The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

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

I’d first like to begin by recognizing that our public hearing today is taking place on the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Qayqayt people.

We are an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with a mandate to hold public consultations on the next provincial budget.

The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper that was recently released by the Minister of Finance, which includes the following three questions. What are your top priorities to help make life more affordable in British Columbia? What service improvements should be given priority? What are your ideas, approaches and/or priorities for creating good jobs and to build a sustainable economy in every corner of 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 a number of 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, and for those of you in attendance, we thank you for taking the time to participate today. All public input will be carefully considered by the committee as it prepares its final report to the Legislative Assembly. Just a reminder that the deadline for submissions is 5 p.m. on Monday, October 16, 2017. The committee must issue a report by November 15, 2017, with its recommendations for the 2018 budget.

Now, today’s meeting 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 committees are recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services, and a complete transcript of the proceeding will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast as live audio via our website.

Now I’d like to ask the members on our committee to introduce themselves. I’ll start on my far left.

S. Cadieux: Stephanie Cadieux, the MLA for Surrey South.

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

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

M. Dean: Mitzi Dean, MLA, Esquimalt-Metchosin.

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

J. Brar: Jagrup Brar, Surrey-Fleetwood.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Fantastic. Thank you.

Assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial and Mariana Novis from the Parliamentary Committees Office. Thank you so much for everything you do. And Michael Baer and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services, who are always working to make things sound and look great: thank you so much for all your work, you guys.

Our first presenter today is the Richmond Chamber of Commerce — Rob and Matthew. Please go ahead.

Budget Consultation Presentations

RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

M. Pitcairn: Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Matt Pitcairn, and I am the president and CEO of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. To my left is Rob Akimow. He is the chair of our board. I will be doing the ten-minute presentation, but both of us will be available following the presentation for questions.

[2:35 p.m.]

We represent roughly 1,000 members here in Richmond, and we’ve been serving the community since 1910. Today we represent businesses of all sizes, of all sectors — from your one man operating a drycleaner to your YVRs and your WorkSafes of the world. We’re very happy to represent a very diverse group of members and work closely with chambers in all of your own backyards.

Today we’re here to talk about our three top priorities. I’m going to cover housing affordability; transportation, specifically as it relates to the George Massey corridor; and health care.

Starting with No. 1, it’s no secret that Metro Vancouver is an expensive place to live. We knew this, but our chamber wanted to measure it. So last year we went out to our members and asked what impact housing affordability was having on their businesses. We got a pretty strong result back. Sixty-two percent of respondents told us that housing unaffordability was making it harder for them to attract and recruit talent, and 60 percent told us that unaffordability was making it harder for them to keep their existing employees.

This past month the average price of a detached home in Richmond reached $1.7 million. The average detached home sold in Pitt Meadows, in one of the MLA’s ridings, has now hit $900,000. When you compare those two, we’re seeing a lot of Richmond residents, especially young families, moving further and further east. Yet they’re still commuting to Richmond every day, and it’s starting to take a massive impact on our economy. Over 65 percent of our members said that more than half of their workforce commutes from outside Richmond. A third of our respondents said that over 75 percent of their employee base commutes every single day into Richmond.

This leads directly to our second topic, which is the importance of the George Massey corridor. Our chamber believes it is crucial to keep a focus on the most significant traffic bottleneck in our province: the George Massey Tunnel corridor. On a daily basis, 80,000 plus vehicles use this roadway, with data indicating that approximately 60 percent of these drivers are specifically coming to and from Richmond. We know those folks who are driving during those crazy hours are likely coming to work and have no choice but to do that commute every single day. We estimate that that single corridor alone represents for 20 percent of our workforce that commutes to and from Richmond every single day.

The Richmond Chamber of Commerce has been in support of this redevelopment project since public consultation began and going back decades before, when there wasn’t a specific plan, calling on governments in the ’90s and in the 2000s to replace this corridor.

It is now nearly 60 years old and, according to various engineer reports done by experts over the years, is very seismically suspect and in the case of a major seismic event would likely be out of commission for many, many years to come. Some even report that it could lift off the ground and start floating down the river. We hope that doesn’t come for a very long time. We know one day it will, and we have to be ready. Like the urgent need to replace the Pattullo Bridge for major safety concerns, the exact same rings true for the George Massey Tunnel. We do not believe that twinning is a viable option, and a replacement project is needed without delay.

The George Massey corridor is a critical link on the Highway 99 corridor, which connects us to the U.S. highway system, the B.C. Ferries terminal in Tsawwassen, the Delta container port and Canada’s second-largest airport, here in Richmond, YVR. All these are key parts of Canada’s Pacific Gateway, which is of national economic significance. YVR alone accounts for nearly 25,000 employees here in Richmond, with 75 percent of those individuals commuting to and from YVR every single day. Roughly one in four workers in Richmond works on Sea Island alone.

Another key consideration is the Ironwood business district. Hundreds of businesses operate here. For those not aware, that is the business district directly next to the George Massey corridor at No. 5 and Steveston. They all rely on the efficient movement of people and goods to keep their businesses alive. Unfortunately, we’ve heard from many, especially since the recent announcements. Many are suffering financial and human resource losses as a result of traffic congestion. It’s a sad reality that many of these businesses are considering relocation in the immediate future.

A primary example is London Drugs, which has 80 stores across western Canada and employs more than 7,000 staff. Over 10 percent of these employees work right here in Richmond at their corporate head office and distribution hub and various stores in Richmond. Speaking this week to Mr. Clint Mahlman, their executive vice-president and chief operating officer…. He shared his disappointment at hearing the George Massey redevelopment project was delayed.

This decision was extremely damaging for western Canadian–based companies like his. If the present traffic congestion situation is not rectified immediately, London Drugs may have to consider not only relocating their head office and distribution centre to another city but must examine distribution centre viability in the Lower Mainland in general. In addition to their goods being held up unnecessarily, London Drugs is regularly losing employees who are no longer willing to make the commute into Richmond.

Curtailing the trucking of goods through the George Massey Tunnel during peak times is absolutely not a viable option, in our opinion, and will severely impact the local economy, imperil jobs and disrupt countless families. We view this proposed remedy as unrealistic.

[2:40 p.m.]

The solution must not only meet the needs of today but those of future generations. Our region is expecting one million new residents in the next 20 years alone. One must consider the demands on our infrastructure in 2100 and beyond because that’s when any new piece of infrastructure would still be operating. We believe the time to move forward is now, and we hope that the provincial government will consult with the business community and chamber network before deciding on the future of this project.

The last item I’d like to cover is health care. We were very thrilled to see all the discussion around the Richmond Hospital in recent years. Some groundwork was laid by the previous government, and we were very happy to see the commitments made by the new government during the campaign earlier this year.

In March, now Premier Horgan said that an NDP government would commit to building the new acute care tower and will build it on the fastest possible timeline. We were thrilled to see that. We’re in desperate need of a replacement. I’m just going to read through some of the numbers that highlight how urgent that replacement is needed.

Richmond Hospital offers a wide range of acute care services, providing life-saving care not only for the exponentially growing community of Richmond but also for its neighbouring communities, including Delta and South Vancouver, as well as more than 20 million annual travellers who go through YVR. Anyone who has an issue going through our airport — we’re really proud to see that number growing aggressively every year — is served by YVR, especially a lot of international travellers that are coming in and out of our community more and more.

Richmond Hospital is in urgent need of a new, acute care tower to replace its original hospital tower, which is now more than 50 years old, seismically unstable, severely deficient and unable to meet the needs of Richmond’s rapidly increasing and aging population. Just recently, it was announced that Richmond has the fastest-growing seniors population in all of British Columbia. At Richmond Hospital, 70 percent of all in-patients are over the age of 75, resulting in complex care needs.

According to Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the original tower meets just 17 percent of current seismic standards, placing half of Richmond Hospital’s patient beds and all of its operating rooms at extreme risk in the event of even a moderate earthquake of five to 5.9 on the Richter scale. The existing original tower is at risk of collapse in an earthquake, not only endangering patients and staff but also leaving rescue teams with nowhere to take injured people. The infrastructure is obsolete and severely deficient.

The now more than 50-year-old tower has been rated as 79 percent deficient, with multiple failing systems. Renovations and upgrades are no longer possible. Operating rooms which were originally built below the floodplain are at risk in a flood or tsunami and, at half the size of today’s standards, cannot accommodate all of the state-of-the-art surgical equipment that is currently in use.

By 2030, Richmond’s population is expected to surpass 250,000 residents. The number of acute care beds is stretched to the limit today, and there is no way we can handle that future growth.

I’d just like to briefly circle back. I want to talk about the floodplain and the importance of the river. I know that many of the MLAs in front of me today share the Fraser River and, of course, the Thompson, which flows into it.

The Fraser River has been a major priority at the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, going back many, many years. A report has been shared with the Clerks, which our chamber led in 2014. For the first time ever, to my knowledge, it was a report in collaboration with 13 chambers of commerce. Every single chamber from Richmond to Hope got together to highlight the economic significance of the Fraser River and the risks that we face.

In 2014, working with provincial staff, the estimated economic development within just the floodplain of the Lower Fraser was $50 billion. There is a major amount of investment at risk when that major earthquake strikes. So I hope that you’ll have time to review that report, following these sessions, and look at considering an upgraded investment in the infrastructure that keeps us dry along the banks of the Fraser River.

Thank you very much for your time.

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

Questions from the committee.

T. Redies: Just a comment, as somebody who’s commuted up and down Highway 99 through that Deas Island Tunnel, the George Massey Tunnel, since 1981 — I’m really showing my age — and has seen all of the development going through. I’m very glad that you have brought this forward because I think this is a serious issue. The challenge we’re facing right now is that the current project has been cancelled, and we do need to get funding for it.

I’m glad you brought these statistics to the table. Oftentimes, I hear that the majority of people who live in Richmond, work in Richmond; live in Surrey, work in Surrey. I’ve really had trouble believing that, frankly, when I see all the people on Highway 99. So thanks for bringing this forward, and I share your concerns.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. Pitcairn: Thank you. There is more data. Richmond’s historically been a net importer of jobs, primarily because we’re fortunate to have YVR in our own backyard. But we’ve been a net importer for many, many years, and that’s increasing with the housing affordability challenges we’re facing.

J. Brar: Thank you, Matthew, and thank you, all, for coming and making a presentation today. Pretty good information there.

The focus of the current government is affordability. You mentioned housing affordability. I know Richmond is as hard hit. It’s probably second to Vancouver. I would like to ask you…. One of the asks we normally hear: “Give us more money” or “Give us more tax cuts” or that kind of stuff…. How can we make it more affordable, particularly housing?

That’s one complaint which I hear all over the place. Probably you do, too. Normally, when I go out and meet with people, they say: “How are my son and daughter going to afford to buy a house in the Lower Mainland?” That’s not in their range anymore.

What can we do, from your perspective? If you can just explain.

M. Pitcairn: It’s really tough. We spend hours and hours — I’m sure all of you have as well — at our policy committees, talking to developers. I think one of the biggest challenges is supply and the amount of time it takes to get supply to the market from the development stage, to doors opening and to filling those spaces. In the short term, we need to increase supply and expedite the process to get permits through local city halls across the entire region. That would be, I think, the most immediate issue that the province could work with all local municipalities and regional governments to address.

J. Brar: I understand what you’re saying — the supply and demand issue. There is also an argument put forth by a lot of people that there is housing — in Vancouver, particularly, and in some other areas of the province — where people buy a house and just leave it empty. There’s a significant number of those houses, and that does affect the demand and supply issue — how to deal with it.

What I want to ask you…. The second question is…. There is also discussion in the community that there are a lot of loopholes which are being misused, I would say. I understand the free-economy concept. We welcome everybody, but not at the cost of them making housing way less affordable, which our future generations cannot buy.

Having said that, do you believe there are loopholes being misused and that we should close them?

M. Pitcairn: I think there are definitely some reviews that could take place to address some of the loopholes. As a world-class city, we have people from all over the world who want to live here. I think there are definitely improvements we can look at to the system to ensure that these people aren’t just benefiting from our real estate but they’re contributing to the communities that they’re investing in as well. I don’t know what those answers are, and I’m not an expert to identify what loopholes need to be looked at, but I definitely think there’s some work that can be done in that area.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Before I move on, I did want to recognize that we have MLA Linda Reid, who’s also our Assistant Deputy Speaker and MLA for Richmond South Centre. Thank you so much for coming out. I didn’t recognize you without your wonderful robes on.

Are there any other questions from the committee?

Thank you very much, both of you, for a great presentation. We’ll certainly take all of that into account when we make our recommendations.

M. Pitcairn: Thank you very much for your time. We’ll provide an electronic link to that report, as well, so that you can share it with your colleagues. It’s also on our web page.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That would great, very helpful. Thank you.

Next up we have the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, with Bill Veenstra. Wonderful.

CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
B.C. BRANCH

B. Veenstra: Good afternoon. My name’s Bill Veenstra, and I’m here today in my capacity as the president of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch. We very much welcome the opportunity to appear before you. I brought some materials, which are being handed out.

Representing nearly 7,000 members of the legal profession in British Columbia, the B.C. branch of the CBA has a proud history of working collaborative with government to advance issues that matter to British Columbians, particularly in the justice sector.

We’re part of the 36,000-member Canadian Bar Association with branches in provinces and territories across the country. We’re the voice of the province’s legal profession on matters of law and justice, and we advocate for the interests of our members and of the legal profession. We support the rule of law, access to justice, improvements in law and the administration of justice.

[2:50 p.m.]

Our membership is varied. It includes lawyers from major firms in downtown Vancouver, Victoria and other larger B.C. cities, as well as sole practitioners in small firms in every region across the province. We all share, however, a common commitment to the improvement of the justice system for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We have worked with the government over the years and have made substantial submissions on a number of issues. Earlier this year we published our An Agenda for Justice policy document, following up on a similar document published in advance of the 2013 election. It reflects a collection of justice sector needs identified by our members, some of which are low- or no-cost and others of which identify areas where better funding is required. Given the nature of this committee, it’s that latter set of priorities that I’m here to speak about today, and a couple in particular.

We have an access-to-justice issue in British Columbia and across Canada. People often think that access to justice impacts only a small part of our citizenry, but that’s simply not the case. I’ve put in the back of the remarks a little infographic prepared by the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice. Their report last year says that nearly half of adult Canadians will experience at least one serious, everyday legal problem over a three-year period and that unresolved legal problems cost the provincial and federal systems close to $800 million in additional health care costs, social assistance costs and employment insurance costs every year.

There’s a hidden cost across our society when we do not provide access to assistance that helps people to resolve problems. Our current problems in access to justice have been developing over many years, and there is no quick fix. It’s a problem that needs to be and is being addressed by government, the judiciary, the legal profession and community organizations. Government can do more, in my submission, to help address these problems.

The first thing I want to talk to you about is legal aid. Legal aid provides assistance to the less fortunate in our society when legal problems arise. We urgently need investment in legal aid, particularly when it comes to family law cases. At present, representation in family law cases is provided only where there is actual or threatened safety or violence issues or to resolve a serious denial of access to children. And then, only enough is done to resolve that specific problem.

Since the provincial government funding cuts that were announced in 2002, the Legal Services Society has had no funding to provide family law legal services for most family law matters, including child support, spousal support, division of assets and general custody.

Approximately 60 percent of legal aid applicants in family law matters are now rejected due to the limited scope of representation. The majority of those applicants are female. Prior to 2002 in British Columbia, legal aid was available for people who met the income qualification for services, including child custody and access, financial support and maintenance.

Not being able to access those services is creating situations that are not only unfair but also take up more resources in the court system. Individuals who do not know how to tell their story or what supports they can ask for or don’t even know simple court procedures are causing many delays and taking up further court time. Sadly, many of those cases involve children. That has a ripple effect, as other cases are unable to be heard due to limited court time, so it’s a real problem for those of us practising in the court system.

Families, whether together or apart, deserve a system that works and solves their problems expeditiously to reduce negative impacts, particularly on children. That’s why the need to increase funding for legal aid and family law matters continues to be a top priority for the Canadian Bar Association. We need adequate funding to ensure basic representation for people who meet the economic qualification for legal aid for issues that promote family security and financial stability.

Legal Services Society has estimated that at least $20 million of funding is required to provide a range of representation services comparable to what was offered before 2002. That’s one area.

The second area I wanted to bring up with you is funding for court services. The efficiency of the court system is driven by the nature and availability of the resources that are required to run it. I’m sure you’ve all read reports of criminal cases being thrown from court due to the insufficient sheriff capacity, but sheriffs are only one part of the system. My concern is that if we create an influx of sheriffs, it will expose the other areas in which staffing levels are minimal at best. While sheriffs are indeed essential for our courts to operate, so are court clerks, for example.

In many communities, inadequate staffing in the court services branch has led to lengthy wait times for the completion of administrative tasks, such as processing court orders so they can be enforced. While the impacts of this are a bit less dramatic than having a case dismissed, you can imagine the frustration of a litigant who has worked her way through the system, obtained an important order and then has to wait weeks or even months for the registry staff to process that order, because they just go into a queue.

[2:55 p.m.]

The nature of our justice system is that cases are regularly settled or adjourned. Our court registries must have the capacity to take advantage of the sudden availability of Provincial or Supreme Court judges. However, without sufficient clerks, sheriffs and other staff, the flexibility of the system is limited. Addressing the shortage of sheriffs and ensuring adequate court services staff across the province are key needs of our justice system.

I’m already halfway through my time. I’ll mention a couple of other matters here that are less significant in terms of dollars, but I wanted to draw your attention to them.

One of the initiatives that we’ve had within the CBA recently is to focus on ensuring that there are lawyers in rural communities around the province. The lawyers in a lot of communities are getting older. A lot of them are retiring, and not a lot of people are moving to those communities to take over their practices. Many such communities face challenges in recruiting lawyers who are willing to join or establish local practices for those rural communities.

The difficulty we have in attracting young lawyers to smaller communities leaves those communities underserved in that regard. The citizens in that community have no one to do wills, convey property, assist families in crisis or help businesses, and this affects their quality of life.

One example is Princeton, where they had two lawyers about three years ago. One of them retired; the other one suddenly died. Last I heard, there was no lawyer. There was a lawyer from Summerland who was travelling one day a week to meet the needs of Princeton’s people.

There is a problem with people wanting to and being able to, financially, move to smaller communities to establish practices. The CBA has tried to do something about this through our rural education and access to lawyers program. What we have done is get funding from the Law Society and the Law Foundation to subsidize having second-year law students do summer employment with firms in smaller communities that we’ve identified as being high-need communities, where there is either a shortage or an impending shortage of lawyers. That’s one step that’s been taken.

The other thing that we put forward about a year ago was to compare the legal profession with the medical profession. Unlike medical school graduates, who have access to a loan forgiveness program, law school graduates lack equivalent incentives that might attract them to practise in rural communities.

In 2016, we put forward a proposal to have the B.C. government adapt its existing loan forgiveness program for recent law school graduates who’d agree to practise in an identified high-needs community for five years. We hope that if the government adopts that program, it will help to fill some of the gaps that we have across the province.

People who go through law school have typically done at least four years in an undergraduate program, then three years of law school. Then they article, and then they’re out there with student debt of tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. There are big firms in the big cities that if they can go and work for, they’re going to make more money in the short term. There needs to be an incentive, because it’s very hard to hang out your shingle in a small town and try and make a go of it at the same time as you’re trying to manage your student loan. That’s the basic theory about that.

The other thing I want to mention that’s on page 6 of my notes is restorative justice. I know the current minister has made that one of his priorities, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It’s something we put forward in our Agenda for Justice and think it’s an important initiative.

It’s an approach that provides a new set of tools to complement and work in conjunction with or next to the traditional justice system. It focuses on the needs of the victim and community first. It recognizes that while the crime offends society as a whole, it’s primarily an offence against people. It brings together, in appropriate cases — and not every case is appropriate — victims, offenders and their communities in the search for outcomes that meet the needs of those who have been harmed, and addresses the underlying causes of the act.

There’s a whole range of things you can do under restorative justice: restitution, counselling, apology letters, community service. But you can also find creative solutions determined by the stakeholders. The value of restorative justice has been well demonstrated, particularly in terms of satisfaction with outcomes. But outside of the Aboriginal justice area, they remain on the fringes of the justice system.

There are a number of excellent community-based restorative justice programs around the province which do amazing work with minimal government funding. Most of them get a grant, I think, of $2,500 each year. Then, from that point onwards, they’re looking for per-case funding from their local police department, municipal government or grants. A lot of them get very experienced in writing for grants. Our view is that a lot more can be done to help these groups come into the mainstream.

[3:00 p.m.]

They are working hard now to develop standards, to develop training programs, to make restorative justice a viable career path for those who are interested in the justice system. In our view, a bit more funding to help that process along would go a long way in the area of restorative justice.

The last couple of paragraphs here…. A functioning justice system is part of the bedrock of a free and democratic society. Our justice system is full of people with integrity. We’ve done much over the years to ensure that our laws promote fairness, but we have a problem with the ability of our systems to access that system. In order to address this issue and ensure a smoothly functioning justice system, we need reinvestment in that system.

If conflict arises, B.C. should have the right to access justice to ensure that we all have the ability to resolve our problems, plan our lives and business and estate planning, resolve our issues and move on with our lives.

I think my time is up, so I will open it up for questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Before I go to questions, I remember in 2002, one of my best friends from high school, who I actually also did PLTC with, a good friend, got hired. One of her first jobs was firing 500 legal aid lawyers. It was our legal aid system, actually. She was setting up a trip for some people from New Zealand because we had one of the best legal aid systems in the world as a model. They cancelled the trip, obviously. So I hear you.

Questions? Any questions?

R. Leonard: Thanks very much for your presentation. You’ve covered a lot of ground on ways to improve our justice system. I have a special place in my heart for restorative justice. We have a pretty robust program in the Comox Valley. One of the latest programs that they’ve undertaken is about elder abuse. You mentioned families and a lot of other things. I was just wondering if you could comment on the impact of our poor access to the legal system for seniors.

B. Veenstra: I would anticipate that a fair number of seniors would have met the income qualifications for legal aid, so in terms of lack of access to legal aid, that would be significant for them.

The whole area of elder law is one that’s growing because, I think, of the nature our aging population. There’s actually a Canadian Centre for Elder Law at UBC now. They are doing a lot of work in that area. I don’t know of specific problems that they have faced, but I’m sure…. It is a growing area of law and a growing area of focus for the profession and for the law school.

B. D’Eith (Chair): A quick question in regard to court services. If I remember correctly, we’ve also had some closures. Is your talk of services including the fact that we just don’t have enough resources to hear the cases, that they’re not being heard in time? Is that the rationale for your comments in regard to court services, or is it deeper than that?

B. Veenstra: We had, probably around the same time, in the early 2000s, a number of courthouses that were closed. I haven’t focused on that, in part because we don’t have the resources right now to service the judges in the courtrooms that are currently open. I think we need to make sure that we have that in place. Then I guess the next question would be to consider whether there is a need to look at reopening some of the courthouses. They are building a few new ones here and there as well.

I’m not up to speed on where the gaps are in that area, but our focus has been on the existing courtrooms and making sure they can be fully utilized.

B. D’Eith (Chair): The focus is: “Let’s get the resources that are here fully functional.” Right now they’re not. Is that what you’re saying?

B. Veenstra: Yes.

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

J. Brar: Legal aid. Can you just maybe touch upon where we were, where we are now, and where we should be? Also, mention the dollar figure, if you have it — how much money to invest in this to make sure it’s accessible to people.

B. Veenstra: Legal aid, traditionally, up to 2002, had three main areas of focus: criminal law, family law and poverty law.

[3:05 p.m.]

Basically, with the cuts that were initiated in 2002, we were pulled back. There’s very much a focus on when people’s lives, liberty and security are an issue. The coverage is limited to those kinds of circumstances, not whether economic security is an issue.

Criminal law cases have always taken the…. Certainly since 2002, the bulk of legal aid funding has been given to those who are at risk of going to jail. Then, in the family law area, it’s been limited to those where there’s a serious emergency kind of situation. That’s the way the Legal Services Society has adapted to the change in funding.

What we’re advocating for is…. Right now our focus is on a return to the funding of family law services so that it’s not just for those emergency situations but for the range that we had before. Again, as I said, this is limited to those who meet the economic criteria for legal aid access. It’s the less fortunate in our society.

We haven’t focused on poverty law, although I saw a reference to that. I think it might have been in the minister’s mandate letter as something that he should be looking at as well. That would be nice. It’s sort of the next step along the way. Our focus right now — what we see as the main, imminent, current priority — should be to restore services in the family law area.

J. Brar: Is there a dollar figure for that?

B. Veenstra: Yes, $20 million is the number I threw in there, and that’s a number that the Legal Services Society has put out.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. We’re out of time, but thank you very much, and thanks for everything that the Canadian Bar Association does. We appreciate your time.

Next up we have the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia, and that’s Blair Qualey. How are you?

NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

B. Qualey: Very well, sir. Thank you very much. And thank you, everyone. It’s great to be here again. I’m the chief car washer at the New Car Dealers Association. I have the pleasure of representing some 385 new car dealers, who do business in 55 communities around British Columbia. They generate about $11 billion in economic activity, which is about $1.8 billion in net GDP straight to the economy.

We’re privileged to have a number of initiatives and programs, one of them being the clean energy vehicle program for the province, which we have had the pleasure and honour of administering on behalf of government since it first started back in 2011.

Just a couple of quick notes you’ll notice in front of you. Our members directly and indirectly employ just over 36,000 people in the province. One in seven jobs in Canada is tied to the automotive industry. I’ve already mentioned the number of sales, and $378 million in revenues is paid by our members to the various levels of government. Last year over 200,000 new cars and trucks were sold in British Columbia, and we expect this year to break that record. You’ll notice in front of you a sample of some of the dealer members, which should be familiar to many of you. They’re all from your local communities.

There are a few issues I want to touch on quickly today with you. I’ll go quickly over them — there’s more information in the package in front of you — and then I’ll get into detail, given time today.

One I’ll talk about is the importance of the electric vehicle infrastructure to the province. If we’re going to be successful in continuing to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles, continue to reinforce that economic growth in the province is important. It drives the sale of new vehicles and the sale of work trucks. Also, new vehicle sales help to lower emissions, improve air quality and provide safer vehicles on the roads.

Apprenticeships and job training. The career area is one that continues to be a very big challenge for our industry, along with many others.

[3:10 p.m.]

A quick comment a little later on, on ICBC and around challenges they are facing. We’ve been working with them for the last couple of years on a joint industry review, with others in our industry sector, to look at ways in which ICBC can start paying more to the industry partners they work with, who are struggling under the lower rates they’re being paid now for the labour and material damage. We’ll touch on that in a minute.

Electrification is the biggest challenge and the one big point I want to make today. We’ve been working on this program of electric vehicles for many years now. When government first approached us to manage the clean energy vehicle program, they asked: “What are the things we should look at?” Electrification and infrastructure was the big question for us and the big concern.

Our sector and the manufacturers are working very hard to develop, implement and roll out new electric vehicles, but we find, with customers, day in, day out, that they’re all concerned about whether or not there’ll be someplace to actually plug these things in — in particular, in their homes and at their workplaces. Now, there’s been some great support by government over the years for infrastructure in a variety of municipalities, but they wind up being in places that not everybody goes, like city hall. We need to have that infrastructure in places where people can use it.

The program thus far has been incredibly successful in British Columbia — the clean energy vehicle program. We have the highest per-capita penetration of any province in the country. We’re hoping to keep that up and continue to do better. But no matter what our industry does, the big challenge will be on the infrastructure piece.

Good steps have also been made around, for example, incentives like the HOV lane stickers, which have been very helpful to those people that commute every day — having the HOV lane sticker to allow you, as a single driver, to use your electric vehicle in the HOV lane. As an electric vehicle user, I really enjoy that, and I know I’ve heard that from many customers of our members.

Beyond being helpful with administering the clean energy vehicle program for the province and working with industry partners around helping to find better ways to make sure infrastructure is in place, our dealers have been taking it very seriously in their own businesses and looking at ways in which they can make their dealerships more green.

I’ve given you an example of a dealership here in Richmond, Auto West BMW, that won the Most Sustainable BMW Dealership in the World award, which is a pretty significant thing. They have everything from a green roof to honeybees on the roof, where they make terrific honey — I’ve had the pleasure of having some — a wind turbine, geothermal heating and water recirculation. All of our dealers are putting new lighting in place.

We’re also trying to work closely with the municipal governments. For a number of years, now, we’ve been a sponsor at UBCM and this year, as we did last year, ran test drives for these clean energy vehicle programs. So you’ll see some pictures here of some of those vehicles, just last week, as we were there, and an example of some of the new vehicles that are coming along.

You will have probably seen, as we all have, the latest news stories of vehicle manufacturer after vehicle manufacturer coming out with new models of electric vehicles. Technology is revolutionizing our industry. It’s an exciting, incredibly challenging time — but brings with it tremendous opportunities.

On the environmental side, the other program I wanted to touch on quickly is the B.C. SCRAP-IT program. The B.C. SCRAP-IT program has been running for many, many years. It has scrapped over 40,000 old gas-powered vehicles in favour of newer, more fuel-efficient, less polluting vehicles. They now have an electric vehicle program which is paid for by an oil company through the fuel regulations in this province. Regrettably, SCRAP-IT has not had any contribution from government for the gas to gas program since 2014, and frankly, that program is virtually out of money now.

I know the gap between a gas-powered vehicle and an electric vehicle, in terms of GHG reductions, is greater than a gas-powered vehicle to a new gas-powered vehicle, but I think we’re missing a huge opportunity, particularly since we got rid of AirCare a few years ago, on the air quality piece. You’ll see a couple of examples and charts in here. It shows how old…. We have the oldest fleet in the country. Some 13-year-old vehicles are the average age of a vehicle on the road.

[3:15 p.m.]

Encouraging some folks to move into an even newer gas-powered vehicle from some of those very old ones will make a significant difference in pollutants and improve air quality, as well as help us in our collective desire to reduce the greenhouse gases. So we’ll leave those there for you as well.

To shift quickly out of the environmental side, one last thing. I hold in my hand a Green Star Award. These are the awards that we give to dealers in the province who do really great work — you know, most improved sales of electric vehicles, those kinds of things — to celebrate the great work there.

Now, on to a couple of tax-related issues. Those of you that have followed these proceedings over the years have probably heard me talk about the luxury tax on vehicles many times, and I’ll do it one more time.

Luxury tax applies to any vehicle over $55,000. Luxury tax was put in, in the 1990s. Regrettably, as the cost of vehicles has gone up, the threshold of the tax has not gone up significantly. Regrettably, for a number of years now, the tax captures work vehicles — pickup trucks, things that people outside of the Lower Mainland, and inside the Lower Mainland, use for their work vehicles on a daily basis. Again, we’re here to say that it’s seriously time to have a look at the $55,000 threshold. For sure, look at excluding trucks from this luxury tax, because today the average work truck, for somebody that’s an entrepreneur, a carpenter or someone else, is exceeding the $55,000.

I’ll draw your attention to a couple pictures there — other things that one might consider luxury items. An $88,000 boat does not get luxury tax, nor does a multi-million-dollar RV or planes and other things that have wheels.

There’s an issue on PST on leased vehicles, which we’ve raised before. I won’t go into any more detail on that. If you have questions later, I can cover that, but we’ve talked about that here before.

The last thing I want to talk about is job training and finding well-trained people as technology revolutionizes our industry. I don’t know if you’ve lifted the hood on a car lately. They’re pretty complex places full of computers and other things.

We, as is every other industry, are facing a significant challenge with an aging population of employees. The average age of a service technician in the province is 54 years old. We expect some 20,000 job openings in the next decade in the automotive sector in B.C., and we’re having trouble finding good, qualified people. Anything that can be done to continue to invest in training at the post-secondary educational institutions and other ways to help us attract folks to come into our industry would be most well-received.

The last couple of things on here are just informational for the committee. We are privileged to run the Vancouver International Auto Show every year, which is in the Vancouver Convention Centre, which I invite you all to come to at the end of March next year. And just a quick mention of our foundation, which has been doing a lot of work for many, many years helping with grants to students that want to improve their skills to come into our sector, as well as raising almost $5 million for Special Olympics B.C.

So a very quick overview for you. I look forward to any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.

I thought of this idea of having a pledge so that everybody who has a gas-powered vehicle pledges that their next vehicle is going to be electric. I was thinking: “Wouldn’t that be a great thing for the New Car Dealers Association to take on?” But it’s just an idea.

B. Qualey: May I respond to that?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Of course.

B. Qualey: Electric vehicles are one option. Not everybody, at this stage, can use an electric vehicle in their lives.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Of course. We’ve talked to people from up north, and it’s tough.

B. Qualey: So to the point about the B.C. SCRAP-IT program, even if we can move a good-sized group of people from an older, more polluting vehicle into a less polluting gas vehicle, we’re going to make a big difference on the way to the point where we’d all like to be: where everybody is driving electric.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, I’ll water it down. Pledge to make it a less polluting vehicle.

Anyway, any questions from the floor?

[3:20 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Just further on the EV program. To your mind, should it just stay at the $5,000? Should it increase? Should it increase and have more money put into charging infrastructure, or $5,000 and charging infrastructure? What mix do you think is needed to kind of start getting that tipping point, especially in the metro areas?

B. Qualey: The $5,000 has worked well and, I think, is enough to incent people. If I were sitting in government, I would be pouring money into electric-vehicle-charging infrastructure and/or incentives to assist people putting those charging facilities at home, and particularly in workplaces.

People will be there with their car most of the day, so most people will charge at home and then drive to work, and then need to charge during the day to come home or go and pick up the kids and go to hockey or those kinds of things.

Before the election, I recall in somebody’s platform a commitment of $15 million for infrastructure, for charging, was there. That’s a reasonable start, but I think we’ll need a lot more than that to do that. There are many layers to this onion: charging infrastructure, doing some investment in the SCRAP-IT program to keep doing the work there, continuing to have incentives.

As more and more electric vehicles are available, there’s going to be a quick draw on the existing money that’s currently there. We have enough for a little bit, but if we’re all wanting to keep people looking at this option…. New technology is always more expensive. Until the prices come down further, we’ll need to incent people.

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation. We’re out of time, but I was interested in getting into a bit more of the detail around ICBC.

B. Qualey: Sure.

M. Dean: I don’t know whether you can put that in your written submission or if you can direct me to it somewhere. I’d like to find more detail.

B. Qualey: I can send you a little quick summary of those questions, and I’m happy to chat any time about that.

M. Dean: Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, but thank you very much for your presentation.

Next up we have B.C. Colleges — Colin Ewart and Lane Trotter.

B.C. COLLEGES

C. Ewart: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Colin Ewart. I’m president of B.C. Colleges. This is my colleague Dr. Lane Trotter, who is the president of Langara College and also the chair of the B.C. Colleges council of presidents.

We’re here today to ask the government to support four strategic priorities identified by B.C. Colleges. We believe these priorities align with those of government to the benefit of British Columbians pursuing post-secondary education.

B.C. Colleges is a consortium of public, community-based colleges, serving over 125,000 annually, with campuses and learning centres in more than 60 communities across all parts of B.C. We’re the most accessible, affordable and applied part of the post-secondary system. Together the colleges offer a comprehensive range of programs, from university studies and baccalaureate degrees to career, technology, technical, trades and upgrading education.

Students who attend a B.C. college have high success rates. They’re more likely to live at home, and in doing so, they receive support from their family. Upon graduation, most stay and work in the local community, with over 90 percent of our graduates finding work within six months.

As you can appreciate, colleges have a vital role to play in the development of the highly skilled and educated workforce required for British Columbia to be competitive nationally and globally, while growing a prosperous and vibrant local economy.

To sustain and grow our success, however, we have identified four priority areas that align with the interests of the government and British Columbians, and we need the new government’s support in these areas.

We have provided a handout outlining the four priorities and specifics under each. In summary, though, we’d like to outline each before answering any questions you may have.

At this point, I’d like to turn the presentation over to my colleague, Dr. Lane Trotter.

[3:25 p.m.]

L. Trotter: Thank you, Colin.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Priority No. 1 is about supporting Indigenous learners. While the government does support modest Aboriginal service plan funding from the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, it is provided to only five colleges and it is half of what is required as a base-funding level. In addition, we believe the new funding is needed to support Indigenous students with cost-of-living resources.

We have joined with our post-secondary colleagues at the Research Universities Council of British Columbia and the B.C. Association of Institutes and Universities in a joint submission to this committee about each student support.

Priority No. 2 is regarding how colleges have a legitimate, impactful role in applied research and innovation projects. We recommend that government make this activity part of our mandate; that you support more colleges to become access centres, like the highly successful advanced manufacturing centre at Camosun College; and that we have access to new funding that will allow us to further partner with businesses while leveraging college-specific federal funding, just like colleges do in every other province.

Our third priority is regarding affordable new housing — in particular, new student housing. The pressures to accommodate students on all of our campuses has grown significantly. Minister Mark heard loudly from students on her recent provincewide tour about this issue. Last spring, we worked with the B.C. Association of Institutes and Universities to confirm student housing demand, and it’s at least 5,000 units provincewide. To address this issue, colleges are ready today to collaborate on a concept plan and a business case. Success will be helped if government also changes legacy policies that limit a college’s ability to address student-housing demand.

Our fourth priority, financial flexibility and fiscal sustainability, speaks also to the issue of student housing. Unlike other parts of the public sector, colleges have limited financial flexibility to address their growing fiscal challenges. We’re asking government to provide a new ability to borrow specifically to self-finance student residences against a valid business case. An ability to run deficits would also allow us to amortize such projects.

Lastly, an ability to access our retained earnings and reserves would help colleges address cost pressures and new government priorities. Without such flexible policies, colleges will increasingly face real and challenging fiscal sustainability issues.

In summary, B.C. colleges deliver for government. We have a high alignment of priorities with government, and these requests for support are specific and affordable. A more accessible and applied post-secondary education can be sustained with support for our four priorities.

We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Before we go to the questions, I just wanted to clarify one thing. Could you please explain again the fourth, financial flexibility, and your needs around there — maybe give a little bit more detail. I didn’t quite get the need there.

C. Ewart: Yeah. Thank you for that question.

What we’re saying — and we say it in the handout, maybe in more detail — is that there are a number of items that the colleges don’t enjoy relative to other parts of the public sector. Specifically, we don’t have an ability to borrow, we don’t have an ability to run deficits, and we don’t have access to retained earnings.

As you can appreciate, our institutions have actually been very successful, in many ways, in delivering programs and bringing in revenues, but those revenues get frozen as net assets in the institutions. We’re looking to have more ready access to those so we can reinvest them back into new programs or, indeed, work on government’s priorities as we’re directed.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s perfectly clear. Thank you very much.

Can I open the floor to questions? Anybody?

As far as the student housing, what are some of the strategies that you feel would be the best? We’ve heard students come, for example, and many of the students are also saying: “We need student housing.”

[3:30 p.m.]

Obviously, it seems like the interests of B.C. Colleges are also aligned with what all the students are asking for as well. It seems to be a very common…. But how we get there might be slightly different.

I was wondering if you could tell us how you feel the colleges would create that student housing. What’s the path to get more student housing on campuses? For example, have you done a survey of college properties to make sure that there’s the property there to actually build the student housing? What challenges are there — that kind of thing?

C. Ewart: I think the first part — I think you’re alluding to it — is: what is the need? Let’s define the need. I’m pleased to report that with our colleagues at applied institutes and universities, last spring we did a provincewide survey of the need. As my colleague mentioned, we identified that there were at least 5,000 units that are needed. I think that’s step 1.

Step 2, in our colleges’ case, has been the development of initial business cases and plans. As you point out, we are sitting on land in many of these communities, and the land would be available to be part of the solution. Combined with the need, combined with following government policies about the development of business cases, we’ve started that work.

I’m pleased to say that on October 18, we will be having a workshop with all of our leaders from across the province from the colleges that are responsible for this activity, and we believe that government representatives will be part of that. We will be talking about the specific paths forward to actually respond to these needs and do it quickly.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Excellent. I’m going to keep going. This is good stuff.

I was really curious a little bit more about the Indigenous learners part of this and how that interfaces with the priorities of the new government. If you notice, Indigenous peoples and truth and reconciliation and the UN declaration have been sort of woven into all of the ministries. Could you spend a little bit more time in terms of your vision in terms of support for Indigenous learners?

L. Trotter: In terms of Indigenous learners and support for Indigenous learners, all the colleges are committed to supporting Indigenous learners. In fact, we’re all doing it. Our ability to fully support that, though, is in some cases limited by the other demands that we have placed upon us.

There are only five of the colleges that are currently receiving any Aboriginal service program funding, and those resources are used to support Indigenous students in the classroom. We’re suggesting and requesting that that programming be expanded and that additional supports also be placed in for students, because in many cases, if students are moving from one area to another area, students might need housing support, such as our student residences. That is linked to that.

This poses a challenge, particularly in metro areas, for students who might be moving away from a more remote area to a metro area. How do they afford a place to live? If they have to choose between a place to live and food or other basic provisions, what do we do for those students, and how does that impact their success?

Our request to government is to help us support these students to be successful.

P. Milobar: Just on that topic. Do you have an idea of the order of magnitude of what the difference in maybe a lot of those students’ band funding would be versus the cost of living? Obviously, it probably still wouldn’t cover it, especially for the Lower Mainland. Are you saying 100 percent or the differential between those two amounts?

L. Trotter: Well, there are two things. One is that in terms of band support, band support may not provide sufficient funding for all the students who might be interested in pursuing post-secondary. Our Indigenous population is our fastest-growing cohort in that 18-through-24 age group. So we need supports to help these students be successful by having the supports in place such as student residences, such as additional services advising that…. The institutions that don’t receive this funding are trying to struggle when we have many students who are increasingly turning to us with other challenges that they face.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just to be aware, we’ve had a number of student organizations appear in front of us, and there are some common themes and threads that have gone through. There are a couple of pieces that I just would like to hear your comments on.

[3:35 p.m.]

One is that it seems very clear that colleges and universities feel that youth mental health, especially on campuses, is not up to where it should be, and they’re asking for a dedicated fund from the province. One of the problems, they say, is that right now, any mental health services are coming out of general budgets, and those are discretionary. So sometimes, other pressures result in there not being adequate resources for mental health.

What would your view be in terms of dedicated mental health funding for on-campus mental health for youth?

C. Ewart: I’d like to start by acknowledging that the government did, in the past budget, place some additional funding for students with mental health needing those services. Again, we’re working at a systemwide level to coordinate those services. International Mental Health Day is coming up, and we’ll be promoting some of the services that are available on our campus.

I think we would agree with the fact that more dedicated funds for this would be important. In that light, we mentioned, in our presentation, our joint submission with the research universities and the teaching universities. In that submission to this committee, we do specifically outline the sorts of resources that we’re looking for in support of students needing mental health programs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Wonderful. One last thing the students brought up was the fees for international students. It was quite interesting that these are mostly domestic students lobbying for international students and saying: “Our friends on campus are, year to year, finding their tuition fees go up and they go down.” There isn’t that consistency. Part of that, from hearing from some of the colleges and universities, is that there’s become way more pressure to use international student fees to balance their budgets and use that. It becomes a big revenue stream.

The students are calling for some sort of regulation of that so that at least there’s some consistency for the international students. What’s your feeling on that?

L. Trotter: This is a very complex issue.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I agree.

L. Trotter: If we take a look at how international students have supported our institutions by providing a rich diversity of cultures…. At my institution, we have students from 99 countries. Those students from the 99 countries provide an opportunity for our domestic Canadian students to find out more about the rest of the world.

We’re also pursuing opportunities for domestic Canadian students to go on field studies — to China, to India, to Europe, to Africa. So we’re trying to make sure that our students get a broader sense of the world.

For our international students, in particular, when we bring them in, we’re trying to create a very welcoming environment. Right now that challenge that the students are talking about is one that we have tried to balance off. When a student comes in the door, a student is a student. Their fee structure, though, is different, and it is related to the investment that the province makes as well as domestic students make in their own education, as an offset.

What I can say is that if you were to take a look at Langara College, the government grant represents about 30 percent of our overall budget now. So for us, this is a real challenge. How do you provide services to domestic and international students at an appropriate level to ensure that the students are successful? There are a variety of challenges — cultural, language — for both domestic and international students.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I appreciate that. Given that we’ve heard from students, I really just wanted to hear the colleges’ point of view. Obviously, this is a complex issue.

C. Ewart: The thing I would add, Mr. Chair….

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, we’ve gone way over. I’m so sorry. My fault. But please finish.

C. Ewart: Sorry. Just to finish on that point. The pricing for students, obviously our domestic and our British Columbian students, is set and capped. We respect that, and we operate with that. The price for international students, though, is based in a market competition. So the prices are reflective of what the costs are of delivering the services and programs, and all of the support services and the use of the facilities. So that’s part of the pricing.

I can’t speak to individual circumstances, but I think it’s worth considering that the difference between what you pay as a contribution towards a domestic student and what an international student pays in terms of the full cost of their education is going to be completely different.

[3:40 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have the Rick Hansen Institute.

RICK HANSEN INSTITUTE

B. Barrable: Thank you for having us here today. My name is Bill Barrable, and I’m the CEO of the Rick Hansen Institute. I’m here with my colleague Penny Clarke-Richardson, our director of strategic implementation and partnerships.

We’re so pleased to provide a snapshot of the institute’s progress in spinal-cord-injury research and innovation and our proposal for a new funding partnership with the province of British Columbia.

If I could suggest, you could turn the page to the second one, where it all began. Thirty years ago the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Tour captured the attention of the entire world. For 26 months, Rick and his team wheeled over 40,000 kilometres through 34 countries, raising awareness about the potential of people with disabilities, the need to create accessible and inclusive communities, and the hope of finding a cure for spinal cord injuries.

Fast-forward to today. The legacy of the Man in Motion Tour continues to inspire not only members of the spinal-cord-injury community but the world at large. The Rick Hansen Institute is one of the two organizations that are part of the tour’s legacy.

Penny and I are with the Rick Hansen Institute. Our focus is on spinal-cord-injury research, innovation, implementation of best practices, quality improvement and collaboration. The other organization, equally important, is the Rick Hansen Foundation. Its focus is on societal inclusion for those with disabilities, and awareness and accessibility.

We’re here today to talk about how we can provide solutions for people living with spinal cord injury. For the 12,000 British Columbians who live with this debilitating and complex condition, there are crushing human costs associated with lifelong management of serious health issues: social isolation and depression, burden of care on family, forced relocation to urban centres for access to health services, limited resources for self-management and an unacceptable but perhaps not surprising 70-plus percent unemployment.

The economic impact is just as devastating. In Canada, the conservative estimated economic cost of traumatic spinal cord injuries, such as those caused by a vehicle accident or a fall, is $2.7 billion a year. In B.C., the cost exceeds $372 million annually. Following discharge from the hospital, chronic spinal-cord-injury-related complications incur $70 million annually in direct health care costs in B.C.

Enabling collaborations. In addition, the research-to-implementation process, which we refer to as bench-to-bedside, is marred in obstacles such as lack of funding and incentives.

As you can see, the challenges posed by spinal cord injury are broad and complex. RHI’s strength is its ability to connect local and international patients, researchers, health care professionals, investors and innovators, breaking down silos to create solutions. As a neutral convenor with a holistic perspective, the institute functions as an agent of change, identifying priorities, marshalling resources and driving innovation.

Real solutions for real problems. With activities structured into four distinct but interrelated program areas — cure, care, commercialization and consumer engagement — RHI fosters the translation of new discoveries into practice, ensuring that innovations provide an array of benefits for patients, health care systems and the economy. Providing solutions to this very real and complex problem is what the institute strives to achieve every day.

Leveraging opportunities. We are appreciative of the province of British Columbia for its investment of $6.8 million in the institute seven years ago. Since that time, that $6.8 million has leveraged more than $69 million in investments and commitments from other sources, including the federal government and the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.

[3:45 p.m.]

Showcasing B.C. talent and expertise. That leverage has had impact at local, national and international levels, shining a spotlight on health research excellence in B.C. From the start of the institute’s flagship study, The Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry, which began at Vancouver General Hospital, the institute’s national reach includes 31 participating acute and rehab hospitals, covering major cities across Canada. As you can see in the next slide, this reach has, in turn, expanded worldwide, with a network spanning more than 30 countries and growing.

Collaboration on a global scale. This degree of international, multidisciplinary collaboration is unprecedented, and it has transformed SCI research and care around the world. It’s this kind of international collaboration that will accelerate the pace at which new discoveries can be made to improve lives of people living with spinal cord injury, regardless of where they live.

I might add that there are a number of sites that participate in our registry now — in Beijing; Christchurch, New Zealand; Auckland, New Zealand; Brisbane. We opened a site in Hadassah last November, in Jerusalem; and we’ll be opening another one in Rambam hospital in Haifa. We have two in the Bay Area: Stanford and San Francisco General Hospital. They’re all participating in studies, many of which are led out of British Columbia. They bring critical mass in patients, so we can enrol the patients faster for the clinical trial. They’ll be more successful in a shorter period of time. This is really critical to success.

Innovation to improve lives. This ambitious work takes the skills and dedication of a talented group of people. With our office based in Vancouver, the institute benefits from working with a cross-functional and multidisciplinary team, which includes a number of bioscience jobs that are key, particularly in this kind of economy and marketplace, which includes information technology, research, public engagement, data modelling, knowledge translation and commercialization. We’re working very closely with a number of local start-up companies that have products that can be applied to solving some problems in spinal cord injury.

Given international political realities, many of the collaborations led by the institute would be impossible otherwise and showcase B.C.’s position as a gateway to the world. There are countries, particularly in the Middle East, that won’t work with each other but will participate in studies with us because they can. This, I think, underlines Canada’s role in the world in terms of a trusted, honest broker, so to speak, and the institute is, I think, one example of that in the broader geopolitical environment. With government as a key partner, we will continue to advance care for British Columbians and all the world, while building B.C.’s intellectual capital and creating jobs and economic activity right here at home.

Help us make a difference. The institute’s initial funding agreement with the B.C. government supported basic administrative infrastructure, enabling the institute’s national and international success. The institute is proposing a new funding partnership with the province of $10 million over three years, starting in 2018. This will enable the institute to continue to leverage additional funds from external sources, including the federal and other provincial governments, the private sector and international donations. The institute will contribute to B.C.’s position as an international leader in health care innovation, while improving the lives of individuals with spinal cord injury in British Columbia, nationally and around the world.

Rick Hansen started his world-changing journey in British Columbia. The institute would like to continue in his path by leading global innovation for local benefit.

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

Questions.

T. Redies: Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of questions. I’m curious. Are the Rick Hansen Foundation and the Rick Hansen Institute linked financially? Does the Rick Hansen Foundation provide funding to you, or are you completely separate?

B. Barrable: A very good question, and one we get often. There’s some confusion out there as to the difference between the two. We were actually a spinoff of the Rick Hansen Foundation about six or eight years ago. We’re funded separately. For the most part, largely, the funding comes from the federal government and then provincial contributions. Within the last few years, our governance has become fully independent. So the board has its own process for choosing people.

[3:50 p.m.]

Most of the board members are Canadian, including British Columbia, of course — pan-Canadian. We also have three American board members, one from Israel and one from Australia — all leaders and superstars in their field, really — including Stanford, Harvard and Georgia Tech. One of the board members from Georgia Tech is on our board.

There is some funding that does come from the foundation, which jointly supports work that’s done with the ICORD, which is International Collaboration for Repair Discoveries, which is part of the Faculty of Medicine at UBC. I realize this is a bit confusing.

The partnership is between the institute and the ICORD to take research that’s been developed in ICORD, fundamental research, and get it translated into use and to support capacity building. The foundation does provide funding at arm’s length and a grant with conditions around milestones and that sort of thing. Apart from that, yes, we are fully independent. We do work with Rick, obviously — this is a very important partnership — but their mission is very complementary. It’s a broader disability continuum, where we are focused on translational research and spinal cord injury alone.

T. Redies: My follow-up question was: the $10 million — how is that arrived at? Are you looking for matching funding from somewhere else? How did you come up with the $10 million?

B. Barrable: It represents a number of initiatives that we require to advance our innovation and the implementation pieces where, in particular, we’re going to go after pressure ulcers in this province, which are a major, major problem. It is the number one most expensive preventable medical error in the health system — probably half a billion dollars in Canada or more, annually; $50 million in British Columbia for spinal cord injury–related pressure sores.

The benefit from doing that will be found more broadly for the elderly and other people in hospital. Those kinds of things, where we can reduce the pressure ulcers in the community and in institutions by 50 percent over a five-year period…. We’re aiming to have a significant return on that investment, both in terms of reducing human misery, because these pressure sores can be lethal, but also in terms of the economic impact.

That will also forward the development of a network which will bring value and improvement to other secondary complications like bladder infections, neuropathic pain, and so on. There are 35 secondary complications that plague people with spinal cord injury. They’re not unique to spinal cord injury, but they do affect people with spinal cord injury at a much higher rate. They’re debilitating and expensive.

R. Leonard: It’s a similar question. You said that seven years ago you were given just under $7 million, so that looks like $1 million a year. You’ve just said $10 million, and you’ve just outlined a five-year program.

I guess the question is: are you asking for the $10 million up front, or did you see this as a long-term commitment of government to participate?

B. Barrable: We are. I guess it’s up to government how it wants to fund these arrangements, but certainly, we would welcome having that funding up front for a period of time. Our aim is to return that investment several fold in terms of savings to the system on a broad range of health conditions.

Penny, if you’d like to add to that…. Penny is leading an effort to attack these pressure ulcers issues in concert with a variety of the universities and colleges across the province. Is there anything you’d like to add to that, Penny?

P. Clarke-Richardson: No, I think you’ve covered it, Bill.

R. Leonard: You described how having that critical mass of patients to work with globally, I assume, for this kind of a project…. Do they also contribute to various programs?

B. Barrable: Yes. To give you one example, we run a clinical trial of minocycline, which is an off-patent acne drug. It showed some neuro-protective effects. One of the centres that we partner with is Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane, Australia.

When Rick went on his original tour, he went to Australia and New Zealand and a variety of other countries. There was a strong response in Australia to his journey — as there was in New Zealand and China, as a matter of a fact. They were successful in helping to match this clinical trial. A fund called NIRAP in Queensland contributed $1 million to it.

[3:55 p.m.]

The Premier of Queensland at the time, Anna Bligh, came up to Vancouver to launch that arrangement. It’s been very successful at getting match funding for projects such as that. We’ve also had matching funding for other projects led out of British Columbia from places like Brain Canada; a national fund, CIHR. There are a variety of other funding mechanisms also in the United States. We work very closely with the National Institutes of Health, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VA.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Quick question for you. Was the original funding through the Ministry of Health, or which ministry was it through? Do you remember?

B. Barrable: Well, the original funding was a government grant.

Stephanie, you may know more about that background than I do.

I wasn’t here at the very, very beginning of that, but the Premier of the day had an important role and came to the launch of that with the Prime Minister at the time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m just wondering if there’s been any time spent talking to, for example, the Minister of Health about this particular ask.

B. Barrable: Oh, yes. Absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So he’s aware of this?

B. Barrable: Very much so.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. That’s good. That certainly helps us.

B. Barrable: And the health care ministry at large as well.

P. Clarke-Richardson: If I may just add to that, we meet on an ongoing basis with the research and partnerships and innovation division, working on joint projects, making sure that our work is aligned with the Ministry of Health initiatives. We have phone calls pretty well every two weeks just to make sure that our work is in sync with the province’s needs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Perfect. We’re out of time, but thank you very much, and thank you for everything that you do. It’s obviously absolutely amazing. So thank you.

B. Barrable: Thank you for having us.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have school district 38, Richmond — David Sadler, Deborah Tablotney and Sandra Nixon.

The floor is yours.

SCHOOL DISTRICT 38, RICHMOND

D. Tablotney: Thank you, committee members, for allowing us to present today. We’re happy to be here. This is my vice-chair for the school district, Sandra Nixon, and David Sadler is our director of communications. They’re with me to present today, along with trustee Donna Sargent, who is in the gallery. We have Liz Baverstock, who is our president of the Richmond Teachers Association; Andrew Scallion, who is the vice-president of the Richmond District Parents Association; Dionne McPhee, who is the president of the Richmond District Parents Association; and Nancy Williams, who is an EA, educational assistant, with CUPE; David Sadler; and Clive Mason, who is the director of facilities for our school district.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views on the funding needs of the K-to-12 public education system and, in particular, the specific need of students in Richmond. As in previous years, this brief is presented to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services jointly by the Richmond school district 38 board of education, the Richmond District Parents Association, the Richmond Association of School Administrators, the Richmond Teachers Association, CUPE Local 716, and Richmond management and professional staff.

Our joint presentation demonstrates the strong commitment to collaboration and cooperation that is shared by all associated with the Richmond school district. Our district motto is “Our focus is on the learner,” and our recommendations for the funding of the K-to-12 system reflects that focus.

[4:00 p.m.]

Recommendation No. 1: provide increased funding for student instruction and support. The additional funding provided to school districts to work towards restoration of the collective agreement language for teaching and staff has resulted in improved class sizes and increased teaching resources for students. Full restoration will take several years to achieve, as the demand for specialized teachers exceeds their supply.

Targeted funding to ensure that full restoration is achieved should therefore be a multi-year commitment to school districts. Over the next five years, teacher training, particularly in the specialty areas, will need support from the ministry.

While the increase in teaching resources has been welcome, the need for higher funding for non-teaching staff continues. Districts across the province are experiencing difficulties filling educational assistant positions. These EAs are the front-line support for students with special needs, who provide invaluable support in very challenging circumstances. Because of the prevailing compensation structure for their positions, there are fewer people willing to take on these roles — hence, the recruitment challenges facing all districts. This is a situation that cannot be remedied by any one school district. There needs to be a provincial solution to this significant issue facing B.C. school districts.

As a result of funding reductions over a number of years, administrative staff at both school and district are now at unsustainably low levels. With the increase of teacher positions to the system and ever-increasing demands on administrative time, the system is critically poised to be unable to meet the public mandate that we are charged with. This has come at a time when the expectation levels around leading curriculum change, increased consultation and information-sharing, as well as maintaining privacy and cybersecurity have all contributed to a series of never-ending demands.

Our system leaders, district management, principals, vice-principals and executive staff have been approved for salary increases in accordance with the regionwide strategy. However, funding for these salary increases has not been provided. This has meant that the district has had to effect budget cuts in order to ensure that salary increases could be implemented. This is an additional area for which increased provincial funding is requested.

Our recommendation No. 2 is to reform the school district financial funding formula. The current funding formula allocates the bulk of funding to school districts on a per-student basis. For districts, such as Richmond, which are experiencing declining enrolment, this means that for every student that is lost, funding drops by approximately $7,000.

Over the past five years, our district has lost close to 2,000 students, which accounts for about 9 percent of our total student population. Because the loss of students is spread across the schools and grade levels, the related reduction in costs is relatively small. We estimate that only 25 percent of the revenue that is lost is offset by cost reductions. The remaining 75 percent of lost revenue results in direct cuts to staffing levels and services to students.

While the current funding protection system is designed to provide some mitigation to schools with declining enrolment, it’s insufficient. We therefore urge the provincial government to provide supplementary funding to school districts in declining enrolment to assist in operations while a review of the funding formula is undertaken.

I’m going to turn it over to my vice-chair, Sandra Nixon.

S. Nixon: Good afternoon. Our third recommendation is to increase capital funding for school facilities. The select standing committee, this committee, has consistently supported the need of school districts across the province for capital funding to meet emergent needs, especially as they relate to the need for space and seismic remediation.

[4:05 p.m.]

In Richmond, 23 of our 38 elementary schools have been evaluated to be of high seismic risk. Changes to the seismic retrofit guidelines to factor in the possible liquefaction of soils here in Richmond has increased the risk rating of many of our schools and many of the blocks in each of our schools. Our district has, therefore, been working very closely with the capital branch of the Ministry of Education to develop a plan to remediate the schools.

The current process that must be undergone to obtain project approval is both complicated and cumbersome. Each project is required to compare costs of full remediation, partial remediation with partial replacement, and also a submission of what a full replacement would look like. As most schools are comprised of multiple blocks, this means that each block must be separately assessed, in detail, to determine whether it is cheaper to remediate or to rebuild it.

Until recently, approval was given to rebuild a school if the cost of remediation or renovation was over 75 percent of the cost of a new school. We request consideration of a return to that system, as it resulted in a process that was significantly less complex to navigate and more often resulted in construction decisions that made the most sense over the long term.

Provincial policy that looks at seismic projects in isolation of the other non-seismic work that should be undertaken at the same time also results in projects that are short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions. Currently the only costs that can be considered as part of a seismic project are those costs that are directly required from a seismic remediation perspective. This doesn’t recognize other required costs as part of the project.

For example, it would make sense to replace the plumbing system in a school that has an issue with lead in the drinking water at the same time as a seismic remediation project is being undertaken. Yet these costs are not funded because the focus is on seismic requirements only. We ask that provincial policy be changed to allow for consideration of all costs that would enhance the safety of the school and learning environment, whether directly seismic in nature or not.

In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to present to the standing committee with this brief. Trustees, staff and parents in Richmond, all here represented today, are committed to ensuring that our K-to-12 system continues to be strong, vibrant and efficient.

We appreciate the work of the select standing committee, and we are happy to take your questions or comments at this time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously, it’s great seeing so many people working together. That’s a great thing.

Any questions?

Well, thank you very much for your time. Everything you said makes sense. We’ll take everything you said into account. We certainly know that there’s a priority on education with the government, so all of these things will be taken into account. Thank you very much.

Next we’d like to call the Canadian Cancer Society.

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

J. Byford: Chair and hon. committee members, on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, thank you for the opportunity to provide our requests for the 2018 provincial budget. I especially appreciate your time after 4 p.m. on the Friday of a long weekend. To that end, I’ll try to be brief.

I am Jenny Byford, the society’s advocacy lead for B.C. and Yukon. The Canadian Cancer Society’s vision is to create a world where no Canadian fears cancer. To achieve this, the society advocates for health care services that will support cancer patients as well as public policies that will prevent cancer incidence. I’ll be speaking to both areas today.

I’d like to begin today’s presentation by reflecting on the number 70. Seventy people is about ten times the number of representatives on this committee today. Seventy people accounts for nearly every elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. Seventy people is the number of British Columbians that will be diagnosed with cancer today. And there will be another 70 tomorrow, and there will be another 70 the next day.

[4:10 p.m.]

By the end of 2017, this amounts to about 25,400 British Columbians newly diagnosed with cancer. By the end of 2017, 10,300 British Columbians will die of cancer. To put this in perspective to recent events, there are 91 deaths due to an overdose crisis in a month and 840 due to cancer — three per day compared to 28 per day.

I highlight these numbers for the committee’s attention to stress that cancer is not a dormant issue. Cancer is the province’s leading cause of death and a huge contributor to provincial health care expenses. Most importantly, we can address this.

There are actionable ways we can prevent cancer, but we need to be more progressive than ever before. Through investment and financial policies targeted to support behaviour change, the committee’s recommendations have the power to change that number of 70.

Today I will speak to the rising needs of palliative care and home care for British Columbians living with cancer, and I will speak to cancer prevention, specifically through tobacco control with tobacco taxes and retail licences.

To begin with, palliative care. My first ask is that the provincial government consider the cancer context when distributing federal funds for palliative and home care. The federal government has negotiated bilateral health funding agreements with the provinces and territories and designated funds for home care.

We strongly encourage the B.C. government to plan for palliative care as part of the continuum of care and not only at the end of life. Specifically, we recommend investment to improve access to quality palliative care, to develop and implement measurable standards of palliative and home-based care, to ensure there are sufficient specialists to support the shift of care from facilities towards communities and homes and to support patients and family caregivers by ensuring they have the information and the tools needed to undertake being a caregiver and that they’re knowledgable that these opportunities exist.

With the proportion of cancer patients and caregivers, it is essential that their unique needs are considered when resources are allocated. The Canadian Cancer Society can be an information resource, if desired. With support, we are poised to extend our services to better serve this population with information on how to best cope with cancer and where they can access support services.

Now, second today, I’d like to talk about tobacco control and tobacco taxes. Our ask is that the provincial government increase tobacco taxes by a meaningful and significant amount to reduce tobacco use. B.C. currently falls behind the country’s leading tax rate by $18. This allows tobacco to become more affordable in B.C.

I gratefully acknowledge that the provincial government is moving forward with a small tobacco tax increase this year of $1.60, but this amount is inconsequential to the end consumer. It won’t raise the price of a pack of cigarettes by even one full cent.

The fact is that even with B.C.’s scheduled increase, our province falls $18 behind the country’s leading tax rate on a carton of 200 cigarettes. With more provinces increasing rates and B.C. staying stagnant over many years, we now have the lowest tobacco tax rate in western Canada, nearly equal with Alberta, and we are the fourth-lowest nationwide. Contrastingly, we have the fourth-highest cigarette sales in Canada. Without action, we risk losing price as a deterrent for tobacco use.

The society recommends that the B.C. government increase tobacco taxes by $18 per carton of 200 cigarettes. I know it sounds like a lot, but the Yukon increased by the same amount this year.

This strategy is cost-effective to implement. It can generate significant additional revenue. Taking into account the decrease in consumption that raised taxes will bring, we still estimate that an $18 increase will generate an additional $195 million in revenue per year. This goes above and beyond the $758 million currently collected from tobacco taxes. Furthermore, tobacco taxes are especially effective at reducing youth smoking. Youth are three times more price sensitive to increases than adults.

Along with increasing taxes on manufactured cigarettes, our third ask to the government is to increase the tax on loose tobacco or roll-your-own tobacco. A loophole currently exists where roll-your-own tobacco is taxed at half the rate of manufactured cigarettes. Previously one gram of loose tobacco would make one cigarette. But with changes in industry manufacturing, only half a gram, or even 0.45 grams, is needed to roll one cigarette. This is advertised on the packaging of several brands.

The current open loophole on roll-your-own tobacco is impeding the health and revenue objectives of higher tobacco taxes as it offers a cheap alternative to consumers. Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut and the federal government have taken steps towards closing this loophole, and we encourage B.C. to do the same.

To at least match neighbouring Alberta, B.C. could increase the tax rate on 100 grams of roll-your-own tobacco by $12.80. This measure would help close the loophole by bringing the tax rate on loose tobacco to 75 percent of the tax rate on manufactured cigarettes.

[4:15 p.m.]

Lastly, my fourth and final ask to the B.C. government is to implement tobacco retail licence fees. B.C. has approximately 6,000 tobacco retailers in the province, which contributes to easy and convenient access for users. While retailers are required to fill out a licence application to sell tobacco, there is no associated fee. Considering tobacco is a legal product that kills one of every two users when used as intended, there is shockingly little accountability for retailers.

Implementing a retail fee could add responsibility for retailers and help, perhaps, to address retail density. Many Canadian municipalities and U.S. states have retail fees. In Canada, the leading annual retail fee is in Ottawa at $877 per year. Lloydminster’s annual licence is $750, but there’s an additional $350 fee for retailers who choose to sell flavoured tobacco. Another option is to model tobacco retail responsibility after B.C.’s liquor licensing framework, where fees increase with sales volume.

Our recommendation is that the B.C. government implement an annual retail fee of at least $365 a year. That’s a mere $1 per day for retailers. Tobacco is not an ordinary consumer product and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Moving forward to the conclusion, with an aging population, cancer will inevitably continue to put cost pressures on the provincial government. However, the province has the ability to reduce cancer incidence by taking strong action on tobacco — the carcinogen responsible for 30 percent of all cancer deaths. Policies such as tobacco taxes and reducing retail density can help prevent youth from starting to smoke and reduce cancer risk for future generations.

To conclude, I’d like to reiterate our four recommendations:

(1) Please consider the cancer context when planning the distribution of federal funds for palliative and home care.

(2) Increase tobacco taxes by $18 per carton of 200 cigarettes.

(3) Close the loophole on roll-your-own tobacco. An increase of $12.80 on 100 grams would match Alberta.

(4) Implement a $365 annual tobacco retailer licence fee.

Together, the government and health partners have the ability to ease the cancer experience for cancer patients and their caregivers. We also have the ability to prevent cancer. Together we can make an impact on the lives of the 70 British Columbians who will be diagnosed today, and hopefully, we can reduce the number of British Columbians diagnosed tomorrow.

I sincerely thank you for your time.

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

Yeah, my grandmother and my aunt would be alive today if they didn’t smoke, so I hear every word you’re saying.

P. Milobar: Thanks for the presentation. We had a similar one the other day in Victoria, and I asked the same question of that representative as well.

All the reading I’ve done…. Alberta instituted a significant cigarette tax, and they figure they’re losing close to $100 million a year in tax revenue now to the black market. So is there an actual drop in consumption? Or is it really just draining tax dollars because of the artificially high price, which then actually goes to the bottom line of health care dollars?

J. Byford: No, it’s a common misconception that contraband could be linked to increasing tobacco tax. That’s perpetuated, largely, by the tobacco industry and some of their associated groups, such as the Western Convenience Stores Association. But contraband is not linked to higher taxes. Rather, it’s linked to the proximity to illegal factories that are primarily near central Canada and the tolerance for illegal products with the RCMP.

The western provinces so far have sustained much higher tobacco taxes without material contraband. There have been very low seizures by RCMP. In 2014, only 14 cartons of contraband were seized. As a perfect example of this, some of the issues with contraband happening in Ontario and Quebec…. Neighbouring Manitoba has the highest tobacco tax rate in Canada, and they don’t see an issue with contraband.

J. Brar: Thank you, Jenny, for coming today.

On the prevention side, you mentioned…. You have four recommendations. Three of them are on the prevention side, and they’re all related to tobacco, right? I understand that lung cancer is the leading cause. Is there any second cause? Can you tell us what those are? After tobacco, what are the second and third?

J. Byford: Yes. Tobacco is primarily…. It accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths. Lung cancer is also very aggressive, so lung cancer is the leading cause of death. But if you look at the leading causes of cancer diagnosis, for women, it’s breast, and for men, it’s prostate, and then third comes colorectal cancer.

[4:20 p.m.]

There’s a wide range of other risk factors that would play into those, primarily around diet and healthy lifestyle choices — physical activity as well as a healthy diet. We know that about 50 percent of all cancers can be prevented. Largely, it’s through forms of lifestyle change. Then the second one is also UV exposure. Skin cancer incidences are extremely high.

There are other ways that we can prevent those and that the Canadian Cancer Society fully supports. They’re not all necessarily related to the Finance Committee and what the Finance Committee’s actions could be. That’s why we chose to speak to tobacco today. But it is something that we work closely with the Ministry of Health on and are advocating for, if that helps answer your question a bit.

I’d actually like to take the opportunity to thank the committee. Last year, we presented on the HPV vaccine, which can prevent cancer for young people. The committee recommended it, and the government went forward with that. As of this September, all genders — boys, girls and others — are receiving the vaccine. So that’s a meaningful way.

T. Redies: I’m just curious. With the impending legalization of marijuana…. If I remember correctly from past readings I’ve done, it’s kind of mixed, in terms of marijuana’s linkage to cancers — lung cancer, etc. Have there been any more definitive studies on that, and does the Canadian Cancer Society have any concerns with respect to the legalization?

J. Byford: Yes, we do have concerns. To answer the first question about definitive studies and information, no, there aren’t. One of the challenges with that is that there’s a large crossover between those who smoke tobacco and those who smoke marijuana. A lot of the studies are unable to tell…

T. Redies: What caused what.

J. Byford: …where the cancer could be coming from. As well, there haven’t been controlled studies done because it’s been an illegal product. That research is still evolving and is something that we’ll watch.

There are a number of factors that also go into marijuana smoking versus tobacco smoking. You’re smoking a lot less marijuana in a day than you would be tobacco if you’re a pack-a-day smoker. So there are different variations there. But where our concern comes in with the legalization of marijuana is that where you’re allowed to smoke could undermine tobacco control efforts.

One of the reasons that smoking bans work well — you’re not allowed to smoke in certain public places — is that it reduces the trigger factor for people who just recently quit smoking or who are trying to quit. If they don’t see it and they don’t smell it, they’re less likely to smoke. As well, it creates that inconvenience factor. They kind of have to go out of their way. That is a tool that will help people quit.

Our concern with marijuana is that we want it to be banned wherever tobacco legislation exists, so to have equal regulations. Where you can’t smoke tobacco, you can’t smoke marijuana. One of the things on outdoor public places is something that we have called on the provincial government about before. We were just at UBCM last week talking to municipal governments about it. For municipalities, there’s a high need. They want the province to take action on outdoor smoke-free spaces. There are 73 municipalities that are covered by a bylaw or a regional district bylaw on outdoor smoke-free spaces, but the provincial government’s legislation isn’t consistent.

In some areas of the province, you can still smoke on patios, which endangers workers, as well as in parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities. If you’re lucky and you live in one of the 73 communities, you’re protected. If you’re one of the one million British Columbians who aren’t in those 73 communities, you’re unprotected. B.C. is one of the last provinces that still allows smoking on patios.

There are other areas, again, not directly related to Finance that we’re very concerned about and would like to see. So with marijuana regulations, if you’re looking at where it can be smoked, we’d also like to look at the expansion of places and include tobacco within that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time, but thank you very much, Jenny, for everything you do with the Cancer Society. It’s so important to everything and our citizens. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Next up we have the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia — Jacqui Mendes and David Watts.

[4:25 p.m.]

SOCIETY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC OF B.C.

J. Mendes: Good afternoon. We’re here representing the Society of Notaries Public. I want to tell you just a little bit about the notary public. That will be followed up by David Watts, who is the notary in the room. We have notaries in every community across British Columbia, in almost every small community and every town.

They have been serving the public around non-contentious legal services for over 100 years — what we like to refer to as the trusted tradition of the notaries. They come under the Notaries Act, so that they are regulated. The society actually self-regulates its members.

The Notary Foundation, which is mandated as part of the Notaries Act, also supports legal services in the province. It donated almost $3.5 million last year, and that went to support access to justice across organizations. A proportion goes to the Legal Services Society, and others go to tenant resources such as TRAC; seniors-supporting organizations at some senior elder law organizations; women fleeing violence; and disability. It is a grant organization that does that every year.

David Watts, our vice-president, is a notary, and will continue.

D. Watts: As notaries, we practise delivering services such as residential and commercial real estate transactions, often including mortgages. We do mortgage refinancing. We prepare and advise on wills, power of attorneys and representation agreements. We provide general notary services for domestic and international notarial acts for use here, as well as in our clients’ home countries. So 186,000 land transactions were handled by B.C. notaries in the last 12 months, and $48 billion processed through B.C. notaries’ trust accounts during that time. A good number of these transactions were funded by mortgages.

Consumers are offered a bewildering array of complex mortgages with a variety of terms, conditions and penalties. It’s easy to get lost in the fine print without independent advice and help in making what is, for most people, one of their biggest financial decisions. Mortgages used to all be five-year conventional mortgages from one of the big five banks. Today we increasingly see home equity lines of credit, reverse mortgages and multi-line loan accounts registered under one collateral mortgage, as well as the private market of second and third mortgages. We’re probably all familiar with the radio jingles that we hear on those.

Consumers are not always fully informed of the many liabilities within the mortgage product, and many do not meet the clients’ needs. The current mortgage legislation limits what information notaries can legally provide and discuss. The Mortgage Brokers Act currently provides an exemption from registration under the act for a member of the Law Society of British Columbia entitled to practise as a solicitor in British Columbia if the loan transaction is made in the course of, and part of, the member’s practice.

Lawyers have this exemption under the Mortgage Brokers Act. We’re acting for the same clients, who are getting the same types of mortgages, and we feel that we should enjoy the same exemption as the lawyers. Better, wider, equitable consumer protection would be afforded by extending this exemption to B.C. notaries, who would then be enabled to describe and discuss the mortgage conditions, terms and methods of payment. Notaries are educated in the law related to mortgages. We’re regulated by our provincial organization, and we’re well insured.

Increasingly, clients ask notaries for help with additional legal documents and processes, including probate and family-related documents such as pre-nuptial and cohabitation agreements, spousal separation, child custody agreements and simple, uncontested divorces. Clients want to continue their trusted and established relationships with their notaries in these areas. These are stressful and emotional times. Clients want someone that they know, like and trust. These are our clients. We have the relationship with them, and we want to provide comfort in navigating these issues.

[4:30 p.m.]

B.C. families and diverse constituents from social, economic, ethnic and geographic communities large and small want extended scope of practice for more services from their local community notaries.

B.C. notaries would like to ask the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Relations to recommend that B.C. notaries be exempted from registration under the Mortgage Brokers Act in order to provide better consumer protection and better support to borrowers. We ask that the government partner with our society to explore the modernization of the Notaries Act in the areas of notaries’ scope of practice to enable enhanced public access to justice through increased services in non-contentious areas of the law.

I thank you and welcome any questions.

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

I’m just going to turn the chair over to Mitzi Dean.

[M. Dean in the chair.]

P. Milobar: Earlier we had a presentation from the Canadian Bar Association. There was a lot of discussion around affordability and access to legal supports. How do you see your organization filling that affordability piece with residents, especially an aging senior population in B.C., and what supports are you looking for from government to maybe help that happen?

D. Watts: I think, if I could answer, affordability is a fairly broad issue. It is something that we provide advice around to our clients, particularly with seniors. With seniors who are homeowners, we often discuss different ways to access equity in their homes. We do talk about reverse mortgages, home equity lines of credit.

In discussing powers of attorney and representation agreements with our senior clients, we do advise and find ways for seniors to age in place, in their homes. This is often a way that does help affordability for those individuals and, as well, for the taxpayer. People are in their homes instead of lined up for care facilities.

We also feel, certainly in our ask for increased scope of practice, that we’re offering British Columbians a choice as to who provides their legal services. With that choice…. In underserved areas, a lack of competition can lead to higher prices. We’re asking to have this ability to provide these services. We feel that this can improve affordability.

M. Dean: If we have time, two more questions.

T. Redies: I’m quite curious about this issue around the exemption from registration under the Mortgage Brokers Act. I’ve been in banking for 25 years, and I’ve actually not come across this as an issue. So could you explain that a little bit more? Notaries bear a cost. Is that what the issue is — that they have to register under the Mortgage Brokers Act, where lawyers are exempted? What’s the problem here?

D. Watts: Currently with the Mortgage Brokers Act, there is an exemption provided to lawyers, members of the Law Society, and that same exemption is not provided to notaries. We can provide information on mortgages, but we would like to provide advice. We want to provide the best advice to our clients without concern about limits under the current legislation. We want to provide the best services to our clients. We see that, like I said, our friends in the Law Society have this exemption and we currently don’t. So we would like to have that extended.

J. Brar: Thanks to both of you. You are basically asking for amendments to two different acts. One is the Mortgage Brokers Act; the other one is the Notaries Act. I just want to understand, in layperson’s language, if we make those amendments, how that’s going to benefit the public — one, two, three.

D. Watts: Well, I think the way that it increases the benefits to the public is having increased choice in who is going to provide their legal services. That respects their existing relationships that they have built over time — those trust relationships.

[4:35 p.m.]

B.C. notaries cover all communities around the province. We’re serving our constituents all over, and we’d like to continue to do that. As well, we feel, like I said, that increased competition allows for a more even playing field for British Columbians to decide who they want to deliver their service, and that competition does help for affordability.

M. Dean: Thank you very much. I really appreciate you taking the time and coming here and presenting to us today.

Next I would like to invite up the B.C. Agriculture Council.

B.C. AGRICULTURE COUNCIL

S. Vander Waal: Thank you for the opportunity to present. First of all, I’d like to introduce myself as Stan Vander Waal. Reg Ens is our executive director at the council. I’m the chair of the Agriculture Council.

I’ll start just a little bit as I’m an agriculture farmer. I’m a flower grower, actually, in Chilliwack. It’s a family business. We operate in British Columbia and in Alberta. We started this business 30 years ago with my wife and I. Today we have close to 400 employees at our peak and 250 year-round. We’ve been fortunate enough to grow the business by 10 percent a year over the last 30 years. It’s been a nice multiplication factor there.

When I think of this thing, we like to think of ourselves as this modern, high-tech business that we’re operating, but there are a few things that keep me awake at night. I just wanted to bring up some of those in context, when I start talking about things from the Ag Council here.

Simply finding people to do the job is always a challenge, and getting the job done is the next challenge. There’s also the thing about changing regulations, increasing production costs, and as labour and climate initiatives change — the carbon tax, recycling, environmental compliance — all these costs get associated.

Anyway, there is still opportunity in our business. I speak as a flower grower, but that’s agriculture across the board. In our business, I look at it as people love flowers. More and more, we see people wanting to do more outdoor living, and that’s a good thing if you’re in the flower business, like I am.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

With that, that’s a little bit about me. I’d like to now talk about the B.C. Ag Council and what it represents. The B.C. Ag Council is the only provincial general farm organization representing the farmers and ranchers of British Columbia. As a council of associations, we represent 28 commodity groups, who in turn generate 96 percent of farm-gate sales in B.C. The diversity you see in the province’s agriculture sector is substantial. In 2017, the aquaculture sector, represented by the B.C. salmon growers, joined BCAC, making our organization unique in Canada.

B.C. farm-gate sales grew steadily between 2011 and 2015, reaching $3.1 billion. Unfortunately, the sales dropped a little bit in 2016, to $3 billion. With the current dramatic events we’ve seen this year, like floods and fires, we wouldn’t be surprised to see them drop a little bit more in the coming year.

B.C. has one of the most diverse agriculture and food industries in Canada. We are seeing renewed interest by young people wanting to farm. This is in spite of the province investing little into the sector. As the table on page 2 of the submission shows, only New Brunswick invests less in agriculture, as a percentage of agriculture GDP, than B.C.

What can the government do? Invest strategically and work with the sector. I want to bring up four points.

Invest in building transparency, also called public trust. Consumers are increasingly disconnected from agriculture and believe that big agriculture is bad for the environment, bad for animals, bad for people’s health. Investment is needed to re-establish and maintain consumer trust, safeguard a farmer’s right to farm, and build market access and preserve industry competitiveness. While the current B.C. Buy Local program helps individual businesses implement new market campaigns, it does not encourage a long-term coordinated approach. Building and maintaining this trust is fundamental if we are to continue growing the sector.

[4:40 p.m.]

BCAC, the B.C. Ag Council, recommends that $500,000 be invested to develop and expand on-farm best practices in areas such as worker care, animal care, food safety, environmental sustainability, as well as reducing the communication gap between farmers and consumers.

Second, help B.C. farmers and ranchers adapt to and mitigate climate change. Agriculture is vulnerable, and changes in climatic conditions, even small shifts, can have a significant consequence for food production. We are already seeing warmer and drier summers, wetter winters and increased extreme conditions. The 2017 spring floods and summer wildfire season are proof of this. Industry, with the support of government, has been working on climate change for many years, and this work needs to continue.

BCAC recommends that the government continue funding the climate action initiatives; that revenue from carbon tax be invested to help farmers and ranchers prepare for extreme climatic events such as wildfires, flooding and drought; that the greenhouse carbon tax relief grant be increased to offset the impact of the increasing carbon tax; and that the greenhouse carbon tax relief grant be expanded to include other energy-intensive farms, such as mushrooms and poultry.

Third, update provincial farm and ranch taxation regulation to increase farmland productivity. Reducing the amount of underutilized farmland is a complex issue requiring an integrated, multifaceted approach. By exempting bona fide farmers from PST, you would reduce administrative costs, encourage innovation and help young farmers grow their businesses, increasing investment and productivity in the farm sector.

However, the current definition of a bona fide farmer is too broad. Requiring only $2,500 of gross annual farm-gate sales to qualify as a farmer enables rural property holders’ access to farm tax exemptions while contributing only nominal amounts of agriculture output.

BCAC recommends establishing a government-industry committee to develop policies, incentives and taxes that will specifically target and encourage active farming on farmland; and as part of the government’s commitment to revitalize the ALR, that land use regulations, both provincial and municipal, be updated to ensure that they support farming on farmland.

Fourth, improve collaboration between government and commodity organizations. Like you, B.C. farmers and ranchers want to see a sustainable, healthy and vibrant industry. By working together, we can achieve mutual beneficial policies, regulations and programs to support the sustainability and growth of agriculture in B.C.

The environmental farm plan program, or EFP, as we call it, is a good example of government and industry working cooperatively to produce effective results. For every dollar invested by the province for environmental improvements, B.C. farmers and ranchers have invested $2 and significantly contributed to the environmental sustainability.

BCAC recommends that the government continue to work closely with farm organizations to help in the recovery from floods and wildfire devastation, that the agriculture waste control regulations be finalized using the input that the government and industry agreed to over the past several years, and that you include representatives from agriculture on the Fair Wages Commission.

In conclusion, BCAC’s recommendations will encourage B.C. farmers and ranchers to reinvest in the sector, bringing innovation and rejuvenation with the next generation while creating jobs for resilient rural communities and enhancing the provincial food security and economic growth.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations for the budget. I’d also like to remind you that Ag Day is coming November 7 in Victoria. Hope to see you all there. With that, thanks, and I’ll take any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Agriculture is obviously so important to our economy and to our health and well-being, so thank you so much for that.

Are there any questions?

[4:45 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Thank you for your presentation.

I’ve been hearing from some of the farmers in my area about a pretty grave concern about the movement towards higher minimum wages, or fair wages, and the Fair Wages Commission. Again, I expect that some of my farmers will make applications to present or send their concerns in.

Can you, from the overall sector’s perspective, provide any kind of sense of the number of farms that a sharp increase in wages could have a really negative impact in over the shorter term? Obviously, for longer term it’s a different question.

R. Ens: The simple answer is no. I don’t know whether…. It’s not that simple.

I think the bigger question, or the bigger issue, that’s been raised to us is not the impact of actually minimum wage. It’s that next tier of employee that’s just above minimum wage that will be expecting a similar or proportional increase, and that’s the increase.

The other anecdotal comment that I hear at meetings is: “We’re just investing in more equipment and actually reducing the number of people working. We’re going to automate.” I think that’s also seen in the farm stats, which show small farms decreasing and farms getting larger. It’s the larger farms that can afford to innovate and automate.

That’s sort of those anecdotal comments.

J. Brar: Thank you, once again, for your presentation.

Under, I think, recommendation 1, you’re proposing a half a million dollar investment, basically, into…. So $300,000, basically, to develop, expand and obtain best practices and $200,000 to implement a communication and outreach strategy. Is this a completely new recommendation, or is something going on already in this area?

S. Vander Waal: It’s something we’ve been discussing for a couple years already with the government. It’s probably become an increasingly important issue, just purely because of the disconnect between, let’s say, agriculture and the people who buy agriculture goods, or the food that they need. So that’s probably where the gap is.

What we see is as the province becomes more and more urban, there’s less and less knowledge about agriculture and where the milk comes from. Therefore, we’re saying that it’s important to have a communication process there.

Now, it’s been discussed, actually, with the previous government. I think we’ve had discussions with Lana, as well, on this. So they’re pretty up to speed on it.

R. Ens: It is new. Industry has put money into this, but government has not put money into this.

J. Brar: In your conclusion, interestingly, there’s one line I want to read here: “Significantly increasing taxes will reduce investment and stop this growth.” We’re not proposing anything. We haven’t done anything. So I don’t know why you wrote this.

R. Ens: I’m glad that we haven’t seen that yet. We know that there are lots of asks of you, of government, and I guess we just want to make sure that it’s understood that that’s a concern of our members.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a quick question for you. Obviously, the cannabis industry is going to…. That’s being legalized for July 1, 2018. There are a lot of regulatory issues that are coming up.

I’m just wondering what your council thinks about it in terms of the impact that production would have on things like the ALR — because a lot of times it’s cement over the ALR — and what that might impact, generally, in terms of your council and your members.

S. Vander Waal: I think maybe a couple things. Cannabis can be grown in greenhouses as well. So some of the growers in the flower business are actually looking at going that direction because they can grow that in those facilities as well. Some of the challenges that come around this production are still things like security, odours. There are a number of different concerns.

I think that at the end of the day, in order for everybody to be happy and coexist, there’s going to have to be some regulation around the production of cannabis to actually make it so that it’s not, let’s say, disturbing for our neighbours and that kind of thing. Otherwise, as far as the actual production of it, you could do it in any greenhouse that’s existing right now. You could also do it in a commercial warehouse. There’s more than one way of doing it.

[4:50 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): The federal government is dealing with the production, and then we’re dealing with the regulation as well as retail. Those things are welcome. I was just curious whether you had any comments on that at all.

R. Ens: One comment that we did provide to the previous government was that in all agriculture, there are codes of practice and the requirements of being a good neighbour and what is considered normal farm practice. This not being an established production practice at this point, we’ve recommended that that is something that has to be developed.

What are proper setbacks? What is proper security and that? How does that fit into the legal framework? That’s something we have recommended to the Ministry of Agriculture.

J. Brar: I know the land for agriculture in British Columbia is very, very limited, if you look at the overall picture. But a lot of people don’t understand that. There’s always pressure to remove the land from the ALR, that kind of stuff. There’s always pressure, particularly in the urban areas.

My question to you is: from your association, do you try to educate people about how much land we actually have where we can grow food, if need be, and that it’s a very limited amount of land?

R. Ens: It’s something that we are very aware of. There’s less than 5 percent of the province that is in the ALC, 3 percent that’s sort of best class. It’s why we have cities where we have cities, because that’s where the food is produced. It’s an ongoing challenge.

We understand also that as a society, we need roads, we need hospitals. That’s part of what makes our businesses successful as well. So you can’t preserve every single square inch of farmland. But it’s having that balance, having that attitude that just sitting on this for 20 years or 40 years — that this land isn’t just cheap development land. It’s here to grow food for future generations.

S. Vander Waal: I think another interesting comment would be that land itself, without the other, call it, capital infrastructures on it, doesn’t really do you much unless you actually have some of those, say, secondary processes behind it. Because often the very primary side of it is not very lucrative, you might say. It’s that secondary process that adds value.

Those are the important parts, and that’s probably some of the challenges, right? But like Reg says, there’s not a lot of good agricultural land, so the importance, I think, in the future will be to kind of direct it in such a way where we’re actually looking at these different sectors and just saying what could be on what type of land. But that’s quite a different vision statement in terms of how you go forward with the ALC.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, we’re out of time. Thank you very much for your presentation and all your recommendations.

All right. Next up we have B.C. Lung Association — Scott McDonald.

How are you?

S. McDonald: Very well, thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your public service, especially on this Thanksgiving weekend we’re starting out. The traffic getting here was bad. You’re going to have a hard time getting home.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Peter was talking about that at lunch.

P. Milobar: Yeah. I’ve already done the math. At this point, I might as well stay here. I’ll get home in the same length of time as if I left now or at seven.

B.C. LUNG ASSOCIATION

S. McDonald: Yeah, we just drove from New Westminster, and it was quite an adventure.

Thanks very much for allowing me to appear here today to provide some comments from the lung health perspective for your consideration as you develop input for next year’s provincial budget.

Mr. Milobar will know that the Lung Association built Tranquille hospital in Kamloops almost 120 years ago. We were the society for the prevention of tuberculosis and other forms of consumption, and now we’re the B.C. Lung Association.

Tuberculosis has been curable for about 70 years. It will kill more people on earth this year than in any other year in history. Not really an issue here in British Columbia or in Canada, but elsewhere in the world tuberculosis rules as an infectious disease.

B.C. Lung Association, which I represent, is one of Canada’s most respected voluntary health agencies, dating back to before the turn of the previous century. Our organization’s name changed in the late 1970s. We became the Lung Association and became interested in many other issues other than tuberculosis.

With the relatively modern discovery by Sir Alexander Fleming of antibiotics in the late 1920s, tuberculosis, as I said, has diminished here in Canada. But it is really a problem elsewhere in the world. The British Columbia Lung Association remains very actively involved in tuberculosis control internationally, as well as, to some degree, here in Canada and in British Columbia, where the B.C. Centre for Disease Control has that responsibility now.

[4:55 p.m.]

The British Columbia Lung Association is volunteer-driven. We’re a donor-supported organization with representation throughout the province and tens of thousands of supporters. We represent the lung health interest of all British Columbians, and we do this largely through the support of science and the development of clinicians and scientists, programs of public and professional education, lung health advocacy and patient education.

Our mission is to improve the lung health of British Columbians, and our focus is on lung health and lung disease and on preventing lung disease. We’re a provincewide, evidence-based organization whose primary interests are lung cancer, asthma, emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis and tuberculosis, although we’re also very interested in sleep apnea, influenza, pneumonia, cystic fibrosis and all other lung health issues. We have a very large plate.

As I said, we’re particularly interested in prevention. As such, we have a very strong organizational focus on tobacco use and protecting the air we breathe. Tobacco use, although down dramatically in the past few decades, remains the single most important threat to the lung health in our province, with over 500,000 British Columbians continuing to smoke cigarettes on a regular basis and tens of thousands of young people taking up the unfortunate habit every year. With continued use, more than half of those youngsters will suffer dramatic and unforgiving consequences that will affect their families, their careers and their lives. As a direct result of their smoking, thousands will suffer from lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and many other issues.

We therefore urge you to recommend committed and continued leadership and investment by our government in the fight against tobacco, and dedicated efforts to prevent young people from taking up the habit, and also to help smokers kick the habit. Provincially funded programs — like the tobacco cessation program, which provides NRT to all citizens of B.C. at no cost, and the QuitNow program, which the B.C. Lung Association has operated for over ten years — are vital to our lung health future. Our view is that they should be continued and expanded to reach the widest-possible number of people.

Protecting the air we breathe is also vital to the lung health of future British Columbians. We are fortunate to enjoy some of the cleanest air in the world, but there are threats to that clean air that need all of us to do our part. That will also require close attention, leadership and investment by our government.

We therefore ask that your recommendations to government with respect to the upcoming provincial budget include provisions for protecting our air through every means available, and in such ways as expanded investment in mass transportation initiatives, energy conservation efforts, woodsmoke reduction and finding alternatives to forestry, industry and agricultural practices that involve burning waste or fuels that are known to be highly polluting.

One in five British Columbians suffers from lung disease now, and most lung disease, once diagnosed, is managed largely by the use of effective medicines. Lung disease patients who work in partnership with their family doctors, respiratory specialists and other health professionals to manage their diseases are able to work, play, be part of their families and contribute to our communities and to our economy. When they are not well managed and they can’t breathe, they are in distress and are very anxious and under great pressure, and so is everyone around them, from family members and employers to the health care system.

Investment by government in the most effective medicines available, prescribed by physicians who understand that particular patient’s specific needs, will improve the lives of patients and those around them. Patient access to the best medicine available for them will reduce financial pressures on the health care system by patients who need to visit doctors or emergency rooms because government policy restricts their access to the most effective medicines for their situation.

None of the knowledge, strategies or tools that will be required to assure the lung health future of British Columbians would be possible without the people, science, research and innovation that will make it possible. We ask that the provincial budget also include significant tangible and philosophical investment and a commitment to science, innovation and strategies for improved health for all British Columbians throughout government.

To summarize, we ask you to recommend that the new provincial budget contain provisions to expand efforts to reduce the harm caused by cigarette smoking. We ask that you recommend investment in protecting the air we breathe. We ask you to recommend that patients have access to the best medicines available, and we urge you to recommend to government that support for science, research and innovation be a foundational aspect of the new budget.

Thank you for your consideration. I’m happy to answer questions.

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

I have a quick question for you. We’ve had a few people, the Cancer Society and others, who are advocating for increasing tobacco taxes. I’m wondering if you have a position on that.

[5:00 p.m.]

S. McDonald: Every barrier to access to tobacco is a good one in terms of lung health. I know you heard from the Canadian Cancer Society. They stated that lung cancer is the leading cancer, unfortunately. Most of that is caused by cigarette smoking, unfortunately. So any effort, including the increase of the cost of cigarettes, would be beneficial.

S. Cadieux: I have two questions. First off, can you comment at all about the incidence rates, or rise or not, of COPD and those related conditions? Also, you reference in your presentation the lack of access to the most effective medications. Is there any in particular that you want to reference?

S. McDonald: COPD, as Ms. Cadieux said, is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — more often known as chronic obstructive lung disease. It’s a combination, usually, of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. It restricts the elasticity of a person’s lungs, and they’re not able to exhale. It’s a terrible way to die. It’s a terrible way to live, and most of it, unfortunately, is caused by exposure to tobacco smoke. There is a type that is caused by an enzyme that’s hereditary, but for the most part, it’s brought on by tobacco smoking.

The difficulty there, the increase in COPD, is it usually occurs after many years of smoking, and the very high rates of smoking 40 and 50 years ago are now affecting 50-, 60- and 70-year-olds. Unfortunately, there’s very little that can be done about it except access to better medicines.

There isn’t a specific medicine that we can cite, but the process is what we’re concerned about. The system for approving medication through the PharmaCare system is a bit cumbersome. Some of our colleague organizations have more difficulty with access to drugs. What we would like to see is a streamlined, more improved system and a reduction, if possible…. I know it’s difficult to have…. If you spent more effort on prevention and care, you wouldn’t spend as much on hospitals. But the silo effect is something there.

J. Brar: One thing that I would like to know from you, if you have any information: how are we doing in terms of detecting these cancers? Of course, I think every family physician knows who the patient is who’s smoking and who’s not smoking. Are we directing people at the right time for detection?

S. McDonald: There is — developed in British Columbia, actually, by Dr. Stephen Lam, largely at the B.C. Cancer Agency; he’s a respirologist — a system to identify, or at least to predict, the possible occurrence of cancer through a technological process.

The lungs themselves don’t have the nerve endings that feel pain. It’s your plural membrane that feels pain, and usually the symptom is you’re coughing blood or you’re coughing, and at that stage, it’s probably going to be bad news.

There hasn’t been a huge increase in survivability with lung cancer since the early 1950s. It, unfortunately, remains something around 15 percent of patients diagnosed will survive five years.

P. Milobar: So in terms of the new e-cigarettes and vaping and all of that, what are your association’s thoughts and/or supports that you see maybe needing to be added to overall funding packages and stuff around the impacts that they may have? I know they’re still relatively new, so there might not be a ton and ton of research.

S. McDonald: The jury is out on e-cigarettes. A lot of people, youngsters especially, are experimenting with e-cigarettes. Currently Health Canada prohibits the importation of nicotine in the e-cigarette formulas into Canada. It does come here. People can buy it on line. It comes here. It’s available.

Usually with nicotine replacement therapy, or how you decrease your consumption of cigarette nicotine, it’s by a patch or a pill or something, where you start off at a fairly high rate of nicotine and you diminish it.

Currently with e-cigarettes in Canada, you’re not legally supposed to be in possession of it, so it really shouldn’t be available here to discuss, but the science is looking at it.

[5:05 p.m.]

There are those that say it’s better than smoking cigarettes. I guess we’ll discover that in the years to come. It may well be. But a lot of young people, you’ve probably seen people experimenting. Quite often in traffic, I notice the person ahead of me is exhaling out the window, and you know that’s not going to be good for you. I don’t have to be a doctor to know that.

Our position is that about the only thing you want to inhale is nice, fresh air — and, possibly, puppy breath.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, on that note…. Thank you very much for your presentation and all your work you do for our lungs.

S. McDonald: Appreciate it. Thanks so much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next, if I could call Fiona Walsh.

FIONA WALSH

F. Walsh: Good afternoon. My name is Fiona Walsh. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak about something that occupies me for many hours every day. I have come before you to speak about cycling as the best mode of personal transportation for the future. I’d like to suggest how you might resolve some of the transportation issues which face people in Metro Vancouver.

I’m speaking as an individual citizen. I’m not representing an organization that I’m affiliated with, though some of what I will say may align with the views of cycling organizations or the bike industry. On this Friday afternoon, after a long week of consultation, I hope I can bend your collective ear to the plight of cyclists in B.C.

“Get off my road.” I feel as if some drivers would like to put me in my place, but I pay for the roads too. I pay taxes, but I have a very low impact on the roads I use. I have to constantly watch out for debris thrown to the side of the road by passing cars and trucks into my unseparated bike lane, for potholes that are created over the winter by heavy vehicles and for grooves in the soft asphalt made by motor vehicle tires as a result of hot summer weather.

Yes, they’re your roads, but they’re mine, too. And it takes money from all the people of B.C. to pay for all the damage your motor vehicles cause and the deaths and serious injuries you drivers cause to cyclists and pedestrians, who have the right to use the road or to cross the road to get to where they need to go. We don’t have 2,000 pounds of metal protecting our fragile bodies. There’s no such thing, to cyclists, as a fender-bender that only costs money to fix. For cyclists, such an event leaves them incapable of cycling, emotionally a wreck or dealing with a concussion, in spite of wearing a helmet.

The main points which I would like to make today concern provincial funding for cycling, support for the bike industry, and infrastructure design, as the most important factor to encourage people of all ages and abilities to ride a bike.

I would like to appeal to you, firstly, for funding for cycling. This could take the form of increased financial support for infrastructure projects, such as Bike B.C. offers, that would encourage the greatest number of people of all ages and abilities to cycle to work, school or their local shopping area on existing roads.

Funding for cycling would enable municipalities to deal with the needs of an increasing population, to offer less costly transportation alternatives, to reduce traffic congestion, to save their citizens hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per year and to improve the well-being of people of all ages and cycling abilities. The reduction of health costs alone would amount to a tenfold payback on the amount of government investment in cycling.

People who ride a bike are healthier, happier, more resilient and live a life more connected to their community. Their active lifestyle ensures a better quality of life in their later years and freedom from chronic disease.

I don’t wish to throw data at you. The numbers are very convincing, but I wish to appeal to you for what is evident and visible. People in B.C. are generally fitter than other provinces in Canada, and more so among baby boomers. I’m one of those. And our climate is easier on seniors who would like to lead an active life.

Most of us learned to ride a bike in our youth, and some may still have a bike in their garage. We haven’t forgotten the freedom of movement we experienced as young people, but the province needs to invest in cycling to encourage the baby boomers to go for a ride. Presently, the small proportion of the budget spent on cycling programs, incentives and infrastructure can’t be justified, considering the advantages cycling offers. I’m healthier now than I was at 60, and I’m 68. I’m already planning my 100th birthday.

[5:10 p.m.]

Secondly, I am appealing for help for the bike industry in B.C. Before I elaborate on this topic, I would like to tell you about my experience with cycling. As a child, I rode a bike that belonged to one of my older sisters. I never owned my own bike. Between the ages of 12 and 60, I rarely rode a bike, though I encouraged by children to cycle. In 2009, after visiting China and seeing the many ways that bicycles were used for business and pleasure, I bought myself a bike. I wanted to be successful in travelling from North Vancouver, over the Second Narrows Bridge, to Burnaby. That was before the bridge sidewalks were widened, and I knew that the North Shore hills would defeat me unless I had help, so I bought an electric assist bike.

I was not fit at 60 and was feeling that my aging body and unhealthy lifestyle could prove to be my nemesis in transitioning away from driving — or, as I called it, playing in traffic every day, behind the wheel of my car. However, after a rough but relatively harmless period of learning from my mistakes — luckily, I was not a victim of a car crash — I was able to settle into the transition. In 2013, when I retired, I made another gradual transition, from my heavy, electric-assist bike to a regular, much lighter bike.

By the way, since January 2011, TransLink has forbidden e-bikes on their bike racks, on their bus racks, because of their weight, even if the ten-pound battery can be removed from the bike. Part of my motivation to transition to a regular bike, while still keeping my e-bike in the basement, was to have a backup plan where I could put my bike on a bus, and part of it was a desire to do the 1,200-kilometre Paris-Brest-Paris ride in my retirement. The next PBP ride is in 2019. Now if I’m tired at night, if the weather is bad or if I’m carrying too many groceries, I can put my regular bike on a bus rack and get home, in North Van, safely.

I would like to see e-bikes become a popular bicycle for my demographic of retired but healthy, or aspiring healthy, people and for the average young adult whose employer doesn’t provide the shower and changing facilities for cyclists to be presentable when they arrive at work. I would like to see the government of B.C. remove any obstacles in the way of getting people on e-bikes, such as taxes.

I would like to see the government of B.C. create a training program to encourage young adults to become bike mechanics and to get the recognition that such people deserve, because they contribute to the safety of all cyclists, whether they ride an e-bike or a regular bike, no matter what age they are or what cycling ability.

Our bike mechanics need to know so much more nowadays than they did way back when, when bikes were simple machines. There are many models of e-bikes, from the delivery or cargo bike to the individual bike or tricycle.

Thirdly, my appeal to you is for safe cycling infrastructure, to encourage people of all ages and abilities — that’s called AAA — to cycle on urban or rural roads, for short distances in town or for touring and exploring our beautiful province. We can talk the talk, but we need to walk the walk to understand what a novice cyclist feels when they try to take the most convenient and direct route to their destination.

Engineers who received their training in the era when the motor vehicle was seen to be an economic boon of the developed world and a rite of passage for the 16-year-old middle-class teenager are faced with a challenge to deal with the paradigm shift of the 21st century. They are just examples of people that cycling advocates have to deal with — people who are making decisions that impact the safety of our vulnerable road users.

While back then the bicycle rider was seen as either a poor member of the lower class or just too young to drive, that is no longer the case. Some young engineers and city planners ride their bikes to work daily across bridges and long distances. A painted bike lane beside moving traffic, which is often going over the speed limit, doesn’t ensure the safety of the new and, mainly female, adults, who are too afraid to cycle. They imagine that they’ll be the one that gets hit from behind by a car. It happens.

We know now that we can design our roads for the best and safest infrastructure for all cyclists. We have examples from Amsterdam and Copenhagen, from the major U.S. cities and from Vancouver and Victoria.

A painted line that indicates a bike lane is a joke when you are starting to ride a bike instead of driving a car. It presumes a level of education of the driver and a will to actually see the other road users. How many times has a driver been acquitted of a serious driving offence because he or she didn’t see the cyclist? The onus is on the cyclist to do a plethora of things in an attempt to be seen by a driver, who may simply be one of the many distracted drivers on our roads these days.

[5:15 p.m.]

The outdated Motor Vehicle Act doesn’t sufficiently address the new technology in the hands of today’s drivers and the dangers that exist for the vulnerable road users. An example of poor infrastructure can be found in the Wardance bridge between the Lions Gate Bridge — it’s below the Lions Gate Bridge — and North Vancouver and the Park Royal shopping centre. It’s part of the Spirit Trail along the North Shore coastline.

I agree there may be many problems getting all parties to the table to negotiate. There’s First Nations, there’s Park Royal, there’s West Van, and there’s maybe even MOTI at the same time. But in the interim, cyclists risk their lives having to take the lane in front of a driver who wants to say, “Get off my road,” who drives well above the speed limit, which is 20 for such a narrow bridge, and who won’t even slow down for the 200 metres of the bridge.

We face these things every day. Thank you very much for listening.

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

R. Leonard: Thank you so much. That was a very pleasant to listen to presentation. You certainly enlivened the subject. Cycling is something that’s very near and dear to my heart, and your mentioning particularly safety for new cyclists is, I think, a key element to getting more bums on bikes. Between education and infrastructure, as a cyclist who has grown into being a regular user of the transportation system, it’s as much your right to be on as vehicles.

Where do you see a priority? Do you see it in education? Do you see it in the infrastructure? You mentioned Bike B.C., which is, of course, part of the financial package. How do we grow cycling from this point forward?

F. Walsh: There are so many things that could go into that, but firstly, I find that when I talk to municipalities or planners or whoever, they say: “Oh, yeah, that’s a great idea, but you know? We haven’t got the money.” Well, that’s a simple answer. Find it. You want to kind of say, “There is a way to move money around,” and it doesn’t seem to happen because their first thing is: “We don’t have the money.”

I think cities are dealing with more people, and they do need more money to run, so I’d have to say money would be the first thing to enable them to think of these projects, to enable them to put the infrastructure in. We know the best infrastructure is separated, but they’ll paint a line and say: “Aren’t we good? Look what we did.” No, you’re not good. Sorry, but that painted line isn’t going to do the trick.

I’d have to say money first but then education, in terms of educating the engineers as well as the drivers. ICBC has added things to their test regarding cycling, but I’d want to put more. So there’s a lot to that answer that I could give. There’s a lot more I could say.

R. Leonard: That’s good. You’ve put some really good thoughts on the record.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much. Not seeing any more questions, I really appreciate your time. I agree. That was a really fun presentation. Appreciate it.

Next up we have school district 43, Coquitlam — Kerri Palmer Isaak.

SCHOOL DISTRICT 43, COQUITLAM

K. Palmer Isaak: Good afternoon. My name is Kerri Palmer Isaak. I am the board chair for SD 43, Coquitlam, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. This is actually my third consecutive year in front of your committee. I’m bringing forward some of the same items, but I’m hoping there’ll be some fresh ears.

I represent SD 43, which is the third-largest school district in the province. We’re after Surrey and Vancouver. We’re a bit of an unusual school district in that we actually are amalgamated of five municipalities: Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Belcarra and Anmore. So we’re a bit of an anomaly. We’re a very diverse district with very diverse needs and a huge geographical area.

I’m going to be brief. I realize that I am at five o’clock on a Friday before a long weekend, and I would be ridiculous in thinking that you have a lot of stamina left.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. Go for it. No problem.

K. Palmer Isaak: I can relate to how you feel. My board meetings usually go until about 11.

You have my package in front of you, so I’m not going to actually read directly from it. I don’t think that’s necessary, and you’ve probably had a chance to have a look at it. But what I’d really like to draw your attention to, actually, is the front cover, in which I’m not representing just five municipalities and the board; I’m actually representing my partner groups as well.

[5:20 p.m.]

They have all signed on to this — the Coquitlam Teachers Association, my Coquitlam Principals and Vice-Principals Association and my DPAC, which you probably are all familiar with. I think it’s important to recognize that we actually have consulted with our partners on what they believe are our priorities. We have compiled them, and we’ve identified these as the priorities of all of us going forward.

My first one will come as no surprise to you. We would like some funding, of course. SD 43 has a balanced budget with sound fiscal and financial management practices. We have a proactive capital improvement plan. We have revenue generation success. We’re one of the few districts that does. We have some of the highest student academic outcomes. And we still need more funding.

We would like to ask that the Ministry of Education update their K-to-12 funding allocation system formula. I’m sure you’re hearing this a lot — funding, funding, funding. As a budget creator for my district, one of the things, if I had a magic wish that I could ask for, would actually just be for consistent, reliable funding. I don’t know if I could emphasize that enough — consistent, reliable funding. However, we are significantly underfunded, and there are allocation inequities amongst the districts.

CommunityLINK funding is one of the areas where we’ve really identified the allocation inequity amongst school districts, and there are a number of different tables in my package here that will draw your attention to that. CommunityLINK funding and the vulnerable student supplement really work to help our most needy students in our district. They provide a number of different programs. The tables indicate that we have actually seen no change in our CommunityLINK funding from…. I have 2011 to 2015 on here. Then I also have ourselves and our place with the other surrounding districts.

I’m hoping that you’ll have a look at the formula for CommunityLINK funding. We are now subsidizing our Community LINK funding out of operating because we realize how important it is. One of the biggest parts of CommunityLINK funding for us is actually food for our breakfast and lunch program for vulnerable students. I don’t know if that hits home to you, but it sure does for me. I won’t go on about that too much, but it’s really clear that SD 43 needs support for vulnerable students. For SD 43, an increase is needed to prevent the effectiveness of the grant from actually being diminished.

The one I’d really like to bring your attention to today is No. 3, and that’s mental health support funding. We realize the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth and B.C.’s new government have identified that support for students for mental health is essential. I presented this piece to the committee last year as well, and I’m really hoping that this will get some traction this year.

The related challenges are our number one priority. The rise of students who are struggling with anxiety, depression, suicidality, psychosis and other mental health and behaviour challenges is well documented. The numbers are becoming overwhelming. Our staff doesn’t feel equipped or trained to effectively work with these children. The existing funding is inadequate to support the increasing number of students and their increasing needs.

We recommend increasing funding to support students with mental health–related challenges and providing a model that will work with the Ministries of Children and Family Development and Health to provide wraparound support for students. Our current structure is unable to meet the needs of students, from helping them arrive at school at the beginning of the day, supporting them throughout the school day — reintegration after hospitalization is one of the really tough parts for us — working with the other mental health professionals, supporting academic progress and helping support students manage stress and anxiety.

There isn’t, at this time, a consistent provincial plan for reintegration into the school setting for students that are suffering from mental health challenges, and we would really like to see that happen. We would like to build in some protective factors and help at the classroom level for students who struggle with mental health as well.

As a part of the solution, SD 43 proposed to the Ministry of Education to develop and run a provincially funded pilot program in this area. We’re still waiting to hear back about our proposal. We hope that this new government will approve our pilot project.

Of note, essentially what we are looking for is funding for a coordinator in our district. They would oversee all of our mental health pieces and also, with reintegration, coordinate with other health care providers, hospitalization, teachers, principals, administrators. So create a position that would allow us to do that with extra funding.

[5:25 p.m.]

This committee actually asked for a copy of our pilot program last year. We sent it to them, but we have not heard back.

We recommend…. I will jump down into funding protection because I don’t want to run out of time. I know you’ve probably heard a lot about funding protection. I don’t think it’s going to be eliminated, but what we’d like to see is a modification to funding protection. We would like to see that coming from the province instead of being almost punitive to other districts where the funds are reallocated out of our budget. In my budget, it’s about $1 million.

New school construction addition and seismic upgrade funding — this is one that’s near and dear to my heart because I have a petition right now on my desk from 1,500 parents. Our schools in our region, of course, have some severe challenges with seismic upgrades. But in my area, we’re growing very, very quickly, and our demand and need for new schools in our region is extraordinary. We are not able to, of course, keep up with that demand. We are always playing catch-up, and we are always four or five years behind the need.

I would like to really recommend that a new model is developed for funding for new schools in new developments. I think it’s essential. We’d also like to recommend that the project approval process be streamlined.

I’d like to conclude, and just say that our population in my area is expected to grow by 140,000 people by 2041. This will require some very proactive planning and increased funding, funding that will allow school district 43 to deliver more educational services that are mandated by the Ministry of Education; the ability to better support vulnerable students in mental health–related and social issues; to better support our local, regional and provincial education initiatives, such as the new curriculum; to help us undertake capital projects and meet seismic needs and enrolment growth; and the ability to significantly project it with our predicted student enrolment growth over the next 20 years.

We’d like to acknowledge that the recent budget commitments made by the new B.C. government were for $680 million in funding. But we also recognize that this funding has largely been committed to and factored into school district budgets to meet the reinstated class size and composition requirements for the most part.

In closing, I’d like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for hearing our recommendation. I’d like to ensure that they are considering these recommendations in the upcoming budget.

Thank you for having me here today.

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

Questions?

J. Brar: Thanks for your presentation.

I have a quick question. I understand the issue of class size and composition has been, kind of, a complex issue, has been an issue for the last many years. Finally, it has been settled by the court. But having said that, I have always believed that whatever we provide we have consistent and, what you said, reliable funding.

I’m a bit curious to know if you can explain a bit more. What do you mean when you say you want…? You’re emphasizing that you need consistent and…? What was the second word?

K. Palmer Isaak: Reliable, consistent funding.

J. Brar: And reliable funding?

K. Palmer Isaak: We don’t feel that. We feel that we’re constantly being downloaded different items that we are funding. Then funding in our grant programs then gets cut, so then we are paying out of our operating for different programs that were initially funded.

It’s a bit of a taking from Peter to pay for Paul, a lot of the time, that we end up doing. Unfortunately, it comes out of operating. Ninety-plus percent of my operating budget goes to wages, which means then I’m cutting back on my staffing and my teaching. It’s just constantly trying to recirculate the same funding.

If we were able to have that consistent funding, where we were able to project and make hiring and all of those kinds of things, it would really benefit the district — really, really benefit.

P. Milobar: Just on that of consistent shuffling. Does your board yet have any idea what the increased carbon tax might mean to you in terms of it not being revenue-neutral? Will it impact your budgets?

K. Palmer Isaak: That is not something that we have discussed, but I’m more than happy to take that back to my staff and to my board and get back to you, if you’d like. I’ll make a note of that.

On the carbon-neutral piece. You’d like to know if that has had any impact.

[5:30 p.m.]

P. Milobar: The increases won’t be revenue neutral, so I’m wondering how that will impact school districts or not. It may not, but I’m not sure.

K. Palmer Isaak: You know what? It’s not something that’s come to me yet, so thank you. I appreciate it.

M. Dean: Thanks so much for your presentation. I’m sure it won’t surprise you that we’ve heard a lot of concerns about mental health needs for kids. It’s getting earlier and more complex. So kids all the way from preschool through to secondary education.

I’m wondering. Do you think that…? If there was a more systemic and comprehensive approach to mental health in terms of reducing stigma, increasing prevention, plus services in the community, how much would that, then, reduce the need for you to actually have mental health services in schools?

I think it’s always helpful to have a choice for kids, but if it was actually a more comprehensive system, then would that actually alleviate some of the demands that you’re experiencing?

K. Palmer Isaak: That’s a really good question. I don’t really think I have an answer for you, other than to say that children spend such a significant amount of time in their lives in the school setting.

What we really struggle with — and I’m not sure if this answers your question — is the disconnect between the services that they’re receiving outside of school and then trying to provide additional services at school, really, because we have no option. Teachers need training. They need resources. We need to have professionals in our system that can help them and then kind of closing that loop.

M. Dean: I know what you mean.

K. Palmer Isaak: I think that’s one of our largest challenges. What we really see, I know, at middle school and high school in my area is young people that are, unfortunately, going into a hospitalization situation. Then we’re trying to bring them back into the school setting. We don’t have a lot of support for them in that situation.

Also, communicating with their principal or administrator and their teachers — there’s a big disconnect happening there. You’re relying on the families. Sometimes there’s not a lot of family support or knowledge, or the culture might not be helping them there. So we would really love to see what we call a wraparound outside in the community, at school, and then for the families too. A bit of a bubble of support around a student is what our team usually calls it.

We think that we could probably deliver that if we had the opportunity to have a coordinator — or maybe more than one, because I have a large district — that worked on that piece to wrap that support and make sure that none of our students kind of fell through the cracks.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Would you mind sending us that proposal?

K. Palmer Isaak: I’d be more than happy to send the pilot out to your committee.

B. D’Eith (Chair): You might be interested to know, too, we’ve had a number of suggestions in terms of post-secondary, which is very similar. It’s very consistent messaging in terms of the need for youth mental health.

T. Redies: I just wanted to ask a little bit more of, I guess, a question on your insight on these SSI numbers, which are quite startling — the differences.

K. Palmer Isaak: I’ll do my best.

T. Redies: I’m sorry. I don’t know the details. Why is there such a big difference in per-capita funding among school districts that are pretty close together?

K. Palmer Isaak: The only answer I can give you is that ours has been frozen. We’ve asked….

T. Redies: The others weren’t?

K. Palmer Isaak: Some of them have been adjusted over time. But ours has actually — I mean literally, within a couple thousand dollars — been frozen over the years, and our population….

T. Redies: But your numbers, in terms of the numbers of students, have not, obviously.

K. Palmer Isaak: Even if you were to just logically think, as a percentage of population, that you have this many percent of vulnerable students, as your population grows, that naturally is going to grow. There’s no two ways about it. I don’t know why. I have no rationale for why that funding has frozen, but in our district, it definitely has.

T. Redies: This data is from where?

K. Palmer Isaak: Our staff has compiled the tables for me, based on the numbers that they have been able to locate from other districts.

T. Redies: From the different districts.

K. Palmer Isaak: Yeah. Every district has to publish their budget and the information that they have for funding.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time, but thank you very much for your presentation and your answers and all the work you do for our children.

Next up we have the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia — Maria Howard and Barbara Lindsay.

M. Howard: Good afternoon.

[5:35 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): John Mann. It just broke my heart when I saw that picture. I was at his last concert at the Commodore.

M. Howard: The Spirit of the West concert.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. I cried the whole time. He was such a good friend. He was such an amazing man, and for early onset Alzheimer’s…. It’s just so heartbreaking to see someone like that, John Mann, to…. Anyway, you’re going to get me all emotional, so let’s just move on.

ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF B.C.

M. Howard: Thank you for having us here this afternoon to share with you how the Alzheimer Society is doing and the wonderful partnership we’ve had with the B.C. government, specifically the Ministry of Health, and how we are so fortunate to have that partnership and really work together closely to help people in British Columbia who are impacted by dementia.

The Alzheimer Society of B.C. Our belief, our vision, our mission is a world without Alzheimer’s. But until that day, what we are promoting and actively trying to create is a dementia-friendly society. That’s a society where people who are impacted and live with dementia are welcomed and acknowledged and still can continue to have the best quality of life that is possible for them.

We all have seen the stats. Seventy thousand people, roughly, in the province of B.C. have some type of dementia. We know that number is growing. We know that number is also quite significant in terms of a national and international touch. I think the stat that I have seen in British Columbia that grabs my attention more than the 70,000 is that 60 percent of those 70,000 people live in communities, which means they live in our neighbourhoods, and they are people that we know.

The Alzheimer Society of B.C. is working really hard to ensure that people who are impacted by dementia have the support they need to have the best life possible. We do that through our First Link program, predominantly. The First Link program is outlined in the materials we have submitted. It’s really a way that we reach out to families, to people, to physicians and health care providers, and it’s a program that offers information, support and education, depending upon what every individual needs. We know that is different.

Everybody comes to their experience with dementia in a very different way, but people do need help, and people need the confidence and the courage to raise their voice and ask for help, because we know that that doesn’t often happen.

The First Link program has been operating in B.C. for quite a number of years. Four years ago we had a really open conversation with the Ministry of Health, and we committed to a number of changes. One of those significant changes was to ensure that First Link was a provincial program so that it was offered throughout the whole province of B.C. I’m really excited to say that has been achieved, so whether you’re living in Burnaby or Vancouver or in Pouce Coupe or in a small community even further up north, you can access First Link. That is really, really important.

The program also really focuses around supporting the medical community and trying to have a place where docs can refer their patients to get the support that they may not be able to provide. Again, due to community supports or their lack of ability in terms of rural communities, they have somewhere where those individuals can reach out to.

People come into the First Link program and begin to connect with the staff in our society throughout our number of offices across the province. Again, depending upon where that family is, that individual is, the support that can be offered — the information, the education — is tailored to them.

The uniqueness of First Link, or one of the many uniqueness of First Link, is that it is what we call a proactive program, meaning that if a family is referred to us, if an individual is referred to us, and they are just not quite ready to participate in services or reach out, we keep reaching out to that individual until they are engaged with some type of services. We know that when someone is diagnosed with a chronic, terminal illness, to begin to ask for help is pretty overwhelming, and we know that people need to have that support so that when they’re ready for it, they can.

The calls that come into our First Link program range. They range from people saying: “I’m beginning to have memory problems. My partner is having memory problems. Is this dementia? Is this normal aging?” We get people who have just had a diagnosis, and they don’t know where to turn. They don’t know what to do. They may be 75, but they may be 45. Those are two really different situations.

[5:40 p.m.]

We have people phoning saying: “I’m going to see my doctor, but I don’t even know what questions to ask. How do I get my doctor to understand what’s happening to me? My doctor asked me to come back in six months and let him know how I’m doing. How do I have that conversation?” We hear people saying: “We’re moving into care. We need to move into care, but we don’t know what to do. We don’t know where to begin.”

The First Link program helps with all those calls and helps bring in other community partners to reach out. We know that First Link makes a big difference for families. We know that they are able to integrate into the community better. People continue to live their lives as best they can. We know that through then, when, perhaps, transition to care does come, or even with the introduction of home support, families who have gone through First Link are much more ready to engage with the health care system and health care professionals and be a joint partner in providing the best care.

The education that we provide to health care professionals throughout the province…. We do this in tandem with SafeCare B.C. as well as independently. We know that those health care professionals share that they are able to support residents much more on a person-centred level by understanding what dementia does. We also know, from some really excellent work with WorkSafe B.C., that the rate of injuries for health care professionals who’ve worked with residents who have dementia has decreased because of learning about a different way to provide care to someone who has dementia.

There are many elements. We also know that the caregivers — people who may be working, people who may be elderly and have chronic illnesses themselves — also need the health care system. By providing support and help to them, we’re hoping that we can also not have them come to the door of the health care system once they are burnt out and not sure what to do. So again, by wrapping care and support around the whole family, around the whole care partners, we are hoping that we can have people have the best quality of life for the longest time.

The partnership of First Link with the Ministry of Health, again, has been a very excellent partnership. We’ve worked closely with the ministry to ensure that the data that we’re collecting from our First Link program is being readily available to the data that the Ministry of Health has through the dementia registry, through the seniors advocate and through a number of different elements and using that data to try to begin to start to understand where the hot points are in our health care system for people with dementia. Where are the place we can do better?

What are the demographics? Health authorities — we work closely with them in looking at the demographics, their aging population and the rates of people with dementia. Again, where is the help most needed?

By moving the First Link program forward, our ask is to continue to be a partner with us in the funding relationship of First Link. Also, to continue to be a partner with us in the planning, the thinking through, the strategic element of how we ensure that people touched by dementia in our province are getting the best supports.

We have had a great relationship, and we’ve been very appreciative of the funding that has come to our society on an annual basis. We’ve been seeing approximately $2 million to $2.5 million per year, which really has significantly helped this program roll forward in a 50-50 cost share — again, one of the reasons why the program has been able to become a full provincial program.

What we are asking is for the commitment to make that funding a three-year relationship or a three-year contract so that we can begin to really work on the data that is coming from offering a three-year program, one that is now throughout the province. We could be using that data alongside of the ministry to be actually comparing what is happening and better understanding.

It is time, in that three-year period, to work much more closely with the health authorities and think of ways to bring the docs to the table, to work with the Doctors of B.C. How do we get the physicians to refer more? How do we get them to become a part of the solution to helping people living with dementia?

It is a growing concern. We all know that. We all know that there is now data that supports that the number of people in our province over the age of 65 is more significant than our children. That means that we have to start to think about how dementia is touching all of us. We all come with a unique experience. We all want to continue to be contributors in the community, but we have to have supports in place.

One of my favourite stories is about a family who came to our First Link program. Their father lived at home. He had been a long-haul trucker for his whole career and was very proud of that career and what it meant for his family. As he progressed through his dementia, as you can appreciate, the loss of his licence made such a significant change in his life. It was what defined him, and now he could no longer drive.

[5:45 p.m.]

The family were really looking how to support him and make him feel like he was still a contributor. He eventually had to go to care. His ability to be at home, to be safe, began to be too much for the family. Again, they felt like a real burden was happening in this individual who had been so influential in his community and so defined by his career and was now stepping into a care home.

That family came together and began to think: how do we continue to honour someone? How do we continue to acknowledge the contributions they’ve made? So that family went out and bought the most skookum 4-by-4 king cab truck that you can ever imagine, in bright red, and they asked the care home if they could park that truck in front of that care home.

They put the truck in their father’s name, and any time he had to go anywhere, whether it was to a doc’s appointment or for a coffee, they drove him in his truck. And any time anybody came to the care home and said, “Whose truck is that in front of the care home?” the staff would say: “That’s Mr. Smith’s.”

What an amazing way to honour someone who still wanted to be proud, wanted to be a contributor. That family thought about a way to do that, and that is what I believe the First Link program and the partnership with the ministry helps create. People, rather than being afraid and maybe sometimes ashamed of dementia, sitting quietly and not reaching out, have the courage to step up and continue to think about how they continue to be a part of the community.

Again, I just thank you so much for the support from the B.C. government. All the parties have been great players, and we are so appreciative of that. The funding has made a big difference, and we really look forward to continuing the relationship and moving this to a level where we can continue to really learn and grow and help people in our province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I worked in the arts for many years, and we always had the same issue. How do you plan if it’s year to year to year? Having three-year commitments or five or whatever it is, is so beneficial for being able to actually do more than just worry about what’s going on next year.

If it’s okay, I just have one little question.

M. Howard: Absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m asking them because I’m supposed to let them go first, I think.

I’m just curious about early-onset dementia and the support for long-term care. My brother is schizophrenic, and they’re thinking that he might be getting into dementia from a lot of the medication and things. But it seems that when we went out to look for facilities for younger people with dementia, there wasn’t a lot out there. Is your organization addressing that or looking at that seeming gap?

M. Howard: Yeah, absolutely. It’s a great question, because as we all know from being in the B.C. health care system, the system is still predominantly a physical medical model. People’s level of care is assessed on their physical abilities. Often that doesn’t fit for people with dementia, and it often doesn’t fit for people who are young, who have a lot of other issues and, still, abilities.

Working very closely with SafeCare B.C. and B.C. Care Providers, we are trying to think about different models and provide guidance on models of care homes where people with different levels of dementia can still have an active place to live but with the right supports around them.

Certainly, there are a number of dementia villages that are in the works around our province. I’m sure you would know about some of those. But, yes, certainly we are helping families, and the municipalities as well, think that through.

T. Redies: Thanks for the presentation and for all the work you’re doing around this. It’s a very, very serious issue, and it’s obviously going to become more so as our population ages.

I’m very curious about the biomedical research. I’m just curious how the Alzheimer Society of B.C. here is plugged into other groups throughout the country, other parts of the world, because I think the key, I guess, to advancing a cure is being able to tap into all the research that’s going on. So I just wanted to get some colour around that and what you’re doing.

[5:50 p.m.]

M. Howard: Oh, definitely. The Alzheimer Society of B.C., first of all, is part of a federation. So unlike Heart and Stroke or maybe Diabetes, as examples, the Alzheimer Society of B.C. and our provincial partners, plus our national partner, are a federated model. We have a research program, the Alzheimer Society research program, where researchers across the country can apply for grants. We run that program every year. Our society itself funds a professorship out at UBC, the Ralph Fisher and Alzheimer Society of B.C. professorship. Dr. Hsiung, who’s in that role, is a biomedical researcher as well as a clinician.

We are very connected, as well, through the CCNA, which is the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration and Aging, which is a researcher network that’s been set out of the CIHR through the federal government. We sit at that table, and certainly there are many large priorities in terms of data banks that are being created and looking at biomedical.

The interesting thing about dementia is that there is lots going on in the biomedical world — still lots of theories around diagnostics, biomarkers. Could a vaccine make a difference? I mean, there are lots of theories, lots of people working hard nationally as well as internationally. Certainly, the World Health Organization has put out some big goals for the international community to meet.

What is interesting, though…. There was a recent survey done across Canada, asking people impacted by dementia what they saw as the top priorities in research. The interesting thing is that the top five — or maybe even ten, if I remember correctly — were all around quality of care, quality of life, which shows that people who are living with dementia, while they are still hoping for a cure and treatment, need help today. They need things that are going to help them in their communities. So I think it has to be a double approach, striving to find the way that we can get some information and a cure but also ensuring that people have the care.

We like to say that before a cure, there is care. You can’t get people to donate to research, participate in clinical trials, even become neurologists and clinicians in our own province and specialize in Alzheimer’s, if you don’t care. So we have to promote the care.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We have one last question.

M. Dean: And I have five questions. I’m going to ask that you give us the figures another way so that we actually have the figures and we know by what factor you’re increasing them every year as well.

M. Howard: Of the dollars?

M. Dean: Yeah, because you’ll need to account for changes every year in building your budget. But we’re interested, actually, also in your priorities. There are people living in the community. I was particularly interested in First Nations people, but also, 60 percent of people are still living in the community. So how do you prioritize?

M. Howard: Yeah, great question. I’ll answer the last one first. Often the way we design our programs is based on that community need, so we work very closely with each regional health authority to understand their needs. We certainly are looking into multicultural populations. We have two initiatives right now, working with the Chinese communities as well as the East Indian community, to start to understand what dementia means in their communities and how to support that.

We certainly have had conversations with First Nations. Diabetes is a significant issue with dementia. While those conversations have started, they have not progressed to anything. But those are real commitments to us, and we are very proactive in finding donors who are committed to those causes and then going out and actually looking for ways to run those pilot projects, so those do get significant priority.

In terms of the figures, the program does increase over time, and within about two years, it’s about a $5.2 million program to run. We have also begun to really look at the way we operate, so the use of technology is certainly very significant: how do we reach people through a different way? We’ve just had a donor make a significant support of resources to us to put in quite a significant web-based system, so now we can offer education through webinars across the province. Those are the ways that we are balancing, and we certainly look to community partners to ensure that support groups are being offered by people who are local and know the community better than we may at that point.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, we’re out of time, but thank you very much, Maria and Barbara, for coming and for all the work you do for Alzheimer’s.

M. Howard: Thank you very much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next I’d like to call BC SPCA — Craig Daniell and Marcie Moriarty.

[5:55 p.m.]

BC SPCA

C. Daniell: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present.

Marcie and I have both been with the BC SPCA for around 15 years. This is not the first time that we’re presenting to the committee. We’ve done that over the course of each of the last four years. Some of those years, we’ve actually come with a funding request, and other years, we’ve come with an update on where we are in terms of funding that we’ve received from the provincial government.

We’re actually not here to ask for funding. We’re wanting to provide you with….

A Voice: Yay.

C. Daniell: Probably one of the few groups.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Bring a puppy next time.

C. Daniell: We’d certainly do that.

Don’t worry. The funding request is coming in a year or so.

M. Moriarty: Then we’ll bring a dog.

C. Daniell: What we did want to do is just give you an update, again, this year on the progress that we’ve made with our facilities development and services plan. There is a presentation that we’ve provided. I’m going to kind of focus a little bit on that but talk more generally.

A little bit of background on the organization as a whole. We’ve been around since 1895. Unlike many charitable organizations in the province, we actually are a creature of statute, created by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and are not under the Societies Act.

We operate 44 locations across British Columbia and really provide services in the areas of wildlife, farm animals, cats and dogs, small animals. We also have facilities dealing with spay and neuter, veterinary hospitals, a call centre in Victoria, as well as animal shelters right across the province.

We investigate about 10,000 complaints of animal cruelty each year. That’s done by our special provincial constables that are located across the province and fall under Marcie’s jurisdiction.

One of the things that was important for us as an organization is recognizing that we have a very broad mandate. As a result of that, the services that we provide are significant and are funded almost entirely by our donors. We wanted to make sure that we could continue that work but, at the same time, put in place a plan that would allow us to replace some of our aging facilities across the province.

Over the past number of years, we’ve been partnering with the provincial government to specifically look at our capital needs across the province, especially given the fact that we have as many facilities as we do.

We identified the need to repair or replace 12 facilities across the province. The slide that you have identifies the specific facilities. Really, for us, they’re located right across the province — from the north, in places like Dawson Creek; to a number of facilities in the Lower Mainland; Fraser Valley; on Vancouver Island; and in the Okanagan-Thompson region as well.

Unfortunately, there’s a big price tag that’s attached to that. One of the things that we were wanting to make sure of was that we could continue to fund our operations as well as fund these new facilities. We’ve estimated, based on our most recent data, that this facilities plan is going to cost us about $65 million to complete over, probably, a decade.

We’ve been very fortunate to receive $10 million of funding from the provincial government at this point. That has allowed us to actually move forward with a number of projects.

Projects that we’ve actually completed include projects in Nanaimo, Surrey and Kelowna — where, for instance, we were able to add a large-animal capacity to our organization. When most people think of the SPCA, they think of cats and dogs. But about 20 percent of our work relates to farm animals. So having the opportunity to add large-animal barns in both Surrey and Kelowna has given us an additional capacity that we’ve never had before, and that, really, is thanks to the support that we’ve received from the provincial government.

The other area that we’re working on is three facilities that we actually anticipate breaking ground on and getting going on those in the fall or early 2018 in Castlegar, Kamloops and Dawson Creek.

One of the things, unfortunately, we have experienced — and I think this is not unique to our own organization — is that construction costs have gone up significantly over the course of the last year. So it’s kind of delayed each of those three projects. But in all cases, we anticipate that we will have those projects fully funded.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’ve outlined, in the PowerPoint presentation that we provided, the total costs for each of those projects. You’ll see that in each of those cases, our organization has still actually been able to fund the majority of those particular projects.

The really neat thing is that in each of those cases, we’ve been able to partner with foundations and with local governments to try and make sure that they’re part of the partnership in ensuring that we can construct new facilities going forward.

Those are the projects that are basically shovel-ready or about to go into the ground. Then we received a second $5 million of funding for two additional projects that are currently in the planning stages — one in Vancouver and the other one in Prince George.

Our Vancouver project is our biggest project. It’s a project that we’ve actually…. It’s our most important project. It’s the area where we intake the largest number of animals, but the reality for us is that, by a long way, it’s our most complex project. We have been in the planning stages for that for some time but are also working on a project in Prince George.

I think the reality I’ve mentioned is that we’ve been able to push forward with a number of these projects thanks to the support that we’ve received from the provincial government. Going forward, it’s certainly our hope that in the next couple of years, we come back to the standing committee and have discussions further with government on the need for continued and additional funding for this particular work.

We recognize that and are very committed to raising a significant portion of the costs that are needed for this particular plan, but we do believe that it’s important and an opportunity for the provincial government to continue to fund the work of the BC SPCA through capital support. That will allow us, in a sense, to have our donors continue to fund the work, for instance, of our cruelty investigations department, which is an annual cost of approximately $3.5 million every year that’s funded by our donors, but provides, essentially, services very similar to police officers around the province.

Next steps. As I said, in the West Kootenay, in Castlegar, we’re building a brand-new facility. We’re basically just about to start the project there. A project in Dawson Creek, where we’ve been able to partner with the local government. Then, as we move forward, projects in Prince George, Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and the Shuswap.

That’s my presentation. I wanted to thank the committee for its support for our work, and I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have.

T. Redies: Thank you for your work from somebody that owns three dogs and just picked up a rescue cat a couple of weeks ago. In our family, we’re very embedded with animals.

My question is around the laws and punishments relating to cruelty. Are they strong enough?

C. Daniell: Well, actually, Marcie is probably the best person to answer that, given that she heads up that particular area.

M. Moriarty: We’ve actually been really fortunate, over the years in B.C., to work to strengthen those laws. Most recently, legislation was passed around dog and cat breeding that we’re really hoping to work with government on, getting the regulations in place and seeing that reality in British Columbia.

We have seen some changes in the way our courts are dealing with animal cruelty cases. In fact, I’m part of a centre called the National Centre for the Prosecution of Animal Cruelty, which trains Crown counsel across Canada on how to deal with animal cruelty cases. So I really see a trend in improvements.

I think the law is almost there. I think what we need to now see is that being enforced more and being acknowledged in the courts.

C. Daniell: If I may just jump in, as well, I think one of the things that, as an organization, we really want to educate Crown and judges on is the link between animal cruelty and other forms of human violence. Often animal cruelty is a precursor of other violence going on.

R. Leonard: Since we’re here about finances, although you’re not about to ask us anything, I was just looking at the facilities that you’re building in Castlegar and Dawson Creek. I noticed that they look like you’re using the same architecture. I assume this is a particular plan to save money along the way, so we’ll be seeing that kind of really good fiscal management in the future when you come for your next ask.

C. Daniell: Right. That’s really important for us.

[6:05 p.m.]

These projects…. Wherever we can get an economy of scale, I think it’s important for us to do so. We actually started out…. The first facility we built was in Penticton, and we’ve done a facility in Maple Ridge. If you look at it….

B. D’Eith (Chair): I was going to say that when I looked at it, I went: “Oh, Maple…. No, that’s Nanaimo.”

C. Daniell: Exactly. They look very, very similar. A big piece in how we move forward as an organization is also in terms of making sure we provide very strong humane education, so every one of our new facilities, whether it’s in Dawson Creek or in Castlegar, has a very strong multipurpose function to it so that we can provide youth and adult education, going forward. Ultimately, our goal as an organization is to cease to exist. It’s probably not going to happen in my lifetime, but we know that the only way we do that is empowering youth to take action so that’s what you’ll see in going forward every time.

M. Dean: Thanks for all your work and for your presentation as well.

Do you have any benefits or disadvantages across different jurisdictions in your work where there could be added value if some of that was taken away? I’m thinking, for example, of your work to look after animals. Do you also include ocean animals and wildlife and then get into complications across ministries and federal-provincial jurisdictions?

C. Daniell: Our mandate as an organization is to protect and enhance the quality of life for domestic, farm and wild animals, so it’s a very broad mandate that includes all animals. It is difficult at times to make sure that we can actually provide the services that are needed in every single case. Wildlife is a really good example of this. We have probably one of the finest wildlife rehabilitation centres in Canada, in Metchosin — as you know.

M. Dean: I know.

C. Daniell: There is a really strong need for additional wildlife rehabilitation across the rest of the province. There are a lot of really good wildlife rehab centres but probably not enough. Really, it comes down to resourcing this issue. Our approach has been to try and look at where there is the most impact being made on animals and try and focus on those particular areas.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Craig and Marcie, for all the work you do for our animals and for our province, and thanks for the presentation.

Next we have the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association — Elizabeth Model.

Hello.

DOWNTOWN SURREY
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

E. Model: Hi there. Nice to see you all. Good evening. I’m Elizabeth Model, and I’m the CEO for the Downtown Surrey BIA. What I’m here to do today is just to give you a brief overview on downtown Surrey, what’s happening, and to talk a little bit about Simon Fraser University. From our standpoint, the Business Improvement Association…. I’m just going to shorten it up to the BIA, because it’s so much simpler.

We’ve been around for 14 years, and we support economic growth and development in downtown Surrey. One of the things that we are probably most proud of is our university, Simon Fraser University, which really was a catalyst for growth in downtown Surrey after the city of Surrey designated it as the downtown to be built out. Once Simon Fraser University opened doors, the population has grown and grown.

Surrey, as you probably well know, is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. By 2030, we’re going to exceed Vancouver in population — so phenomenal growth, as you’ll see in the brief that I provided you. I could go through it in detail, but I know you’re running behind. It is a Friday night, and I do know it’s a long weekend as well.

Having said that, SFU demonstrates some leadership in the development of our Surrey city centre. Along with the city of Surrey and Fraser Health, it created what is now known as innovation boulevard. It’s a collaboration of many players. It has developed a vibrant network that supports economic development, entrepreneurship, new technologies and numerous other offshoots and solutions to our health care systems within British Columbia. Some very interesting cutting-edge technology is coming out of that too. In the context of that is why I’m here today.

[6:10 p.m.]

Simon Fraser University signed an MOU with the government, back in 2006, to go from 2,000 to 5,000 FTEs, full-time equivalents. Unfortunately, that MOU has never been recognized or honoured.

With the growth that we’re experiencing, with a third of our population under the age of 19, we well know, as we move forward, not only as a region but also as a province, that one of the key things we require is education of our youth. They can’t get by any more on what you or I could years ago. They need education in the latest technologies, the latest developments, because things are moving so fast in this world.

Having said that, we’re actually here to support SFU with their request on that. The demographic, actually, speaks for itself. In addition to meeting the future labour market demands, we recognize that the Surrey campus, with those additional students, would be a catalyst for economic growth — not only for Surrey but also for the region and, indeed, the province of British Columbia. The expansion in the new engineering programs, our health programs and other research will draw people to British Columbia. And we can provide our own students and our own people with good, well-paying, secure jobs that will be a frontrunner in moving forward as a province.

One of the key indicators of that was that Business in Vancouver actually published a report, last September or October, of the university, of economic development, where it actually featured known facts in Metro Vancouver. It set out that the seats of higher learning had become key community innovation and business hubs, those universities and hubs. That’s what it’s created.

Having said that, we want to keep this momentum moving forward and request you give it some serious financial consideration when allocating and reviewing how the moneys are going to be spent. On the other hand, we also want to go on record by stating we are a business association. To keep B.C.’s momentum moving forward from that standpoint, there are three key factors that we’re asking the committee to consider.

One is transit and transportation — key for all of the province. Metro Vancouver really requires some massive infrastructure upgrades and requirements. That’s not only for the goods and services movement from the rest of the province through B.C., but also from B.C. to the rest of the province. So it’s a win-win for everybody.

Business competitiveness. We want to ensure creating an environment that encourages growth, retention of existing businesses and attraction of new and emerging businesses, industry and enterprise through fairness, tax advantages and trade-enabling infrastructure. That goes with the transit and transportation.

Finally, one of the key things is our fiscal management of the province: pursue prudent and careful fiscal discipline and management to ensure B.C. continues to lead Canada in economic growth with a careful eye on managing spending.

I respectfully submit these two requests to the Standing Committee on Finance.

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

J. Brar: Thank you, Elizabeth, and thanks to the Surrey Business Improvement Association for all the work you guys are doing for Surrey.

This time you’ve chosen to actually support SFU, which is a good thing, in my view. So 2,000 to 5,000 — the memorandum was there almost ten years ago, and nothing moved on that one. Do you have any information as to why it didn’t materialize until now? It’s ten years, almost, since it happened.

Secondly, if this happens in the future, do we have the capacity to provide classrooms for 5,000 students? Or do we have to build the whole infrastructure for that?

[6:15 p.m.]

E. Model: That’s a very good question. SFU, actually, combined with the province as well as the federal government, did a P3 for an engineering building. Moving forward, they obviously do need funding for additional students. How SFU is going to handle that is going to be very, very difficult.

Yes, we have asked every year. We’ve supported Simon Fraser University on this every single year. Speaking as an employer who had over 80 students from Simon Fraser University, most of our students actually have to end up going to campus downtown or on the mountain in Burnaby, because they just can’t provide all the classes in Surrey. So they’ll go to any campus that they can, which is really sad from a transportation and transit standpoint. I mean, that just adds to the confusion that’s out there.

J. Brar: What are the roadblocks, if you know them? Like I say, it has been ten years now.

E. Model: That’s correct. Well, I can’t speak for why the government hasn’t given them funding.

J. Brar: Do you know anything about that? That’s my point. I know, of course…. Do you know anything that is causing this? Or you don’t know of anything…?

E. Model: Well, when we review the recommendations of the Finance Committee, most of the time it’s just been dropped off.

T. Redies: Elizabeth, it’s so nice to see you. It’s great to see you advocating for Simon Fraser as well. The move from 2,000 to 5,000 FTEs — what’s the dollar number on that? Do you know offhand?

E. Model: You know what? I don’t. But I could certainly get those dollar amounts from Simon Fraser.

T. Redies: I imagine we can find it. I was just curious.

E. Model: Joanne Curry, who’s the external VP, offered to come with me today, but I gave her a pass on it, figuring that if there were any questions, I could circle back to Simon Fraser for that.

R. Leonard: I’ll ask you a question that’s not related. It’s related to the university, but it’s not the university itself. As the downtown improvement district, you may have some sense of the impact of having the university in your community, in terms of economic spinoffs and the vitalization — I won’t say revitalization — of your downtown area.

E. Model: It’s huge. Having the students there has really energized Surrey city centre and given it a life and breath of its own — even the mall, from a retailer standpoint. For those of you who don’t know, SFU was actually built on top of a mall. It’s a beautiful Bing Thom building. He re-created that entire energy around that. And the students, when they’re in school, activate the places and spaces and create a vibrancy that only comes with a university city.

Yeah, that’s a great question. Quite right.

P. Milobar: I totally agree. We tried it in Kamloops, getting Thompson Rivers University to have a satellite downtown, even within the same city.

The question I have is around the 2,000 to 5,000. Is it simply the case that that was supposed to be a…? I don’t know. Maybe I’m putting you on the spot here — and, potentially, SFU — with this question. Is it that they haven’t seen any spaces for funding increased? Or have they chosen to put the extra spaces that they may have got allocated in the downtown campus, Vancouver downtown, and up the mountain instead of expanding the campus in Surrey?

E. Model: That’s a really good question. That’s an SFU-specific question. I will circle back to you on that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much. A wonderful presentation. It is a real jewel for Surrey, the SFU campus. We’re trying to work on that in Maple Ridge, too, right now. Thank you so much.

Next we have Emily Carr Students Union — Lori MacDonald, Stephanie Broder and Roan Reimer. Thanks for coming out to Richmond.

EMILY CARR STUDENTS UNION

R. Reimer: We’ve just moved into our new campus, so it’s a pretty straight shot. It’s enjoyable to be here.

Good evening, members of the committee. I would like to start by acknowledging that today’s hearing is on traditional Musqueam territory. My name is Roan Reimer, and I’m the internal affairs coordinator of the Emily Carr Students Union. I’m also a student in the design program at the university.

[6:20 p.m.]

S. Broder: My name is Stephanie Broder. I’m the community engagement coordinator for the Emily Carr Students Union as well as a student in the visual arts. We are also joined today by our executive director, Lori MacDonald.

We’re pleased to have the opportunity to provide comment for the preparation of next year’s budget. We would also like to take this opportunity to celebrate that Emily Carr University has now moved into its new campus in Vancouver. The campus is stunning, and we look forward to seeing the creative sector in British Columbia thrive with Emily Carr at the centre.

In the written submission of our provincial students union, the B.C. Federation of Students, you will see a number of priorities we believe are key in moving our post-secondary system and economy forward. These will include increased funding to colleges, institutes and universities; the implementation of a student debt reduction strategy based on a comprehensive grant program and the elimination of interest on student loans; the implementation of those education-related recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that are the purview of the provincial government; regulation of tuition fees for international students; and a one-time funding increase to BCcampus for the production and enhancement of open educational resources.

For the purpose of this presentation, we would like to focus on two recommendations: addressing student debt with needs-based grants and a reduction of student loan interest rates, and increasing operational funding to post-secondary institutions. We would also like to reiterate our support for all five of the recommendations put forward by the B.C. Federation of Students.

On the topic of student debt. We continue to see our members struggling with the cost of pursuing a post-secondary education and the resulting student debt. While student loans help those who could not otherwise afford the high cost of education get through the door, they do so with an added expense to B.C. families as a result of the interest applied to the loans.

I’m currently in my third year at Emily Carr, and already I have accumulated over $20,000 in student debt. Throughout every school year, I work as many hours as I can to help finance my education, sometimes resulting in me having no days off in a week between school and work obligations. Yet this is still not enough to reduce my student loan requirements. I maintain top grades, yet scholarship assistance is also not enough to reduce my student loan requirements.

For students in my position — and there are many of us — we would not be able to get a higher education without student financial assistance, particularly, as Roan will mention, as tuition and other university fees have been on a steady incline. Yet student financial assistance, in its current form, saddles us with years of debt at the start of our careers, taking a large chunk of entry-level wages to make even minimum payments. If I were to stop accumulating student debt today, which is unlikely, since I have not yet completed my degree, and took ten years to repay my loan, a conservative estimate is that I would repay 130 percent of the value of my loan. In reality, it could be as high as 150 percent.

We have been pleased to see this committee recommend the establishment of a student grant program in the past four successive years. For this year’s budget, we are supporting the British Columbia Federation of Students’ recommendation that the province commit to the complete elimination of interest charged on student loans and to the introduction of an upfront, needs-based grant program to supplement the existing forms of student financial assistance. Action on this recommendation would make a significant difference to reducing debt and improving affordability for me and my fellow students.

R. Reimer: Thank you, Stephanie.

I’m now going to speak to the topic of funding for institutions. 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 in funding. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, operating grants for institutions have declined 20 percent since 2001.

Students directly experience the underfunding of institutions in their everyday lives on campus. We experience this through an overreliance on international student tuition fees to help balance budgets, without an understanding of the immense amount of services required to support these students. We also have a severely under-resourced counselling area that can’t meet the demand on campus and an overreliance on sessional faculty.

[6:25 p.m.]

A lack of provincial funding means a lack of investment in the learning environment for students. It also means institutions need to find ways to make up the funding shortfalls. The costs are transferred to students through high tuition fees and growing ancillary fees — the use of shops and studios, fees to access our tech resources and even fees to graduate. As institutions come to depend on user fees to make up larger and larger portions of their budget, students get forced into more debt and are put under immense financial stress.

We believe that students and their families should not have to make up for the public shortfall in funding provided to institutions. Provincial investments to funding for universities and colleges would be an important step into breaking the cycle of student debt and would mean students can access the support and services they need when attending college or university.

For the upcoming budget, we are supporting the recommendations put forward by the B.C. Federation of Students to restore funding back to 2001 levels, this adjusted for inflation. This would come out to be approximately $200 million for the 2018 year.

Additionally, a specific challenge facing our school at Emily Carr is that there’s a high demand for graduate programs in visual arts, media and design; however, the university does not receive per-student funding to operate these programs, because we are a special purpose teaching university. For multiple years, the Emily Carr Students Union has recommended that the B.C. government fund the graduate programs at Emily Carr University on a per-student basis, which would greatly alleviate the budgetary challenges at our school.

S. Broder: In closing, we would like to express our appreciation for the past support shown to several key recommendations by our students union and the B.C. Federation of Students. We hope the committee will once again recognize how attaining a post-secondary education can result in financial hardship and personal debt for both students and their families.

R. Reimer: We envision B.C. being a leader in access to post-secondary education within Canada and hope to have your support for our recommendations for the 2018 budget.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to your questions.

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

Questions?

Just so you know, we have actually met with a number of student groups, so the fact that we haven’t asked questions only means that we’ve asked a lot of questions.

We appreciate your being involved with the student union. I was on the student union when I was at UVic. They actually had student unions back in the Stone Age. So we appreciate the time and effort you’re putting into all of this and appearing today.

All right. Next we have the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver — Harriet Permut and Teresa Murphy. You might have to talk over the birthday party next door. We can hear you. Don’t worry.

H. Permut: I’m not worried. It’ll be good.

Teresa is not going to sit with me. It’ll just be me.

A Voice: We all experience screaming kids in the background at some point in our lives.

B. D’Eith (Chair): The problem is I automatically tune out. I’ve got to focus here.

Well, we’re ready to go.

REAL ESTATE BOARD
OF GREATER VANCOUVER

H. Permut: Excellent. Thank you so much for extending the time on this session today. We really appreciate that. I know it’s a long day, and it’s a weekend. Not great.

Anyway. I’m Harriet Permut, the government relations manager at the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. I’m here to talk to you today about several issues: the vital role that home sales play in our communities; how the property transfer tax, fondly known as the PTT, makes home ownership less affordable; and how thoughtful application of property transfer tax revenue could help make homes more affordable.

First, I’ll give you some background briefly about the real estate board. The board represents 14,000 licensed and commercial realtors and their clients — property buyers, sellers and owners in greater Vancouver. Our board boundaries extend from Pemberton in the north to Tsawwassen in the south, from the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast in the west to Maple Ridge in the east.

We operate the Multiple Listing Service. Using MLS data, we produce statistical reports used by business, industry, government, economists and universities. Real estate and construction together produce 26.9 percent of the provincial GDP and more than 256,000 jobs, making these sectors the largest job creators in B.C.’s economy. You can see that represented in that colourful pie chart on our handout. On the housing side alone, close to 40,000 homes were sold on the MLS in greater Vancouver in 2016, generating $2½ billion in spinoff economic activity and 17,600 related jobs.

[6:30 p.m.]

I’ve come to talk to your committee today, as I have for many years, about the property transfer tax. In fiscal 2016-17, the PTT generated more than $2 billion in revenue. For this fiscal year, 2017-18, the PTT is forecast to generate close to $1.9 billion in revenue. In the past ten years, the cumulative total revenue collected from this tax on homebuyers is $10.788 billion.

At the same time, the PTT continues to be one of the factors that contributes to making home ownership unaffordable. In Metro Vancouver, the potential homebuyers, sometimes known on the street as affordability refugees, who are unable to pay close to $662,000 for a typical townhouse must continue to flee to outlying communities such as Maple Ridge, which has the lowest-priced townhomes in the region. That’s the edge of our region — Maple Ridge.

The figures I’m citing are from the table on the back side of our handout.

After what may be an extensive search because of strong demand, a homebuyer might be fortunate to find a modest townhome at close to the benchmark price of $391,000 in Maple Ridge. This homebuyer will then have to pay an additional $5,820 in property transfer tax, which takes away a substantial sum from what they have saved for their down payment. The search for modest family townhomes will only continue to worsen as more families look to buy affordable townhomes because traditional detached homes may be out of reach financially.

Metro Vancouver’s current population is 2½ million. That number is forecast to grow by 35,000 new residents each year, reaching 3.4 million by 2040, which is only 23 years from now. This means that housing supply problems will continue to escalate.

This brings me to our recommendations. One of the ways to improve affordability is to increase the supply of affordable homes. In our first recommendation, we’re asking the government to use PTT revenue to provide financial incentives to municipalities to expedite rezoning land for innovative, compact, walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods would provide new choices for smaller homes — including cottages, townhomes and low-rise apartments — and would be both ownership and rental.

In our second recommendation, we’re asking government to use PTT revenue to provide financial incentives to municipalities that approve gentle density, including the stratification of laneway and infill homes as well as secondary suites.

Our third recommendation concerns levelling the playing field for homebuyers. Currently homebuyers participating in the B.C. HOME partnership program can borrow up to $37,500 to purchase a home priced up to $750,000. As well, those who purchase a brand-new home are allowed to purchase a home priced up to $750,000 without paying the PTT under the newly built home exemption.

The B.C. first-time-buyers program PTT exemption for resale homes is only available to buyers of property priced up to $500,000. This differential treatment of new and used homes seems inequitable. Our third recommendation asks the government to increase the first-time-homebuyers exemption program threshold to $750,000 from $500,000 to match these other programs and to better reflect the realities of housing markets across British Columbia.

For our fourth recommendation, we’re asking the government to increase the 2 percent PTT threshold to $525,000, from $200,000, for all B.C. homebuyers, not just first-time buyers. When the tax was first introduced in 1987, it was intended to be a wealth tax and covered about 5 percent of all homes bought, those priced at more than $200,000. Today, there are very few homes sold in the entire province that cost less than $200,000. The threshold for the tax has never changed, and, given the huge increases in the prices of homes since 1987, the tax threshold needs to be adjusted.

For our fifth recommendation, we’re asking government to index the thresholds of the various PTT-related exemptions using the consumer price index and to make adjustments annually. The three types of thresholds include the 2 and 3 percent thresholds, the first-time-buyers program exemption and the newly built home exemption threshold. The program has gotten very complicated the last couple of years.

[6:35 p.m.]

For our sixth recommendation, we’re asking the government to expand the exemption for the 15 percent foreign buyers PTT. That is available to newcomers under the provincial nominee program to include all those with work permits who are living and paying taxes in Metro Vancouver regardless of the program under which they got their work permit.

Our concern is that only 9 percent of permanent residents and foreigners with work permits in B.C. got their permits under the provincial nominee programs — 9 percent. That’s it. The other work permit holders got theirs under various federal programs, which the federal government has been expediting, but they are not entitled to the same foreign buyers tax exemption. This seems highly inequitable and doesn’t fulfil the promise made earlier this year to foreign workers holding work permits that their home purchases would not be subject to the additional tax.

Given the lack of grandfathering and how the tax was implemented, a lot of legitimate foreign workers came to B.C. under what they felt were false pretenses. Most of these workers are not wealthy, and the additional expenditure for the tax was not something they had anticipated having to pay. The difference in treatment of work permit holders based on the source of their permits just doesn’t seem fair. B.C. needs these workers to help us build and maintain our economy, and this aspect of the tax seems especially unwelcoming.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak with you today. I would be happy to take any questions you might have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I just have a quick question about tying the threshold to CPI. I could see that it’s possible…. Could you think of a time when it was possible that there could be a housing correction down and CPI would…

H. Permut: …go down? Yeah. The revenues would go down.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Is it possible that it would…? Is it just turning…? Can you see a scenario where CPI might go up but housing prices might go down?

H. Permut: Yeah.

B. D’Eith (Chair): The point is that tying it to CPI might not actually take care of the issue, which is housing prices going down. I can understand having a threshold that would go up in this market, potentially, but what if there’s a significant correction and all of a sudden that change doesn’t float properly? Is there another way that you might think that might work to make it float a little bit more to deal with it?

H. Permut: The problem is there aren’t very many choices. There’s only one other choice, and it’s called the new home price index. It’s a federal index. There’s a version of it for British Columbia. It’s created through Statistics Canada. The problem is that it’s what it says it is: it’s new homes. It’s only new homes. There’s only 2 percent of the market added each year in new homes. Most of the market is resale, and it wouldn’t cover that. So the only thing you’re left with is CPI, unless there’s another index created that deals with the pricing aspect. It could be done, but we don’t have too many….

B. D’Eith (Chair): I was just curious. I understand that the idea is having it go up if housing continues to go up, but I was just concerned that if housing goes down, the CPI might not….

H. Permut: We do track the CPI versus…. It’s one of the things that I do. I track these things.

B. D’Eith (Chair): And has it…?

H. Permut: It lags a bit. Houses usually go up and down. CPI’s a little lagging. But it kind of follows the same pattern. It’s probably not perfect, but it’s not bad.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I haven’t seen that, so that’s why I asked the question.

H. Permut: That’s okay. It’s a good question.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Questions?

J. Brar: We have pretty limited time. I know everybody has to go home.

You have six recommendations. I totally agree that we probably need to exempt the people on work permits here. That makes sense to me. But when you talk about the PTT, the property transfer tax…. If you had asked me about ten years ago, I probably would have said that it makes sense to me, but in the current housing market, you know, $3,500 or even $10,000 doesn’t make much sense even if you give it to people, in my view. That’s my view.

The market has gone crazy. If you look at it for the last five, six, seven years, the price of a house has doubled. So in that particular reality, if you give $10,000 or $5,000 away to somebody, I don’t know how much sense it makes anymore.

[6:40 p.m.]

Having said that, is there anything we need to do to make sure that your industry, this market, is run by pure professionals and there are not people who are playing games, making housing prices go shooting up?

H. Permut: On the first point about whether the amount of the tax makes any difference. It certainly does to people who are starting young families, who are maybe moving up from a condo to a townhouse. I’m not talking about wealthy people here particularly. But there are a whole lot of people who buy homes — 40,000 homes just in our board last year. Most of those people are not wealthy people, and they’re local.

I think to them it does makes a difference. Like I say, it affects their ability to raise a down payment, and you have to pay this tax in cash. You have to pay it outright. You normally don’t finance it. You have to have the money. A lot of them have enough trouble raising their down payment, so it’s just an additional burden on them.

The other section, about the industry. I’m sure you’re well aware that the regulation of the industry was altered last year substantially. We’re in the process right now of working both with the new superintendent, who’s not so new anymore, and with the revamped Real Estate Council — both of them are our regulators — to bring in new rules to try to create a bit more regular way of doing business. They’re both doing a very good job. We’ve started that process now. Most of our members, I would think, actually agree with them. They don’t have a problem with regulating people in a more uniform way and an even-handed way.

Honestly, the market usually takes care of…. People think there are too many realtors. The market normally takes care of that. If the market goes down, there will be fewer realtors selling homes. It always works that way. We can’t stop people from deciding to be realtors. But they have to follow all the rules — all of them, no matter who they are and how long they’ve been in the business. Those rules are the same, and they will be looked after by the regulator, who’s quite keen to do that. So that’s fine. And we’re working very well with them.

P. Milobar: Based on the numbers you’ve provided here in terms of going into next year’s budget, the forecast is that the revenue will be about the same as the current year. That would indicate not really an expectation that the housing market’s going to slow down any time or prices are coming down or there’s going to be any correction.

H. Permut: Taken it down a little — a little. I was looking at the detail in the numbers. It’s come down a little. The forecasts usually are pretty conservative. But often if you compare the forecasts, the budget, to the actual number, it’s way off — lately, unless the market tanks for some reason. Usually, there’s a fair windfall in this revenue compared to the budget.

P. Milobar: I guess what I’m asking is, short of….

H. Permut: This is finance, their judgment about the forecast.

P. Milobar: No, I understand that. I understand where the number came from. What I was trying to get at is if the expectations around the same revenue probably exceed, then it doesn’t appear that there’s a projection for a major shift in pricing.

You’re asking, essentially, for a redistribution of how the transfer tax gets calculated. In other words, juggle the thresholds. We may impact the overall revenues that start getting collected by the government….

H. Permut: Maybe there’d be a smaller windfall.

P. Milobar: But your ask is still to adjust it down regardless of what the market’s doing?

H. Permut: Yes. It’s coming from homebuyers, many of whom, honestly…. That’s a lot of money to them. You could run it any way you like. You can put any caps on it you like or income test it. You can do it many ways.

I just think that given that the way the tax is calculated has not changed since 1987, just on principle it seems ridiculous. It is certainly not keeping up with the market or anybody’s idea of what prices are doing anywhere in the province.

It’s not just in the Lower Mainland anymore. The average price in B.C., all of B.C., for a house is probably close to $700,000. Close, just under. And that’s not in the Lower Mainland. That’s all of the province. That’s a pretty big number. Most people wouldn’t realize it was that much money. So it’s not just us. It’s everyone across the province. We’re just the worst case.

T. Redies: I’m just curious what your folks are thinking about in terms of the inclining interest rate environment and how that is going to impact the situation.

H. Permut: That’s always the one we watch most carefully, as well as foreign markets. Whatever is going on in other parts of the world is usually what scares us, because you have no control over it.

[6:45 p.m.]

Certainly, if interest rates are increased a lot in a short period of time, that would scare people. I think it’s more about confidence of buyers than anything else. We’ve certainly had times in this province, and all across the country, where interest rates were terrible and the market was awful. It’s a straight correlation. You can see it. We don’t anticipate that the interest rates are going to go up that much. They’ll increase, but gradually, and it doesn’t seem horrible.

I think the mortgage rules are more problematic than the interest rates. Government is tightening the rules so much. After such a long period of time, they’ve made so many changes, we can’t even keep track anymore of what’s causing what.

T. Redies: They’re tightening the rules because they’re worried about people being overextended and particularly in an inclining interest rate.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Like, don’t want a sub-prime situation, right?

H. Permut: The banks don’t do that, fortunately — banks or credit unions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I know. Thank you very much. We’re out of time but appreciate your presentation and your thoughts on all this. That’s wonderful.

Next up, last but not least, Langara College — Dr. Ian Humphreys and Viktor Sokha.

LANGARA COLLEGE

I. Humphreys: Good evening. My name is Ian Humphreys. I am the provost and vice-president academic at Langara College. I am joined this evening by my colleague, Mr. Viktor Sokha, who is the vice-president of administration and finance. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening.

Langara College is located in the centre of Vancouver. We serve over 21,000 students a year, providing university transfer, career and continuing education programs. The college is also known as snəw̓eyəɬ leləm̓, a name given to us last year by the Musqueam First Nation, on whose unceded territory the college is located.

As you will see in the materials we have provided, Langara’s programming is well aligned to meet the needs of the Lower Mainland communities we serve and local industries, including the business, health, technology and creative sectors.

Like many public post-secondary institutions in the province, we have faced challenges in recent years in maintaining financial sustainability while modernizing our facilities and operations. Through entrepreneurial efforts and fiscal discipline, we have managed our way through those challenges, growing our international students and continuing student enrolments and increasing our revenues from those sources in order to maintain balanced budgets and to generate surpluses.

Through the introduction of a student capital legacy fee some years ago and with small accumulated operational surpluses over many years, we were also able to self-fund a stunning new LEED gold science and technology building, which opened for classes in September of last year. I would encourage you all to come and visit us. It really is a stunning building.

We believe that we have demonstrated our ability to be sound financial stewards and innovative entrepreneurs, but we do need the help of the province in three key areas.

First, we need assistance in continuing the important work of modernizing our campus. Our main classroom building — the first building built on campus and creatively named building A — is long past its useful life. Engineering reports have indicated that it will sustain catastrophic damage in the event of an earthquake. We have brought this issue to the attention of government in previous years.

Through self-funding of our new science and technology building, we have been able to vacate parts of the A building by relocating all of our specialty science laboratories. However, the A building is the largest on campus, containing 60 percent of our classroom space, together with all of our specialty arts education facilitates.

To move forward, we need to move the remaining programs and instructional activities to safer and more modern spaces. When that happens, we will be able to retire and demolish the A building and provide additional space on campus to further our growth and development.

Unfortunately, the campus footprint does not allow us to build sufficient new buildings in order to empty the A building, and as such, we need to find more creative solutions to our problem.

[6:50 p.m.]

We have previously expressed interest in acquiring the south building of the Emily Carr Granville Island campus, which has recently been vacated by Emily Carr as they moved to their Great Northern Way Campus.

This space is an ideal fit, as it is purpose-built for creative arts education, and it is those programs that we would move from our main campus to Granville Island. That would allow us to work towards building a classroom building on the available space on main campus and to complete the decanting of activities from the A building.

We believe that this situation would benefit all of the stakeholder groups involved. Granville Island would benefit by having a large arts institution replace Emily Carr to support the arts community on the island. Please note that we’re also working with the city of Vancouver, Pacific Theatre and the fringe festival in conducting a co-location study exploring movement of our nationally acclaimed Studio 58 theatre arts program to Granville Island as well.

The provincial government would benefit by being able to solve a major structural problem at Langara campus at minimal cost, and Langara would benefit by being able to focus on building a much-needed classroom building that would allow us to complete the emptying of the A building and work to create additional space for future buildings at the main campus. This could include new space for student residences, something that we are currently unable to consider. We would greatly appreciate the province’s support as we explore this as an option for the college.

Next. We have worked incredibly hard to collaborate with our host First Nation, the Musqueam, on whose unceded territory the college sits. This is evidenced by the fact that they’ve bestowed the honorific name upon the college. We believe we are the only institution in Canada to have had such an honour bestowed upon us.

We are intent on meeting the important recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, despite serving the province’s largest urban Aboriginal population, Langara does not receive Aboriginal service plan funding. All Aboriginal students in B.C. deserve equal programs and supports. In order to deliver those, it is our belief that all B.C. institutions need to be funded equally under this program. We would very much like to see the 14 institutions currently not part of the Aboriginal service plan, including Langara, be added to it.

Finally, fully 50 percent of our operating budget is now reliant on variable sources of income, namely international student tuition fees. These revenues come with significant risk, as they are subject to many issues outside of our control. Any decline in these revenues would put the institution at risk for significant operational deficits and impact our ability to deliver programming and services.

On average, B.C.’s public post-secondary institutions receive $10,000 per student from government. Langara, however, receives only $6,100 to educate that same student. At the same time, we have one of the lowest per-credit tuition fees in the system. We actually believe it’s the second-lowest in the system. Without more stable, equitable operational grants from government, our continued success may be at risk.

Thank you for consideration of these important requests. We’d be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

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

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. It’s a good package you’ve given us.

Just a couple of things. We’ve heard from a lot of the student unions and the federation of student unions regarding tuitions for the international students. There is a desire to see them, I guess, more regulated so that they’re treated more fairly and there’s some stability in their tuitions. Apparently, they’re not regulated. They can change, so students don’t know from one semester to the next that their tuitions could be raised by significant amounts.

[6:55 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if that has been a consideration. I recognize your risks, but I’m trying to balance that against what we’re hearing from the student unions. I also have another point that I’d like to make, but I’ll let you answer that first.

I. Humphreys: Well, I think that’s an important question for the institution, as it would be for students as well. But I would point out to the committee that currently, with our current budget, the cost of delivery of one credit of education at the institution is about $450. We receive $95 for that credit in student tuition fee payments for domestic students and about $190 in grant funding from the provincial government. That leaves us nearly $200-a-credit short of the actual cost of delivery.

When we establish our international student tuition fees, it’s not intended to gouge international students. It’s intended to reflect the actual cost of delivery of education. Admittedly, domestic students benefit from that.

Currently provincial government grant assistance accounts for about 30 percent of our budget and domestic student tuition less than 20 percent. So more than half of our budget funding comes from these variable sources. We do sympathize with the international students on that account, but we are being responsible in the cost of delivery.

As far as understanding and having assurances about what tuition fees will be, we set and establish tuition fees annually. So there is no term-to-term fluctuation in tuition fees. For three years now, we’ve been stable in our tuition for international students, and the previous increase to international student fees only raised them by 5 percent. So it’s not as though we’re making enormous lifts in international student tuition on a year-by-year basis.

R. Leonard: I think one of the comments that was made was that it was variable between institutions.

My second question, very quickly…. It’s not a question, actually. It’s just a comment. On the first column of your “Challenges and opportunities” at the bottom, you make reference to accessing unallocated surpluses for capital investments in IT. I just wanted to reiterate that the $2.7 billion surplus that was taxes that were collected and revenues that were collected in excess of what was budgeted are, by law, from the previous government, put into paying down the debt. So there aren’t actually any surpluses that are available to allocate.

I. Humphreys: I think — and I would defer to my colleague on this — that as an institution, where we are required to have balanced budgets, when we do encounter a surplus and we do require funding in order to build new buildings, which the government has been reluctant to fund, then we would like the opportunity to debt-finance those buildings and to then apply that surplus to the paying down of that debt rather than for it to go to some other means or use of the government itself. Otherwise, we will never be able to fund the building of the new buildings or to replace the building that’s about to fall down.

R. Leonard: Okay. Well, I’m glad I mentioned that, because my understanding of what I was reading was about provincial surpluses. But you’re talking about your college surplus. That’s great to know. Thank you very much.

I. Humphreys: The actual surplus of the college itself. Right. Absolutely. The government can do with the government’s money what it will, and we would like to do with our money what we want to do.

M. Dean: Thank you so much for your presentation and being here at this time of this evening. Could you just explain a little bit why…? You said there was a difference between the $10,000 and the $6,100. Could you just explain that? I don’t understand…

I. Humphreys: …how that came about.

M. Dean: Yeah. What the mechanism is behind that and, therefore, what should change.

I. Humphreys: It’s a historic thing. Probably ten to 15 years ago institutions were funded on an FTE basis, and FTEs were differentially priced, as it were, in acknowledgement of the fact that certain programs were more expensive to deliver. Science programs tend to be more expensive. Things like medicine and the like would be very expensive. Nursing is very a expensive program to deliver for our institution.

At a point in time, probably more than a decade ago, we moved away from paired FTE funding and variable funding to block-grant funding. So we now get a lump sum regardless of the type of FTEs that we are delivering, and that’s why there is this big differential. Our average FTE is a lot lower than the average FTEs of other institutions because the FTE mix at the time that that happened was different. There’s been no adjustment of that to reflect what the current activity of the institution happens to be.

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

I. Humphreys: Don’t forget the help we need.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Absolutely. I appreciate everything that you’re doing for our students.

We are now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 7 p.m.