touches multiple ministries, so we need to ensure that there are adequate resources, within government as well, to regulate our industry, moving forward. But we also, as I’ve outlined, really need to have that competitiveness in place so that we can continue to be a foundational industry in this province and, importantly, contribute to the lower carbon economy, which we’re moving forward to.

Thank you very much for the time today. Happy to entertain some questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Bryan.

I just want to clarify something. In your written submission, will you actually talk a little bit more about the mechanism you’re talking about in regards to the carbon tax?

B. Cox: We will. We’ll get into that a little more.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We have had at least one presentation I can think of that was thinking of some possible mechanisms to deal with the disparity between the non-participating territories benefiting from the ones who are trying to do the right thing.

B. Cox: There has been quite a significant amount of work that has been done by multiple stakeholders — and, in fact, very diverse stakeholders — around what a mechanism could look like. It’s quite an exciting group of stakeholders that have come around from industry, from environmental groups and others. It’s quite an encouraging conversation. So there’ll be more to be said about that further on — yes, indeed.

[9:50 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Along those lines, just roughly what I was hearing from you on the carbon tax, then, is that as an industry, you’re not opposed to carbon taxes per se. But you want to make sure there’s that mechanism, especially being a trade-exposed industry. If you see your carbon tax go up, not only is it revenue-neutral, but it’s not the mining industry putting it into a pot that then winds up in a totally different industry and you’re left still sitting there saying: “We want to modernize our truck fleet, but we have no way to tap into the carbon tax we just paid.”

B. Cox: Absolutely.

P. Milobar: You want it within your own…. You want to make sure your sector can access those innovation or modernization funds, as well, which you’re paying into.

B. Cox: Certainly that’s a big portion of it. I think that’s why constructing a mechanism that looks at it sector by sector so that you can actually look at how to best incentivize those emission reductions…. When you look at the mining industry, it’s predominantly around diesel and what we do on minesites. So haul trucks, as you’ve just outlined.

That’s really the opportunity. When you’re just putting money, as you say, out the door, it diverts it away from going to the innovative ideas that will actually reduce those emissions. Innovation funds could be an important part of it but also ensuring that that money goes back into operations so that they can, based on their business plans, invest in innovation. It’s really important.

P. Milobar: I just asked that because a lot of times people hear innovation, and they think it’s, “Okay, we’re going to create a whole new subset of the economy,” versus innovating within existing industry.

B. Cox: Exactly. That’s really important too. It’s not just about creating an innovation fund that you have to go access. It’s about ensuring that there’s flexibility for the operators and proponents to be able to design the programs that work for them.

Let’s be really clear. The mining industry is a technology industry. All of these technology companies that are coming to the Lower Mainland and the rest of the province are predominantly servicing the natural resource base. We are a technology industry. We need to make that linkage more clearly to British Columbians, that the mining industry, especially, is a technology industry. So let’s welcome all of these technology companies to Vancouver, because they’re going to help with the solutions moving forward that we’re all looking to get.

P. Milobar: We’ll take a couple of them in Kamloops too.

B. Cox: You can have them. Please.

J. Brar: Thanks, Bryan, for coming today.

You mentioned a regulatory framework. I understand your perspective. We deal with two different kinds of regulatory frameworks. One is the global framework and then, of course, the provincial one.

A few days ago we saw a submission from the Cement Association. They mentioned a very similar thing. They have to pay the carbon tax here, but other companies coming from Asia, selling cement here don’t have to. That puts them in a kind of disadvantaged situation. Having said that, we would like to, of course, see something which is more concrete where we can meet the regulatory framework, which is global, and also meet your needs. We would like to see a more concrete proposal in that regard.

Secondly, I want to ask you…. When you say we need to be competitive, we completely understand that. We want you to be competitive, because we know that that’s the only way you can continue creating jobs and, of course, have more revenue for the province.

Two things. First of all, are we not competitive right now? That’s one question I would like to ask you. Secondly, if we’re not, where are we, with the exception of the carbon tax, and what can we do?

B. Cox: Great question. Thank you.

The elimination of the PST on electricity is a big piece for our industry. That’s a big cost that we’re very welcome of moving forward.

When you look at what the industry is looking for, it’s looking for certainty in being able to come to a jurisdiction, look at making an investment and get to a decision in a timely manner. When you think about competitiveness, that’s a big part of it too. We need to have that regulatory certainty that folks can come to British Columbia, they can look at making that investment, and they can get to a decision.

When you look at B.C., we have an incredibly robust regulatory process, especially when it comes to mining — when you think about the environmental assessment process. That’s the one that most people see in the news and talk about. There’s lots of discussion about it. But after the environmental assessment process, you move into the mine permitting process. That continues for the entire life of the mine, straight through to reclamation.

[9:55 a.m.]

What we’ve worked really hard to do is to get inspection reports, permits, all of the information about the industry on line so that British Columbians can go and take a look at how robust this process is — how many binders of information proponents are submitting, how much iterative discussion there is with First Nations communities, with government and with general communities.

I think that’s a huge step, what we’re trying to do with the association, but we need government to ensure that when folks are coming to British Columbia, when proponents are coming here and looking to invest, they know that they can get to a decision in a timely manner so that they can look at deploying the significant capital investment that they’re looking to deploy in this jurisdiction.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Time’s up. Thank you very much, Bryan. I very much appreciate your presentation, and thanks, Lindsay, for the support.

B. Cox: A pleasure to be here. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Next up we have the Retail Council of Canada — Greg Wilson.

RETAIL COUNCIL OF CANADA

G. Wilson: Good morning. My name is Greg Wilson. I’m the director of government relations for British Columbia for the Retail Council of Canada.

I always like to remind members — and I have nobody on the Finance Committee this year who was here last year — that retail is the largest private sector employer in British Columbia. Retail stores alone employ 285,000 British Columbians, and our industry also has a significant impact on jobs in warehousing, transportation, IT, commercial real estate, finance, legal and other industries.

Others have spoken to this committee about concerns shared by the retail industry, particularly the impacts of the lack of affordable housing and overdue improvements to transportation infrastructure for the movement of our goods, employees and customers.

This government has identified affordability as one of its key goals. In retail, we are attuned to the fact that many of our customers are searching for the best prices. Sales taxes and charges associated to the sale of goods, such as eco-fees, reduce that affordability and directly impact our customers.

British Columbia’s provincial coffers are benefiting from increased retail sales, but I strongly caution you that the retail industry is undergoing very significant transformation, as we see in the closure of retailers, small and large, across a variety of retail sectors. E-commerce, the ordering of goods via the Internet, is now a significant part of most retailers’ reality. British Columbia’s retailers suffer from that reality, the unlevel playing field, as many participants in the on-line shopping world don’t pay or play their part through the remittance of taxes, tariffs and eco-fees.

This morning I want to speak to you about the impact of raising the de minimis level set under Canada’s Postal Imports Remission Order and Courier Imports Remission Order. De minimis regimes are designed to provide streamlined border clearance. The rationale is that the processing cost and administrative burden does not justify collecting taxes or duties on small, individual shipments which, at the $20 level, would typically yield less than $3 in taxes.

Raising the threshold would negatively impact the sales tax collected by the province of British Columbia. It would negatively impact jobs in retail stores and related industries in communities across British Columbia and the level playing field that all business seeks for fairness and certainty.

Raising the threshold even to match the U.S. level, which is $800 in U.S. dollars, is a key demand of the U.S. government in the NAFTA negotiations, one supported by major American courier companies and some of the large, U.S.-based players in e-commerce, such as Amazon and eBay. This would mean that any item costing under $800 U.S. could be shipped into Canada free of federal and provincial sales taxes.

Meanwhile, merchants operating in B.C. would be required to collect sales taxes on the same or competing items, resulting in an all-in price advantage of 12 percent in British Columbia for U.S. on-line merchants. The U.S. lobby doesn’t mention the tax advantage they would gain. Instead they point to the higher de minimis level of $800 in the U.S. But there’s no real comparison between Canada and the U.S.

[10:00 a.m.]

Firstly, the U.S. does not have a federal sales tax, so there is no tax advantage created for inbound shipments. The U.S. also does not collect state and local taxes at the border so the playing field is far more level between e-commerce and local sales.

On this issue, British Columbia’s retailers, particularly small, independent merchants, will be the losers, and large U.S.-based entities will be the winners. An increase to the de minimis level could be devastating to our operations, to our plans for investment and to our two-million-plus employees nationally — 285,000 of whom work in retail stores in British Columbia, across just over 20,000 storefronts.

While this might, at first glance, appear to be more of a federal issue than a provincial one, British Columbia has a significant share of sales tax revenue at risk and, potentially, additional amounts in lost corporate and personal income tax revenue. De minimis at anything like the $800 level would lead to massive increases in cross-border orders, with the obvious negative consequences for retailers in Canada and their employees.

This would be particularly true in apparel, footwear, books, toys, consumer electronics and housewares, most of which are priced well below $800 and easily shipped. Of course, these are the very areas in which many small and medium-sized B.C. retailers specialize. The investments made by retailers in Canada, in establishing our on-line offerings, could be in jeopardy, impacting high-wage jobs in IT, design, logistics and distribution.

Internal allocation of capital would become an issue for U.S. and international firms operating in Canada, as it would become more difficult to persuade headquarters of the need to invest or maintain their further presence in Canada if customers could be just as easily serviced from distribution centres outside of our borders, with a built-in price advantage.

A far better comparison is found throughout the European Union, where sales taxes on cross-border shipments are collected from the first euro. For shipments from outside the eurozone, the de minimis rate on sales taxes is €22, which is $32.25 as of today’s date. In the U.K., the rate is £15, which is about $25 as of today’s date.

The United States utterly dominates the on-line retail space, with only 22 percent of U.S. customers having made a purchase from a non-U.S. seller. By contrast, 67 percent of Canadians report having made on-line cross-border purchases. The scale of U.S. warehouse operations is such that the U.S. can easily afford to offer a high de minimis level, while pushing other countries to raise their own levels.

Canadian retailers have made significant investments in on-line offerings. Our own top ten on-line companies’ sales now match Amazon and eBay’s combined sales into Canada. We can and do compete, but our ability to do so would be severely diminished if our foreign competitors were to be given a built-in 12 percent tax advantage.

So what is the impact to the British Columbia government’s revenues? Government revenues will be significantly reduced, both from forgone sales taxes and from the economic impact of reduced retail activity in Canada. Our preliminary estimate — based on only a de minimis level of $200, not $800 — of the fiscal impact on the province of British Columbia is based on about $12 billion of shippable consumer goods, valued between $20 and $200, being sold annually in the province.

Of this $12 billion of shippable goods, British Columbia currently derives $839 million in PST revenue. That’s what’s at risk. There is no easy way to model how consumer behaviour would change with a 12 percent all-in price advantage, but given consumers’ demonstrated price sensitivity, we do not believe that a 20 percent diversion over time would be far-fetched. It would initially cost British Columbia $167.7 million annually.

In addition, it should be borne in mind that on many goods, retailers in Canada will have had to pay customs duty, from which foreign shipments would be exempt under de minimis rules. While this would not directly affect British Columbia revenues, it would increase the all-in cost difference between Canadian and foreign vendors, which would tend to increase the behavioural shift away from Canadian sources, with consequent further loss of PST revenue.

[10:05 a.m.]

Members of British Columbia’s retail community do not understand why Canadian policy-makers would ever want to confer a tax advantage on a U.S. warehouse seller who employs few, if any, people here, at the cost of a Canadian employer who creates jobs and economic activity — and in doing so, diminish revenues both for the provincial and federal governments. They ask me: “Why on earth would anyone give British Columbians an incentive to shop outside Canada?”

We ask that the British Columbia government strongly oppose any increase in the de minimis level, one that will have a significant and negative impact on both British Columbia’s revenues and jobs across the province.

In closing, on behalf of the retail community, I’d like to thank members of the committee for the opportunity to speak with you today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Exactly ten minutes. Wow, exactly right. That’s amazing. Thank you so much. We really appreciate your thoughts.

Before we go to questions, if I can clarify something. What do you feel the government can do to combat this? Is it primarily through pressure on the federal government through the NAFTA negotiations? Are there other mechanisms that you feel that we could implement that would balance the equation?

G. Wilson: I could be incorrect, but I think six Finance Minsters across the country wrote the federal minister letters. Obviously, that’s something that the current Finance Minster can do.

British Columbia has a presence at the NAFTA negotiating table. British Columbia can instruct those representing it to ensure that they keep the pressure on the federal government not to yield on this issue.

It’s not lost on me that we have a couple of major international retail head offices in Metro Vancouver that would suffer dramatically if the de minimis levels were to change this dramatically.

T. Redies: Just changing lanes a little bit here, there’s obviously a discussion now about increasing the minimum wage. I’m just curious: are there any issues or concerns with the retail association with respect to that?

G. Wilson: In greater Vancouver, the minimum wage is somewhat irrelevant. Employers are having difficulty employing people at $15 an hour, to be truthful. It’s hard to find folks at that level, so it’s not overly relevant here. It’s a bit more relevant outside of Metro Vancouver.

I think our industry and our employers seek predictability. We prefer a process where any path on minimum wage is set out well in advance so that we know what those changes are and can predict the costs. Although retail businesses have to adjust frequently, we’d prefer a path that’s set out a few years in advance, because that provides the proper budgeting and planning flexibility.

J. Brar: Yeah, that’s what we’re doing now. We announced what we call the Fair Wages Commission yesterday, basically, to recommend the clear path to raise the minimum wage.

My question to you is…. You talk about this 12 percent advantage, if that goes through. If that becomes the kind of regulation at the end of the day…. If you ship something to the other side, do you have to pay a tax, or is that a different story? Just to understand how it’s going to work, other than, of course, we need to put pressure wherever we can.

G. Wilson: An American consumer wouldn’t have to pay those taxes, or eco-fees or any number of other items, but Canadian consumers would have to pay them if they buy them in the store. For example, on eco-fees. If you’re charging an eco-fee on a product, that fee is not charged for most U.S. on-line sellers currently because most of them aren’t registered with British Columbia’s extended producer responsibility regimes.

On the Fair Wages Commission, as an aside, I appreciate that it’s hard to find a representative body, but I note that big business is represented on the Fair Wages Commission, but small business is not represented.

[10:10 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Any other questions? I see none.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education — Maggie Milne Martens and Heather Legal.

PARENT ADVOCACY NETWORK
FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

M. Milne Martens: Heather and myself are here on behalf of the Parent Advocacy Network for Public Education. We are addressing you today to bring forward pressing concerns with respect to operational funding and growing inequities in K-to-12 public education within our province.

Public education is the foundation of our future society, but what does it mean? It means that the children in our schools today are the decision-makers of tomorrow. The economic stability of our society, the equitable distribution of wealth and the degree of freedom and democracy that we uphold are absolutely dependent on the quality and equity of our public education system.

This is consistent with the purpose of education outlined in the B.C. School Act and also the B.C. policy on diversity — that all children in British Columbia have the right to develop their individual potential and acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy. The words “democratic” and “pluralistic” are highlighted because they are absent from the B.C. service plans, of both the Liberals and the recent NDP.

As you are aware, B.C.’s public education system has been severely depleted, to the point that it can no longer provide to all children, without discrimination, equitable access to a quality education that meets their learning needs. Clearly, it is time for an overhaul of the per-pupil funding model. However, the promise to do so should not forestall the urgent need for immediate action to provide additional funding to address these grave inequities.

More than any other place, our public schools must be where true diversity, inclusion and equal opportunity are fostered and practised. It is time for a real and meaningful financial commitment.

The NDP government has committed an additional $521 million over three years to cover the full cost of reinstating the 3,500 teacher positions to fulfil the Supreme Court ruling’s restored contract language. However, this is only the first step. B.C. is still struggling to find sufficient numbers of qualified teachers. Now into the fifth week of school, there are 1,000 needed to be recruited provincewide.

The government must create additional financial incentives to attract and retain qualified, professional teachers from out of province. This, in turn, will require funding for the restoration and expansion of district-level teacher supports. This is all the more pressing given the implementation of the new B.C. curriculum and the government’s commitment to the education calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In addition, the old composition language in the restored contract, which is now 20 years old, needs to be revisited to reflect current thinking around supporting special needs in a way that does not stigmatize children. Funding must be increased to provide training, staff and resources to support the full range of learning needs and meaningful inclusion within any given classroom, rather than targeted funding for specific designations. This is particularly true for schools amongst vulnerable and disadvantaged populations.

[10:15 a.m.]

Even once the restored contract language has been fulfilled and adjustments made for projected student enrolment growth, funding still falls far short of providing equitably the breadth and quality of education that all children in British Columbia have a right to receive.

Given that the base operational funding amount in the amended budget has not even increased to reflect inflation, school districts with stable or declining enrolment will once again be on track for cutting vital educational services to balance their budgets. This is on top of the cumulative effects of structural underfunding that have stripped resources and programming from schools and created pressure on parents to compensate through fundraising.

Parents are fundraising for more than just playgrounds. A recent PAN survey, with responses from 38 schools in Vancouver and ten schools in other districts, identified items that had been fundraised for that should be included in a comprehensive public education system. The most consistent amongst all respondents were basic classroom supplies, technology, resource supplies, art and music materials, gym equipment and furniture, including curtains, cafeteria tables, desks and chairs.

This reliance on parent subsidies has created unacceptable inequities based on socioeconomic difference and is harmful to neighbourhood schools who do not have the capacity to fundraise, particularly in urban areas where student mobility to wealthier catchments exacerbates these discrepancies. It is imperative that school districts are given yearly funding, not a one-time handout of $27.4 million, to rectify the unjust and relentless imposition of fundraising on families.

This is not all. Parents are now fundraising to support core curricular instruction, including music, art, PE and sexual education. This highlights the profound depth to which underfunding has eroded the quality and breadth of educational opportunities. This is particularly true for the arts.

Education in the arts is not only core, it is crucial for building capacity for the kind of creativity and flexible thinking needed for our current economic reality and for fostering the empathy and emotional well-being for a more compassionate and inclusive society. Yet specialist teachers and programs in the arts have been drastically reduced in schools across the province.

This is reinforced by the Area Standards document that has removed art, music and performance spaces from new elementary school designs. Art rooms have been almost entirely eliminated, and a recent PAN survey on the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on classrooms revealed that of 37 schools responding, 19 have now lost their music rooms.

In secondary schools, the imposition of class minimums, the outsourcing of equivalency credits and changes to graduation requirements have together resulted in the depletion of core and elective courses in the fine and applied arts, limiting student opportunities. It is the loss of access to educational breadth that most reinforces social and economic inequalities. With arts programming evacuated from the public system, arts education is being largely outsourced through fundraising and private lessons by families that can afford it.

Should hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty in B.C. be denied the opportunity to develop their artistic capacities? Research shows that a high engagement in the arts is instrumental in mitigating the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on life outcomes for at-risk youths. Given that Aboriginal children and children of immigrant families are disproportionately represented within this group, access to cultural expression and participation is also a matter of social justice.

It is imperative that all children have access to the full quality and breadth of educational opportunities as reflected in the new B.C. curriculum. Additional targeted funding to school districts for arts education is overdue and necessary.

In conclusion, we call on the government to fulfil its commitment to British Columbians: to affordability, through a fully funded quality public education system accessible to all children, not just those whose families can afford to subsidize it; to dependability, so that every child can attend a fully resourced neighbourhood school no matter where they live; to a broad-based economy, by providing a public education that has the breadth and quality needed to support a strong, innovative economy so all children have the opportunity to reach their individual potential; and to funding the human resources necessary to support the delivery and integration of First Nations curriculum and culture into our schools.

[10:20 a.m.]

Fulfilling these four tenets is more than just words. Our schools must demonstrate that the betterment of all is more important than the interests of a few. The future health and democracy of our society depends on it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I spent 25 years in the arts, and I appreciate everything you’re saying. I certainly know, in my own personal experience, that if I hadn’t had arts in school, I wouldn’t be sitting here right now. So I really appreciate what you’re saying.

M. Dean: It’s really reassuring to know that our parents and children have such a great advocacy voice. Thank you for all of your work and for coming here today as well.

Because I think the values base is very aligned with the new government, I’m interested to know whether you’ve actually broken that down into some costings.

M. Milne Martens: Last year, in our select standing committee, we looked more at costings for parents, in terms of their compensation. So I can provide the documents again.

For a family to supply tutoring services…. If your child happened to have a learning disability, to get an assessment to have a music lesson, to play on a sports team and to take in arts programming would cost around $7,000 a year for one child. These are all things that should be part of a public education system and which are a struggle for most families, but for children living in poverty — that’s 144,000 children — it’s totally….

H. Legal: Part of it is systemic and the lack of specialist teachers, which is something that we highlighted in our document. It’s something that has to come through…. The expenditure that is the majority, I guess, is the teaching staff. The staffing for schools needs to have specialist teachers again.

M. Milne Martens: Yeah. I think that these are hidden and systemic erosions that we don’t see, and then they are never reflected. We keep lowering the bar, and then asking for it seems like a luxury, when actually, it’s a basic requirement for a full education.

B. D’Eith (Chair): My daughter didn’t have her chemistry textbook the whole year. She never got it. They just don’t have them. It’s interesting.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation and for your passion. Thank goodness that we have parents that are willing to step up. I know that parents have pretty busy lives, and I know that that’s one of the big challenges when they’ve been faced with cuts for so many years.

I was hoping that you could maybe comment on your perspective in terms of the review that’s coming up on the funding formula for students so that we can make sure to capture the essence of what you want to see in education.

M. Milne Martens: Right. I think that, first of all, the funding formula needs to reflect the real needs of school districts, rather than a per-pupil model. Districts that have a different level of costs, such as Vancouver, which has older facilities and maintenance costs…. These all erode their ability to put money into services for students. Regardless of the funding formula, the amount that is coming out is inadequate to support the kind of education that British Columbian students need and our society needs for the future. It should be needs-based.

[10:25 a.m.]

I do believe that in areas like the arts, which are often the first things to go, there needs to be specific targeted funding for that to protect it. There are models in other provinces that have done that, like Manitoba. If you look in appendix C, I think it is, there’s a detailed outline of what we know about the status of arts education in B.C., other provinces that have taken steps towards addressing it and recommendations internationally and Canada-wide, etc., for policies in arts education.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s interesting what you say about the importance of arts in terms of other things and creativity generally — in the tech industry and all sorts of things. In my previous life, I did a project with Science World. There were music people and scientists on the panel, and it was fascinating to find out that most of the scientists were musicians too. It’s just this idea that arts and music are somehow frivolous or somehow expendable. I agree with you 100 percent on that.

Thank you very much for your time, your thoughts and, to echo what Ronna-Rae said, the passion that you’ve put in. I know parents are very busy, and being able to represent them — I really appreciate that.

Next up we have the David Suzuki Foundation — Ian Bruce and Alisha Clancy.

DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION

I. Bruce: We certainly thank you for the opportunity here and appreciate the work of the committee in travelling the province and gathering the views of British Columbians and organizations like ours to make better decisions. So thank you for your work.

We’re here today to speak about four key recommendations for B.C. Budget 2018. Those are specifically around policies that we believe can revitalize the province’s leadership on climate change while diversifying our economy and building healthier communities. Specifically, they are strengthening the B.C. carbon tax incentive, providing dependable long-term investment for B.C.’s public transit infrastructure, accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles in the province and strengthening our communities’ preparedness to address the risks of climate change and more extreme weather.

I’ll speak to the first three. Alisha Clancy will speak to item four, and we’ll leave lots of time for questions.

Specifically around the carbon tax, we’re very pleased with the government’s commitment to move forward in this area as far as increasing the carbon price incentive of the carbon tax. At the David Suzuki Foundation, we’ve been advocating for a $10 increase in the tax over the last few years. We have advocated for a higher level but appreciate the first steps that the government has committed to.

We’re also pleased to notice the government’s commitment on improving the fairness of the carbon tax by applying it to industrial emissions. One of the new commitments by the government is applying it to fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector.

We just finished a study, in partnership with St. Francis Xavier University. It was a peer-reviewed study that was published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, based on our work where we went out and surveyed an area of 8,000 kilometres along the Montney region of B.C.’s northeast, in the area where we have oil and gas development. We were able to measure the propensity of methane emissions from the region, and we estimate that methane emissions from B.C.’s oil and gas sector are at least 2½ times larger than what is currently reported by the B.C. government and by the federal government.

This is a problem across the country. Regulators on the Alberta side of the Montney region have also come up with a similar study. It was led by the Alberta regulator, with similar findings.

[10:30 a.m.]

This is a major issue, and certainly, I think the incentive to ensure that industry has an incentive to reduce those emissions is very prudent. As well, we’re recommending steps be taken to better monitor, measure and account for these emissions.

This is certainly a very important issue, given, also, that the federal government is currently developing regulations nationally to ensure that Canada addresses these greenhouse gas emissions. They account for a very significant portion of Canada’s overall carbon footprint and a major portion of B.C.’s carbon footprint. This is certainly welcomed by our organization. We’ve listed some of the new science that we’ve done, in the submission today.

The second item we’re talking about is providing dependable, long-term investment in B.C.’s public transit infrastructure. We appreciate the fact that the federal government has stepped up to the plate over the last few years with new infrastructure dollars. Phase 1 of those infrastructure dollars has been announced, and we’re glad to see B.C. is moving forward with phase 1 of those infrastructure projects.

Phase 2 is the really big opportunity. That’s where the majority of the money is, at the federal level, and we believe that the province has a historic opportunity to really improve the efficiency of our transportation networks across the province by ensuring that we strengthen the partnership with the federal government. We appreciate the government’s commitment to a new funding framework and a new level of commitment when it comes to investing in public transit, but certainly, one of the big challenges is the regional funding gap.

Municipalities such as Surrey are growing very, very quickly, and one of the big challenges is finding enough funding to match the regional share. We believe that the increases in the carbon tax could provide one of those solutions in investing in infrastructure provincewide. We also believe that the province has, certainly, the powers to provide municipalities with the funding tools that are necessary to meet their share of the formula.

I think the province certainly is the decision-maker in this area, where the province has the ability, one, to redirect some of the potential new sources of revenue towards solutions when it comes to the carbon tax or, secondly, providing municipalities with the tools for they themselves to raise new revenues to address this.

The third policy recommendation we’re making is the acceleration of electric vehicles in the province through a zero-emission vehicle standard. Now, this is the standard that’s been adopted by California as well as Quebec and about a dozen other U.S. states in ensuring that there’s a greater sale and availability of electric vehicles in those jurisdictions for citizens to buy.

One of the big challenges with electric vehicles right now in Canada is that we see very few of the vehicles being developed because we don’t have any strong requirements for manufacturers to sell them. In California, they have a great variety of options for consumers that are getting more affordable by the day.

This is an area we see where B.C. could really move forward. So we’re recommending the adoption of such a standard here in the province, accompanied with infrastructure investments that allow for the charging of those vehicles and the infrastructure that’s needed overall.

I’ll now pass it over to Alisha Clancy for the fourth one.

A. Clancy: Thank you. Our fourth recommendation is to strengthen the communities’ climate resilience by protecting and expanding natural capital. We urge the province to make a clear commitment on nature-based infrastructure and to provide cost-effective climate adaptation and health benefits.

Right now a great opportunity is the Green Infrastructure stream, through the federal government, for B.C. to get to work together with local governments to identify, manage, maintain and rehabilitate natural infrastructure. The major portion of this is to provide municipalities with financial support in doing so.

We have additional criteria listed in the document, but the main focus here is to commit publicly to the principle of natural capital and climate resilience and establish the goals in these communities with funding support through this stream. The federal government currently is working on their green lens in the green infrastructure funding, so I think it would be important to take advantage of this.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much. Maybe you guys could work on getting Tesla to open a plant up here so that we could get our cars faster. Isn’t there a two-year waiting list for Teslas right now or something?

I. Bruce: There is a significant waiting list.

[10:35 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): All kidding aside, thank you very much for your presentation.

M. Dean: Thank you very much for your presentation. I really appreciate it.

You talked about what the province could do. What we’re interested in are the recommendations to the province and the provincial level, and you talked about the province being able to support municipalities with tools for them to be able to do more as well. Apart from increasing taxes, are there other tools that you have that you would promote or that you could give us more details of?

I. Bruce: Well, certainly for municipalities. One of the tools is to make sure that the infrastructure dollars that are there go the furthest they can when it comes to reducing carbon emissions and improving transportation overall.

They could be reducing traffic congestion, for example. Ensuring that municipalities live up to their share of the bargain by ensuring that development goes to…. To make sure the large growth and development is going towards transit-friendly hubs within cities or towns is very important. That’s certainly one that’s beyond the funding.

I think the issue around the carbon tax or other revenue sources is that certainly, in B.C. if revenues are sufficient, it’s easy to make these infrastructure investments. I think with the federal government’s long-term commitment on infrastructure, it makes sense to secure dependable sources of revenue to invest in infrastructure in the province.

What we would say is that it’s better to be taxing carbon pollution than other sources of taxes. So that’s one area where I think it makes sense for B.C. to move forward in this area. And a carbon tax…. By discouraging carbon pollution yet encouraging more innovation, more efficiency in our communities and investing in our communities over the long term to address those needs, it makes a lot of sense.

Fiscally, I think it does make sense to be shifting the province’s focus and looking at what type of consumption taxes or other taxes help reduce pollution or inefficiency, while at the same time making sure that we have the investment dollars there. Solutions like the carbon tax can make a lot of sense.

T. Redies: Hi, thank you for your presentation. Just curious. We had the Mining Association of B.C. in here earlier today speaking about the problems, the challenges, of the carbon tax when you’re a commodity-based industry that’s taking global prices. They made the case that actually a lot of mining materials, of course, go into electric vehicles.

Have you guys thought about the impact of what $100 per tonne would do to downstream industries and costs for consumers that might have unintended consequences to what you actually want to have happen with electric vehicles?

I. Bruce: I think there’s obviously an important role for the mining industry to be part of the supply chain when it comes to solutions to climate change, such as electric vehicles or batteries, for that matter.

Energy storage is also another very important aspect of the energy system and for bringing more renewable energy on line. But what I would say is that the Ecofiscal Commission in Canada has done a lot of research at the provincial scale to evaluate the resiliency of provincial economies to carbon pricing. One thing they have found is that B.C. is probably the most resilient economy in the country. Ninety-nine percent of our economy is extremely resilient to carbon pricing.

We have 1 percent of our economy in the province that is what would be referred to as trade-exposed and energy-intensive. So for this 1 percent of the economy, it is important to have policies that ensure that our industries remain competitive and can compete on the global stage, while at the same time providing an incentive for them to become more energy efficient.

There is an opportunity with the carbon price as the carbon price incentive increases over time. We have options. One is to invest a portion in infrastructure, one in a portion to reducing taxes in other areas and, as well, address this portion of the economy that the province feels is susceptible to carbon pricing and provide incentives for them to become more energy efficient and therefore, more competitive.

[10:40 a.m.]

There are solutions that exist to address these concerns, and the Ecofiscal Commission in Canada has done a very good job at identifying those and particularly those solutions for the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Can I clarify one thing? With the 40-40-20-type formula with investment for infrastructure and things like that for federal and provincial, you’re saying the province is already putting in 40 percent, the feds are putting in 40 percent, and the municipalities are having a hard time coming up with their share. Are you saying the province should be putting in more than 40 percent, then?

I. Bruce: Yes, exactly. I guess what I would say is that you’re right. In phase 2 of the federal funding formula, the federal government is at 40, the province has committed to 40, and the municipalities have committed to 10, which leaves the funding gap at 10 percent.

I think what options there are, what we’re bringing forward, is that there are opportunities, with the commitment to look to the carbon tax, where a portion of those revenues could go back to the regions in which those revenues were generated to invest in transit. That’s one option.

As well, there are also options to provide the regions with more funding revenue tools, which would be legislative changes by the province that would allow municipalities to raise new revenue sources within the regions. There are certainly a number of opportunities.

I know for the Metro Vancouver region that the Mayors Council has put forward options in the past to the province to consider. I suspect they will be probably be making a submission within this process here as well.

The municipalities have identified, I think, a number of options. I’ve sat in an advisory role there, and I would sort of say that I believe that they have identified some very promising solutions that need to be considered by the province very seriously. I think that would go a long way to addressing that 10 percent regional funding gap that you mentioned.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re actually out of time, but if you can keep your questions really short.

J. Brar: We can leave it there.

P. Milobar: I just wanted a clarification on the carbon tax. Just really brief. If you’re going to regionalize carbon tax back to transit and stuff anyways, why overly penalize, potentially, industry if you could just add more per-litre gas tax on in regions that you want it to go into for transit?

I. Bruce: I think that one of the things with the carbon tax is that it does provide a clear economic incentive across the economy that is fair and allows both industry and households, communities and businesses to have the same incentive for reducing their emissions and choosing which options to become more energy-efficient.

There are already some gas tax revenues going towards infrastructure. Much of the federal investment is generated through that means. I think, with the carbon tax, we have an opportunity not only to discourage all types of polluting fossil fuels in a way that’s efficient, and transparent…. I think the formula on carbon pricing is already in place in the province, and it’s an easy way for the province to move forward with clear jurisdiction.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time. Thank you very much, Ian. We sure appreciate your submission and everything that you do for the environment.

All right. Next up we have the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of British Columbia.

Phil and Pete, welcome.

MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

P. Mitchell: Thank you very much for having us. We appreciate the work you’re doing.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Always a pleasure.

P. Klapwyk: It’s great to follow those two — arts education and sustainability. It really plays into what we do.

A Voice: You’re not carbon-producing, are you?

P. Klapwyk: No, actually, we’re one of the cleanest sectors out there — honestly.

[10:45 a.m.]

P. Mitchell: We’ve had a tremendous summer the last year in the film and television industry, highlighted by things like Ryan Reynolds Deadpooling all over Vancouver, promoting the industry. We had Dwayne Johnson tweeting images of himself in Stanley Park, promoting the industry. Kate Winslet was caught sneaking in and out of Honey’s Doughnuts in Deep Cove a number of times. And Johnny Depp went to the Children’s Hospital of his own volition, dressed as Captain Jack Sparrow, and entertained the kids there.

These are some of the highlights that people have seen and heard about the industry, but on the sort of more economic side, it was tremendous as well. This is a big success story for the province.

We recently had numbers released by Creative B.C. that told of $2.6 billion being spent in the province in the last year. About 90 percent of that money that’s spent comes from outside the country. It’s hard currency coming into our economy, rather than being recirculated, so that’s a good side of things. It employs 42,000 people. A tremendous number of vendors also access the industry. A large feature film will have more than 1,000 vendors on its list by the time it’s done.

There’s about $1 billion worth of risk capital that’s been put into the industry, in terms of facilities and equipment. We are out-competing many of our competitors through a combination of high-quality location, facilities, personnel available, equipment — things like that.

We do get a lot of support from the provincial government, which we appreciate. Our tax credits, which are based on employing labour, are actually less than most of our competitors. It’s probably only about 60 percent of what you would get in Ontario at this point in time. But because we have some natural advantages and a long track record and good history of putting high-quality product on the screen, we’re able to do quite well.

There are really three issues we want to talk to you about, two of which are financial in nature, one of which involves finance but it doesn’t involve any expenditure.

The first is that the CRA has become somewhat erratic in its classification of Canadian residency. This has thrown the visual effects community into a bit of disarray, because if your employees are not classified as permanent residents, then you don’t have access to the tax credits. Quebec is subject to a different set of circumstances. The competition from there and other places, like New York and London, where there are large visual effects communities, makes it such that we can’t have this uncertainty.

The provincial government has been great at working with the industry. We’re off to Ottawa in a couple of weeks together. We appreciate that. I just wanted to bring that to your attention in case it comes across your desk. It is an important issue for us. It’s more of a procedural issue than anything else, but it is important.

The other one is we would like the writers to be included in the tax credit calculation. The reason behind this is because there is not as much intellectual property being developed in British Columbia as we would like. Most of the work comes in from outside of Canada, particularly from California.

In order to build a domestic industry, we need an incentive to use Canadian writers. To put them into that tax credit regime would give people that incentive and, hopefully, not only create more employment and develop the skills of the writers but lead to more IP remaining in British Columbia, which is how you build a long-term equity position for the industry.

The third issue is Creative B.C. I know that they’re coming to government with an ask to increase their budget considerably. What’s happened with Creative B.C. — which is the agency of the government that not only administers the tax credits, but it also tries to stimulate local, domestic production — is their funding has been reduced dramatically over the last ten years, to the point where they don’t really have any money to put into local production.

The reason you want to do that is because it stimulates that same IP creation and retention and also because it levers federal government dollars. You can’t get Telefilm money and you can’t get the CMF — the Canadian Media Fund — money without provincial seed money. We would argue strongly that they should be supported and that their budget should be increased.

One of the other things that Creative B.C. does is they hold the film commission within their purview. We have a situation right now where we have more production, we have bigger productions, and we have productions that are arriving with much less lead time. It’s putting a tremendous amount of pressure on a finite number of locations.

[10:50 a.m.]

The film commission has the job of dealing with federal, provincial, municipal, ratepayers’ associations, business improvement associations, individuals and productions, trying to bring all those groups together to make sure that the resource, which is our locations, doesn’t get burned.

We would advocate strongly that more resources go toward Creative B.C. so that they can allocate that to the preservation of those locations. Right now there are only two people working on it, and it’s just not enough.

P. Klapwyk: I would just like to highlight that it’s all about sustainability. We have a really great success story here with the film industry in B.C. It’s through working with all levels of government that we’re able to keep it sustainable, to make it a future-thinking industry, not only in terms of the environment but in terms of job growth and maintaining our presence in the international market.

We have something really special in B.C., and we really want to keep it growing and keep it moving forward. As a labour leader, I can tell you our growth in the last year has outpaced anything we’ve seen in the last 30 years. We’re now outpacing forestry and mining in terms of our job growth. We are providing decent middle-income jobs that people can actually aspire to. They’re creative. They’re technical.

We’re developing more and more programs all the time and interfacing with all of the schools to actually get people into this economy. Our interface with the arts is absolutely paramount. It’s so important to actually fund people in schools so that at the end, this industry can grow as well.

I just want to give you some numbers from my union. I now represent 8,000 full-time members and 6,000 permittees who are working to become members. That is 14,000 people who depend on this industry. They all buy groceries. They all put milk on the table for their kids and buy cars. Every one of them is impacted by every decision that government makes.

That number has grown by 1,700 members in the last year. So it’s almost a third of our membership has increased. It’s simply because the government works with us to keep this industry very sustainable and a very future-forward-thinking industry.

I think that’s pretty much all we wanted to say, other than that the only way we can continue it is through funding of things like Creative B.C., that works really closely with us to make sure that the interface between the ideas of the industry and the actual people in the communities goes smoothly. That’s something we absolutely need to consider.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a quick question for you. Are you saying, basically, “maintain the tax credits but add writers,” as one of the things? Is there anything else with the tax credits, other than adding writers?

P. Mitchell: Not at this moment. There was a reduction in the tax credit, where government and industry worked very well together to make sure it was a soft landing. We appreciated that. It seems to be working. An 80-cent dollar with the tax credits we have is going well.

The writers are really a tweak. It’s not a tremendous amount of money. We’ve said it. Let’s say it a third time. Support for Creative B.C. is very important because we’ve unleashed a bit of a monster. Production is taking off, but we need to make sure we can maintain that in the long term.

P. Klapwyk: It’s really all about, again, the sustainability of the tax credits. We’re interested in keeping it as a cost-effective way of actually incentivizing and enticing production to come here. We wouldn’t say, out of hand, that we want to increase it or decrease it or whatever. We’d like to make sure that we can provide a certain experience for our customers.

That means they can predict that when they come here, they can budget for a certain level of incentive. Like Pete said, we’re not competitive. We have a lesser tax incentive than Toronto, for example, but we have more business than they do.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Do you feel that’s also dependent on the dollar, the U.S. dollar, that that gives a certain…? Are there some issues around that?

P. Mitchell: Whenever anybody makes a decision to shoot anywhere, it’s a basket of attributes that make up that decision. They’ll look around the world. Obviously, the exchange rate is one of the important components, but it’s not everything. We had an ongoing industry at a par dollar.

P. Klapwyk: It is correlative in some sense, but on a global scale. The productions that we work with don’t buy their money the way we do when we’re going to Hawaii. They don’t go to the bank on Friday and go shoot, fly in, on Monday.

T. Redies: Nice to see you, Pete. A couple of questions.

[10:55 a.m.]

You mentioned that the CRA was being erratic. I didn’t quite understand how that’s affecting your industry. Is there something we should be doing to advocate on behalf of the province and the industry?

The second piece — maybe some thoughts around numbers in terms of what Creative B.C. actually needs in terms of funding.

P. Mitchell: Okay. On the CRA issue, the rules for establishing residency have been pretty straightforward and unchanged for a long time. Because we’re growing so fast, we need to bring people into the country. This is not an immigration issue. The people are getting in. It’s that when they arrive and go through the hoops and establish themselves as residents of B.C., for some reason, it is now becoming erratic, the acceptance of those people, even though the rules haven’t changed and the methodology that people are using to establish residency is the same.

It could just be at the administrative level in the CRA. I’m not sure it’s coming, necessarily, from the top. But it could also be an attempt to try and limit the amount of tax credits that are given out.

Federal tax credits go hand in hand with B.C. tax credits, and it’s obviously a federal issue with the CRA. It’s a bit of an enigma, but what it does is throw uncertainty into the equation. The good news is that the province and the industry are working together, and I’m off to Ottawa in a couple of weeks, as I said. But if it doesn’t get resolved, we may need a sort of higher level of pressure.

Then the second side of things, Creative B.C. Their budget is 2.5 right now. They’re coming in with a pretty big ask, which is going to be up in the $15 million range, but that’s going to put it back to where it was perhaps 15 years ago.

The bulk of that money goes towards Canadian producers who have a project. They’re trying to get it off the ground. You’re getting funded through a Canadian network sale, maybe Telefilm, if it’s a feature, or the Media Fund, if you’re doing television, and then you’re going to have your international sales. But all that stuff needs a catalyst. So the catalyst that’s going to be provided is somewhere in the nature of 5 to 10 percent of the budget, and that is going to trigger all those things.

If you’re in Ontario doing the same process, you go to the OMDC. There’s money there for you. There’s that seed money. In B.C., there’s not. If you look at the amount of Canadian production in Ontario versus B.C., it’s completely unrepresentative of the industries. I mean, our industries are basically the same size, but they probably do ten times as much Canadian production. That’s not to say that there are ten times as many good producers there. It’s just that they have access to those funds.

T. Redies: So access to the funding would create more jobs, potentially, as well, here in B.C.?

P. Mitchell: Oh, absolutely.

P. Klapwyk: It would take out the dips and the peaks and valleys of the market as well. A Canadian industry would really help us normalize and stabilize so that we wouldn’t be affected by changes in the dollar or the tax credits.

P. Mitchell: Every provincial dollar that’s spent leverages about four federal dollars.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just to pick up on the Creative B.C. aspect, is that in addition to the B.C. music fund? Is this $15 million for film?

P. Mitchell: No, that’s their entire budget.

B. D’Eith (Chair): And that would include the B.C. music fund. Because there’s already $15 million….

P. Mitchell: Oh, sorry, not the fund. The fund is already in place and established, but they do administer the fund. So the part of the budget that we’re talking about would be the administration part of it. So within that ask of 15 would be administration of the fund, but I don’t think they’re asking for more on the music side right now.

P. Klapwyk: They’ve laid it out. They’ll bring it to you. It’s very well laid out as to how they want to develop IP and incentivize things. Part and portion of it is the administration and new programs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, great. IP is intellectual property?

P. Klapwyk: Yeah. We’re acronym crazy.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s okay. Acronyms, acronyms. Yeah, that’s right.

P. Mitchell: Yeah, sorry. That’s the ownership of the copyright, essentially.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. So if we create it here, we own the copyright, which is a great thing. Then the value stays here, which is really important for valuing companies, because if you don’t own the copyright, the intellectual property….

Any other questions? Oh, we’re out of time.

Thanks, Phil. Thanks, Pete. We really appreciate your time.

Next up we have the Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association. It’s Carol Paetkau. Good morning.

[11:00 a.m.]

FRASER VALLEY BRAIN INJURY
ASSOCIATION

C. Paetkau: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee today. If you can’t hear me, let me know.

I’m Carol Paetkau. I’m the executive director for Fraser Valley Brain Injury Association. We’re located out in the Fraser Valley, and we provide services and supports to people with acquired brain injuries from Langley out to Boston Bar. I’m also a founding member of the Brain Injury Alliance, which you probably have heard about already in your tour of the province, and may hear some more about.

On behalf of our members and board and supporters, we really thank the committee for the past recommendations for funding support for people with brain injuries, through the Brain Injury Alliance, and for the opportunity for me to put in a written submission to the committee. Hopefully you’ve got my electronic version. We’ve been an organization in place for about 20 years, in the field of disability, brain injuries — relatively young. We’re still finding our way.

For anyone who doesn’t know what acquired brain injury is, the population we serve are the people that are injured after birth. An acquired brain injury occurs from a blow to the brain, a blow to the head, some type of traumatic issue or an anoxic-type injury — drug overdoses are a good example. We estimate that conservatively, about 22,000 people a year sustain a brain injury in the province of B.C. alone. That would be a traumatic injury. Potentially, double that in order to encompass people with strokes, heart attacks, substance use — those types of injuries — as well.

What that roughly means is that at least 60 people a day, or 2½ people per hour, have a traumatic brain injury in B.C. alone. The numbers are quite significant. The government, in the past few years, has been kind enough to provide $1 million a year for services to the community brain injury associations, through an organization called the Brain Injury Alliance, which has formed out of, now, 15 member groups — organizations that are similar to mine. We support the work that they’re doing. They have also put in, or will be putting in, a written report, a written submission.

I thought I would spend a little bit of time letting you know what the difference is between the services that we provide and, perhaps, what most people think of, in terms of the medical system, for brain injury. Yes, there is wonderful work being done in the acute care system. People are surviving catastrophic injuries to the brain and being discharged into the community. Unfortunately, even with rehabilitation in the short term, the brain injury does not go away. What we deal with are the people in the community who are still struggling — perhaps five, ten, 15 or 20 years later — with the cognitive and physical deficits that have come about because of their injury.

I thought I’d just tell you an example, because to me, that’s always a little bit easier than reading a whole bunch of statistics. I have lots of those for you as well, but I’ll just read you a little story of one of the individuals that’s just a great example of the types of work that community brain injury agencies do.

This young man…. This is a real young man. I’ve changed his name. Three years ago, he came to us on his own volition. He walked through the doors. He was in tears. A tall, very nicely put-together young man. From the outside, it didn’t look like anything was going on — no issues. We were kind of surprised. For the first time since 2005, he’d just learned that the challenges he’d been struggling with were due to an acquired brain injury that hadn’t been diagnosed.

He’s been injured on a worksite. A tree fell and struck him in the back and in the back of the head. All of his rehabilitation had focused on his back injury, yet he still struggled. He was having terrible difficulties.

A fitness freak, he loved nature. He loved healthy eating. But he just couldn’t seem to overcome some of these issues, which is common with our population. It’s a hidden disability. The majority of people with brain injuries are walking around. They don’t look like they’re injured, yet something is making it challenging for them to get through the day and function normally.

He tried going back to work. That didn’t work. He tried owning a business with his father. That didn’t work. He was simply too cognitively and physically impaired to be successful. Nine years later, by the time he finally reached us, he’d been unemployed for a significant amount of time. He hadn’t accessed any income assistance support. He was completely broke, significantly in debt and, at that time, quite suicidal and depressed.

[11:05 a.m.]

He came to us, fortunately. Through funding provided through the Brain Injury Alliance, we were able to provide him with a life skills worker that goes into his home, helps him with financial chaos, for lack of a better description, and just helps him deal with systems, insurance, all those types of things, and gets him involved with income assistance, PWD. So he has an income.

His family was supportive but really didn’t understand and didn’t know how to help him. He still struggles. We’ve had him for three years, and he still has difficulties. He has had some very good days, a lovely relationship.

Unfortunately, circumstances change with people’s brain injuries, as they do with all of us, and he has now been diagnosed with a seizure disorder, which is also common after brain injury. He’s probably been undiagnosed for quite a few years, perhaps all those years since 2005, when he was first injured. So a milder seizure disorder, yet now, he can’t drive. He lives in quite an isolated community, so driving is the only way he can get his support unless we come to him.

Now, unfortunately, this very vibrant, physically active person is suicidal. He is a significant concern to our staff. We have tried putting all kinds of measures in place, and we will continue to do that. Our role in the community…. Because he’s not active in mental health and he’s not accessing any other services, we are the only ties for him, to keep him fighting forward.

Recovery from brain injury takes time. Six months of rehabilitation through Fraser Health, for example, is great, but it doesn’t go away. Brain injury doesn’t leave just because six months is over and your rehab services are over. So the non-profit brain injury associations are there to serve those people, years past their injury.

A personal example that may help put this in perspective. My son developed a neurological condition at the age of 12. Prior to that — just like someone with an acquired brain injury — a perfectly normal kid, active, healthy, happy, joyful, funny and bright, doing quite well. Then sicker and sicker over time till…. It took us four years to diagnose. So I understand the struggles of these families who have somebody one minute. After a brain injury, there’s a different person there, and they’re challenged to figure out how you support that person.

It wasn’t until I asked him a question, a very simple one: “What do you want for breakfast?” Being the happy, jovial mom…. “I can make you Cheerios. What about some scrambled eggs?” He just stared at me. He could not process that amount of information. He could not make a decision. That’s who we are sending out into the community every day, from the hospitals, from the rehab facilities. They are people that cannot make simple choices.

It’s not surprising that they’re over-represented in the homelessness population. They’re over-represented in the criminal justice system. They’re substantially at risk for substance abuse issues. If they are engaged in substance abuse and crime, they are at more risk for another brain injury. So the cycle continues on, and they fall deeper and deeper into chaos without supports.

I can’t imagine…. My son is now 19, and he made the comment to his sister last night…. He’s well right now. He cycles, and he will get better eventually. But she made a little comment about him living on his own, that he should be out on his own, and he said: “Well, I couldn’t.” She said, being a sister: “Well, why not?” He said: “Because I’d probably die.” He was quite serious. This is a 19-year-old, and he’s right. He probably would.

This is a young man that, in his most cognitively impaired space, cannot choose what to eat for breakfast, cannot make a decision to pick up the phone and problem solve because nobody’s home when he wakes up, and he doesn’t know how to get food. That’s a cognitive impairment that’s not uncommon with people with brain injuries.

What I’m here to do today is to ask the committee…. In the past, you have recommended support through the Brain Injury Alliance to provide extra supplemental funding to organizations like mine, beyond what’s offered through health authorities, beyond what’s offered through community gaming, to provide services that are meeting these needs of this population throughout the province.

When we came, initially, to government, it was because organizations like mine were closing their doors. They had no financial support. They weren’t sustainable, and that left hundreds of people like my son or like Sam without that support that they needed in the community.

We have wonderful success stories, and some of them you’ll see in the report to government from the Brain Injury Alliance. I can go on and on about the successes. Success to a person with a brain injury looks different than maybe to you and I.

[11:10 a.m.]

We might think success is working every day. They might find success as: “Hey, I can volunteer now. I haven’t been able to for the last 20 years.”

On the cover of my submission is a picture of a joyful woman with her arms outreached to the sky. For 15 years, she’d been told she was unemployable. We supported her through life skills support — again, through funding that we wouldn’t have had otherwise — and she’s now certified officially as a fitness instructor.

It took a lot of work on our part, a lot of support. We are now involved with Curves, for adapting their curriculum on how they train their fitness trainers, because of this individual, who is now working full-time. She’s just a joy.

Our recommendation is that the committee support the recommendation that funding for people with brain injuries and the community organizations be ongoing and sustainable. It’s been a great gift to have that funding from the government. It’s helped us branch out into areas we normally wouldn’t be able to.

We now provide family support services. We’ve had family members who have said, “I want to kick my husband to China because I cannot deal with him anymore, and we are this close to divorce,” who are now understanding how that person’s brain works and are now able to have that capacity to love and engage and support and be there for that individual. We have people that are networked together and have created their own support systems. So if they need someone to call at midnight, they have them.

So that is my ask. There are tons of statistics, as I mentioned. I’ll let you read those, if you’d like.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Carol. I really appreciate it. I particularly understand as my son’s best friend had a brain injury in grade 6, I think it was. He went headfirst into a car on a longboard, and we thought he was going to die and all that. When he came back, of course, he wasn’t the same. He wasn’t the same kid. I understand that.

It was really difficult for a child to see his friend, and it’s not the same person — having to learn a whole new relationship. He’s back at school now. He’s been working. But that therapy and that work and that encouragement in the community is so important. Thanks for your presentation.

Questions?

S. Cadieux: Hi, Carol, and thanks for your service to the community.

I’ve worked with people with brain injuries for a number of years prior to coming into government. One of the challenges in the brain injury community, at least from my experience, is that unlike almost every other disability or disorder or medical issue or charitable purpose, the brain injury community has been unable to solicit consistent support from the community. There is no organization that’s been able to maintain any kind of semblance of structure for any kind of length of time and build any ability to raise funds to support.

There was, in fact, money dedicated from the provincial government through the neurotrauma fund for brain injury. At a certain point in time, that stopped because, my understanding was, there was basically nobody to give it to. There was nobody to give it to in a way that was reportable and where there were outcomes and guarantees of the money going to support people.

I understand that that money stopped, and I’m concerned about that, because I do know that the alliance has come together. I think they should be looking to get those dollars back, because it’s already in law that they are to receive funds for that.

Beyond that, from your experience, why is it that the community is so different from other disability and medical issues — to coalesce?

C. Paetkau: Yeah, those are great questions. I have been around for a while, so I have been through many incarnations of the provincial movement in brain injury.

I don’t really have a good answer for why we haven’t been able to. The Brain Injury Alliance, I believe, in my experience of over 20 years, is the first opportunity where groups have been able to come together with a common voice, to be able to provide research to back our claims that, yes, there are injured people out in the province.

In 2010, the neurotrauma fund, which is administered by the Rick Hansen Foundation…. We were told that they were no longer going to provide that funding to brain injury organizations.

[11:15 a.m.]

It was about $300,000 a year, out of the $2 million in the neurotrauma fund. The brain injury community was not included in that decision. We did try actively, with our MLAs, to work through that issue. We have met with the Rick Hansen Foundation. It was a no go, and we haven’t been able to access that. Some groups, sporadically, can get some research grants. But in terms of a consistent, stable funding stream….

The current structure has been working very well. It was initially $3 million, $1 million per year for three years, and then we’ve received an additional $3 million to sustain us until 2021. The funding model is based on a grant system. It’s accountable. We have reporting mechanisms in place, so we do report consistently to government. This one was pulled together really quickly, so you don’t have as much data in terms of what the member agencies are reporting for their statistics. There will be an additional report with accountability.

S. Cadieux: Thank you for that.

C. Paetkau: No problem. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I apologize, Jagrup. We’re out of time. Is that all right?

Thank you very much, Carol. I appreciate all your service and your presentation.

C. Paetkau: Thank you very much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Scott Olson.

Hi, Scott.

SCOTT OLSON

S. Olson: Good morning, and thank you. My name is Scott Olson. I have been a licensed realtor for 33 years. I’m here today in my professional capacity as a realtor within the province of B.C.

The Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, in cooperation with BCREA, has for many years advocated to bring attention to real estate–oriented issues that benefit the public. In the recent past, the boards have advocated for the elimination or reduction of the property transfer tax, on issues relating to the management of water, issues relating to identification and remediation of illegal drug operations and much more.

All of these initiatives and the research behind them were funded by realtors and represent many years of volunteer work and hundreds of thousands of dollars. This volume of work has been given freely to government. We hope that you find value in the results and recognize, in our profession, the desire to give back to the society of which we are a part.

The singular most important possession that a realtor owns is his reputation. The vast majority of realtors within the province operate to a very high standard of ethics and professionalism. However, in the last few years, we have seen a few bad apples dominate the conversation, both politically and in the media. The result has been a rash of sensationalistic media stories and a rush to judgment politically. It’s this rush to judgment and its inherent risks that I would like to address.

Last year the provincial government imposed a 15 percent foreign buyer tax without consulting. All parties unanimously voted in favour of a tax that imposed a retroactive tax on firm sales that had not yet completed, a patently unfair act. The provincial government also initiated sweeping changes to the Real Estate Council of B.C., most of which professional realtors supported.

I would like to speak to a current issue facing my profession: the confusion around agency representation, when a realtor represents both the buyer and the seller in a transaction — something we refer to as limited dual agency. It has become a very controversial topic. I would argue that thanks to the bad behaviour of a few realtors, along with the actions of others poorly trained in their responsibilities under agency, at a time when anything to do with real estate is under a media microscope, you are about to make a fundamental change that will impact a realtor’s ability to properly represent their clients and, consequently, will harm the public by removing their ability to choose.

[11:20 a.m.]

The perception is the changes being considered will prevent realtors from listing and selling the same property, something that is misunderstood. I have always been able to offer my agency services to a homeseller and to sell the home to a prospective buyer as a customer. This will not change with the proposed changes. What I will no longer be able to do is sell the home I have listed, where I have an agency agreement with the seller, to a buyer that I also have an agency relationship with.

Removing the right of the public to choose their representation, someone who has become a trusted adviser and whose counsel is relied upon, is not the right move. The problem is a training and enforcement issue, and it can be addressed by the Real Estate Council. The council has the ability to require that mandatory training courses be implemented in order to renew a real estate licence. They also have the ability to impose fines, penalties, suspensions and even licence revocations for bad behaviour and errors that licensees make. The right move is to immediately train realtors who don’t properly understand their agency responsibilities and to severely penalize those who ignore them — not take away the public’s right to choose.

To conclude, I know that I speak for most professional realtors when I say that we encourage you to empower this restructured real estate council. Done prudently, it will weed out unethical members, who have hurt our reputation, and increase professionalism of all members within an industry that we love.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present. I welcome your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Olson. I really appreciate it.

Any questions from the committee?

P. Milobar: I met with the local real estate board — I’m from Kamloops — a few weeks ago about some of their concerns as well. It seems that some of the limited dual-agency worries…. I agree with you fully that it’s a very small few that are creating the problems for the many. Unfortunately, in government that seems to always be the way rules come into act.

Would there be any way to, potentially, even look at…? It seems like it’s the high-value homes that this turns into being a problem with, in terms of the quick flips and the first seller maybe didn’t sell for as much as they should have and it’s the second person that does. That seems to drive the concern.

Has there been any thought by your association around maybe putting a threshold in where that only comes into effect — a limited dual agency isn’t allowable — if it’s over a $4 million sale, or something like that? That so it’s not impacting 99 percent of the transactions that happen, especially in the more remote towns, where there might only be one agent anyways, and not impact that side of the business, which is the many versus the few potential problem areas.

S. Olson: Right. I can’t speak to whether that’s being addressed or not or looked at, but I would suggest that that’s probably a red herring because dollar amounts change over time. What seems like a large financial transaction to some is small to others. But I guarantee you that for anybody whose home is on the market, it’s a big deal, right? So I don’t think that’s necessarily the right road to go down.

I think it always comes back to properly trained realtors doing their job in a good fashion — a carrot and a stick, if you will. We need to be able to recognize the proper behaviour of good realtors, and we need to get bad realtors out of the profession. They hurt us, and they hurt the public.

J. Brar: Thank you, Scott, for coming and making this submission.

If you go back a few years, the affordability of housing has become a huge issue in B.C., particularly in the Lower Mainland. Part of the problem, as indicated by a lot of media stories, was that there were a lot of speculators and a lot of loopholes in the industry, where people from other countries walk into this country and purchase real estate or properties.

My question to you. Do we still have loopholes under which people, particularly from other countries, can come to this country and make the real estate industry or the housing market, once again, nervous and shoot the prices up? If there are, what should we do?

[11:25 a.m.]

S. Olson: I wish I had the answer to that one. That’s a very, very large question. The problem is years ago we invited the world to B.C. — “Super, natural B.C.” We had Expo 86. We invited the world, and they came because we have something special.

When you have a place like we have — with mountains on one side, ocean on the other, a temperate climate, a very stable political environment — people are going to want to be here. So what we’re seeing right now…. The concern is what’s happening with the Asian market.

It’s not unique to us. This is a worldwide question. It’s happening in eastern Canada. It’s happening throughout the United States. It’s happening in Australia. It’s happening in Europe. That’s just the reality. And it’s not going to stop because we have other markets. We have a Middle East market that is looking at us too. They are wanting to come here.

There’s no simple answer to that. We can’t build a wall, right?

J. Brar: Scott, my worry is probably your worry too. How are my son and my daughter going to buy a house? I understand the business. I understand the free market economy and all that. But the question is…. At the end of the day, I, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and other members have to make sure the people of British Columbia are served properly.

Having said that, I’m not opposed to anybody walking into this country, as long as they follow the rules of the land or follow the rules that anybody else, my son and daughter, has to follow. Having said that, the people, particularly, walking in here and doing all the transactions and bringing money through channels which are not acceptable channels…. I don’t think your industry would support that kind of behaviour.

S. Olson: Absolutely not. We do not support that channelling, like money laundering, which is what, essentially, you’re talking about. Of course we don’t support that.

That’s something that we have no control over. That is, I would suppose, a provincial issue and, even to a greater extent, a federal issue on how to deal with that. That’s nothing our profession can do anything about.

I will say, though, that when it comes to affordability, it’s a fairly simple thing. It’s complex, but it boils down to a very simple thing: supply and demand. We make it very, very difficult to create supply, and we encourage demand. We invite the world to come, and they’ve come. But we make it too hard for people to build homes. We create standards that are unsustainable.

Everybody wants to keep their piece of green space around their home. That’s probably not going to be our future. We have to start recognizing that that 7,000-square-foot lot, which we rarely build anymore…. It went to six, and now it’s four. We have these tightly built communities of homes where everybody feels like they have to have their little bit of green space around them. It’s very, very wasteful construction.

We limit the height of buildings. It’s five years to build a highrise project in Vancouver, or longer. In Surrey, it can take three years. We need homes now.

We don’t provide incentives for developers to build for-rent housing. I mean, we have a rental issue. We are less than 1 percent vacancy when it comes to rentals, and that’s been going on for decades.

[11:30 a.m.]

It’s not hard to solve. But it takes some political will to stand up to neighbourhoods that want to maintain their “way of life” and say: “That was the right thing in the ’60s, but we’re not in the ’60s anymore.” We have to move forward.

To answer your question: what do we do for your children? We make decisions today that allow for housing for the future.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Olson. We appreciate your time, and we will read your submission and discuss it.

Next up we have TRIUMF — Dr. Jonathan Bagger and Sean Lee.

TRIUMF

J. Bagger: Good morning. My name is Jonathan Bagger, and I’m the director of TRIUMF. I’m joined here today by Sean Lee, who is our head of external relations. Thank you for inviting us here today to participate in the 2018 budget consultation process. We are here today to provide TRIUMF’s view on the importance of technology and innovation in creating good jobs and building a sustainable economy in every corner of our province.

I’d like to start by providing a brief background on TRIUMF. We’re located on the south campus of the University of British Columbia, and we’re Canada’s national particle physics centre. Our core programs are in particle, nuclear and accelerator physics, but really our multidisciplinary laboratory supports a large range of applications in quantum materials, nuclear medicine, including brain injury, and data science. We also serve as Canada’s portal to the global network of big science laboratories.

I should say, in the spirit of the morning, that at TRIUMF we also have a very vibrant collaboration underway with the Emily Carr University of Art and Design.

Although we’re national in reach, we’re deeply rooted in British Columbia. The laboratory was founded in 1968 by UBC, UVic and SFU, and today we’re owned and operated by a consortium of 20 universities that span from Victoria to Halifax. We employ over 500 science, engineering, technical and administrative personnel on site.

I’m proud today to tell you that TRIUMF is an engine for innovation. We leverage world-class infrastructure and expertise and push the boundaries of technology to benefit all British Columbians. From training more than 200 highly qualified personnel per year to supporting research breakthroughs that lead to new products and services, TRIUMF demonstrates the full spectrum of innovation, from discovery all the way to commercialization.

TRIUMF directly contributes to the growth of business across British Columbia. One prime example is Nordion Vancouver, which with technical support from TRIUMF produces over two million doses of medical isotopes per year, which are exported to over a dozen countries. Another is Micromatter, a company based right here in Surrey, a TRIUMF spinoff that is quickly growing into a global supplier of specialized foils and calibration standards that are used in industry. D-Pace, located in Nelson, licenses TRIUMF’s technology to produce cutting-edge components used by commercial particle accelerators worldwide.

In fact, TRIUMF has nurtured five spinoff companies since 2010. These B.C.-based businesses are translating technology developed for fundamental research into areas as diverse as oil and gas, mining and health. This clearly demonstrates the value of investing in the province’s research and technology ecosystem.

I’d just like to end my presentation today with a glimpse into the future of TRIUMF and how we’re harnessing our research capacity to deliver health care benefits for British Columbians.

[11:35 a.m.]

Building on our long history of leadership in medical isotopes for the diagnosis and treatment of life-threatening disease, TRIUMF is preparing a new facility, the institute for advanced medical isotopes. Together with partners that include UBC, SFU and the B.C. Cancer Agency, this institute will see the cluster of excellence that will improve the quality of care for patients across the province and also create a launch pad for new technologies. The institute will develop and deploy new isotope technologies to advance drug development and pioneer next-generation treatments for cancer and other diseases.

One shining example can be seen in TRIUMF’s latest spinoff company, ARTMS Products Inc. ARTMS Products is commercializing a made-in-B.C. solution for the clean, green and sustainable production of critical medical isotopes. The company has attracted significant foreign investment and is quickly building an international network of customers. A company on the rise, ARTMS was recently recognized at the 2017 B.C. Technology Impact Awards as the most promising pre-commercial technology of all the companies represented there.

TRIUMF is working to ensure that British Columbia has a steady pipeline of new technologies and companies such as ARTMS, companies that will contribute to the health and the economic prosperity of the province for years to come. Examples like ARTMS demonstrate the power of labs like TRIUMF to solve real problems facing real people in British Columbia and beyond.

Our doors are open, and we stand ready to help. That is my message to you today.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you. I welcome your questions.

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

R. Leonard: Thanks very much for your presentation. I just was wanting to get a clearer picture. One of our big issues around pharmaceuticals is the cost to British Columbians. And the involvement of TRIUMF in this endeavour…. I’m just wondering if there are opportunities there for us to help bring drug costs down for British Columbians through the focus of TRIUMF on….

J. Bagger: Actually, one of the future pillars of this institute for advanced medical isotopes will be to accelerate the production, the development, of new drugs. Right now there’s an incredibly long and elaborate process that new drugs need to undergo to test their efficacy. By using these radioisotopes, you can actually shorten that period. That saves companies money, brings drugs to market faster and, presumably, lowers their prices as well.

S. Lee: I would add to that that this new facility would also allow a pipeline of locally made isotopes here in the province, which currently get shipped in from the United States. By creating these isotopes here, it insulates us from supply chain risk and cost increases. We’re working with BCCSS, formerly HSSBC. It’s a long acronym.

R. Leonard: I don’t know either one of those acronyms.

S. Lee: It’s B.C. Clinical and Support Services. They provide the clinical supplies to the provincial Health Association. We’ve been working with them to try to find a way to work our products into their pipeline. We’re currently in discussions on that.

T. Redies: A broader question. Congratulations on the success of TRIUMF. What do you attribute the success of TRIUMF to? Is it something that we could potentially replicate in other areas of the province or accelerate? And if we could, what would it take?

J. Bagger: I think the strength of TRIUMF derives from two sources. One is we’re actually a national consortium. We have 20 universities who essentially own us, so we can reach out across the country and pull in expertise for everything that we do.

[11:40 a.m.]

We’re also actually embedded in a global ecosystem of these laboratories. Only one-third of the users of our lab are Canadian. We’re bringing foreigners in constantly to TRIUMF. Some stay.

Finally, I’d say the third pillar would be the multidisciplinarity of the laboratory. We pull together physics and medicine in ways that they can’t be combined elsewhere. So broad-based and multidisciplinarity are the things that I would think would help generate success elsewhere as well.

M. Dean: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m just interested in your business model, then. Where do your revenues come from? Are you asking the provincial government for…?

J. Bagger: No. Today what we are doing is asking the government to invest in the sector broadly. We don’t have a particular ask. The way TRIUMF works is the operations funds actually come from the federal government for the laboratory, and the capital equipment comes from a mixture of federal, provincial and private sources.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Can I pick up on that question? Specifically, when you say invest, are there any areas of…? When we say tech, the mining industry comes in and says: “We’re tech.” And they are, but everybody is touched by the tech industry. Are there specific investments you feel would have the most impact?

J. Bagger: I guess I can just speak about the big picture, from my view. You should invest where there’s strength already, rather than try to build something up from scratch. So you invest in strength.

Be aware of the risk and be prepared to fail. In order to have one good idea, you might need to have several bad ideas, so be ready to fail. But then be ready to allow the people who are failing to pivot, extract the lesson out of the failure and the good idea and move forward. That requires a certain degree of nimbleness, which is sometimes hard for government funding to allow.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, and thanks for the success of TRIUMF for British Columbia and the country. We really appreciate everything.

J. Bagger: Thank you for having us here today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia — Scott Ellis.

Hi, Scott.

GUIDE OUTFITTERS
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

S. Ellis: Good morning. Wow. To come a little early and listen to the topics, the breadth and the…. You ladies and gentlemen of the committee have an enormous job to do.

Hopefully, mine is a little different, maybe talking about something you haven’t heard before. I heard super, natural British Columbia. I heard ecosystems. I heard beautiful mountains and waters. That’s really what I’m here to talk about. So I’m glad that other sectors are speaking of that as well.

A little bit about guide-outfitting and where we come from. We have a very proud heritage. It dates back to the mid-1800s, followed in behind the fur trade, and is deeply entwined with the First Nations that were here.

I don’t know if you have my PowerPoint, but I’ll just walk through that as we go. Basically, it provides some photos, as you go through. A little town by the name of Telegraph Creek is where the Callbreath brothers built that cabin in 1847. It’s still there today. I don’t think we’re using it to house international guests.

We definitely have a vested interest in healthy wildlife populations and what’s going on, on the land. The start of tourism — really a lot of that credit is deserved to the Tahltan, and the Tahltan traditional area is where this cabin is located.

A little bit about, maybe, government’s foresight and how government established guide territories and really what that means. Some of the first game wardens in the early 1900s had the vision to require non-residents that came to the province of British Columbia to have a guide. Government later, in the mid-1900s, decided that there was value in individual guide areas and exclusive guide areas and that they’d have more ownership of what’s going on within that guide area.

[11:45 a.m.]

The photo that you see there is of the Omineca region. It’s broken up into guide areas. The whole province is broken up into guide areas, and they range in size. The Kootenays would be the smallest, about 500 square kilometres. The largest would be the northwest, owned by the Nisga’a — 26,000 square kilometres. It’s not necessarily size that matters; it’s a healthy habitat and the wildlife that lives within those guide territories. Since outfitters cannot move, they’re really bound and take a long-term perspective on how wildlife and their habitats are managed.

I’m pleased to see the references to UNDRIP in the mandate letters going forward. We really consider ourselves UNDRIP-friendly. We’ve got more and more First Nations that own guide territories. They were the starting of our industry. We’re pretty excited to see that going forward.

Why do people come here? Well, as some of the other speakers say, we are super, natural British Columbia. You close your eyes and you think about what they come here for. It’s the mountaintops. It’s the pristine valleys. It’s water. It’s air. It’s clean air. When you get off the plane in YVR, it actually smells different than a lot of other places. It’s really quite remarkable. You forget that when you’ve been away, and then you come home and you realize it. It’s really something that people talk about.

Also, what they think about is the abundant game that we have here, the variety of game. We have more species, I think, than any other jurisdiction. The disappointing part about that is we’ve done it by accident. I think, going forward, we need to think and have government provide more foresight in the future, like they did in the past, to make sure we keep wildlife with us.

A little bit about GOABC and where we come from. We’re a non-profit, established in 1966, and represent 60 to 70 percent of the outfitters in the province. We’re a little bit unique, I think. I come from the for-profit sector. I come from the forest industry, and we were really bottom-line-driven. GOABC is not bottom-line-driven.

We put the same amount of resources into wildlife, conservation and volunteer work and effort as we do on business for the association. I think that’s really the balance, and that’s set out in our mission here: “A province with a strong and stable guide-outfitting industry and abundant big-game populations for all to enjoy, both today and into the future.”

I think that when you take that type of perspective on wildlife and the land they live on, it really grounds you. What we’re really concerned about today is: who’s speaking for wildlife?

We are one voice. We put wildlife first. We try to educate urban British Columbia. We try to bring in experts from around the world that provide perspectives on wildlife management — what has worked in other jurisdictions, what could work here. We bring in First Nation leaders. We bring in government. We try to learn from the best to make sure that we are doing the leading-edge technology around wildlife management, whether that would be around DNA sampling, modelling your inventory or whatever may be done. We want to make sure that we’re doing it right and learning from others.

I think animals are an indicator for healthy habitats. They’re really the canary in the coal mine. If our wildlife populations are not doing well, I think that it doesn’t bode well for us in the future. I think what we’ve seen recently are significant declines in moose and caribou populations. With all due respect to my federal friends, I’d rather not have species-at-risk people talking to me about caribou and why we’re not managing them well enough. I think we need to do a better job.

I think there are solutions that are out there. A lot of them are habitat-related. In some of the other presentations, they were talking about incentives and value for business. I think that’s what…. We need to have a little bit of a fundamental shift around, maybe, our forest sector, because our forest sector is one that touches most. It touches the most habitat. I think they need to have incentives for wildlife. Right now their incentive is growing more 2-by-4s.

[11:50 a.m.]

Quite frankly, I think that those are very smart, creative and innovative people, and if you put the forest sector into a challenge and reward them for doing things better, I think that they will. We’ve got many challenges before us, but when we do things about having free-to-grow legislation and we look at things like professional reliance and the limited scope of forest stewardship plans…. I think we can do better.

If you haven’t heard it before, professional reliance is broken. We’ve told the forest industry that. We’re pleased that the current Minister of Environment is going to look at that. It’s one of many. I think that we could do better.

The other one is fire. I grew up in an era when Smokey the Bear was regularly seen on TV, and fire was bad. Fire is bad in our communities. I know friends that lost structures, evacuated. I know other people that fought fires. We have people that are not working today because of fires, and I think that we need to do a better job understanding about where we can use preventative fires, interface with communities, do back burns.

Fire is good for habitat; therefore, it’s good for wildlife, over time. It’s another value on the landscape. It’s not done much around here, but it’s done in the back country. I think it’s a fundamental shift. We need to think about how we protect our communities from fire and how we’ll do a better job to create habitat.

We need to make sure we’re including local knowledge. I don’t want the people in Fort St. John or Prince George telling Victoria people how to manage what goes on in Victoria, and conversely, I don’t want the people in the Comox Valley telling people in Cranbrook. And I think that if you pull in the First Nations, people that are vested on the ground, local people, they will help you come up with good solutions.

We really appreciate that the committee is listening. I think that’s really what…. It’s a tough skill to have, so thank you for doing this.

We have a few recommendations, but really, there has been talk from the NDP and from the Liberal government around dedicated funding for wildlife and improving the model around wildlife funding. I would encourage you to continue to push that forward. Money does not solve all things, but if you put a value on wildlife and you fund their management and fund their science, they will be with us longer.

That’s my message. Please put a value on wildlife.

R. Leonard: Just a quick question on the wildfires of this year. Are you as an association able to do anything in terms of reporting out on the impact to wildlife?

S. Ellis: Wildlife is pretty evasive. From time to time, they’ll get caught on a back burn. Typically, they don’t get stuck by fences. They know where the escape routes are.

Some of the Chilcotin was burned quite badly, and there have been some changes to vehicle access and, I think, hunting closures. We support those types of things. If we’re providing more access or the species is vulnerable, whether that be moose or deer…. As people that hunt wildlife or harvest game, we need to be proactive. I think that we need to take a step back and find other ways to protect them in the short term.

In the long term, the fires will be good. We definitely don’t want to rush out and salvage those and plant a bunch of pine. That is not the way to rehabilitate those mountainsides. Allow some of them to regenerate naturally. It’s good for wildlife.

S. Cadieux: Thank you for your presentation, Scott. I know that the members of this committee probably hold a lot of different views — or, actually, maybe a lot of similar views — on one issue related to wildlife, and that is something we’ve all probably talked about during campaigns and so on. That’s grizzly bear management. Can you talk about what your position on that is or your feelings on that are? We’ve all had to.

S. Ellis: Me too. I was on holidays on August 14, and I think I provided 20 media interviews. At least I was sitting on the bank of a river.

[11:55 a.m.]

I think that whether it was brain injuries or health care or the different issues that you have around social services where people…. They’re very difficult decisions, and I think the grizzly bear one is very emotional for a lot of people.

If you go by the criteria that I spoke about today — if you talk to the locals, if you talk to the local First Nations, if you talk to the communities there — and you want to close the Great Bear Rainforest, we’re not going to oppose that. That would be fairly hypocritical of us.

We would ask, though, that those businesses that have been impacted — there is a taking; there is another use — are compensated appropriately for that loss. It really is a political issue. It’s nothing to do with the grizzly bears. We have grizzly bears in Kamloops. We’ve got grizzly bears on the north end of Vancouver Island. We’ve never had them there before, ever. It’s not about the bears. There are more than 15,000 bears. They’re doing fine.

There are discussions going on right now about the regulations for the rest of the province. What has been put forward by the minister, Minister Donaldson, with all due respect, is a little bit problematic. We’re hoping that we’ll make laws around grizzly bears that will be clear and concise and that people can follow those laws. We don’t want laws that, with good intentions, people try to follow and break other laws.

We’re hoping that if the issue is really around what is called whatever trophy hunting is, and you want to bring that in line or end that — fantastic. We’ve been advocating for pulling the meat out for years, and many of our people do it. It’s valuable, and I think the animal should be respected. Hunting is one of the ways to put value on wildlife.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Ellis. We appreciate your commitment to wildlife in British Columbia and everything that you do — and your presentation and your passion for what you believe in. We really appreciate it.

S. Ellis: Thank you, and thank you to the committee.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Kwantlen Polytechnic University. I think we have three. We have Salvador, Marlyn and Alan Davis. Thank you very much for coming. The floor is yours.

KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY

A. Davis: Thank you very much, and good morning. I’m very pleased to be able to present to you this year as you develop your recommendations for the budget.

Kwantlen Polytechnic University is the only polytechnic university in Canada. By definition, we are the best polytechnic university in Canada, but we are unique. We like to think that we’re unique. We were established as a unique institution to serve a unique region. That region overlaps with the territories of seven First Nations, including, of course, the Kwantlen, who gave us their name.

We have close to 20,000 students. We serve a population of about one million people — Richmond, Delta, Surrey, the Langleys — across five campuses. The population is diverse and rapidly growing, and we like to think that we were established to serve that community. We were, and we are, very grounded in this community.

We are open and accessible. We are not an ivory tower. We do not serve any type of elitism, of any sort. We like to think that we’re a learning ecosystem, and we define excellence in many ways, all the way from qualifying studies and adult basic education through to graduate studies and applied research. Our tag line is “Where thought meets action,” and we really do like to put our money where our mouth is.

All presidents of universities and colleges face the same problem. We are paid to brag about our institutions. We are all number one in one way or the other, yet we always have our hand out for more money. So which is it? Are we fantastic and doing fine? Or are we not so great and we need money to be better? Well, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

[12:00 p.m.]

My estimation is that KPU is sort of tapped out. We’re at about 100 percent of our funded capacity. The share of government funding to our operating has decreased over several years. The costs to students have gone up during that time, and there is an increasing reliance on international education revenues.

We’re actually close to the limit of a healthy limit in terms of 20 percent of international students. That’s very common across the Canadian system. We love those students. They are great. They add so much richness to our campuses, and of course, the revenue that we’ve gained has allowed us to, in fact, expand domestic offerings.

We are flying the plane whilst trying to fix it all the time. Our ability to grab opportunity to expand applied research that’s very relevant to our region and to develop innovative programming that doesn’t just respond to our community but actually anticipates the future is becoming very limited. We’re not able to invest in key areas for the future both for our region, for British Columbia, and, indeed, for Canada.

In the paperwork that we’re handing out, we have four asks. One is related to targeted funding for the expansion of Indigenous learning and teaching. We believe that’s fundamental. We have obligations by signing up for the UN and the Truth and Reconciliation recommendations. We intend to — and with your help, would like to — deliver on those and really move to the next level of expanding our partnership with the Indigenous communities.

A second is on student well-being and safety. We have five campuses, very open, very integrated with the community, and we need to make sure our students are always safe — there are a number of ways — and also well — healthy mentally, physically and emotionally.

Thirdly, work-integrated learning, which is the buzzword in higher education in Canada this year. Everybody has suddenly found work-integrated learning when, in fact, it’s been around for the nearly 40 years that we’ve been in existence, for sure. It means expansion of co-ops and internships and linking the classroom to the workplace and to the community. We do it all the time.

Our goal is for every graduate to have had a real-world experience before they graduate. We’re very close to that. The federal government’s all over this, so there are real opportunities for some matching enhancements of that.

The other one is in innovation, and I’ll close on this. We read everywhere, we hear everywhere and we experience everywhere that the world is rapidly changing. The workplace, especially, is changing. Higher education needs to do this not just with respect to the credentials that it offers but also how it teaches — changing the classroom, changing the experience — and to create graduates for the future, not just graduates who can get a job today but are prepared for a lifetime of learning and relearning.

The notion of investment in higher education for a healthier and productive society and economy is really embedded in the nature of the university and in the kind of innovation that we want to explore. We want to be able to have our students and our graduates define the future and not just be reactive to it.

Lastly, I think KPU is deserving of particular attention. The dollars per FTE that we currently get from government are very low and dropping. The South Fraser region is, as you’ve probably heard from others, ill-served by post-secondary investment in terms of the number of seats available per capita without having to somehow drive north and navigate the crossing of the river.

We give a very good bang for the buck. We’re very open. We’re here. We get the job done, and we welcome your questions.

I’m here with my colleagues, Marlyn Graziano, VP external, and Salvador Ferreras, who is our provost and vice-president, academic.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. I might start, if that’s all right.

I just wanted to pull a few things together. We’ve had a lot of different…. We’ve had students come. We’ve had industry come. So there are a few questions here.

[12:05 p.m.]

One of them is…. There was a challenge from industry that universities and colleges are not adapting to the fact that we’re going to potentially lose 40 percent of our labour to automation, for example. What does that mean — and the structural changes that need to be made within colleges? So that’s one big question.

The other thing is: a lot of the students that have been coming to us have been talking about mental health on campuses and the fact that they’re actually calling for dedicated funding for mental health where now it’s at the discretion of the college or university. I’m wondering about your thoughts on dedicated funding as opposed to discretionary funding on that.

Finally, you spoke to the reliance on international students. The students have also brought up the idea that the fees…. There’s no real regulation around the percentage of increases or decreases or whatever. They’re actually calling for more certainty for the international students.

I know that’s a bunch of questions. I apologize to the committee. I was just trying to pull together from some of the other presentations we had.

A. Davis: Excellent. Let me start with the students and mental health, because that’s in our proposal. That is an area that we would like to invest more in, and I’m quite happy for it to be dedicated money.

I think they’re right. There are some things where…. Identifying money. We have Aboriginal service plans and funding that goes with that. We have targeted funding already. I probably break ranks with some of my colleagues who like complete autonomy in thinking that. In fact, I think it’s the government’s job to target the funding and say, “You need to do something,” or “Give us a plan and then we’ll give you the money,” particularly with mental health.

We experience it every day. We really try to support our students. I think they’re right on with that particular request.

Industry is interesting. I must say that there’s an ongoing conversation between industry and post-secondary education. It’s sort of a love-hate relationship. Sometimes, we’re talking across each other, instead of…. Because we hear what industry’s talking about. They want students who are adaptable, who can think for themselves, they can think on their feet, they’re problem solvers, etc. You sort of translate those competencies and it looks like a BA in history. In fact, it’s probably true, if you’ve got a good student.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a BA in history. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

A. Davis: When you do try to change it to a technical program, you train somebody on certain equipment, etc. Then they go into industry, and, well, the equipment has just changed. And industry gets kind of annoyed, because they have to retrain them. What we are trying to do is to blend the two and give people the specific skills that they need when they have a very clear career in mind, but also to give them, certainly, the understanding that they’re going to have to adapt, they’re going to have to retrain and they’re going to have to rethink.

My colleague Dr. Ferreras is now exploring what are commonly called micro-credentials — that people will keep coming back. They will take short, intense programs at any institution. They will then retrain for the next era in their career or the next change in the digital transformation that we’re going to go through, the automation, etc.

I agree with you. We’re kind of watching the train come, but we don’t really know what’s going to happen with respect to automation. It’s a huge discussion. I’d say we’re right at the table with this. We’re working on a really great new program in advanced manufacturing technology, which is going to leapfrog ahead of the current technology programs, and a number of other areas. I’ll let Dr. Ferreras just comment on that in a second.

With respect to international fees, I’m very proud that our students are standing up for their colleagues who are international students. It’s good solidarity, I think, amongst the students, because you usually only hear about domestic fees.

But yeah. It’s true. The fact is, we are in a bit of a marketplace when we go out to recruit international students and serve them. We are very mindful of the fact that international students have a lot of choice. When you go to the recruitment fairs anywhere in the world, we’re all there.

The students have a lot of choice. We are all trying to sell our competitive advantage. I think ours is very much because we’re applied and we’re in the region that we live, etc. We do very well, but the fact is that the price is competitive. We have to make sure that not only do we cover our costs but that we exceed our costs, and we can reinvest the profits into serving our community by opening up more spaces.

We can’t be displacing domestic students. That’s verboten. But we have to do better than that. We have to run this as an enterprise that is going to add value to the whole community, and indeed it does.

[12:10 p.m.]

I think, in terms of my 20 percent, it’s the notion of: at what point do you become an international school versus a publicly supported, mandated institution? Generally, that’s seen to be 20 to 25 percent across the system. I think the University of Toronto is 20 percent, and then you kind of level it at that.

I don’t know if my colleagues…. Do you want to say anything?

S. Ferreras: Good afternoon, everyone. I think it’s afternoon now.

I wanted to maybe address two of the points that Alan already spoke to. One is this conversation, or this dialogue, with industry that we’re pursuing in a number of different ways. While we’re connected through the Vancouver Board of Trade, Surrey Board of Trade and a number of the regional chambers of commerce, we have one lens on what industry is looking for. A number of industries have come to us to try to respond to some of the demands that they’re seeing — or the workforce that doesn’t have those skills that are now required of them.

We are, in fact, developing these microcredentials, or these badges, that you can acquire. This is a common thing in the post-secondary sector, where it’s very short-term training. It allows the training to happen, say, in the off hours so that people can still do their work and then come back and do the training, or some of it is on line, or combinations thereof.

We’re working with the ITA, the industry trade authority, on trying to find a better connection for students that come into the trades and the technology areas to also acquire some academic competencies that will make it easier for them to be able to work in a variety of not just entry-level positions but also higher-level positions within the companies that they end up in.

We have a number of advisory groups that we have accelerated, especially around the trades and industrial areas, that we’re animating this very year. The development of the advanced manufacturing has two edges to it. Advanced manufacturing, in effect, is automaton on its way, but there will be many, many levels of workers that will be required just to run and to design and to operate the systems that a number of our industries are now only becoming interested in running.

Many of the industries that have talked to us actually don’t even understand what the advanced manufacturing is. It’s the integration of mechanics, or mechatronics, the Internet of things, data analytics, and then the various nuances of the individual industries. So we’re working very hard to try to make this to try to respond to them but also to offer them the added value of: “Your industry does the following. This is how you can move forward.”

We fully understand that there will be people displaced through automation, and that’s something that we’re trying to address, not just in the trades side but also on the academic side, so that we can either retrain, or those workers have an opportunity to expand to other competencies — either through diplomas, certificates or the microcredentials — to be able to expand the scope of work that may be available to them.

On the mental health front, I wanted to say that we approved a strategic plan in 2013 and an academic plan in 2014 that have been guiding our opportunities, our programming, since. Embedded in that, in one of the four goals, was in fact student well-being and mental health. We are investing real moneys in everything from more counselling, advising. We have increased the number of recreational activities that students have access to. Recreation is not just the sport side, but also the yoga, the meditating and the various things that help students do better and have a more positive experience, regardless of the challenges that they may have in their home.

At the university, we’re approaching mental health from two different fronts — one students, one employees. We call it the healthy university framework. So we’re developing even more robust support for students. I don’t think that there’s a day or week that goes by without some article appearing raising the issue of mental health and the kinds of pressures that students and employees find themselves within. It’s squarely on our screen, and it’s something that we don’t look at in terms of one-time funding, but this is integral to our budget planning.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I completely dominated that question period. I apologize. We are over time. My apologies to the committee. Thank you very much.

[12:15 p.m.]

Next up we have the student union of VCC — Zahra and Jenelle from VCC. Go ahead.

STUDENTS UNION OF
VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Z. Hashemi: Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Zahra Hashemi, and I am the representative of the Students Union of Vancouver Community College. I am a recent immigrant from Afghanistan and a graduate of the VCC ESL program. I’m currently taking university transfer at VCC. Today I am joined by our executive director, Jenelle Davis.

Before beginning, I would like to acknowledge that today’s hearing is on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Students Union of Vancouver Community College, or the SUVCC, has represented students on campus at VCC since 1974. Our mandate is to advocate for a high-quality, publicly funded and accessible post-secondary education system in British Columbia.

Vancouver Community College is an incredibly important institution in Vancouver, offering upgrading, university transfer, diplomas and trades training to the most diverse group of students in the province. VCC is key for the current and future economic success in the province.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide comment for the preparation of next year’s budget. In our written submission, we will identify a number of priorities students believe are key in providing high-quality education at VCC. Today’s presentation will focus on the increase of funding to VCC, student financial assistance and also funding for BCcampus.

For nearly two decades, funding for institutions has failed to keep up with inflation, and the post-secondary sector has failed to see any significant increases to funding. In fact, operating grants for institutions have declined by 20 percent since 2001 when adjusted for inflation.

Students directly experience the underfunding in institutions in their everyday lives on campus. Overburdened economic advising departments, long wait-lists for counselling services, and program cuts are just a few of these examples. This cost is put onto the backs of students through high tuition fees, ancillary fees, food costs and even parking costs. As institutions come to depend on user fees to make up larger and larger portions of their budgets, students get forced into more debt and put under immense financial stress.

Properly funded institutions would be an important step towards breaking the cycle of student debt and would mean that students could access the supports and services they need when they attend colleges and universities. For the upcoming budget, we are recommending the restoration of funding back to the 2001 level, adjusted for inflation. This would come out to be approximately $200 million for the 2017-2018 year.

B.C. students and their families continue to struggle with ever-increasing levels of student debt as the cost of pursuing a post-secondary education remains far greater than the resources students and their families have at their disposal.

Graduate outcome surveys conducted by the Ministry of Advanced Education demonstrate that as few as 75 percent of graduates rely on a third party to help them pursue a college or university education through their families, friends, employment, bank loans and government student loans. In fact, according to the most recent outcome survey available on the ministry website, 47 percent of graduates report using government student loans or bank loans to fund or partially fund their education. This figure only includes those who have graduated, not those who are still in the system or dropped out.

There is a direct link between debt and completion rates. In a study published by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the completion rate for students who carry less than $1,000 of debt was 71 percent, while the completion rate for those carrying more than $10,000 of debt was only 34 percent.

[12:20 p.m.]

Research shows that the more debt a student carries, the less likely they are to complete. Yet the most recent Canada student loans program’s Statistical Review reports that B.C. is in the top three provinces for average federal student loan debt, not taking into account debt incurred from provincial loans, bank or other borrowing sources. The establishment of an up-front need-based grant program would not only improve access to post-secondary education but would also lead to an increase in completion rates.

The federal government has recently increased funding to the Canada student grants program, which was a welcome boost to financial assistance for students across the country. However, because B.C. does not have a comprehensive system of student grants, students in this province receive the least amount of non-repayable financial assistance in the country.

The reduction of interest charged on student loans, as effective August 1, is a welcome relief to those who are paying back student loans. However, it still means students who cannot afford the up-front cost pay thousands of dollars more for their education than their peers.

The SUVCC has been pleased to see this committee recommend the establishment of a student grant program in the past four years and several times prior to that. For this year’s budget, we’re again recommending that the province commit to the complete elimination of interest charged on student loans and to the introduction of an up-front needs-based grant program to supplement the existing forms of student financial assistance. Such a move would make a significant difference in student access and affordability and would provide new opportunity to low- and middle-income families.

The final item we would like address in our presentation is one-time funding for open education resources. Tuition fees and ancillary fees are not the only financial barriers that a student struggles with these days. The high cost of textbooks has become a serious obstacle to accessing post-secondary education in British Columbia.

Textbook prices rose by 82 percent between 2002 and 2012, and now typically cost more than $200. For the many students and families who are already struggling to afford tuition fees and the cost of living, this unpredictable expense can be a huge burden.

There is a solution to this problem. Open educational resources, notably in the form of open textbooks, are high-quality resources that are available in digital formats for free or for very low cost — and in print. OER can ease the burden of expensive textbook cost and be made available in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities and those who do not have reliable access to the Internet.

The B.C. government has already identified OER as a solution to the textbook dilemma. Our recommendation is to provide one-time additional funding of $5 million to BCcampus. This infusion of funding will allow BCcampus to create and adopt open textbooks, quiz banks and other resources that will be usable by all.

In closing, we would like to express our appreciation for the past support shown to several key recommendations made by our student union and the B.C. Federation of Students. We hope that the committee will once again recognize the financial hardship and personal debt that students and their families are being forced to bear, and support our recommendations for the 2018 budget. By helping people access post-secondary education, the government is ensuring the future of the productive society and workforce that will help our economy continue to grow and prosper.

Thanks for your time. We’re looking forward to your questions.

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

Before I go to questions, I just wanted to acknowledge that we have a former member, Dave Hayer, in the audience — the former member for Surrey-Tynehead. We really appreciate seeing you. Thanks for being here.

Questions?

[12:25 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: It’s more of a comment, actually, than a question.

Zahra, thank you for your presentation. Just a word of awe and congratulations on your English. It’s terrific. I can’t even imagine being that fluent in such a short time. That speaks volumes of your effort and, certainly, of your instruction. So congratulations, and welcome to British Columbia.

Z. Hashemi: Thanks a lot.

S. Cadieux: What are you studying?

Z. Hashemi: I’m studying first-year English, university transfer.

S. Cadieux: But what is it you’re hoping to study?

Z. Hashemi: I’m hoping to study international law.

S. Cadieux: Fantastic. Well, congratulations, and best efforts to you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. I don’t see any questions. Just so you know, we have met with a lot of students, so the fact that we’re not asking questions doesn’t mean that we totally understand what you’re saying or what you’re asking. You are reiterating what a number of other students have said, and we really appreciate you coming forward from VCC and supporting that. Thank you so much.

Next we have the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of British Columbia — Lisa McGuire.

MANUFACTURING SAFETY
ALLIANCE OF B.C.

L. McGuire: I’m Lisa McGuire, CEO of the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C. We’re a provincial-wide, industry-led and industry-funded organization providing health and safety support to over 3,000 manufacturers in British Columbia. That constitutes about 67,000 workers. It’s approximately 18 percent of the manufacturing industry in B.C.

We serve members such as Canadian Springs, Rio Tinto, Sunrise poultry and Sun-Rype. Our goal is to partner with B.C. industry leaders to achieve cultural change that ensures safe workplaces for all employees. When you look at the manufacturing sector performance in terms of injury rate, we’ve seen a steady decline — we’re very proud of industry for their hard work — starting in 2012 at 3.4 and going down to 2.9 in 2016. Looking comparatively to B.C. overall, it’s remained fairly consistent at 2.2 workers out of every 100 being injured.

When you look at comparing the manufacturing membership that we support, there’s been a significant decrease in the injury rate — from 2012, looking at an injury rate of 5 down to 3.8 in 2016, so a significant decrease of 1.2. Comparatively to the rest of manufacturing, that’s a 0.3 decline from 2.8 to 2.5.

How we are impacting change and supporting our members is by helping them build a health and safety management system to the occupational safety standard of health and safety excellence certification. Why? We have found, through studies through UBC as well as internal review, that health and safety performance is higher with less injuries for companies that have an OC-certified program in place, compared to similar companies without this certification.

We help organizations build health and safety management systems through many ways, through on-line training as well as on site. We develop resources and tools expressly for small business where they’re difficult to access and have on-site support. Programs such as sharing a health and safety professional amongst a small group of companies is what we utilize to help support them, as well as on-site advisory services, where we come on site and really look at their program through a gap analysis and proceed them through a sustained engagement over a period of time.

What we’re seeing is an increase in the demand for qualified health and safety professionals in the manufacturing sector. The impact on the manufacturing industry is that we’ve seen an inconsistent health and safety curriculum across the various academic institutions regarding the profession across B.C.; a shortage of qualified health and safety professionals, with and without experience; a limited practical component when the health and safety training is provided; and the generalist program for health and safety. It requires additional components specific to the manufacturing industry, with speciality areas such as robotics and nanotechnology, which require specific knowledge and training to be able to identify those risks and support controls around them.

How we are addressing the challenge. We were successful and very thankful for being able to move forward at phase 1 of a labour market study last year. We completed that and moved forward with phase 2 late last year, and completed the work at the end of April.

[12:30 p.m.]

The research approach really looked at analysis of statistical and administrative data, reviews of academic and grey literature, on-line surveys and regional focus groups, as well as key informant interviews.

What we found, or the outcomes for the health and safety competencies and qualifications, is that there’s no consensus definition of a health and safety professional, no standards body to oversee the health and safety profession, no standards defining educational curriculum within the health and safety professional program, and a high turnover rate within industry, with half being dismissed from their job. So really significant outcomes as a result of phase 2.

We have put forward an application for phase 3: looking at key outcomes that will support an effective strategy if we’re successful; defining qualifications in core competencies; training methodology; maintaining standards or an oversight body to ensure standards are applied for the training; and communication and outreach so that we include this career choice or consideration for high school students as they enter potential post-secondary institutions.

I want to share that we are leading the nation. My counterparts across the country have contributed in terms of discussion on this potential challenge that not only faces B.C. but Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. We’re looking to build for the future. Ensuring we have effective health and safety professionals for the manufacturing industry will provide resources to ensure safe workplaces which are sustainable organizations.

My recommendations to the committee are to consider providing more funds to the Canada-B.C. job grant program for training to allow employees across the province to invest more money in their people — because skilled workers are safe workers — and to continue to fund labour market studies to provide a research-based approach in making decisions to invest in post-secondary institutions for B.C. to ensure people obtain the right competencies to support their role.

I welcome questions.

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

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. You got through a lot of material. It was nice to follow with this particular format you gave us. The one that really caught my attention which I would really like to understand a little better is the comment that there’s a high turnover rate within industry, with half being dismissed from their job.

What are you saying there?

L. McGuire: According to the labour market study and the information gathered therein, 20 percent of health and safety professionals employed in manufacturing — half of them leave work, finding other employment.

We’re not sure why, because we weren’t able to do further research in that area, and the other half were being dismissed. So they were being let go, and we don’t know why. Whether or not they didn’t have the qualifications and core competencies that were required to fulfil the role is potentially what we’re thinking because that was a key outcome.

R. Leonard: These are health and safety officers whose dedicated job is simply that. It’s not an add-on to an existing job that we’re talking about?

L. McGuire: Right.

R. Leonard: So we are talking about the impact of the lack of education and professional competencies, potentially.

L. McGuire: Potentially that the current training they have isn’t necessarily all of the right training — so skills such as communications and facilitation, because what is really important in their role is to be able to communicate the program to employees, to workers, to managers. We think that that might be that they aren’t trained in that area currently with the academic institutional programs in existence today.

It’s not only prevalent in B.C., but we’re seeing the same challenge outside of the province with the profession. There isn’t a standards body that really provides oversight for the profession that will dictate what the core competencies are.

That’s part of the challenge. Educational institutions can basically define what the program is. There isn’t an oversight saying that these are the key areas within that program that must be included, and this is the length of time within each of those particular components of the program that needs to be there for the profession.

[12:35 p.m.]

That’s part of why we are looking at moving forward a potential phase 3 approach to look at what those will be to help reduce that challenge.

M. Dean: Thank you for your presentation, Lisa, and for your work in this sector and promoting safety amongst workers and industry.

I’m interested in your relationship with the unions and the unionized sector. If you could explain to me a little bit about that and maybe how you might be able to build on some partnerships, for example.

L. McGuire: I think that’s an excellent idea. Our board includes a board member that is from a union so that we garner his input in shaping a strategy to help support our members.

We include discussions on how we build those relationships with key people within organizations that include union participation at the table when we go into organizations and have discussions on helping them through their joint health and safety committee. We often come in and provide recommendations after sitting through a potential committee session and then look at potential training needs that would help support their efforts.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Seeing no more questions, thank you very much, Ms. McGuire, for your comments and your amazing presentation. We’ll look at that and consider.

With the indulgence of the committee, we actually have two people in the room who would like to speak. If I could call John Harvey. He promised he would have a short….

J. Harvey: Yes. No more than 90 seconds. I thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s fantastic. Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.

J. Harvey: I didn’t know anything about this type of meeting until Wednesday. Then I found out.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just so you know, if you want more time, you can still put in a written submission as well, before October 16. That’s fine.

JOHN HARVEY

J. Harvey: Right. Yeah, so I only had yesterday to try and prepare. Therefore, I’ve got these folders for you, which I hope Susan might assist me giving out to all you people.

I thank you and congratulate you for being elected or re-elected. What I have here should most probably be of interest to Mitzi, especially in Esquimalt. It’s to do with the government services and finance, but I am speaking on the government services side. It’s regarding the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

We know that Mr. Horgan has a moratorium on trophy bear-hunting. He’s terminated Gordon Campbell’s position. He’s had an investigation ongoing on ICBC.

I would like a complete investigation of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. All the evidence will be in those folders. I did speak at the Victoria police board. I’m sorry. I tried to do a copy in a nice colour to attract you, but my ink ran out, so it’s only in black and white, what you see in there.

I don’t need questions from you today, and you haven’t got the time, anyway. It’s just…. I thank you, coming from North Van to allow me when it was full, just to give me these 90 seconds. I hope I can get an investigation going from yourselves and a recommendation.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Before you go, sir. What specifically would you like in terms of the recommendation? Like, what investigation do you want in terms of the Police Complaint Commissioner?

J. Harvey: You’ll see that in one of these, which I’ve presented to Mayor Helps and Barb Desjardins in Victoria. I’m looking for a full investigation that might lead to the resignation of Stan Lowe and the deputy commissioner, Rollie Woods. You’ll find all the background of that there, and I’ve got my email. Exchanges can take place if you want further information. But I’d like an investigation.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I appreciate that.

J. Harvey: But not through the Ministry of Justice.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Right.

Before you go, there’s just one question.

M. Dean: Just for the sake of the committee, just to clarify. You have a particular concern with how Chief Elsner’s case was handled.

J. Harvey: Yes. It followed from the other. What you’ll read on there looks like old stuff, but it re-surfaced in Frank Elsner’s case. And you’ll see what Stan Lowe wrote about the appointed lawyer. Also, he castigated the Victoria police boards.

[12:40 p.m.]

When I read his statements, I then made an appearance. I went all the way to Victoria and made an appearance. Unfortunately, those two joint mayors, including Ms. Desjardins, haven’t done anything. So I’m pleased that you got re-elected.

M. Dean: The first time, actually. The first time for me. Thanks.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just before you go, this may be outside of our purview as the Finance Committee.

J. Harvey: I’m looking on the government services side.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I appreciate that. On the government services side, we actually look at their budgets. We don’t deal with the structure; we deal with their budgets.

I would encourage you, if you want to pursue this, to also send this to the ministries as well.

J. Harvey: Well, I sent it to Premier John Horgan, in his office. Nothing’s been done so far. It’s a recommendation to that office, or whatever it is, for a full investigation.

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

J. Harvey: I thank you very much for allowing me.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Dave Hayer, do you want to come up? How are you?

DAVE HAYER

D. Hayer: Very good. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming to Surrey, the second-largest city in British Columbia and one of the fastest-growing — over 1,000 people move here every month — and with the largest school district. I really appreciate your giving me some time, a few minutes, to say a few short remarks.

I served on this committee for nine of the 12 years I was an MLA. There are a few things that I pushed for when I was an MLA and am still pushing for as a Surrey resident. One of them is a new hospital in Surrey. We expanded the emergency, more than doubled it, at Surrey Memorial Hospital, and added a new tower. The Jim Pattison outpatient campus was put in, but we do need a new hospital as the population grows.

A second thing is for K-to-12 education. We’ve put in a lot of new schools, but we still need more funding. We can’t be falling behind. It’s better to be ahead than behind. Many of the people are saying that when they move into the area, they can’t find schools in that area.

Another part is having fair funding for the social programs for the community. Vancouver always gets a lot of funding; we don’t. Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby and Richmond have the SkyTrain going all around. For us, they said: “We can only afford to give you money for light rail, because we don’t have enough funding to put SkyTrain there.” In some places, it’s good to have light rail. In other places, it’s better to have SkyTrain for the speed, so that you can go from Langley to Surrey to Vancouver, etc. I hope that your committee looks at it and recommends to the Finance Minister that we give it fair funding.

The last point I was going to say is that in 2006, our government at that time had committed and signed an MOU with Simon Fraser University, which was to double the full-time-equivalent spaces from 2,500 to 5,000. I advocated for it when I was in government and after I was in government. I’m going to ask the committee to please go back and put in as your recommendation that we should recommit to that — the current government. It is really needed even more than it was needed in 2006.

I will try to send my letter that I had sent to the government at that time, which was sent to the mayor of Surrey, the SFU president, the chair of Simon Fraser University and local MLAs. Then I hope that you can take a look at it and maybe review it. Kwantlen Polytechnic University also needs help, but the SFU Surrey commitment was already made. I just feel that it’s been a long time, and we should really commit to it.

I see that Surrey has a lot of representation there, at least three MLAs, so I’m sure they will have enough clout. I look forward to seeing if you guys are really effective, with the number of MLAs that are taking the number of seats they’re taking here.

I really appreciate your giving me the time. I know you didn’t have an open-mike session, but you did make a commitment to allow two persons to present.

Thank you very much. Have good travels and good listening to the people from all over the province. This is a very, very important committee — probably the best committee, I used to say, to have in the government.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much.

We’re adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 12:44 p.m.