The committee met at 8 a.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Well, good morning, everybody. It’s eight o’clock, and we’d like to get going. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton and the Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to begin with the recognition that our public hearings today are taking place on the traditional territory of the Okanagan people. Personally, I just want to thank them for sharing these incredible lands with us.

We’re an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly with a mandate to hold public consultations on the next provincial budget. The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper which 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 our province?

The committee is holding a number of public hearings in communities around the province, and British Columbians can participate in these public hearings in person, via teleconference, video conference or Skype.

There are numerous other ways 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, and more information is available at the committee website, which is www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance. We invite all British Columbians to contribute to this important process.

For those of you in attendance, we thank you for taking the time to come in today. All public input will be carefully considered by the committee as it prepares for its final report to the Legislative Assembly. Just as a reminder, submissions are required to be in by 5 p.m. on Monday, October 16. The committee must issue a report by November 15, with its recommendations for the 2018 provincial budget.

Today’s meeting will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. If time permits, we will have an open-mike at the end of the meeting, with five minutes allotted for each presenter. If you wish to speak, please register with Stephanie, the young lady over in the corner. All meetings are recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services. A complete transcript of the proceedings will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast live via audio at our website.

I would now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves.

A. Weaver: My name is Andrew Weaver. I’m the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

J. Brar: I’m Jagrup Brar, MLA, Surrey-Fleetwood.

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

P. Milobar: I’m Peter Milobar, MLA, Kamloops–North Thompson.

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

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

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Assisting the committee today is Susan Sourial, sitting to my immediate left; Stephanie Raymond, from the Parliamentary Committees Office; and Michael Baer and Amanda Heffelfinger, from Hansard Services. I need to say that these are four of the most incredibly hard-working individuals that you’ll ever meet. It’s a real challenge to be able to drag everybody around this province, and these people do an exemplary job.

I’m also pleased today to welcome a gentleman, Eton Moses, from the National Assembly of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, who is here on a parliamentary staff exchange.

Eton, welcome. Thank you very much for coming today.

We will start with our first presenters, some incredibly well-known individuals in the Okanagan. Welcome, as always, Connie Denesiuk, Jim Hamilton and Allan Coyle, from Okanagan College. Thank you very much for coming.

Budget Consultation Presentations

OKANAGAN COLLEGE

C. Denesiuk: Thank you for the introduction. At this point, I think you’ve already heard from a number of our colleague institutions, from faculty associations and from students. Going by the respectful questions you’ve posed and observations you’ve made after those presentations, I know that you understand we all share one common interest: providing the best possible education to the greatest number of British Columbians in the most affordable manner.

Let me start by telling you how well we’re doing in that regard. This fall Okanagan College recorded a 4.5 percent enrolment increase. With those numbers, I’m confident in telling you that when the dust settles on the 2017-2018 year, we will, for the 13th year in a row, exceed government enrolment targets. To give you some perspective, last year we had more than 20,000 people who took advantage of our educational offerings.

[8:05 a.m.]

We’ve introduced new programs, created new educational opportunities for students in this region and beyond, and succeeded in drawing a growing number of people from around the globe to study and work. Our international numbers grew by about 29 percent this fall, and that helped to create capacity for our domestic students as well as add to the diversity evident on our campuses.

With government support and a great non-profit partner, we opened a new child care facility in Penticton this fall, serving students, staff and the general public. We are in the throes of building a new trade centre facility in Vernon, and we’re nearing tender stage for a new health sciences building right here in Kelowna.

With provincial support, we can do more, and one of the ways government can help us do that is by giving us the ability to borrow to develop facilities, especially student housing. And I understand you’ve heard this message before.

We have an incredibly tight housing market in our region. I know you’ve heard issues being expressed on the Lower Mainland, but statistics and students are telling us that it’s even worse here in Kelowna. The latest statistics from CMHC from the fall of 2016 showed a zero percent vacancy rate in Kelowna for bachelor suites and an overall vacancy rate of 0.6 percent, even lower than Vancouver’s 0.7 percent. And that was before this fall’s growth in student numbers, both at Okanagan College and UBC Okanagan.

Why am I telling you this? Given the ability to borrow, we could move forward with plans for a 400-bed residence to help ease the issue for our students and also take pressure off Kelowna’s rental housing stock. We are also working on plans for residences in Vernon, Salmon Arm and Penticton, where the rental picture is similar.

Accommodation and access go hand in hand for post-secondary students. While about three-quarters of our students come from within the region, there are many students from elsewhere who come to our campuses for specialty programs, such as our sustainable construction management technology program in Penticton.

We attract many students and can support them with development of student housing, but there are many other supports that would help as well, which brings us to our next point. And I’m going to turn it over to Jim.

J. Hamilton: The next point is the further investment in student supports. I want to focus first on work-integrated learning.

At a time when B.C. is facing skills shortages, we cannot afford to squander the opportunity to help students succeed and go on to work at jobs and careers that will fuel the development of our province’s industries and communities. Work-integrated learning, where there are partnerships with industry and employers and opportunities for hands-on, practical learning, is something that colleges are very good at. With additional resources, we can do even more.

I’m going to give you a very recent example of just how we connect with industry. KF Aerospace, one of the region’s largest employers, is facing a dire shortage of aircraft maintenance structures engineers, the core of their business. With support from the company, we made a successful appeal to the Industry Training Authority for funds to add another cohort of students. On November 14, 12 would-be structures engineers will be in class in a hangar space that the KF has freed up for the additional program.

Our students will be learning alongside the company’s own workforce, with funding from both government and the company making it possible. So when they graduate, the students are virtually guaranteed a career and, very likely, with KF Aerospace, who commonly hires many of our grads in that program.

Another significant industry we’re working with in the valley is our large and growing digital media sector. With advice and input from the companies who have the largest workforces here — companies like Bardel Entertainment, Yeti Farm Creative, Hyper Hippo and Disney Interactive — we’ve developed and introduced a two-year animation diploma program that just started this fall.

Our work in this industry does not stop there. These companies are partnering with us, school district 23, UBC Okanagan and the Vancouver Film School to develop a training pipeline that’s going to provide industry-recognized accreditation and also include co-op, apprenticeship-style work experience programs.

The delivery model is being aligned with government programs, including the B.C. jobs grant and other funding partnerships, and the short-term goal here is to build the digital skills programs that reflect regional needs and address the job growth expected here, somewhere in the range of 250 to 500 new positions.

[8:10 a.m.]

Those are the kinds of workplace-integrated learning and the sorts of industry-government-college partnerships that make immense sense and that would benefit from further support.

One thing I know you’ve heard a lot about in your consultations is mental health supports for our students. It is something we have to focus on collectively. I’ll start with a quick story about a pilot program called Flourish, which two of our dedicated support staff recently developed and introduced at our Penticton campus. It’s focused on promoting positive mental health among students.

You’ve heard several times about national research on the state of student mental health in Canada. The worrisome picture that it paints was reinforced by research conducted by some of our own students and staff in Penticton. It showed that a significant number of students are coping with anxiety and depression that may be affecting their studies.

Clearly, we need to give our students the tools to help them cope and achieve their success. With just six weeks of classes behind us, it’s too early to know what impact Flourish will have, but the point is that we need to be investing in the sorts of initiatives and resources that will bolster student mental health.

On the theme of investment in students and with B.C.’s commitment to the TRC recommendations in mind, we would also ask the government to consider increasing supports for Aboriginal students in post-secondary. Okanagan College has more than tripled the number of Aboriginal students attending our campuses over the past 13 years. In 2016, we had 1,695 aboriginal students attending our college. Our focus is not just on creating access and seeing more students in classes but ensuring that those students have the supports they need to succeed.

Three weeks ago we held our ninth annual powwow on our Kelowna campus. It attracted more than 600 K-to-12 students and another 500 spectators and participants. It was the most successful powwow we’ve had to date. While we ponder how we are going to accommodate the tenth powwow next September — we’re running out of space — we can see the very real benefits of our indigenization efforts.

C. Denesiuk: As a province and as an institution, we owe it to our First Nations to build on our initiatives and to work with and to learn from Indigenous communities. We want to be able to provide additional student advisers; react with more emergency funds to student issues; and support students with more mentors, elders in residence; and cultivate cultural development and indigenization of curricula. Reconciliation and learning go hand in hand, and we absolutely must take advantage to learn from our First Nations while supporting student education and career aspirations.

I would be remiss if I didn’t make a plea for an additional program-related funding that speaks to a terrific opportunity with one of our First Nations partners. That is a diploma program in applied ecology and conservation that we have cooperatively developed with the Okanagan Nation Alliance’s post-secondary institution, the En’owkin Centre. It was developed a number of years ago, but we’ve not yet had the funding to offer it.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair and committee members, we want to acknowledge that compared to other parts of this world, we fare well as providers of post-secondary education, but there is great opportunity to do more. That will yield downstream benefits that will continue to distinguish British Columbia on a national and international stage and will serve all of our students and citizens well.

Thank you for your time today. We’re open to questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Precise as always, so thank you very much.

Any questions from the committee for the college?

A. Weaver: I just wanted to thank the team for their presentation and recognize that we’ve heard the same theme in every location we’ve been with the respect to the importance of engineering, with different niche markets for engineering in different parts of the province, whether it be to the Kootenays up north or here or elsewhere, as well as the issue of housing. It’s something we’ve heard loud and clear. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, folks. Greatly appreciate it.

C. Denesiuk: We appreciate the opportunity. Thanks.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just before we get to the next presenter, I have to apologize. I was remiss in missing one of our peers that’s sitting out there — MLA Steve Thomson from Kelowna. Steve, thanks very much for coming by. Sure appreciate it. Thank you.

[8:15 a.m.]

Up next we have Merck — Kirby Smith and Leslie Foord. Good morning. Thank you very much for coming today. We have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

MERCK

K. Smith: Good morning, Deputy Chair and committee members. My name is Kirby Smith. I’m with policy and external affairs at Merck Canada. My colleague Leslie Foord is with patient access and oncology at Merck. We both reside here in B.C.

I wish to take a few moments to outline an opportunity for B.C. to capture significant savings within the health care system with support for a product called biosimilars. My colleague will next speak about new advances in oncology that could help the B.C. Cancer Agency maintain leading-edge health outcomes in Canada. Paper copies have been provided that provide some greater detail, and they’ve been fully referenced if you wish to validate any of our comments.

Moving to slide 2, it gives a brief overview of Merck in Canada for your background. Knowing that our time is short, I will just simply say that Merck is a leading, innovative biopharmaceutical company that is actively researching new treatments in areas of high unmet medical need. We are also proud of our partnerships with B.C. life science organizations, many of them listed in that paper, such as CDRD, Zymeworks and Alectos Therapeutics. These partnerships provide needed investment and scientific collaboration to enhance many of the health innovations being developed right here in the province. They also support high-quality jobs and B.C.’s knowledge economy.

Moving over to slide 3, let’s turn our focus to the biologic medicines. Just a quick poll, before we begin, with a show a hands. Is anyone already aware of the differences between a biologic and a small molecule? No? I’ll give you a little bit of a description.

In short, biologic medicines are developed using living cells to create a relatively larger, somewhat complex protein that’s used for treatment. These biologics have had an enormous positive impact on the treatment of many diseases — like rheumatoid arthritis; diabetes; inflammatory bowel conditions, such as Crohn’s; and certain cancers. However, these biologics are higher cost compared to small molecule drugs as they are more difficult to develop and manufacture. These patented biologics are referred to as originators in the presentation.

Moving on to slide 4, we’ll now introduce biosimilars. These are developed to be highly similar copies of an originator based on comparing the structure of the function and the clinical outcomes. Biosimilars can be developed and brought to market once a patent has expired on the originator biologic.

Furthermore, biosimilars must meet Health Canada’s rigorous standards for quality, safety and efficacy as demanded of all biologic drugs. Importantly for patients and health care providers, studies must demonstrate that there are no clinically meaningful differences in the safety or efficacy of a biosimilar compared to its originator. Once approved by Health Canada, the biosimilar then enters the market at a lower cost, with prices typically 30 to 50 percent below the originator.

In slide 5, we ask: is there anywhere we can look to for further guidance on the biosimilar experience elsewhere on the globe? While biosimilars are still relatively new to Canada, they’ve been around for more than a decade in Europe. There’s a growing body of evidence from their use, and this is in broad populations.

For instance, the European Medicines Agency, who are responsible for the evaluation of medicines, has reviewed the evidence and published a guide for health care providers. Their findings are that biosimilars can be used as safely and as effectively as other biologic medicines with no relevant differences in adverse events.

One report from Canada — from CADTH, which is the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health — has projected that the potential accumulated savings from biosimilars in the European Union could reach as high as $33.4 billion by 2020.

Moving to slide 6. The slide that’s most relevant for this committee is the potential cost savings we see in Canada. First of all, biologics are a large and growing segment of drug spending due to their value, growing at 9.5 percent compared to 2.8 percent for the total brands market in 2016 alone.

[8:20 a.m.]

Canada’s national drug utilization system estimates the potential savings for the infliximab biosimilar could reach as high as $514 million in the third year following its entry into Canada. Of note for B.C. specifically, the top three selling drugs on the B.C. formulary in 2014-2015, which is the last year reported, were all biologics, including infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept. These, in total, exceeded $142 million in drug plan costs that year alone.

Merck’s own estimates that the transition of existing patients on etanercept, so from the originator to the biosimilar, in B.C. — for people with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis — based on a comparison of list prices, could yield a potential savings of up to $39 million over the next three-year period.

In summary — and it’s the final slide — I will focus on how we can collectively realize this opportunity. First of all, Merck has multiple biosimilar candidates under development, and we have an interest in bringing these to Canada if a market exists. A report from Health Canada highlights that a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market could offer many benefits to Canadians, including broader access to biologic treatments; reduced cost burden that will enable savings to be redirected to other areas of health care, including funding of new innovative therapies for patients.

Merck’s ask, in summary, for this committee is that the Finance Committee and the province of B.C. recognize this opportunity and enable B.C. PharmaCare to demonstrate their leadership to ensure biosimilars are supported with appropriate, evidence-based policies to create a viable biosimilar market that captures these potential savings that can start as soon as this fiscal year.

Thank you for your interest. I’ll hand the floor to Leslie.

L. Foord: Good morning. I want to talk to you about the health and economic burden of cancer and how Merck is at the cutting edge of new treatments in cancer.

When speaking of cancer treatments, most of us think of radiation, chemotherapy and surgery as the standard methods of treatment. Due to progressions in science and pharmaceutical research and development, there are more options for treatment, such as cancer immunotherapy. Immunotherapy is a way to treat cancer by activating the patient’s immune system in hope that it will attack the tumour cancer cells. You have a slide there that outlines that a little bit more for you.

A recent cover feature in The Economist magazine titled “Closing in on Cancer” devoted much of its content to immunotherapy and said that immunotherapy offers huge promise, both as an addition to established therapies and as a foundation for a future one.

The B.C. Cancer Foundation, the fundraising partner of the B.C. Cancer Agency, recognizes the promise of immunotherapy, including in a recent report, with this: “More and more patients treated with immunotherapies are experiencing a better rate of success than with standard treatments and, in some cases, a long-lasting recovery without relapse. Immunotherapy is helping to reshape the survival curve in a way that has not been seen over the last 30 years in cancer care.”

Thanks, in particular, to immunotherapy, these are very encouraging times in cancer treatment, as noted by the B.C. Cancer Foundation. Unfortunately, the need is growing, with the Canadian Cancer Society now saying that nearly one in every two Canadians can expect to have cancer in their lifetime. I would imagine everyone in this room has been affected either directly or indirectly by cancer. This can largely be attributed to an aging and growing population. It is our great health care challenge and our opportunity to demonstrate leadership, which is why I’m speaking to you today.

Thanks to the work of the B.C. Cancer Agency, British Columbia has always been a leader in cancer care in Canada. We believe it can continue to do so by having a strong commitment to providing every appropriate patient in B.C. with access to cancer immunotherapy from which they may benefit.

To continue advancing in cancer care, we believe we need to invest time in planning and prioritization. There are new options to treat cancer that did not exist before, which may help prolong survival. These opportunities do come at a cost to the health system, and we believe we need to develop solutions to help ensure they can be afforded.

[8:25 a.m.]

Other countries are already recognizing the value of cancer immunotherapy and developing new reimbursement approaches. An example. The government of Belgium publicly recognized the value of immunotherapy and has worked with pharmaceutical companies to create solutions that provide early access to multiple-indication immunotherapies for cancer patients.

We believe that we can work on increasing cancer drug funding in part by better using existing health care resources. We need to collectively look for efficiencies and reduce waste as well as support sustainability-enhancing efforts. For instance, we can improve efficiencies and learn how to better meet patients’ needs by collecting real-world evidence to track patients’ experience.

Merck is also doing its part to support government in achieving a sustainable health system while also ensuring timely access to cancer therapies. Specifically, we are committed to seeing how biomarkers associated with immunotherapy can play an important role in guiding patients to the right therapy.

Merck believes in providing the right medication to the right patient at the right time. Biomarkers will help us do just that. This could help save both time and money by not treating patients who are unlikely to benefit from it. We are also committed to doing our part by engaging in responsible negotiations undertaken under the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance.

In conclusion, a 40 percent increase in cancer incidence in Canada is expected in the next 15 years as a result of an aging and growing population, as noted by the Canadian Cancer Society. This is both a health and economic burden. We look forward to continuing to work with your government to help ensure appropriate citizens of British Columbia can access cancer therapies in a timely way, if they are faced with a cancer diagnosis. Thank you for your attention.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Leslie and Kirby, thank you. I let you run into your question period. I just didn’t want to interrupt you.

Do we have any questions?

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have been following what you were saying, except that I have this question that is stuck in my mind, which is: what is the difference between biosimilars and generic drugs?

K. Smith: Generic drugs are small-molecule products that can be identically copied through chemical processes, whereas biologics and biosimilars are developed through living cells, and they’re large molecules. They can’t be demonstrated to be identical; they can only be demonstrated to be highly similar. Therefore, they’re not…. Biologics and biosimilars aren’t interchangeable, whereas generics and originators are interchangeable.

Generics mainly refers to small-molecule products, whereas biologics and biosimilars are larger, complex proteins. Does that help?

R. Leonard: So they’re not being treated the same way, in terms of the whole system and negotiating prices.

K. Smith: True, yeah. Right now with biologics and biosimilars, Health Canada recommends that patients can consider, or physicians can consider, a one-time switch under review of clinical evidence and the policies of the province. However, they’re not considered interchangeable, like a generic is at a pharmacy.

T. Redies: I’m just curious. With Europe having been using this biosimilars therapy for quite a while, why haven’t we done it in Canada? What’s been the holdup?

K. Smith: I think part of it is the emergence of clinical evidence. It’s taken us some time to get there. A lot of that clinical evidence and even real-world monitoring is happening in Europe. They have a different system in that a lot of the products, the biologics, are delivered directly by the health system, and the government mandates as far as which products are used. Whereas in Canada, it’s more through pharmacy or patient-support programs.

I guess it’s really been waiting on the clinical evidence to support the policies to support biosimilars, which is now emerging, and you’re seeing groups like the European Medicines Agency putting out reports that help support these policies in Canada now.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Folks, thank you very much for coming. Greatly appreciated. Have a good day.

Up next we have Canadian Federation of the Blind — Mary Ellen Gabias.

[8:30 a.m.]

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

M. Gabias: Good morning. I’m Mary Ellen Gabias. I am the volunteer president of the Canadian Federation of the Blind. The Canadian Federation of the Blind is a membership organization of blind people. We’re committed to the complete integration of blind people into British Columbian society on the basis of equality. We believe that blindness need not be the characteristic that defines us and that if training and opportunity are available, blind British Columbians can live the lives we want.

CFB is not a service-provider organization. We are not seeking money from the province to offer rehabilitation programs. We are considering applying for gaming funds in the same manner as a civic or service club would apply, but it is important that you understand that our suggestions relate to a pattern of thinking and strategies of funding that matter to us as advocates. The Canadian Federation of the Blind in no way seeks to benefit financially from the changes we propose.

Since 2008, we have come before this committee to say that blind British Columbians are not getting the training they need to become fully participating citizens. The proof of our claim is the completely unacceptable unemployment rate among blind people of working age. The most optimistic estimate is a jobless rate of 70 percent, with some estimates ranging as high as 90 percent.

There are a number of reasons for these dismal figures. Government can help with two of the main reasons without a major increase in expenditures. What’s needed is a paradigm shift.

Blind people are not getting jobs because they do not have the skills and training they need to join the labour force. British Columbia does not have a comprehensive strategy to provide them with rehabilitation. When someone is physically injured and acquires a disability, the B.C. medical system steps in with training designed to help them re-enter the workforce, perhaps in a new profession. When someone becomes blind, they are effectively abandoned to a charity.

Using charities to provide services for the poor and disadvantaged is not a new idea. It’s a very old system. Charities were society’s social safety net before government created social programs. However, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that the charity model is an effective or innovative way of delivering training and rehabilitation programs. If the charity model was effective, I am sure there would be many more examples of that model being used, not just training for the blind.

There are people who will accept help from a social program but would rather go hungry than accept help from a charity. This is because there is a stigma about being a recipient of charity. How does it affect a blind person’s self-respect when they are told to go to a charity for everything — from training to library books to helping them find a job?

Another unusual aspect of the blind training model in Canada is that the charity that provides the services has a virtual national monopoly. As a general rule, monopolies are not known for being creative, innovative or responsive to customers.

Canada has relied almost exclusively on the charity model for nearly a century. I’m urging you to shift the paradigm and adopt the social model of disability rehabilitation.

How does the charity model differ from the social model of blindness rehabilitation? The social model begins with the belief that blind people are normal. Blindness does not alter their personalities, their aptitudes or their ability to contribute. It alters the methods used to accomplish everyday goals. Those methods are easily learned and extremely effective. The real handicap faced by blind people is the very attitude that the charity model reinforces.

[8:35 a.m.]

Blind people pay directly in loss of opportunity for every funding appeal that yanks on the heartstrings of a government or the public that wants to be generous and kind. When the public truly begins to believe blindness is part of the range of normal characteristics, attitudes will shift and opportunities increase.

Rehabilitation built on the social model of disability emphasizes skills. It also emphasizes examination of attitudes and the building of confidence. Good blindness rehabilitation is not designed to bring the blind person back to a level almost as capable before blindness occurred. Good blindness rehabilitation is designed to help blind individuals tap into their previously unrealized potential, to challenge limits, not just perceived limits imposed by blindness.

Good blindness rehabilitation is to the charity model what an Outward Bound program is to high school gym class. Although fully funding good rehabilitation for blind British Columbians will eventually require additional expenditures, British Columbia can do the preparatory work to begin to become an innovative leader in Canadian blindness rehabilitation without spending one extra dime.

Begin by recognizing that the charity model, though it was instrumental in this historic development of blindness services, has now outlived its usefulness and has become a detriment. Adopt the social model of blindness training. Commit to funding rehabilitation of blind individuals as those with physical disabilities are funded. It is unconscionable that someone with a spinal cord injury receives provincial help while someone who becomes blind does not.

Do not accept a single-source contract. Instead, adopt the navigator style of paying for service. Make funding contingent on individually developed plans and individually determined goals. Renew funding on the basis of results. Commit to offering blind individuals a choice of programs. Monopolies weren’t good for telephone service. They’re not good for rehabilitation either. Actively develop local service providers.

Throughout British Columbia there are blind individuals who teach the newly blind and do it as volunteers. Why not contract with them directly?

The same is true of innovative programs. Why should a training program for blind British Columbians be directed from Toronto when there are local individuals and groups with creative problem-solving ideas that are going untried due to lack of funding? Take responsibility for the effectiveness of money spent on blindness. Stop deferring to the charity experts. Enlist the creative capacity of potential leaders throughout the province.

What you’ve been doing is not working. If you keep doing what you’ve been doing, it will keep not working. Please have the courage to think differently, fund differently and demand better results.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Mary Ellen, thank you very much.

Questions of the presenter from anyone?

S. Cadieux: Thank you for your presentation.

I don’t disagree in any way with your assertion about the underemployment and underutilization of talents of people who are blind. I do, though, take some issue with assertions that we fund retraining and things like the government funds retraining for people with physical disabilities. That would be true if you were talking about individuals who were injured at work but not true of someone with a spinal cord injury, like myself, who was injured through a car accident, for example.

I think….

M. Gabias: What about G.F. Strong?

S. Cadieux: No, there’s physical rehabilitation but not work rehabilitation. You were speaking about getting people into the workforce.

M. Gabias: I was speaking, actually, about both. There is no physical plan for rehabilitating blind people.

S. Cadieux: Right, yes.

M. Gabias: I should have been more clear about that. You’re right. I’m talking about both pre-vocational blindness training and work training.

S. Cadieux: Thank you very much for your clarification.

[8:40 a.m.]

J. Brar: Thank you, Mary Ellen, for your presentation, and thanks for fighting for the most vulnerable people in the province.

I just want to say to you that your presentation is very powerful. You made a very convincing case, and you know what you’re talking about.

What I want to ask you is…. You’re talking about the paradigm shift. Is there any other province or any other example you have where the paradigm shift has taken place?

M. Gabias: Quebec. Quebec funds rehabilitation through the government, and there are more accountabilities put into place. It’s not perfect, but it’s certainly more accountable than what has happened in the rest of Canada.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Seeing no other questions, Mary Ellen, thank you very much. A very good presentation. Thank you again. Have a good day.

Up next, Fortis — Dave Bennett. Welcome, Dave. Always a pleasure to see you.

D. Bennett: Thank you. Nice to see you all here. It’s nice to be in Kelowna. This is kind of my second home, because our electrical head office is here in Kelowna. Most people think of us as the gas company in the Lower Mainland. I know the Chair knows us well here.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Deputy Chair today.

Dave, you have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions, if required. Okay?

FORTISBC

D. Bennett: Okay. I’ll go right through it. Thank you very much.

I’m Dave Bennett, director of communications and external relations with FortisBC. At FortisBC we deliver approximately 21 percent of the total energy consumed in British Columbia, the most by any utility in the province. We own and operate two liquefied natural gas storage facilities and operate seven hydroelectric generating plants, four of which we own. We also own and operate and recently completed the Waneta expansion in partnership with Columbia Power and the Columbia Basin Trust. Finally, we own the Aitken Creek underground storage facility, the only facility of its kind in the province. It’s for storing natural gas.

Our more than 2,200 employees serve 1.1 million customers in 135 communities across B.C. We also provide service to 56 First Nations communities in the province.

We are committed to investing in projects that will make life more affordable for British Columbians, improve efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive innovation. By investing in B.C. natural gas, electricity and alternative forms of energy, we see a long-term opportunity to create sustainable, good-paying jobs across the province.

When developing the 2018 budget, FortisBC advocates for the B.C. government to consider the following items. Foster a thriving business environment that creates jobs across B.C. and promotes capital investment. Preserve and enhance affordability for energy consumers as we reduce our carbon footprint by providing incentives for increased efficiency. Focus on desired GHG reduction outcomes, looking to business to foster innovation to meet these goals. Finally, ensure tax competitiveness for British Columbia’s trade-exposed industries.

B.C.’s economy is thriving, sitting at No. 1 in Canada. In 2017, FortisBC is experiencing record customer additions at levels not seen since the 1990s. FortisBC is committed to helping B.C. continue this growth trend.

In 2016, FortisBC invested over $400 million in capital expenditures throughout the province, bringing our gross asset base to $7.2 billion. Looking forward, over the next five years, we plan to invest a further $2.8 billion in the province between 2017 and 2021.

Part of this investment has gone towards expanding our Tilbury LNG facility. As a result of this development, $60 million has been committed to local contractor spending, providing work for more than 165 Lower Mainland companies and about 1,700 tradespeople. This includes 115 apprentices registered to work on the project.

We are upgrading our natural gas line between Surrey and Coquitlam. The 11-kilometre gas line is an integral part of our system, which serves more than 700,000 homes and businesses in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. We estimate the overall capital cost of that project will be $171 million. To date, $28 million has been spent on this project, with 120 local vendors and suppliers.

[8:45 a.m.]

We’re focused on providing opportunities for contractors and suppliers based in British Columbia and for Aboriginal contractors.

FortisBC has proposed Eagle Mountain to Woodfibre gas pipeline project expansion, in addition to our existing Vancouver Island transmission system, to deliver to gas to the proposed Woodfibre LNG facility in Squamish. The project involves pipeline looping, or twinning, approximately 47 kilometres over the existing system and the addition of new compression and capacity in Coquitlam and the Squamish areas.

In 2016, the project received environmental approval from the Squamish First Nation and an environmental assessment certificate from the provincial government. We will continue our discussions with local governments, Aboriginal groups, stakeholders and the public as the project moves forward.

To ensure ongoing economic success, FortisBC advocates for continued dialogue between government and industry to ensure major investment in British Columbia’s economy and infrastructure continues to progress in a safe, timely manner.

British Columbia is fortunate to be abundant in energy resources, and FortisBC believes it’s important to strike a balance between all those energy forms available to us. Natural gas is an affordable, clean, locally produced fuel. A family of four living in a mid-sized B.C. home saves $1,400 per year heating with natural gas rather than electricity.

Last year we invested nearly $39 million in energy retrofits for our natural gas and our electricity customers. These investments help our residential, commercial and industrial customers reduce both their energy bills and their carbon footprint while creating good local jobs across the province. We are ready to do more and would welcome the opportunity to work with government to expand access to cost-effective, energy-efficiency initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The province has indicated that it intends to change legislation underlying the carbon tax to remove the requirement for revenue neutrality. It’s also understood that the provincial government intends to dedicate increased carbon tax revenues to projects that will increase efficiency and reduce consumers’ climate footprint.

FortisBC would advocate the increased carbon tax revenues should be put back to ratepayers in the form of projects that will increase energy efficiency, create jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maintain affordability.

There are currently many communities in rural and remote areas of B.C. without access to natural gas, including some that rely on diesel generators for electricity. Lack of access to natural gas comes at a high price for these communities. For example, using diesel generation to power remote communities results in higher energy costs and higher GHG emissions.

We have already worked with B.C. Hydro in the community of Anahim Lake in the Chilcotin to displace diesel generation with LNG. We also see further potential to connect communities such as Revelstoke, which is currently on piped propane, and Sicamous, which has known access to natural gas — just to name a couple of communities.

The government of Canada’s budget is $220 million in funding from the 2017 budget to address this issue. The government of Ontario has also committed $100 million to expand natural gas access in rural and remote communities. We would advocate for a similar program in British Columbia.

B.C.’s transportation industry is responsible for the largest share of provincial greenhouse gas emissions. By converting fleets and marine vessels to natural gas, we’re helping reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 29 percent, while ensuring these industries vital to British Columbia remain sustainable and competitive. Our LNG is being used by a variety of operators, including B.C. Ferries and Seaspan Ferries.

B.C. Ferries’ use of natural gas for the three new Salish Class vessels results in a reduction of an estimated 9,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, which is the same as taking 1,900 cars off the road annually. Additionally, the planned conversion of the two Spirit class vessels to LNG will realize a further reduction of 12,000 tonnes annually. These efforts will also help with fare affordability, as LNG costs significantly less than marine diesel.

Seaspan Ferries has invested in North America’s first hybrid LNG and battery vessels, two of which now provide drop-trailer service to Vancouver Island. Working with local companies like Richmond’s Corvus Energy, Seaspan Ferries expects to order a further three vessels in the future.

There is an incredible potential to realize further GHG reductions in the marine sector. As we have highlighted, we have already made great strides with industry leaders in British Columbia. We see further potential in developing LNG bunkering infrastructure in west coast ports to support regional and transpacific vessels. Additionally, we are ready to work with our provincial and federal partners to achieve GHG reductions in the drayage sector.

[8:50 a.m.]

We encourage government to continue investing in compressed natural gas conversions in the public sector. This technology was piloted in Kamloops and Nanaimo and has resulted in an operating savings and environmental benefits.

According to B.C. Transit, the demonstration project in Kamloops resulted in a 6 percent decrease in operating costs per trip. Additionally, CNG maintenance and fuelling facilities are underway in Richmond, Abbotsford, Campbell River, Cowichan Valley, Prince George and Whistler. So we’d encourage government to build on these investments.

I’ll finish up here, because you have this in your notes.

The province of B.C. is a leading edge of environmental policy in Canada and the world. We have the benefit of one of the most diversified economies in the nation. However, our province remains a relatively small, trade-exposed jurisdiction.

Given the rising tide of protectionism abroad related to issues such as softwood lumber and NAFTA, we would encourage government to ensure there’s a strong focus on tax competitiveness. At FortisBC, we are charged with ensuring that our assets are operating to the benefit of the overall provincial economy. We know that our success and British Columbia’s success go hand in hand.

Additionally, strict environmental measures in place in B.C. are not always present in other competing jurisdictions. Therefore, FortisBC encourages the government to work with the private sector to ensure that British Columbian companies are able to continue to adopt GHG-reducing practices without incurring costs that price them out of the global market. Particular focus should be given to reducing taxes and seeking opportunity to apply incentives which encourage business to maximize their competitiveness while continuing to be leaders in environmental stewardship.

I’d like to thank the committee for your attention, and I’m open for questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

MLA Milobar and MLA Redies.

P. Milobar: Thanks for the presentation.

I can think of a whole three-and-a half-hour drive in my valley that has no natural gas, so they would love to get a line in. To that end, when you touched on it.…

As the efficiency rebates keep happening for the homeowners in the more urban settings…. By urban, I mean anywhere with a natural gas line already. As those aging furnaces have been getting changed out, there’s got to be a diminishing number of access points for people. Their furnaces only last so long, and then they have get changed out anyways.

I guess the question is: has there been a look at trying to maybe reposition a lot of those funds to try to accelerate, in partnership with the government, access into areas that aren’t served at all and see bigger gains there than continuing with the standard program that’s kind of there for people to replace their home furnace right now?

D. Bennett: Yes. I mentioned that in my comments. We are eager to look at places that don’t have service to natural gas, and many of them would have oil and propane heat. I know I come from Vancouver Island originally. The line came over in 1991, and we saw a big changeover. There aren’t that many parts of the province…. A lot of the low-hanging fruit…. It’s more difficult to get to them.

That’s where we need a little bit of a help probably policy-wise, maybe financially incentive-wise, to get in. We’re ready to do it, but we do have…. Our regulation governs how we can get to these communities, and it is difficult right now to get to places like Sicamous and Revelstoke and some of these more remote ones.

Having said that, there still are big opportunities. You’d be surprised. There are a lot of 80-percent-efficient furnaces out there. As the cost of these more-expensive furnaces come on, it kind of makes people want to hang on to their furnace.

That’s what our incentives are all about. It’s kind of trying to get people away from seeing that as a bad thing. I know I just converted my furnace over to a 95-percent-efficient furnace and my water heater is that way too. There are a lot of them out there.

T. Redies: Thanks for the presentation.

I’m just curious if you could expand a bit on this idea of improving tax competitiveness. What does that look like for Fortis?

D. Bennett: Well, we’re not saying for Fortis itself. But for the economy, it’s good to keep an eye on the competitiveness of businesses who are working outside of British Columbia. I could give you different examples. But it’s important as we look at what’s going on in the world today with tariff barriers and things going up that we….

[8:55 a.m.]

One of the ways we can help our businesses compete is by keeping taxes low for them.When we look at things like greenhouse gas emissions or carbon taxes, some way of, yes, taxing that at the margin but also keeping the overall competitiveness…. When they look at, overall, what a business is paying, keeping that low — when you look at the taxes — overall so that they can compete.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any other questions?

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

I guess the examples you’ve given that talk about greenhouse gas reduction relate to the end users. I think one of the major concerns in the greater community is regarding extraction practices and trying to raise the level of our environmental standards from the extraction end of things.

Given the global prices of LNG, how do you see the ability to be a leader in environmental stewardship and grow an industry? Having said that, I guess the question is too: what is Fortis’s relationship to the extraction industry for LNG?

D. Bennett: We’re a purchaser. We don’t actually produce natural gas, but we would advocate to look at emissions in the upstream.

The other thing we’re doing, which I skipped over in my presentation, is also trying to introduce things like renewable natural gas into the system to lower the carbon footprint of the gas that we’re using. But we would advocate for trying to make our industry as environmentally responsible as possible.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Dave, thanks. We’re at 15 minutes. I apologize. But thank you very much. Good presentation, as always. We’ll see you shortly.

D. Bennett: Always a pleasure. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Up next we have Childhood Obesity Foundation, Dr. Tom Warshawski. Welcome. Ten minutes for the presentation. Five minutes for questions, if required. The floor is yours.

CHILDHOOD OBESITY FOUNDATION

T. Warshawski: This is my third time appearing before the select standing committee. I don’t know how many people have heard my road show before, but bear with me. I’ll go through this, hopefully, relatively quickly and effectively. The bottom line for my presentation, and I’m sure you’ve heard this from other organizations as well, is that we’d like to see the province extend the PST to include sugary drinks. I’ll go through the rationale for that.

We, the Childhood Obesity Foundation, are part of a group called the Rethink Sugary Drinks Coalition that was formed in 2015. We were formed to address the negative health impacts of sugary drinks.

There is a strong scientific consensus that excessive sugary drink intake is a major risk factor for the development of obesity and the resultant chronic illnesses, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and about 13 different types of cancers. What few people actually realize is that excessive sugar consumption is an independent risk factor for heart disease as well as for hypertension and diabetes. So it’s not just mediated through excessive weight gain. There are actual components that are sugar which are detrimental to the body. This is actually a toxic substance when ingested in excess amounts.

British Columbians, as well as most people in North America, are excessive consumers of sugary drinks. There have been varied statistics that have come through — some from the Canadian Beverage Association, some from our group over the years and, most recently, some from a group out of the University of Waterloo, David Hammond and Amanda Jones and their group — which indicate that the average consumption for Canadians of sugar-sweetened beverages is around 340 ml per day. That’s about 124 litres per person per year.

Averages drastically underestimate the amount that the consumer drinks, because roughly a third of Canadians rarely drink the stuff; and those that drink, drink a lot, particularly in the demographic between 13 and 30 years of age. Their consumption is around 700 ml per day. This is a toxic amount of sugary drinks, to be honest.

Sugary drinks are not subject to the provincial sales tax, and as a result, heavy consumers trigger above-average health care costs. But this product just simply doesn’t pay its way. We use the PST to pay for so much of the services that the province provides, especially health care, and this product is exempt from paying its share.

Over the years, the Canadian Beverage Association has under-represented the amount of sugary drinks that people consume. Their figures have actually changed. When I go through the briefing document with you, I’ll show you how those figures that they’ve actually admitted to have gotten bigger over the years.

[9:00 a.m.]

When we actually look — and we had the group at the University of Waterloo use independent sources to look at the Euromonitor as well as the StatsCan data — Canadians are consuming far more than what the Canadian Beverage Association has initially admitted.

The beverage associations — not just in Canada but in the U.S., worldwide — have done a disservice to the health community by trying to sort of divert attention from excessive caloric consumption to underactivity. Coca-Cola funded an organization called Global Energy Balance, a society which was a front group that they paid for, to try to get people to think: “No, no, the problem isn’t that you’re drinking an extra 200, 300 or 400 calories of sugar each day. The problem is that you’re not active enough.” Well, it’s almost impossible to exercise off the amount of sugar that you’ll consume in a sugary drink — one, two or three every single day.

Effective policy levers do exist to address the problem of sugary drink overconsumption, and they are consistent with the values of British Columbians. There are a number of jurisdictions across the world that are taxing sugary drinks. The taxes worldwide tend to be excise taxeswhich, as you probably all know, in Canada can only be levied at the federal level. Then those taxes are ingrained in the sticker price that the consumer sees on the shelf. That’s different from a sales tax, which is what we’re asking for here in terms of increasing the provincial sales tax.

We are also asking the federal government to institute an excise tax on sugary drinks at a federal level. The federal government right now, as you’re all aware, is a little gun-shy about taxation. It’s not something they want to talk about, but it is a measure that we do have to get to. Mexico has done it. With their 10 percent excise tax on sugary drinks, they’ve seen consumption of this product drop by 12 percent, particularly amongst lower socioeconomic groups, and a shift to the purchase of healthier beverages, such as water.

That’s not really within a provincial government mandate. However, the provincial government and the Health Minister, when they meet with the FPT table, can continue to advocate for an excise tax at the federal level. That is something, I know, that the Finance Minister has been looking at. We’ve met with the previous Health Minister to talk about it, and they are actively entertaining this, but I think they need a bit of a push at the provincial level.

However, our province has something that we can do, something very tangible. That is, in fact, to remove the exemption from the PST that sugary drinks currently, unjustifiably, enjoy. By doing so, to some extent, that works as a point-of-purchase disincentive to purchase that product, because it’s a little bit more expensive. It works as a point-of-purchase reminder to the consumer, like: “Why is this more expensive, say, than a non-sugared drink or than water?” Hopefully, it’ll trigger that association with the ill health effects. That’s probably a good part of how it is effective in countries such as France and Chile, even amongst higher socioeconomic groups. The price isn’t that much more, but it’s just enough of a trigger.

Also, if we extended the PST to include sugary drinks here in B.C., it would garner anywhere between $40 million and $80 million in revenue. Those are new dollars. That conservative estimate of $40 million a year is based on a sales price of about $1 per litre for sugary drinks. It’s almost always more than that. That’s the lowest possible price you can get sugary drinks for when you buy the two litres of pop on sale at the store. If it’s more like $2, well then, you double that price, so you’re looking at around $80 million in ungarnered revenue on the PST.

The proceeds from that can be used to fund health promotion. It can be funds to pay for physical activity programs for children. With the Childhood Obesity Foundation, we brought over the MEND program from Britain to help youth and young children regain a healthy weight-gain trajectory. That’s a very expensive program. It didn’t quite meet the province’s needs, so we’re actually looking at taking that down from the province now and constructing a new program.

Either way, though, to try to change unhealthy weight trajectories once they’re established is very difficult. It’s much more cost-effective to work upstream and actually prevent these things from happening. It’s an opportunity for us to do this through the PST.

Also, the revenues can be used for institutions, such as the University of British Columbia, which I met with just two days ago. Their health and wellness committee is looking at removing sugary drinks from the vending machines, which are widespread across the campus. They understand the health ramifications. They understand that Coca-Cola, in this case, is using this as a marketing vehicle. But they’re going to lose a lot of money, and they’re saying: “Well, how are we going to get that revenue?” Extending the PST — if some of those funds were earmarked for this in particular, it could be very, very useful to help institutions adopt healthier lifestyles.

[9:05 a.m.]

Lastly, the Heart and Stroke Foundation did some polling on this issue earlier this year, and they found that roughly 80 percent of British Columbians support extending the PST to include sugary drinks. It’s a no-brainer. I’ve given this talk to the select standing committee…. This is the third year. Each of the previous two years, this committee has made the recommendation to extend the PST to sugary drinks, and hopefully we’ll see it follow through.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Doctor, thank you very much. Greatly appreciate it. Any questions?

T. Redies: Thanks, Doctor. Appreciated your presentation.

Other than Mexico, which you referenced, I think, in your presentation, where consumption dropped 12 percent with the creation of a 10 percent tax, is there any other evidence for consumption drops with taxes? It doesn’t sound like a lot of money to put the tax on a drink. It’s a few cents, right? Will it actually make a difference? For example, in the tobacco industry, they’ve had to put warning labels on and everything else. Are there other strategies that perhaps, in conjunction, might prove more effective?

T. Warshawski: Not more effective. Price is the most effective. If you look in the brief I sent you guys, there’s a little graph here of what happened with tobacco prices and tobacco consumption. It’s a direct link. You go up in prices, consumption goes down. It’s moderated to some extent by the price, but also by the point-of-purchase warning, is what happens.

In terms of other things, there are warning packages on cigarettes. Some people have advocated for warning labels on soft drinks. The studies indicate that knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient. Price matters more than anything else. That’s why the beverage industry in the U.S. spent $40 million last year fighting taxes. They know that price really matters.

It’s probably not just the pocketbook effect. It’s the mind effect, thinking: “Whoa, this is expensive.” It’s a reminder every time you buy that product.

J. Brar: Two quick questions. One is: what is the definition of “sugary drink?” If you can be very precise about that. Secondly, is there a consensus about what the list of sugary drinks is?

T. Warshawski: Yes, there is. I’m glad you mentioned that. In B.C., the Ministry of Health uses the definition of the term “sugary drinks” to all beverages which have added sugar to them. The rest of the world calls those “sugar-sweetened beverages,” which I think is actually a little bit more precise. If you take water and add sugar to it, then it’s a sugar-sweetened beverage. Juice, by that definition of sugar-sweetened beverage, is not a sugar-sweetened beverage because it has entrained sugars from the processing.

What we’re advocating is, basically, a sugar-sweetened-beverage tax, but we use the term “sugary drink” because in B.C. that’s the nomenclature that’s used, unlike the rest of the world.

Having said all that…. Around juice, metabolically, it probably works the exact same way that sugar-sweetened beverages do. Because when you take apples and you process the heck out of them — squash them all, boil them — you’re basically removing all the fibre and all the nutrients. You’ve got sugar suspended in water, and then you re-add vitamins.

The studies do not show that type of adverse association because of, basically, a halo effect. People that tend to drink a lot of juice also have other healthy lifestyles. Maybe they’re joggers. Maybe they eat better. This sort of thing. But if you put somebody in the lab and measure their blood sugars after they drink juice versus pop, it’s pretty much the same effect.

A. Weaver: There was a question I was going to follow up on. So very clearly, then, you’d separate out, say, the orange juices from the pops. That would be clearly separated in the definition?

T. Warshawski: Right. In this brief — which isn’t all that brief, my apologies, but I think it’s page 2 — I define them. Basically, if you have water and you’ve added sugar to it, in all its different forms…. High fructose corn syrup is the No. 1 additive — or sucrose. They’re basically the same thing. They’re 50-50 glucose-fructose mixtures. Soft drinks, soda pop, iced teas, vitamin waters, caffeinated energy drinks are all sugary drinks by the B.C. definition. If you look at the World Health Organization definition, those are sugar-sweetened beverages. That’s what we should extend the PST to cover.

We met with Finance, actually, last year. This is an easy move for them to do.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Doctor, thank you very much for coming.

Up next, Mr. Crawford. Please come forward. Sir, thank you for coming today. We have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions, if required.

[9:10 a.m.]

Could you do me a favour and give me the young lady’s name over there?

D. Crawford: Certainly. That is my daughter. Her name is Erin, and she’s with my wife, Barbara.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Hi, Barbara. Hi, Erin. Can you say hi? There she goes.

D. Crawford: She’ll wave. Oh, there she goes. She may come over and visit.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): That’s okay. She’s going to help you too, by the looks of it.

DAVID CRAWFORD

D. Crawford: She’s going to give me a hand.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present here. I’m here because I wanted to draw your attention to what I feel is a current situation in British Columbia. My wife and I are the meat in the sandwich generation.

We are caring for our daughter, who has significant special needs. She has been diagnosed with a global, severe developmental delay and autism. Currently she is almost nine years old, and she is developmentally about a 14-month-old. No one is quite sure what path or what trajectory her development will take, so we don’t know if she will continue to develop at that rate or if she will stop tomorrow or make a sudden surge and develop along a more normal trajectory. We don’t know.

As parents, our mission is to prepare our children for the world. So with Erin, that task is a little different. We need to train her in daily routines. We need to teach her communication. And we need to try and teach her to eat properly and move about as much as she possibly can and live as independently as she can or with as little care as she can possibly require. We need to keep her healthy and happy to do that.

We are getting considerable help from various programs around the province and from various ministries. We are concerned that there are gaps in those supports. It’s been our experience and my communication with other parents of special needs children that there are gaps in those supports that people can fall right through.

The damage that occurs when those gaps allow people to slip through undoes lot of the tremendous work that’s being done. I’m here to talk to you about some of those and potentially propose some solutions that we can use to address those gaps.

Currently lots of evidence supports that lots of early intervention and intensive effort makes a huge difference. Some of those programs you may be familiar with, such as the infant development program and the autism program, and those are doing wonderful things. There are wait-lists for those programs. Those wait-lists allow valuable time to slip by.

There are wait-lists currently for all therapies, but one of the most important ones with the longest wait-list is called the supported care worker program. The supported care worker program assists working parents by helping provide supported care workers for their children while they’re at work. That means, in our case, that we get two to three hours of after-school care for Erin so that we can work a regular workday.

Currently in the Okanagan, there is a 13-month waiting list for that program. That means an unemployed parent, right now, might have to wait 13 months after a job offer to start working. That’s not going to serve anyone’s needs.

We think that this is related to a mindset of program delivery where the service follows the budget. I think that we need to change that mindset to have the budget follow the service. When we’re plowing snow on the highways, we don’t stop in the middle of February when the budget runs out. We keep plowing those roads, because keeping those roads open keeps our economy flowing and keeps the social fabric intact. We need to apply a mindset like that to children’s care.

When I’m asking for support, I’d like to be clear that I’m not asking for a handout. I’m asking for an investment. When we invest in the families, we invest in the care, we are going to be more supportive of these children as adults, and we are going to see a big payoff.

[9:15 a.m.]

Currently Erin receives pretty much 1-to-1 care, and that’s expensive. But with the development that she is showing, if we can change that 1-to-1 paradigm to a 2-to-3 or a 2-to-1, then we can save money in her care for the rest of her life. So that 1-to-1 care for 16 or 18 years…. If that gets cut in half for 60 years, that’s a huge savings. That’s a huge payback on the investment.

We also know that keeping children at home with their families keeps them happier, keeps them healthier and saves a ton of money. If we can support families for longer, keep the children in their homes for longer, we can save even more money. So that investment in the initial years, in childhood and youth, pays back again for the entire adulthood.

We can do the right thing. We can keep children healthier. We can keep families healthier. We can keep people working longer. We can save money. Those are all good things. We can do that by investing in families, and one of the key ways to do that is with the supported care worker program.

Another problem with the supported care worker program: it expires at 12 years old. That means that in three years, I’m going to be responsible for paying out of my pocket for a supported care worker for out-of-school care, because I can’t leave Erin home alone when she’s 12, regardless of what the law says. Am I going to be paying for that out of my pocket? Am I going to take early retirement? Am I going to be as productive an employee if I’m not there?

Currently I’m a volunteer with Central Okanagan Search and Rescue. I have been for 15 years. I have to withdraw from that service. The community is going to not benefit from my experience and my skills, because I am going to be looking after my family. In the great priority list, she comes first.

We also need to be cognizant that people like Erin are not cured at 18 years old. The transition from child and youth care to adult care is another gap that people like Erin fall through, and we see terrible tragedies as a result. When the funding model is service-driven, we won’t see tragedies like we have seen in this province, where the extreme cases have resulted in severe injuries, broken families, underemployment and, sadly, even suicides and death.

There’s wonderful work being done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Education, the Red Cross, children’s development centres, the health authorities, the ministry of community living, Inclusion B.C. Lots of individual charities and granting organizations are doing fantastic things. But this is a patchwork rather than a tapestry.

We need to work to bring that tapestry together. Earlier I mentioned that our mission as parents is to prepare our children for the world. As a special needs parent, I can assure you that my parenting is as different from being a regular parent as being a regular parent is from not having children. My mission as a parent is also as an advocate for my child, and my mission as a parent is also to prepare the world for my child. You can say no to me. It’s not that hard. People do it all the time. But I’d like you to say no to her, if you can’t follow through.

B.C. is the best place in the world probably, I think, to be a parent of a special needs child. We’re already doing so many fantastic things. We need to glue those fantastic works together and make it a full program. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, David. Thank you very much.

Any questions?

[9:20 a.m.]

J. Brar: Thank you, David, for your presentation, and thanks to your wife and Erin for coming today. Of course, her presence here makes your presentation actually way more powerful.

I just want to ask you if you can summarize once again for me what you’re asking us to do — what program, specifically. You want the extension of the program? You want an additional program? Specifically, if you could just briefly summarize that.

D. Crawford: One of them, I guess, is non-specific. That is, we need to see more support for families or more cohesive support for families. I think that a lot of the supports that are necessary are already out there.

We are busy with full-on child care from 6:30 in the morning until 8:30 at night. She can’t be left alone. She has to be fed, dressed and changed. We can’t turn our backs on her for a second. We’re also caring for Barbara’s mother at home.

Families need support. Unfortunately, there isn’t going to be a cookie-cutter solution for that. We need flexibility and the ability to deliver different care based on a needs assessment. The people at the front line need to be able to make that needs assessment and deliver that care.

Secondly, the most important program, I think, currently underway is the supported care worker program. I think that program needs to be expanded to match the needs of the community, not to match the needs of the budget. I think supported care workers are one of the most important resources we have. We need to make certain that people enter that field as a career and that they feel secure that they will have a career when they get into that program. We’re going to make people who care feel safe and feel valued, and then we’ll have really good people in that program.

Does that answer your question?

J. Brar: Just very quickly: do we have the resources to connect timely needs assessments for kids like this?

D. Crawford: I don’t have that information. I would suggest the best people to ask are the ministry for child development social workers. Our engagement with our local social workers would suggest no, we don’t.

A. Weaver: Maybe I misheard. Did you say the supportive caregiver program ends at the age of 12?

D. Crawford: Yes, that’s correct.

A. Weaver: So presumably a recommendation that you’re making is that that should be extended beyond the age of 12.

D. Crawford: Yes, absolutely.

A. Weaver: That’s a very concrete recommendation.

The second thing I just wanted to say is that the most compelling thing you’ve said — it just stuck with me — is when you talked about the analogy with clearing a road with snow, dealing with forest fires. You deal with what you need to deal with and then worry about it later.

D. Crawford: Exactly.

A. Weaver: I thank you for that. It’s really resonated with me.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any other questions?

David, thank you very much. Barbara, thank you. And especially, Erin, thank you for coming today. Now she’s not going to listen to me. Can you blow us a kiss?

D. Crawford: She’d be happy to come around and high-five everybody.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): That’d be good. Come on, Erin. Give us a high five, will you? Thank you. See you. Have a good day.

Just before we carry on, I’d like to recognize MLA Norm Letnick. Norm, thanks very much for joining us today. I appreciate it.

[9:25 a.m.]

Brad, we have five minutes for you with no questions. I apologize. We’ll fit you in so you don’t have to wait until the end, because we are a bit ahead of schedule. Go ahead, sir.

BARDEL ENTERTAINMENT

B. Dahl: Thank you. I just thought that Mr. Crawford did a fantastic job stating his position there.

I’m Brad Dahl from Bardel Entertainment. We are an animation company operating in B.C. for 30 years. We’re the third largest in B.C., which means we’re the third largest in Canada and the third largest in North America. We employ 600-plus staff, and 80 of those people are here in Kelowna.

On behalf of the film and TV industry on the Lower Mainland and now here in the Okanagan, we’d like to request that the provincial government continue to work within the province and with the federal government on optimizing how federal and provincial tax credits and immigration programs work with each other and industry.

Tax incentives to the film and TV production industry that I represent drive about $2 billion in direct spending in the province. The specific sector I’m in, digital animation and visual effects, employs about 8,000 people of the 20,000 in the province. Just in animation, there are about 3,000 people. That accounts for about 40 percent of the jobs.

There are the big five studios in Vancouver, which are DHX Media, Sony Entertainment, Bardel Entertainment, Atomic and Animal Logic. Together, we employ about 80 percent of that labour force. Just in our little sector, we generate about half a billion dollars annually.

Here in Kelowna, between Bardel, Yeti Farm Creative, Hyper Hippo and Disney Interactive, we’re employing about 300 people in downtown Kelowna. Spending by ourselves in Kelowna in the next four to five years is about $35 million, and a big portion of that will be spent on re-skilling and upskilling our TV production staff to do feature-film-quality work.

Right now we would request that there be more clarification on certain policy areas, like the training tax credits and their applicability to production work, and the kinds of regional training programs that industry is trying to implement with Central Okanagan school district 23, Okanagan College, UBCO and Vancouver Film School.

Second, dealing with the labour shortages in the region is a real challenge. There’s a new high-tech pilot program for immigration that was created through the B.C. PNP program, and it’s been developed. It’s an excellent piece of policy and works really great. It was created by the province and IRCC.

Unfortunately, in this case, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Sometimes the CRA is denying tax credits to permitted Canadian-resident temporary workers. That renders the B.C. PNP program a relatively inert policy, because there’s no connection between the federal government and the provincial government.

We need to compete internationally to get the work that we bring into the province. Eighty percent of the work that comes into the province is brought in from the United States or Europe or Asia. So we request that the provincial government continues to work with the federal government and industry to optimize policy to continue to support and grow digital media production in every corner of the province.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Brad, thank you very much. Greatly appreciated. Thank you for your input. Duly recorded.

Up next we have James Littley, Okanagan Basin Water Board. James, five minutes. I apologize. There just aren’t questions, but at least it keeps you from having to wait until the end of the day.

OKANAGAN BASIN WATER BOARD

J. Littley: I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chair Ashton and committee members. My name is James Littley, and I’m speaking today on behalf of the Okanagan Basin Water Board. The OBWB is an interregional local government agency which provides leadership on water issues to protect and enhance the quality of life in the Okanagan Basin through sustainable water resource management.

One such issue that our board has been working on since 2012 is the urgent need to prevent the introduction of invasive mussels to the province. Invasive zebra and quagga mussels have been spreading across North America since the 1980s and are now as close as Lake Winnipeg in the east and just east of the Rockies in Montana in the south.

Invasive mussels will have a dramatic and devastating impact on our ecosystem, infrastructure, way of life and, yes, the economy of B.C. In the Great Lakes alone, it costs $250 million every year just to manage their infestation on power plants, water intakes and other infrastructure. A 2013 study commissioned by the water board found that an infestation in the Okanagan alone would cost $42 million a year just to manage.

Each female mussel can produce one million offspring per year. They cannot be eradicated. They must not reach our provincial waters. If they do, we must be ready.

In 2016, the provincial watercraft inspection program intercepted 17 mussel-fouled watercraft. Up to August 21 this year, they had already intercepted 17 more. Despite a very significant improvement in the provincial inspection regime over the last few years, gaps do remain.

[9:30 a.m.]

The OBWB will be submitting a written submission to the committee on Monday and a list of action items to the Minister of Environment that will enhance the protection of our fresh water by preventing and preparing for the introduction of invasive mussels. We will be calling for long-term, secure funding for the prevention regime in B.C. This ounce of prevention will be worth a pound of cure in the future. Every year we avoid these mussels we’ll save $42 million in the Okanagan and, likely, tens of millions more throughout the province.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): James, thank you for your presentation. Don’t forget. These have to be in by the 16th at five o’clock.

J. Littley: I never miss a deadline.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Oh, you’re on camera for that one.

B.C. Fruit Growers Association. We have Pinder Dhaliwal and Glen Lucas. Gentlemen, welcome. Thanks for coming, folks. Ten minutes for the presentation, up to five minutes for questions. We even started you early. That’s good.

B.C. FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

P. Dhaliwal: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2018 provincial budget.

My name is Pinder Dhaliwal. I’m vice-president of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. With me is Glen Lucas, our general manager. We welcome the committee to the beautiful Okanagan Valley. At least the smoke is gone now.

Our apple harvest is well underway. My farm is in Oliver, British Columbia, and we have already finished harvesting and have started our pruning. Now we’ve just got to sit back and wait more than a year to find out what we earned, as the final pool payment for apple will be finalized next year, August 2018, the year after the harvest.

G. Lucas: Today we want to express our support for the items in the Minister of Agriculture’s mandate letter, specifically the Grow B.C., Buy B.C. and Eat B.C. initiatives. We also wish to extend our thoughts to the ranchers who are impacted by the summer forest fires, and we support the work of the province to bring federal AgriRecovery funds to those ranchers in need.

P. Dhaliwal: Our association represents 470 commercial tree fruit growers in the Okanagan, the Similkameen, Shuswap and the Creston valleys. Our mission is a prosperous, sustainable, innovative tree fruit sector in British Columbia that grows products that improve health.

Based on the most recent agriculture census in 2016, the family-owned tree fruit farm in B.C. generates income of $118.6 million per year, with a packed value of roughly $218 million and $776 million of economic activity annually.

G. Lucas: The replant program funded by the province is revitalizing the tree fruit sector. In fact, the program is so popular that the province previously decided to increase funding from $8.5 million to $9.5 million over seven years until 2021.

P. Dhaliwal: Why should the government support a replant program? Going back in time 27 years, in 1990, a royal commission of inquiry pointed out that the Okanagan tree fruit growers needed to change over to higher-value varieties and plant more modern, higher-density orchards. But commissioner Peter Lusztig recognized that growers did not have the resources to do this on their own. As a result of this report, the replant program was established.

About every five to ten years, the government has reviewed the replant program, and the same conclusions have been reached. In order to renew orchards, growers need a replant program that provides roughly 25 percent of the required investment. This initiative to renew has kept our valley green both with orchards and with the economic boost it has given to the valley. Per-acre cost is roughly $30,000, with the boost of $7,500 coming from government, so it’s kept this valley nice and green.

G. Lucas: Our first request of the Finance Committee is to honour the promise of an additional $5 million towards the tree fruit replant program until 2021.

As a second request, we feel strongly that when industry administered the replant program from cradle to grave independently, but with oversight from the provincial government, we were much more efficient and effective than the current split of administration between government and association.

Third, and related to the replant administration, we support moving all agriculture programs to administration by associations, as the tendering process for agriculture programs is broken and winds up awarding contracts to companies with no direct experience and poor program delivery, as a result.

[9:35 a.m.]

We are confident that the new minister and deputy minister are receptive to this change in direction and will be further encouraged by your words of support.

P. Dhaliwal: On the environment side, the B.C. tree fruit sector uses advanced irrigation technology to make efficient use of water, and we employ integrated pest management practices on our farms.

The sterile insect release, or SIR, program is unique in the world. SIR is a collaboration of regional governments and growers, enabled through provincial legislation. This program has reared hundreds of millions of sterile codling moths over the past 20 years, which are released into orchards and prevent the successful mating of wild moths. The damaged caused to apples has dropped from 5 percent to less than 0.2 percent as result of the SIR program. Less pesticides are used now.

We need to get more value out of the SIR program. The provincial government and the growers can make this program more valuable by working to increase the scope of the program so that more insect pests are covered. Specifically, the SIR program could be a foundation for implementing our part of the national plant health strategy, with your recommendation that government services be aligned to make this change in scope possible.

Now we would like to switch gears and address the questions in the budget paper.

G. Lucas: The Budget 2018 consultation questions. First, what are your top priorities to help make life more affordable in British Columbia?

P. Dhaliwal: We continue to support the school, fruit and vegetable nutritional program, funded primarily by the Ministry of Health. Creating healthy eating habits through this important healthy diet program will save diagnostic and chronic health care dollars in the long run, making life more affordable.

G. Lucas: The second question. What service improvements should be given priority?

P. Dhaliwal: For agriculture, delivery of programs will be improved when administered by associations and with funding residing in the B.C. Investment Agriculture Foundation.

G. Lucas: The third question. What are your ideas, approaches and/or priorities for creating good jobs and to build a sustainable economy in every corner of our province?

P. Dhaliwal: For the tree fruit sector and agriculture in general, we need to be competitive to generate jobs for agriculture suppliers, growers and skilled employees and in the tree fruit packing and processing sectors.

It sounds counterintuitive, but our top priority in creating good, high-wage jobs is to have adequate harvest labour. Without the base of harvest workers, there are no high-skilled jobs. B.C. is short of on-the-ground farm workers.

We need to ensure an adequate number of harvest labour as a part of ensuring good treatment of temporary foreign workers. The Minister of Labour was mandated to maintain a database of workers in B.C. on the temporary foreign worker program. We agree to this. However, the seasonal agricultural worker program, also called SOP, already has a database because it is overseen by the foreign governments, Service Canada and the agriculture associations.

The province should save this money on duplicating this part of the database and put the savings into increasing the quality of seasonal agricultural worker housing and educating growers on human resource management. Securing the seasonal agricultural worker program will generate supplier jobs, farm management jobs and value-add processing jobs.

G. Lucas: Finally, the last question. Are there any additional comments or suggestions you would like to share with the select standing committee on the 2018 budget?

P. Dhaliwal: The Columbia River treaty has had and continues to have a huge impact by supplying water for expansion of the Washington state fruit production area.

G. Lucas: Currently the treaty terms only recognize hydro power and flood control. However, both B.C. and the U.S. recognize that the stored and subsequently time-released water has a benefit beyond flood control. One of the benefits of regulating the flow is the enhanced late season — July, August, September — water flows for agriculture irrigation.

P. Dhaliwal: The Columbia River treaty has been reviewed in both British Columbia and the U.S., though there has not been much activity in the past year on either side, while things are somewhat chaotic in the U.S. We need to continue and be prepared for this review.

G. Lucas: We are meeting with the minister responsible for the Columbia River treaty review and hope that you will support Minister Conroy in the ongoing preparations for the review of the Columbia River treaty.

[9:40 a.m.]

P. Dhaliwal: In conclusion, thank you for listening. We appreciate your efforts in making the budget effective and note the difficult choices in budgeting. As farmers, we make difficult choices every day in order to be successful. In doing so, we create value and jobs. We need government to support our role in the economy, specifically through allocation of promised replant funding and support for an expanded sterile insect release program. Together we can grow the sector and its contribution to government revenue.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Perfect timing, gentlemen. Thank you.

Any questions?

J. Brar: Thanks to both of you for coming and making a presentation. I just want to clarify a couple of things. One is about the database. You’re saying the database is already existing. Is there one database existing provincially, or are there different databases of different associations?

P. Dhaliwal: Well, under the temporary foreign worker program, there’s an umbrella, which is a seasonal agricultural workers program, shortened as SAWP. We do have a database for the SAWP portion of the temporary foreign worker program.

G. Lucas: But there are other portions of the temporary foreign worker program that do not have a database. For example, there is a low-skilled agricultural worker part of the temporary foreign worker program. That’s different from SAWP. There are other parts of that temporary foreign worker program that do not have a database. SAWP is the only one that’s overseen by a foreign government and Service Canada.

We negotiate a contract with the foreign government. Part of that is that we need to keep track of where the workers are. We have an organization, the western ag labour initiative, which maintains the database, and it’s available to government.

P. Dhaliwal: Currently under that program, under the SAWP portion, there are about 6,500 workers coming in from Mexico and about another 1,000 coming in from the Caribbean region under the SAWP program.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Gentlemen, thank you.

I had a quick text yesterday, from a grower in Summerland, asking me if Golden and Red Delicious are going to continue to be packed out next year. Do you happen to know if packing houses are…? So I can answer the gentleman, are they looking at removing that from their packing?

G. Lucas: We don’t know the exact details. I’ve heard the rumour that Golden Delicious may be removed as a listed variety that’s packed.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Golden and Red or just Golden?

G. Lucas: My take on it is that Reds, from what I’ve heard, are in too large a volume to delist right at this time.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay. I’ll pass that along.

P. Dhaliwal: On the 25th, there is a meeting, and we’ll have a clear answer on which way they’re going with it.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): After the 25th? That was brought up also. Okay. Great.

Gentlemen, thanks for coming. Greatly appreciated. It’s always good to see you.

Up next we have the Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna — Shelagh Turner. Good morning, Shelagh. We have ten minutes for the presentation and up to five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two-minute warning at eight, okay?

CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, KELOWNA

S. Turner: Great. Thank you so much. My name is Shelagh Turner. I’m the executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna. We are a multiservice organization with a broad mandate to increase awareness and understanding about mental health as well as focus on providing quality programs and services to people of all ages who experience mental illness, addictions and the impacts of poverty and marginalization.

Although I was trained as an economist, I have 30 years of working in leadership and policy and organizational development in the mental health and non-profit sectors in both Ontario and British Columbia. I was a past chair of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, representing over 700 housing providers, providing more than 60,000 units across B.C. I’ve seen a few things in my years, and I’m astounded by how we don’t seem to learn very quickly.

Today I’m hopeful. I want to recognize that there are pockets of great work that are happening and that government has not got it all wrong. The people are amazing. The systems have simply just got out of whack, and we need a broad-systems approach to transformational change, to investing valuable government funds.

[9:45 a.m.]

This morning provides us with an opportunity to reflect on how we can be better. So thank you for listening. Let’s start with a few of the problems or issues we face in order to give you a little bit of context. I’ve provided you with written copies, so I won’t go through all the points.

In any given year, mental health and substance use problems directly affect one in five British Columbians, but the other four are directly impacted through their workplace, through family, through friends and at schools. Nobody gets a free pass. We also know that 75 percent of mental illness starts in childhood and adolescence, but the sad fact is that less that 30 percent of the 84,000 kids between four and 17 who experience one or more mental health disorders in B.C. and need help actually get it.

In the Central Okanagan, affordable housing is at a critical level. The demand for rental housing has far outstripped the supply. I’m sure that’s no surprise to any of you. We have a less than 0.1 percent vacancy rate and limited rental stock. Prices are climbing, and the number of people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness is increasing exponentially. The average rent is well over $1,000 a month, and the average wage in the Central Okanagan is about 25 bucks an hour, so that’s less than $50,000 a year. Too many British Columbians, as you know, are living in poverty.

We currently have a service system that is fractured, siloed and focused on crisis management. This is the most expensive way of responding. The Representative for Children and Youth, in his recent report, just noted it. The new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions just noted it. Plans and investments happen in four-year cycles and change with government.

The unintended consequence of having multiple systems, ministries, personnel and locations all layered on top of each other is like this Gordian knot of service that’s nearly impossible for individuals and families to navigate. For many, they give up and don’t access help until it actually becomes a crisis.

Children left untreated will likely grow to be adults with chronic mental illness and physical health problems — more problems with addiction, less success in relationships and the ability to maintain jobs, more poverty and a greater likelihood of involvement in the criminal justice system. To me, the trajectory is pretty grim. I believe that all of these adult problems could be greatly reduced with appropriate care early in life.

CMHA Kelowna operates Foundry Kelowna. Foundry is a model you’ve heard of, hopefully, that is deceptively simple and incredibly complex to execute. We use an integrated care approach providing wraparound services, resources and tools to young people ages 12 to 24 and their families to support their well-being. The core services are mental health, substance use, primary care, peer support, social supports, including housing, employment and access to food. We also provide supports to families who are struggling.

Through a stepped care approach, this model ensures that the right level of service intensity will be matched to the level of need so that resources are used in the most efficient and effective way and enable young people to access care earlier, when their symptoms begin to appear, instead of languishing for months on a wait-list. Our goal is to address small problems before they become big problems.

In Kelowna, we’ve got 25 partners together to co-locate, coordinate and integrate services so that young people and families don’t have to work so hard. In the first two months since we’ve been open, the response has been huge — mostly 18- to 24-year-olds not previously connected to any service with absolutely unbelievable complex issues. So we know that we’re on to something with that.

I want to be clear that we’re not an alternative to the current health and social services systems. Those are deeply entrenched. It will take vision and discipline to change, but they must change.

Foundry offers a way to rationalize the many services and creates pathways to access supports and services efficiently and effectively. We’re able to do this because we are community-based. We focus on relationships. We leverage resources well, and we’re able to adapt quickly. We need to fully support initiatives like this in the long term.

[9:50 a.m.]

There are three recommendations: focus investments in prevention of mental illness and addiction problems, and intervene early when problems arise; invest in innovative and collaborative initiatives for young people and families, like Foundry; and focus investments in the community where innovation and nimbleness is possible, so that investments are maximized, and make smart investments in the non-profit sector.

I’d just like to quickly talk about housing. The importance of housing in everyone’s life is clear. It’s a key determinant of health. The elements of secure housing include affordability, security of tenure, desirability, safety of location and the condition of the dwelling unit itself. All of these elements add up to something that’s called home. And this term has several very important meanings. When the elements are positively aligned, home is a foundation, a base and a key component of our personal lives.

There are countless programs and services and innovations, yet there is no question that we know how to implement solutions if the infrastructure is in place. Yet we’re paying the price for not making a full commitment to an integrated solution for healthy citizens that lies in housing.

Homelessness and its relation to the supply of housing and supports is obvious, but what about the cost? What about the macroargument? We must focus our efforts and resources on the most vulnerable and homeless. We know through the Chez Soi research project that providing housing saves government and communities money.

The cumulative cost of shelters, increased health services used — and other services — outweigh the provision of a place to live and the appropriate support to stay there. What we have is another group of services that are layered and disjointed, making it ripe for duplication and inefficiency. How do you end homelessness? You give people a home. It’s that simple. And then you support them.

I’ll move ahead. You’ve got further information in there. There are just a couple of things. I guess I’ll run to, actually, my recommendations. Focus efforts and funds on the hardest-to-house, as I’ve said. Invest in housing first, and include adequate funding for effective support.

We have no homelessness strategy in B.C. We need to have a good blueprint, a clear blueprint, and make investments accordingly. And invest funding to support community, provincial and federal planning efforts that are based on both vertical and horizontal integration.

What I mean by that is that horizontal integration and collaboration occur across government departments to facilitate seamless service delivery between governments. People are complex. The way we’ve organized is in siloes and in very, sort of, simple terms, and we need to think a little more expansively. Vertical integration is looking at the people that live in communities, integrating federal, provincial and municipal policies and governments, as well as community services, so that we make smart decisions and investments.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me, and good luck with that.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Shelagh.

Any questions? Doctor?

A. Weaver: You can call me Andrew.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): That’s fine. I was trying to be more formal. Go ahead.

A. Weaver: I was checking out the Foundry program as you were speaking here. Is that modelled elsewhere in British Columbia, or is Kelowna the first?

S. Turner: No. It’s in its pilot phase. There are five sites. It’s based on a prototype — Granville Youth Health Centre. There’s Foundry in Campbell River. Yesterday, Foundry in Prince George had its opening. Foundry in the North Shore and Abbotsford. And then Kelowna.

Ours is a little different in the number of partners that we’ve been able to integrate to be a part of the Foundry centre.

A. Weaver: And you’re largely funded through philanthropy at the CMHA?

[9:55 a.m.]

S. Turner: We have a $500,000 annual investment through Interior Health. We know — or we believe, because it’s new — that the operational costs will probably be more like $850,000.

We did a fundraising effort in our community and were able to be incredibly successful and raise $2 million to support the establishment of the space and some innovation and ongoing costs. So we’re really excited by it.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any other questions?

Shelagh, thank you very much.

Just before we carry on, I’d like to recognize Ben Stewart, former MLA. Good to see you, Ben, as always.

Up next, Okanagan and Similkameen Invasive Species Society — Lisa Scott, Barb Stewart. So ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two minute warning.

OKANAGAN AND SIMILKAMEEN
INVASIVE SPECIES SOCIETY,
BOUNDARY INVASIVE SPECIES SOCIETY

L. Scott: Good morning, Chairman Ashton and members of the select standing committee. I’m Lisa Scott. I’m program manager of the Okanagan and Similkameen Invasive Species Society.

B. Stewart: I’m Barb Stewart. I’m the program manager for the Boundary Invasive Species Society, which is actually adjacent to the Okanagan and Similkameen Society.

L. Scott: We are two of the longest-running invasive species societies in British Columbia, with 21 years for OASISS and 18 for Boundary. We represent a diverse cross-section of stakeholders. We work in partnership with the province, other levels of government, First Nations and Aboriginal peoples and many other organizations, including weed boards in Washington state.

We would like to start by acknowledging the funding the province already provides, which also leverages funding from other agencies. Our organizations each have well over 20 funding partners.

These partnerships and financial support allow our regional programs to provide training to industry, engage youth, conduct research programs, educate our local residents — and, in some cases, tourists — about invasive plants, such as Japanese knotweed; invasive insects, such as the European fire ant; or potential invaders, such as zebra and quagga mussels. It also allows us to conduct operational programs and be on the ground to prevent, control and contain invasive plants.

During this consultation process, you have already heard from the provincial Invasive Species Council. You’ve heard from Kevin Boon with B.C. Cattlemen’s. I understand you’ve heard from James Littley from the Okanagan Basin Water Board this morning. And you’ll hear from many others during this public consultation process. This is because invasive species affect each and every one of you and everyone in the province.

If you enjoy sailing or angling, you and your watercraft may have stopped at an inspection station as part of B.C.’s mussel defence program. Or perhaps on your own property, you battle English ivy or thistle. Invasive species impact B.C. economically, environmentally and socially. They threaten many sectors that you’ve already heard about, including forestry, mining, agriculture as well as our recreational activities and tourism.

In the past, we’ve highlighted our many success stories, but today our presentation will focus on flood and fire response and recovery. We will connect this to invasive species.

Response is one cost, but recovery or mitigation is exceedingly higher, and I know the numbers are still adding up. Where we can help is in recovery. We can help to reduce these costs.

As you’re all well aware, our province has been heavily impacted by both flooding and wildfire this year. The emergency situation began in May with the floods, and still, now, we are addressing the wildfires.

What does this have to do with invasive species? Let’s start with the flooding. Unfortunately, much of our shorelines have been altered. Native plants have been removed, lawns established, retaining walls built and waterways channelized. Invasive plants readily establish in these changed landscapes, but they cannot withstand the erosive forces of flooding.

As the soils wash away, they take the seeds and the roots of the invasive plants. Yellow flag iris, Himalayan balsam, leafy spurge and Japanese knotweed are just a few examples of the invasive species that will thrive under these high-water conditions.

[10:00 a.m.]

In response to the flooding, barriers or berms were created, and these are invasive plant hotbeds. As well, sand in sandbags may also harbour invasive plant seeds. I’ve already seen examples of this in the Oliver area, with puncture vine showing up in new areas.

If sand is dumped on the foreshore, the risks include the potential introduction of these invasive seeds. This can result in unwanted growth of invasive plants on our foreshores. It’s something that needs to be monitored for the next three to five years.

Now I’ll shift to wildfires, which you’ve heard about a lot. In the Okanagan-Similkameen this year, we had the Diamond fire, the Princeton fire, Finlay Creek, Anarchist, Naramata and other smaller outbreaks. In the Boundary region, there was the devastating Rock Creek fire two years ago. This is just the precursor.

Wildfire and its associated soil disturbances also produce an ideal seedbed for invasive plant establishment. Soil exposure due to the intense heat from the fire and then the construction of fireguards, new roads and vehicle turnabouts, all create opportunities for invasive plants.

Following the wildfire, you have salvage logging, fence replacement and increased traffic, resulting in additional soil disturbances and contributing to the spread of invasive plants. Effective treatment of these invasive species becomes a priority in these fire-impacted locations. Grass seeding is a commonly used mitigative tool. However, the grass seed itself can harbour invasive plant seeds as contaminants. We all know the response and the recovery costs are staggering. It’s time for us to be exceedingly cost-effective.

This is where well-established regional groups, such as ours, can provide the support that you need during the recovery phase by being on the ground and helping to address the issues that I’ve mentioned. We can work through the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to ensure equipment and machinery is clean. We can collaborate with forestry companies to identify new invasive plants early on. We can help to check certificates of grass seed mixes to reduce contamination. However, current budget allocations do not allow us to undertake this important role during recovery.

B. Stewart: I just wanted to share a bit about the Rock Creek fire. After that fire in Rock Creek, we were left with charred hillsides, grasslands and fields, and houses were lost. Fire is actually a natural disturbance in that southern part of B.C. It can actually rejuvenate the plant communities. It can actually provide a benefit to wildlife, but only if invasives are not present.

That area of the fire was very high risk, or a high-value area for species at risk — wildlife, agriculture, range. After the fire, we knew we had to do something. But it was not easy to find resources to do anything because there was no set program for dealing with invasives post-fire in B.C.

We were able to work with government staff, who accessed a small pot of funds from the land-based investment fund to develop a plan and for some funds for implementation. But it was nowhere near enough. We had to shift funds from our regular programs, which meant we didn’t get to do other things. So I’m still telling ranchers that we can’t spray their spotted knapweed on the range because of the fire response in Rock Creek and of having to put everything into that.

Fires will continue to happen in our province, and we need to be prepared. The following spring after the fire, the first things growing, as we monitored, were diffuse knapweed, sulphur cinquefoil, Dalmatian toadflax. They survived the fire. It’s just amazing. All the research points to invasive plants increasing post-fire.

In the U.S., they have dedicated funds for fire response. They actually deliver it through their weed boards, and they have those funds available for two years post-fire for invasives. In the U.S., they also have wash stations at major fires so that the equipment going into those fires is clean. That’s something we need to be looking at for B.C.

Prevention is really important. Can invasive species be brought in from other regions? Certainly, with all those crews, with all the seed. So fires and floods are more than our programs can currently handle. In the short term, funds need to be made available to deal with the immediate issues. In the long term, we need to include invasive plants as part of that fire recovery process.

L. Scott: In conclusion, invasive species do not recognize boundaries. It’s imperative our partnerships are augmented and strengthened to do more.

[10:05 a.m.]

We can reassure you that we’re working collectively, and the partnerships are in place. We have many stories of success, but we could do so much more with additional funding support, in light of this new normal of droughts, floods, fires and more.

We are agile, we are on the ground, and there will be immediate results that provide cost savings and will be appreciated by the public of British Columbia. We have decades of partnering with multiple agencies. This is the time for us to assist with recovery so the government can focus on policy, planning and management.

Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Lisa and Barb, thank you very much.

Any questions or comments?

J. Brar: This is the second presentation, actually, of the same nature we have had presented to the committee, so thanks for coming.

I just want to ask you from a…. I understand what you are saying from a policy point of view. The invasive species are coming from outside, so you deal with them within the borders of B.C. But can you stop them from coming from outside, or do you have to continue dealing with it? It may be kind of an ignorant question, but if you can’t stop them, how do you deal with them?

L. Scott: Well, the most cost-effective way is prevention — so preventing them from getting into our regions, into our province. That’s part of why we formed a relationship and a program across the border with Washington state. Ours was actually the first cross-border Canada-U.S. program ever. It goes back to about 15 years ago. This is why the partnerships and the relationships are so important, having those cross-boundary relationships internationally as well as within our region.

Once invasive species invade, we focus on what’s referred to as early detection and rapid response. Again, that’s where the education, the more eyes and ears out there, and then the ability to have programs in place to, if we can, eradicate…. Because that’s right. Once species become well established, it can be very difficult to get rid of them.

Our focus is not about removing invasive species, not about killing invasive plants. It’s about creating resilient ecosystems, and this can also help with these natural disasters, like floods and fires.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

Again, just quickly, though, during your presentation about invasive species, I heard: “Prevent, control, contain.” I hope you add “eradicate” to it, especially with zebra and quagga. To be frank, we better be prepared. As we all know, it’s happening in Montana. If we do get an outbreak here, there are going to have to be some sacrifices. I don’t think it should become a chronic problem like milfoil has become, where we had an opportunity years ago to eradicate it.

L. Scott: Agreed.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks. Always good to see you.

L. Scott: Thanks for the opportunity.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Have a good day.

B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention — Jason Gordon. Sir, welcome.

J. Gordon: Good morning.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two-minute warning.

B.C. ASSOCIATION FOR CHILD
DEVELOPMENT AND INTERVENTION

J. Gordon: Great. Thanks.

Good morning, everybody. I’m here today to represent the B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention, or BCACDI. This non-profit association represents 29 agencies across the province, commonly referred to as child development centres.

These child development centres contract with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to provide services for children and youth with special needs — programs and services such as the early intervention therapies program, which provides physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech language pathology for children and youth with special needs.

We have an infant development program to provide support for families who have a child from birth to age three with special needs or developmental delay. Lastly, the other common program we provide is supported child development, which provides support for families who have a child or youth with special needs to access child care settings or preschool environments.

There are three challenges I’d like to talk about real quick. First of all, after nearly a decade of frozen base contract funding, we’re very appreciative of the MCFD’s new multi-year action plan, which has some new resources flowing to the base contracts that we provide for the first time in, like I said, nearly ten years. This is a great challenge for us to have to try to implement this new funding.

[10:10 a.m.]

The recommendation I’d like to make is that, in the future, we continue to have good collaboration with our local communities when we look at where to direct these resources. We had these resources flowing out halfway through this fiscal, so it’s going to be challenging to determine their impact.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

If we have really good community collaboration, we can help these agencies have a real local knowledge of the programs and services that are most in need in their respective communities. We’d be able to provide government with the feedback as to where those resources would be directed to have the most effective and efficient impact.

The multi-year action plan does have a three-year plan and three-year dedication to contract increases for the base funding, which is fantastic and really helps our agencies plan — HR planning, etc. — for meeting the needs of their communities. We’d like to see, before this three-year multi-action plan expires, a new three-year plan implemented that has similar contract increases, at the very least, to help offset the increased operating expenses with the operating agency.

Just a note on the collaboration piece. One of the real commitments from this government, back to the B.C. Liberal government several years ago, is increasing child care spaces in British Columbia, which is a welcome investment. However, we always want to make sure that any new investments impacting children and youth are also accessible equally to children and youth with special needs.

One of the focuses over the past several years has been increasing child care spaces without a concurrent increase in the supported child development program, which is the program that helps to support children and youth with special needs to access those child care spaces. Moving forward, again, with any new investment in the early-years sector, children and youth, let’s make sure that we have equitable access for all children and youth in the province.

I’d like to quickly talk about resources for capital projects next. Child development centres in British Columbia are non-profit charities and rely almost exclusively on fundraising for infrastructure improvements, new buildings, etc. We have about 20 percent of our member agencies currently involved in some type of capital fundraising.

As you all know, in the province, we have very many corporations and businesses that are very philanthropic and donate large sums of money, and it’s great. But what we’ve experienced recently is in the rural and remote areas, where we do have some agencies. There are some real challenges to raise fundraising dollars in those areas, especially if it’s a resource-based community where the mill is closed, etc. They don’t have the same type of corporate and business draw.

We would like to see some dedicated funding established through government that these contracted agencies can apply for when there’s any kind of infrastructure or renovations required for capital investment. Again, as it stands, there isn’t a dedicated source of funding. B.C. Gaming did have some for some time. It was cancelled for many years. It’s now just been reinstated for next fiscal. But we’d like to see a consistent and transparent process where these agencies can apply for those capital funding investments.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

The last thing I’d like to talk about. What we’re starting to see is a bit of a two-tiered service delivery in the child and youth with special needs space between those children that have a diagnosis of autism and those children that don’t. The foundational programs that our agencies deliver — infant development, intervention therapies, etc. — are accessible to all children and youth in the province regardless of diagnosis, even if they don’t have one, and are self-referred. So very accessible.

Now, what government also has implemented several years ago is something we call an individualized funding program through the autism funding unit so families can actually access public dollars to purchase services for their child and youth with a diagnosed of autism. This has created a bit of two tiers in our province, where we now have families who have a child or youth with autism able to purchase services either from agencies that provide autism programs or the private sector, and they have experienced less of a wait time for service, typically, and also are able to purchase a higher level of intensity of service.

We almost have, again, two tiers of services, where if you don’t have a diagnosis of autism, you can still get access to the foundational programs, but the wait is typically longer and the intensity of service is typically lower, just due to the resource limitations in the area.

We’d like to see some type of a commitment from government to have a committee in place with some sector representation where we just look at strategies we can talk about. How can we make the service delivery model in British Columbia accessible in terms of wait-time intensity of service for all children and youth with special needs in the province, regardless of their diagnosis?

Thanks for your time. I’m more than happy to take any questions that you have.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Great. Thanks, Jason.

[10:15 a.m.]

S. Cadieux: Thanks, Jason. I certainly understand the challenges facing this sector. I pushed really hard at the end of the year to make sure we got that pot of money out the door this year, with the multi-year action plan, to make sure there was going to be at least some investment in the early intervention sector.

Where are you at, working with the ministry, on the overall wait-listing kind of system so that we know where the waits are in a consistent and measurable way from service provider to service provider, given that they were managing their services as best they could and being really creative about how they were getting services to people? That created a challenge in terms of really understanding what the waits were for various therapies in order to put the resources where they really need it.

J. Gordon: That’s a great question. And thank you for the work you did back in February with the multi-year action plan in the budget. That new funding is greatly appreciated.

In response to your question, the data has been an issue, as you know, in our sector for many years now. The service indicators reporting framework, which is the ministry’s process of gathering data from the contracted agencies, has been revised last year. We do sit on the committee, and we’re working with creating an access measure where we actually are looking at wait time.

Stephanie, I have a big responsibility, of course, within my association to build consensus amongst — a consistent, valid and reliable way to measure that data. It’s something that we need to do in order to make sure we’re directing services to the appropriate thing. There’s been great collaboration with government on that, and we look forward to continuing to work until we resolve that issue.

S. Cadieux: Until we really get that data.

J. Gordon: Yeah, for sure. It’s a priority.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any other questions for Jason?

Well, sir, thank you very much. Greatly appreciated.

J. Gordon: My pleasure.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Have a good day.

J. Gordon: You too. Thanks for your time.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Up next we have the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. — Sharon Gregson. Nice to see you again.

S. Gregson: It’s a pleasure to be back here again. I thought I’d change things up by coming to Kelowna this year.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Well, welcome to the Okanagan. Sorry about the weather this morning. It’s normally a lot drier up here.

COALITION OF CHILD CARE
ADVOCATES OF B.C.

S. Gregson: Yeah. Actually, it’s just as cold in this room as it is outside.

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to have an opportunity to present to this important committee again this year. In front of you, you should have a submission from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates with a couple of documents — the actual submission itself and a couple of background documents.

It’s no surprise to many of you that for B.C. families with young children, the child care crisis is as serious today as the housing crisis. I take this opportunity to remind the committee that for the last four years, your committee has recommended to the Legislative Assembly that the provincial government provide funding and support for the development and implementation of an affordable, accessible and high-quality child care plan.

In 2017, in our provincial election, the majority of B.C. voters chose the B.C. NDP or the B.C. Greens, each of whom committed to substantial investments in child care. In fact, in both cases, it was the largest area of new spending in their platforms. And in the subsequent throne speech, the B.C. Liberals also made a significant new child care investment.

So the time is right. With all three major political parties now publicly committed to new child care funding, B.C.’s families with young children can finally look forward to meaningful progress on implementing an evidence-based plan to solve the current child care chaos in our province. The plan on the table is the $10-a-day child care plan.

A quick snapshot of the crisis — although all your constituents, I’m sure, are frequently reminding you of the child care difficulties that they are experiencing in communities across the province. B.C. invests less in early childhood education than the Canadian average, and Canada as a whole invests less than other wealthy countries, falling far short of the minimum public investment levels recommended by UNICEF and the OECD. The result in B.C. and, in fact, across most of Canada, is a fragmented patchwork of child care programs that fails to meet the needs of families.

That looks like high costs in the major municipalities in our province. Costs are astronomical in Vancouver and Kelowna and Victoria, for example. It’s not a surprise to know that averages range from just under $1,000 to about $1,500 a month for children under the age of six.

[10:20 a.m.]

There are currently subsidies for low-income parents, very welfare-oriented, and they haven’t risen in more than ten years. Meanwhile, parent fees have risen at much more than the level of inflation. There are long waiting lists, and the only reason that there are ever empty waiting lists in licensed child care spaces is not because families don’t need the care. It’s because they cannot afford the fees.

Women, therefore, are forced to abandon paid work and career goals, and the lack of affordable child care is a significant barrier for mothers who want to return to work or pursue their education. This contributes to gender inequality in our province and, sadly, weakens our economy.

Important for you to know that B.C. continues to have one of the lowest labour force participation rates of mothers across Canada. That results in, then, a reliance on unregulated child care. That means care where there are no training requirements, no health and safety standards enforced, no monitoring or oversight. The death of Baby Mac in unlicensed, illegal care is evidence of this unhealthy situation in our province.

Early childhood educators are earning low wages, often not able to afford to enrol their own children in the programs that they work in. There is a significant and worsening recruitment and retention issue for early childhood educators in this province.

We were very troubled to see a rollback of the existing regulation around outdoor play space under the previous provincial government, which lessened the size of outdoor playgrounds. That was definitely a move in the wrong direction.

How do we get from there to where we need to be? The answer is the Community Plan for a Public System of Integrated Early Care and Learning. The branding has become known as the $10-a-day plan, but it is much more than that. One of the attachments in your package is a long list of the organizational supporters who have endorsed the $10-a-day plan. That represents 48 municipal and regional governments in every corner of our province; 31 boards of education, which is a majority of boards in the province; organizations like Vancity, United Way of the Lower Mainland, Surrey Board of Trade, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, medical health officers council; and many, many, many more.

Important for you to know that we are proposing concrete, balanced, evidence-based actions that allow government to begin fulfilling their child care commitment in Budget 2018. These actions support existing B.C. child care services to participate in building the effective system that B.C. parents, grandparents and employers are waiting for.

Implementing these first steps requires the B.C. government to confirm the multilateral and bilateral child care agreements that the federal government is waiting to sign with the B.C. government, and to conclude child care discussions with the B.C. Green caucus. These first steps to reduce today’s child care chaos in B.C. are consistent with the election platforms of both the B.C. NDP and the B.C. Green Party.

Our recommendations to your committee. Firstly, that you deliver tangible benefits to families, that you recommend tangible benefits to families by reducing parent fees in all licensed infant and toddler programs by $500 a month — a concrete first step to get to affordability. This funding can be delivered through an existing vehicle, the child care operating fund.

That you also recommend eliminating parent fees for families who have annual incomes of less than $40,000 a year. Again, this funding can be delivered through an existing vehicle, the child care operating fund. And that you recommend creating 22,500 new spaces in the next three years, working collaboratively with municipalities, boards of education, early-years planning tables and the child care community. There’s lots of opportunity to work with public partners to get new spaces on line.

Secondly, that you recommend that there be immediate investment in the early childhood education workforce and that you recommend supporting early childhood educators by increasing their wages by $1 an hour. Again, this can be delivered through the child care operating fund.

That you create bursaries to help people who are working in the unlicensed sector move into being licensed by getting their certificate to practise. And that you implement an intensive recruitment and re-entrance strategy to attract ECEs back into the workforce. Many of them have left because of the low wages.

[10:25 a.m.]

The actions listed above — to reduce fees, raise wages and to create new spaces, all in licensed child care — should start in 2018 and be expanded in years 2 and 3. These actions should be incorporated within a three-year detailed plan, achieving measurable progress on child care affordability, on quality and on access, with a high-level, long-term plan for achieving a fully universal system.

Of course, a three-year plan would include an incremental increase to funding. So we would be looking for $225 million in the 2018 budget, and $50 million of that is expected from the federal government.

You’ll need an affordability strategy for reducing all parent fees to a more affordable level, a workforce development strategy working with post-secondary institutions and an infrastructure strategy to increase capacity within the sector.

It can be done. It is not an insurmountable goal. You can start to take the first step in Budget 2018. I hope that each and every one of you will make that commitment, and I look forward to your questions.

S. Cadieux: Hi, Sharon.

What is the current…? Now that I’m not in charge of this anymore, I don’t have the stats. Of the 111,000 licensed spaces that receive CCOF money, how many of those are infant-toddler today?

S. Gregson: I don’t have that number. I didn’t bring that stat with me today. I think the 111,000 number is actually a number that changes a little bit. It might be over the year.

S. Cadieux: Yeah, it does. But let’s just…. What percentage is infant-toddler?

S. Gregson: We know that there aren’t enough infant-toddler spaces. We know that infant-toddler is where the greatest crisis currently exists, and that’s why we’re suggesting that that be the starting place for the fee reduction.

S. Cadieux: Right. But if you’re suggesting an investment of $225 million, you must have some idea of how far that will go.

S. Gregson: Yes, we do.

S. Cadieux: So if you don’t know how many spaces that that would support….

S. Gregson: I didn’t say I didn’t know. I said I didn’t bring the exact number of how many IT spaces there are in the province today.

The $225 million that is being requested — $175 million provincial funds, $50 million from the feds — is enough, and the costing has been done to include the starting place of the $500 reduction in infant-toddler spaces, the $1-an-hour wage enhancement for ECEs and the initial capital investment to get new spaces built.

So yes, it does, and I’d be happy to provide that costing.

R. Leonard: Just to clarify, it’s not necessarily new spaces. It’s subsidizing existing spaces.

S. Gregson: Can you be a bit more specific about your question?

R. Leonard: On the question that Stephanie was asking about how many new spaces would be created with the infant-toddlers, it sounds like it’s not actually geared to….

S. Gregson: Right. It’s making existing spaces more affordable and a commitment to create new spaces. The issue with child care is that there’s no sense just doing one thing, because the crisis has gotten so bad that we have to have a multi-pronged approach to make existing spaces more affordable, to invest in the ECE workforce and to create new spaces.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. It’s very clear, I think, in creating the framework of the way forward. There has been a lot of talk about $10 a day, whether that’s the right goal, etc. My understanding, from your presentation and also from what I’ve heard, is that it’s a little more complex than that.

S. Gregson: Yes. I need to be very clear that $10 a day is just the branding. There is a complex plan of new public policy that that represents.

R. Leonard: Right. Thank you very much.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you. We have two minutes left. I have Andrew and Jagrup next.

A. Weaver: I just wanted to thank you for focusing on the community plan for a public system of integrated early care. I think that’s very helpful as a foundation, to move forward. If we get hung up on a slogan, everything is balanced on the slogan. So I do appreciate that.

Some of the delays, I would argue…. I think that some of the costing that was done in the government’s platform was not realistic in terms of their plan for implementation of some of the child care.

When you talk about concluding bilateral discussions, I think the concern is that it’s going to cost a lot of money, and there are priorities. I think we made it a top priority in our platform, as did the government now.

[10:30 a.m.]

It’s finding the money that’s going to be the issue. I don’t think it was budgeted correctly in the platform, so other things are going to have to be cut.

S. Gregson: The numbers in the platform actually came from the costing that was done out in the community with Robert Fairholm, an economist, and Iglika Ivanova. The $175 million of new provincial dollars that we’re looking for — we do think that that is a big enough starting place to have some immediate benefits for families and strengthen the capacity of the workforce. We think that is a doable number in Budget 2018.

A. Weaver: Things change when you get in government and you see the books and you see the other complexities. I suspect that that’s some of the wake-up call that the Finance Minister has to deal with now. We have a shared commitment for this, as you say, and I’m really pleased to see the focus on a community plan. So thank you for that.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Jagrup, we have a minute and a half left.

J. Brar: Okay. Thank you, Sharon. I also watched your presentation at UBCM. I think you were there. Thanks for a very powerful presentation once again.

I just want to make sure I understand your proposal very clearly in terms of the dollar figure. My colleague here is also concerned about the dollars. So a good start is that we agree that this is very important to do — the $10-a-day daycare program. If I understand you correctly, you’re proposing that the $225 million per year will fund everything you’re proposing, if we do that.

S. Gregson: The $225 million that we’re looking for in the budget is $175 million from the province and $50 million from the federal government. That is the number that we know is coming from the federal government. That is enough for the starting places, the implementation of the plan that we’re suggesting.

It’s enough to cover the $500 in infant-toddler spaces, the $500 fee reduction for families — that’s in licensed family and licensed group care — and it’s enough for the $1-an-hour wage enhancement for early childhood educators who have a certificate to practise. And it’s enough to start on some significant capital expansion.

J. Brar: To create 22,500 new spaces.

S. Gregson: The 22,000 is over three years. The $225 million we’re looking for in Budget 2018 is to expand from there.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Perfect. Really quick. I’ve got ten seconds.

P. Milobar: That’s great for year 1, but I notice that year 3 is up to $500 million or $450 million. Are you saying you expect that if you take the first step, you want all three steps taken? Or is one step at a time good enough?

S. Gregson: Right. We have to start. People have talked about the child care crisis for long enough. Frankly, the crisis has been allowed to get worse year after year for too long. What we do know about child care is that when we start to make significant investments, we start to see significant returns.

For example, in Quebec, they had more than 50 percent of single parents moving off welfare when they could access quality, affordable child care. We expect to see, and the economists predict, short-term as well as medium- and long-term returns to government through increased taxes. When more parents can work, welfare rolls decline and more children are ready to be successful in school. The investment starts to pay for itself very quickly.

P. Milobar: Quebec does get about $11 billion in transfer payments.

S. Gregson: It’s got nothing to do with their child care system.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sharon, thank you very much. Always good to see you.

S. Gregson: My pleasure. See you again.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Up next we have the Insurance Bureau of Canada — Aaron Sutherland.

Good to see you. Thank you. Ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning and five minutes for questions.

INSURANCE BUREAU OF CANADA

A. Sutherland: Sure. I thank you guys for having me today.

I have brought with me our submission, as well as our overview presentation. I’ll go through it fairly quickly to try and allow as much time as possible for discussion at the end, should you have any questions.

As mentioned, my name is Aaron. I’m with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. We are the national association of Canada’s home and business and auto insurers.

I’m going to talk to you today a little bit about wildfire risk reduction, which I know I’ve spoken to previously at this table. But it has, I think, new importance this year. I’ll also talk a little bit about emergency preparedness, adapting to climate change and building a resiliency to earthquakes. And at the end, I’ll touch a little bit on auto insurance and my industry’s perspective on some of the challenges we’re seeing there from more or less an outsider’s view, given the monopoly that ICBC has.

I don’t need to describe too much the devastation we saw during this year’s wildfire season and the impact the fires had on individuals in their path. We know that that impact will be with us for some time. Frankly, as awful as those fires were and as devastating as they were for the individuals directly impacted, we really did dodge a bullet. When you think about what’s going on south of the border, in California, right now and when you think about Fort McMurray last year, we got extremely lucky in this province that these fires weren’t much, much worse.

[10:35 a.m.]

A lot of that credit goes to the incredible efforts of our wildfire-fighting personnel. It also speaks to…. We just got lucky with some of the weather at the right time.

I can tell you, from being embedded in the province’s emergency operations centre, there were some very tense moments with regards to what was going to happen from these fires, so our industry looked at these really as a wake-up call. We got lucky this year, but we know next year is another year. It’s going to be worse in the years ahead. The trend is very concerning. So we really are calling for increased investment in efforts to build our resiliency to wildfire risk — simple things like helping consumers or homeowners fire-smart their properties but also helping communities build those fireguards in rural areas where they do border on our forests.

Fires are really just one element of what we are calling our new weather reality in this country and right around the world as the result of climate change. We’re seeing hotter, drier summers, but we’re also seeing warmer, wetter winters and springs. Insurers are a little bit of a canary in the coal mine on this issue, as we’re seeing severe weather losses due to climate change increase dramatically in recent years.

If you look at our slide on this, severe weather losses have grown from just a few hundred million dollars to being at or above $1 billion every year since 2009. Last year alone they were over $5 billion. Climate change is having a massive impact on homeowners right across this country and right here in B.C.

The solutions, frankly, are fairly simple. The number one result is that as our weather warms, it holds more moisture. Some people at this table can articulate this better than I can. When it does rain, it rains harder and it rains for longer, and that brings the risk of flood and storm way up. So we’re calling for increased investment in simple things like sewer and stormwater infrastructure, rebuilding our dikes.

One area where we think the insurance industry can play a larger role is just on the insurance side. Residential flood insurance is a new product in the marketplace, and we feel that can help transfer some of the financial risk of climate change away from government and onto private industry. We need your help educating the public that those resources are now there for them.

As big an impact as climate change is having, it really would be a drop in the bucket were a significant earthquake to strike the southwest of this province, as we’ve seen in other Ring of Fire countries. I’m thinking of New Zealand, Japan, Chile. We’re overdue here in B.C., and frankly, we’re not prepared.

In 2015, Henry Renteria delivered what we felt was an excellent and all-encompassing report to the province on what we could do to build our preparedness for an earthquake. We would very much champion that that report be acted upon and the recommendations in there be brought into effect. We know that the jurisdictions that are most prepared ahead of time are the ones to recover fastest and the ones to recover most fully. We really feel that now is the time to help build a culture of preparedness in this province for what we see as the number one risk facing us, and that is earthquake.

The last thing I’ll touch on is auto insurance. I don’t think it would be any surprise for those in this room that we have a major problem in this province and a major challenge with regard to auto insurance, and major change will be required to fix it. We pay among the highest insurance rates in the country, and we also receive some of the fewest benefits when drivers go to make a claim.

In other provinces, it’s my industry and my association that are providing auto insurance, so we feel we have a lot of learnings. We have a lot of experience that we would welcome sharing and be happy to share in detail, in terms of what we feel that some of those solutions could be to help bring prices down and make auto insurance more affordable.

Competition is something we do champion. We know, though, that that is not a silver bullet, that much more will be required. But if we want to bring the most benefit to B.C. drivers, we do believe that all options need to be on the table and that competition needs to be included in a true discussion about how we bring the most benefit to B.C. drivers in this province.

That is the high level. There’s, obviously, a lot more detail in our submission, but I’m happy to take any questions on anything I’ve said today and anything going forward.

[10:40 a.m.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Aaron.

Any questions to start off with?

T. Redies: Thanks, Aaron. Having been in the financial services business for quite a few years, I know the importance and the challenges around insurance. At my former institution, Coast, we required, actually, all of our customers who took out a mortgage with us to have earthquake insurance. I’m not sure if that is standard practice in the industry.

A. Sutherland: It is amongst the credit unions, which is great to see. Obviously, B.C.’s credit unions risk is localized here in this province. Unfortunately, in the larger banking sector, we don’t see that. It is something that we talk actively…. Those talks are ongoing with, certainly, the national banks, trying to articulate to them the risks they face from an earthquake and how important it is that they follow credit unions and say maybe they need to think about ensuring their customers have earthquake insurance as well.

To receive a mortgage, you have to have home insurance. Here in B.C., our homes face a unique risk from earthquakes, and we really feel that homeowners need to both be educated…. A lot of them don’t realize how big the risk is and don’t realize that earthquake isn’t standard in your home insurance policy and is a separate add-on. As much as my industry is out there championing this, we need the bank industry’s help and government’s help to make sure that individuals know what protection is out there.

T. Redies: Just a quick follow-up. With flood insurance, I know years ago that was a problem in terms of being able to find adequate products that could support homeowners who are in potential flood zones. Has that changed?

A. Sutherland: It has and it hasn’t. The challenge with flood is the people that need the insurance are those at the highest risk for whom it’ll likely be the most expensive. Our industry has developed new flood insurance products. We know we can serve around 90 percent of the marketplace.

There are still 5 or 10 percent of homeowners living in the floodplains and living in areas that, frankly, we probably shouldn’t be building in anymore, knowing what we know. For those folks, private insurers simply can’t create a product that is affordable en masse. We will need to work with government, likely at the federal level, to come up with a solution to protect those individuals as well.

J. Brar: Just for clarification, Aaron. You’ve given us this table for what you call the insurance expenses. The average in the smallest towns…. Whether it’s in PEI or other provinces, I understand the premium is very low. But when you compare it with the bigger provinces like Ontario, we’re pretty close to them.

Ontario, as per the average claim, is way bigger than even B.C., right? And Quebec is not part of this thing. Is there a reason that Quebec is not part of this?

A. Sutherland: We didn’t include the Quebec model because theirs is slightly different. There government insures the life impacts of it, the personal injury impacts of it, and the private insurers insure the vehicle. If we were to put these numbers out for Quebec, they would be certainly lower. The average premium in Quebec is around $700 or $800. But it’s more difficult to show what the average injury claim would be, because that’s handled through the Quebec government, and we don’t have access to that information.

In essence, what this table shows — and I think you’re quite right in pointing it out — is British Columbians pay far more for their auto insurance in this province than many other jurisdictions. And they receive far less than drivers in virtually every other province when they actually go to make a claim. That’s a disconnect that simply doesn’t make sense to our industry, and we don’t feel it’s fair to B.C. drivers.

R. Leonard: Just on a comment on that. ICBC was created because the private industry wasn’t serving the best interests of British Columbians at the time. Where we move ahead…. It’s great that there’s this opportunity for dialogue.

A. Sutherland: I fully accept there likely were failings in the late ’60s among the private insurers, particularly in rural areas and delivering adequate service to those communities, which ultimately resulted in ICBC coming today.

We know we have a philosophical difference on this. But we also know that we can be part of the solution, and we’re happy to be part of the solution, whether that includes competition or not. We’re happy to share the experience we’ve had in other provinces to help bring improved affordability to drivers here in B.C.

[10:45 a.m.]

R. Leonard: I just wanted to focus a little bit on the issue of being prepared for disasters. I sat on a water board during the time of Walkerton and North Battleford and saw our insurance rates go through the roof. Yet people still don’t recognize the risks, even today, around all kinds of things.

Working towards that, I think we’ve seen a lot more of a rise in insurance rates, which is actually, I think, being a trigger. I think we had an earlier presentation that talked about price being a trigger for action. Not that we all want to see our insurance rates go up, but it probably doesn’t hurt to get us into that culture of preparedness.

You did make a comment. One of your bullets, which I don’t know if you spoke to, was: “To encourage federal action to mitigate financial risk following a catastrophic event.”

A. Sutherland: What we mean by that, and it’s detailed in our submission, is that the insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, and rightly so. We are prepared to withstand up to a 1-in-500-year earthquake — essentially, a 9.0 earthquake off southwestern B.C.

It’s when you start talking about levels above that, those catastrophic events like what we saw in Fukushima, Japan, more recently…. That type of an event has the potential to bring our industry down and to its knees. That’s something that we can start preparing for now.

It’s extremely unlikely, but it’s still very real. Insurers deal with unlikely events. This is our business. So we are, right now, having a conversation with the federal government, before a catastrophic earthquake strikes, to take steps now to describe what the future looks like. What would be needed to ensure that the insurance industry…? While you maintain a certain level of risk so that you have the prudent business practices amongst our members, you also don’t let it just disappear following an event of that magnitude — of $100 billion in terms of losses.

We feel a solution would be some sort of financial mechanism similar to what the banking industry saw after 2009, some sort of a loan of last resort that insurers could access so they could continue to pay their claims and then pay that off over time. That’s something we’re actively engaging with the federal government on and that they seem quite supportive of. It’s something we’ve worked on with the province of B.C., particularly with emergency management B.C., in support of those efforts as well.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Aaron.

We’re going to jump ahead. We have the Association for Mineral Exploration here — Jonathan Buchanan. Sir, thank you for coming. Thanks for stepping up a bit early. It’ll help us in our travels today. As you heard, we have ten minutes for the presentation and up to five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

ASSOCIATION FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION

J. Buchanan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to present.

My name is Jonathan Buchanan. I am director of information and public affairs for the Association for Mineral Exploration, or AME for short. On behalf of AME’s 400 corporate and more than 4,000 individual members, we are pleased to provide recommendations for Budget 2018.

First, we acknowledge that we are meeting today on the traditional territory of the Okanagan Nation. We’re also delighted to be here in Kelowna. In the Kelowna area, there are about 50 corporate and individual members of the association — explorers like Colorado Resources; suppliers to the industry such as Multi-Power Products, Northspan Explorations, Secure-Rite Storage; and there are many more. That’s the industry — and students at UBC Okanagan.

Kelowna is also known as the home of Chuck Fipke, one of the co-discoverers of diamonds in Canada. Why this is important is that most cities in B.C. have a strong connection to mineral exploration, and Kelowna is no exception. Vancouver, where AME is based, is home to more than 800 mineral exploration companies active both at home and exploring around the world. It was estimated that in 2016, more than 6,000 people were employed in mineral exploration. This amounts to about 20 percent of the total mining industry workforce.

AME represents the provincial mineral exploration development sector. Clearly, without exploration for valuable hidden coal and mineral resources, there would be no mining, which in turn produces wealth for the province along with the materials critical for our low-carbon future. AME is thankful for the provincial government’s acknowledgement of the value of our industry.

As you are aware and as was pointed by the Mining Association of B.C. in a previous presentation, B.C. is a highly competitive open-terrain environment and is vulnerable to changes in global commodity prices and investment patterns.

[10:50 a.m.]

Consequently, a recent five-year-long downturn resulted in the lowest mineral exploration expenditures in recent history, in 2016. Although there are indications that 2017 is busier and more active, many of our members still have difficulty raising capital in a volatile, albeit improving, environment.

In B.C., mineral exploration expenditures declined from a high of $681 million in 2012 to $205 million in 2016. That’s shown in the figure in your presentation. However, while exploration and investment have slowed, B.C. has still attracted an estimated 14 percent of all exploration dollars spent in 2016 in Canada.

This share of exploration, though, is dependent largely on the commodities in demand. Exploration for diamonds, uranium and potash — commodities not explored for in B.C. — kept B.C. from reaching the 19 to 22 percent share of Canadian mineral exploration achieved in recent years. When gold, copper, coal, lead and zinc are in demand, and with the help of favourable public policy, B.C.’s share of exploration tends to be higher.

What these figures do is help demonstrate that the B.C. and Canadian governments and industry must continuously work together to attract investment.

In 2016, B.C. had 259 active mineral exploration projects. These projects, and possibly more — in fact, in 2007, B.C. had 472 projects — could be spurring more regional economic development in communities throughout the province, creating local demand for jobs and services, developing and building upon local expertise and supporting thousands of family-sustaining jobs in communities.

With that, AME respectfully offers three primary recommendations to the select standing committee. As the first, AME recommends that the B.C. government increase the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit. AME also recommends that the B.C. government make this incentive, as well as the B.C. mining exploration tax credit, permanent to encourage investment in mineral exploration in British Columbia.

We were please to see the renewal of he B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit through December 31, 2017, in addition to extending the definition of eligible exploration expenses to include community consultation and environmental expenditures. This tax credit allows individuals who invest in flow-through shares to claim a non-refundable tax credit of 20 percent of their B.C. expenditures.

According to a survey by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, close to 88 percent of mineral exploration companies polled have used flow-through financing, and 82 percent of companies noted that its removal would be detrimental to the Canadian mineral exploration industry.

Furthermore, 61 percent said that the dollars raised have led to new discoveries, providing economic stimulus in typically more remote areas of the country that include Indigenous communities. We encourage that the province work with the federal Department of Finance to make this tax credit permanent, to provide certainty for both investors and communities relying on mineral exploration.

We also encourage the B.C. government to consider making the super flow-through program the best in Canada. A 30 percent tax credit, tied with Manitoba, would provide individuals with low-cost investing in grassroots mineral exploration, returning $12 net cost for a $1,000 investment.

On a corporate level, the B.C. mining exploration tax credit provides a corporate tax credit for companies investing in exploration. It is comparable only to Quebec’s tax credit related to resources. AME also recommends that this tax credit, which currently expires in 2020, be made permanent, to give companies a suite of incentives to attract the long-term investment in mineral exploration that is required to make discoveries that lead to the opening of new mines.

Finally, AME recommends that the B.C. government set aside funds in fiscal 2018-2019 to implement the recommendations of the B.C. mining jobs task force. We are encouraged by the recent creation of the B.C. mining jobs task force by the provincial government and look forward to participating fully on the committee.

We hope that the results of these collaborative recommendations lay the framework for B.C. to become the leading jurisdiction for mineral exploration, development and mining, as well as leaders in enabling a low-carbon future. As discussions regarding the task force are ongoing, our request today is that the outcomes of the task force are budgeted in the upcoming 2018-2019 budget and fiscal plan.

I look forward to your questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Jonathan, I appreciate it.

[10:55 a.m.]

A. Weaver: I recognize the importance of the flow-through tax credit. The problem is that it’s not really available to most average retail investors. It’s a select few who are able to access that. There is a broad societal concern that those select few who have access to the shares with the flow-through credit will dump them on the market as soon as they can. Essentially, they are there initially…. How does one make this flow-through tax credit available to more than just those who have inside knowledge as to where they can get access to it?

J. Buchanan: Although it is, of course, a provincewide credit available in most jurisdictions, one idea might be to increase knowledge of how these are available and also get more information on the benefits, as well.

A. Weaver: To me, it’s those who know, who benefit. Those who buy the shares on the open market who are not benefiting from that 20 percent flow-through are paying a 20 percent premium, in some sense. That, to me, isn’t a level playing field if those shares move onto the market very rapidly. That’s why…. I get why it’s good to incentivize capital investment, but it also troubles me that it benefits just a few and not the average retail investor.

J. Buchanan: Certainly, levelling the playing field is in the interest of all investors.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any other comments or questions?

Sir, thank you. Greatly appreciated. Thank you for your presentation. Have a good day.

Next up we have the Association of Administrative and Professional Staff of the University of British Columbia. We have Joey and Sarah. Welcome, folks. Nice to see you again. Ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and up to five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF AT UBC

J. Hansen: Thanks very much. My name is Joey Hansen. I am the executive director of the Association of Administrative and Professional Staff at UBC, or AAPS, as we call ourselves. I’m here with my colleague Sarah Muff, who is our communications and government relations officer.

We are the largest employee group at UBC. We represent professional staff and managers at the university. We’re a professional association, not a trade union, because we represent folks with management responsibilities as well as a number of professional staff. We represent approximately 4,300 members at the university.

We’re doing something that we haven’t done in the past. When we present to the committee today, we’re not making a specific ask in terms of additional funding or additional dollars. What we’re coming here to talk about a little bit is ensuring that whatever dollars are allocated in the provincial budget are allocated wisely. We want to talk a little bit about some of the priorities that have been set for public post-secondary education in B.C.

I guess our first comment is that we understand that targeted funding announcements, or funding announcements for specific initiatives, make really good politics, but they don’t always make really good policy. That’s not to say that we don’t support many of the government initiatives that have come out in terms of post-secondary education: the expansion of co-op, the focus on innovation and technology. We have hundreds of members already working in these fields at the university, and we think that’s really important. But we’re not sure that….

When you make targeted funding announcements, one of the side effects of that, and Sarah is going to talk about this a little more, is that those targeted funding announcements can often lead to somewhat precarious work for the folks who are involved in those fields.

We do applaud many of the priorities that have been set by the current government. Prioritizing mental health is significant. University can be a very, very stressful time for young people. We have a number of our members who already work in the mental health fields at the universities. We know that giving universities the resources they need to address mental health issues goes a long way to ensuring student success, which, in the long term, goes a long way to helping the economy grow when it helps innovation and tech.

We’re also very pleased that co-op education has been made a priority by the current government. We, again, have a number of members who work in the co-op field. It allows students to leave education both with academic training and with practical job experience as well. We hope that benefits not just the students, but it also provides benefits to their employers, particularly their first employer out of university.

Sarah is going to talk a little bit about some of the impact of precarious work and how it affects our members.

[11:00 a.m.]

S. Muff: Certainly. Thanks, Joey.

Of course, we understand the need for targeted funding and the desire for targeted funding. But of course, one of the unfortunate side effects of target-based funding is that it does lead to precarious work. Now, you may not think that a university is a place of precarious workers, but a full 30 percent of our members work on term, and that number continues to grow at a steady pace each year.

The length of those term contracts continues to shrink. Over the course of the last five years, we’ve seen two- or three- or five-year terms go down to one-year terms, six-month terms or three-month terms. That is one of the impacts of this targeted, project-based funding. We do think that the committee has a role to play in budgetary recommendations to ensure that funding for project-based work also supports long-term, continuous employment.

We have many members who work in grant-funded areas who actually work on an annual contract basis. They do not know from year to year if they will have their job extended or renewed. And they’ve been UBC employees for over 20 years.

How this impacts them as British Columbians, as trying to make a life in B.C. is significant. We have members who are afraid to tell their bosses that they’re pregnant for fear that their contract won’t be renewed. They have delayed having families because they’re unsure if they’re going to be able to support a family. They’re unable to get mortgages. I know the provincial government has talked about supporting housing and making housing more accessible for British Columbians, but for these folks in precarious work environments, all these kinds of initiatives will be lost on them because they’re unable to get mortgages.

Those are some of the more concrete examples, but what we see through our members in the workplace is that precarious work does also take a toll on their mental health. Sometimes they’re shy or concerned or just not willing to come forward to talk about issues in the workplace. That could be bullying or harassment. That could be sexual harassment. That could be just poor management or their contract not being properly enforced. Again, they’re unsure if their contract will be renewed, and if their contract isn’t renewed, how are they going to pay their rent? How are they going to support their families?

This is where we see an opportunity for the committee to work with the provincial government, when they fund projects at UBC, to ensure that these are also funding long-term, continuing employment.

J. Hansen: The last piece we wanted to talk about, in terms of some of the priorities the government has announced and ensuring that they are adequately funded, is the more recent announcement that some version of the B.C. Human Rights Commission will be returning to the province. We applaud its return, but we want to make sure that the committee, as it’s considering the financial priorities for the province, ensures that as the commission’s mandate is developed, it’s properly funded to ensure it can fulfil that mandate.

We think the existing B.C. Human Rights Tribunal does very, very good work in addressing one-off pieces of discrimination — so in individual matters. But we think that the return of the commission presents an opportunity for the province to address some of the systemic concerns around discrimination more effectively, maybe, than the tribunal is able to do just generating one-off pieces of matters or litigating individual cases.

We do think that the kind of quasi-judicial nature is to the benefit of both complainants and respondents in the sense that parties are able, if they choose to, to present their cases effectively without the assistance of legal counsel. That grants a level of accessibility that having to pursue some of these remedies in the court system or in some other mechanism doesn’t. We applaud that.

I guess just to sum up here, we are very, very pleased with a number of the policy directions that have been announced by the government in the last few months. We do want to ensure that those policy directions are properly funded, and we would like to ensure that when that funding is considered, it’s considered in a way that doesn’t exacerbate an already growing problem of precarious work in the province.

We’re happy to take your questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Sarah, and thank you, Joey.

Any questions?

A. Weaver: Does your organization represent grant-funded employees?

[11:05 a.m.]

S. Muff: Yes.

A. Weaver: As somebody who has literally had to find grants for 20 years to fund these employees, how does one actually give…? Do you have ideas on how we can get stability? The reason why I say that is our grants do not allow us to offer long-term contracts. We’re only, you know, if you have a yearly grant…. We’re piecing grant to grant together.

Is there a means and ways to actually figure out how to have some kind of long-term stability for these people, without putting the pressure on, frankly, the faculty member to write the grants for 20-odd years? Because it is also a burden on the faculty as well.

J. Hansen: I think that with grant-funded employees, there’s a challenge beyond, maybe, what exists for some of our other members who have precarious work. We do think there are ways operationally that that can be addressed, in terms of things like recall lists that exist for other employees at the university, so that if you’ve worked on a grant for 20 years and that grant expires or the faculty member you’ve worked with retires, then you….

A. Weaver: Or goes into political life.

J. Hansen: Hypothetically, sure. The university doesn’t necessarily lose that employee. Maybe they go into a pool, and when somebody else is looking for….

I think, operationally, you can address it through grants. Our concern is that there are growing numbers of employees who are grant-funded, but it’s not a research grant. It’s rather the university-granted money for a one-year mental health initiative, because that’s a targeted funding announcement by the province.

I think it’s difficult to address grant funding in academia, or in the research side of things, and I think the folks who get into that understand that. I think there are opportunities to address some of the grant-funded folks who work outside of research.

A. Weaver: Thank you.

J. Brar: I just want to make a comment. I appreciate your valuable comments about the human rights commission.

The role of this committee is, of course, to make recommendations about the funding piece, which you also indicated in your comments. But I will also encourage you to provide your feedback to the AG office, because they are receiving at this point in time feedback from people. You can do that on line and otherwise. I would appreciate if you can provide them with feedback about the concept about the human rights commission.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any other questions?

Thank you, folks. Thanks for coming. Have a good day.

Up next we have the Okanagan College Students Union — Brianne and Courtney. And I have one addition, by the looks of it. Is that moral support in the back?

Some Voices: Yes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): You have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have up to five minutes for questions. The floor is yours. Welcome again.

OKANAGAN COLLEGE STUDENTS UNION

B. Berchowitz: Perfect. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Brianne Berchowitz, and I am the executive director of the Okanagan College Students Union. I’m joined by my colleague, Courtney Kindlein, who is the organizer for the Okanagan College Students Union and a student at Okanagan College.

Our organization represents over 5,000 students from Osoyoos through to Revelstoke. We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide comment for the preparation of next year’s budget. Before beginning, I would like to acknowledge that today’s hearing is on the traditional territory of the Okanagan Nation.

We are proud members of the B.C. Federation of Students, and a number of priorities we will discuss today will have been echoed by other members of the BCFS through presentations and written submissions. Today we would like to focus on four recommendations: institutional funding, debt reduction, housing shortages and open educational resources.

For nearly two decades, funding for institutions has failed to keep up with inflation. In fact, operating grants for institutions have declined by 20 percent since 2001, when adjusted for inflation. Students directly experience the underfunding of institutions in their everyday lives on campus. Overburdened academic advising departments, reduced or nonexistent counselling services and program cuts are just a few of these examples.

A lack of provincial funding means a lack of services for students. It also means institutions need to find ways to make up for the funding shortfalls. This cost is put onto the backs of students through high tuition fees, ancillary fees, food costs and even parking costs. As institutions come to depend on user fees to make up larger and larger portions of their budget, students get forced into more debt and put under immense financial stress.

Students and their families should not be forced to make up for the shortfall in public funding provided to institutions. Properly funded institutions would be an important step into breaking the cycle of student debt and would mean students could access the supports and services they need when attending college or university.

[11:10 a.m.]

For the upcoming budget, we are recommending the restoration of funding back to the 2001 level, adjusted for inflation. This would come out to be approximately $200 million more for the 2018-2019 year.

C. Kindlein: The lack of institutional funding has caused B.C. students and their families to struggle with ever-increasing levels of student debt. The cost of pursuing a post-secondary education remains far greater than the resources students and their families have at their disposal.

In fact, according to the most recent Baccalaureate Outcomes Survey available on the Ministry of Advanced Education’s website, 47 percent of graduates report using government student loans or bank loans to fund or partially fund their education. While outcomes surveys are helpful to track funding sources for students who have graduated, they do not capture those students who have been forced to end their studies without completion. There is a direct link between debt and completion rates.

In a study published by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, researcher Lori McElroy found that students with little or no debt were more than twice as likely to finish their degree than students with high levels of debt. Students begin feeling the pressure of their financial burden while still in school. That’s causing them to take on more working hours to tackle the debt. Often, the case is that a student will take a break from their studies to work on paying back their loans, but then they don’t return to complete their studies.

McElroy’s research also found that if even part of their financial aid was a non-repayable grant, there was a positive impact on their likeliness of staying in school. Yet the most recent Canada student loans program statistical review reports that B.C. is in the top three provinces for average federal student loan debt, not taking into account debt incurred from provincial loans, banks or other borrowing sources.

The establishment of an upfront needs-based grant program would not only improve access to post-secondary education, but would also lead to an increase in completion rates. The federal government has recently increased funding to the Canada student grants program, which was a welcome boost to financial assistance for students across the country. However, because B.C. does not have a comprehensive system of student grants, students in this province received the least amount of non-repayable financial assistance in the country.

While student loans help those who could not otherwise afford the high cost of education to get through the door, they do so with an added expense to B.C. families as a result of the interest applied. The reduction of interest charged on student loans, effective August 1, was a much-needed change for those who are paying their loans back. However, the application of interest means that a student who cannot afford to pay for their education up front ends up paying thousands of additional dollars in interest.

We have been pleased to see this committee recommend the establishment of a student grant program for the past four years and several times prior to that. For this year’s budget, we, along with the British Columbia Federation of Students, are once again recommending that the province commit to the complete elimination of interest charged on student loans and for the introduction of an upfront, needs-based grant program to supplement the existing forms of student financial assistance. Such a move would make a significant difference in student access and affordability and would provide new opportunities to low- and middle-income families.

B. Berchowitz: We will now shift our focus to housing issues in the Okanagan. Many students move to pursue their post-secondary education. Unfortunately, there are very few options for student housing. In fact, only the Kelowna campus of Okanagan College offers a student residence on site. Less than 150 students are served by the student residence at any one time. This number is woefully low for an institution as large as Okanagan College.

A lack of student residences means students are forced into the rental housing market. Unfortunately, this isn’t a great place to be for most students. We have already illustrated how expensive life can be for a student, and the reality is that rents are incredibly high and housing is very hard to secure.

According to the 2016 Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp’s fall rental market survey, the population growth in Kelowna in 2015 was 3.2 percent, which was the strongest of all metropolitan areas in Canada. Because of this, we have seen vacancy rates plummet to a dismal 0.6 percent.

When there is a rental available, often students will show up for a viewing to find out the apartment is already rented out to another prospective tenant or they are forced into a bidding war over how much they are willing to pay. Another common occurrence is when landlords decide to capitalize on the housing market and sell their rental properties, leaving the student tenant with few choices.

We have heard many testimonials from our students bemoaning the fact that the rental market is challenging and often unfair, with rents skyrocketing from one tenant to the next. We also hear of situations where students are forced to live in less than ideal circumstances in suites that are not up to standards, dealing with unfair landlords or living in illegal suites, which removes their rights as tenants under the tenancy agreement act.

A number of challenges occur for students while attending post-secondary. Worrying about where they’re going to live should not be one of them.

A suggestion we have, in addition to many others around the province, would be to allow institutions to borrow in order to build campus residences. They currently do not have the power to do so, but the creation of these rooms would really help alleviate a lot of strain on students seeking to find accommodation.

[11:15 a.m.]

C. Kindlein: Finally, we would like to discuss one-time funding for open education resources. We’ve already mentioned just a few of the financial barriers that students struggle with these days. Now the high cost of textbooks have become a serious obstacle to accessing post-secondary education in British Columbia. Textbook prices rose by 82 percent between 2002 and 2012 and now typically cost more than $200 each. For the many students and families who are already struggling to afford tuition fees and the cost of living, this unpredictable expense can be a huge burden.

Many students end up taking on additional loans or credit card debt, or working longer hours just to pay for their required books. Some students get crafty, and they team up with some classmates to buy just one textbook and then spend hours and hours photocopying it to disperse among the group. Others compromise their educational experience by opting not to buy books at all, shortchanging their academic goals.

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

The B.C. government has already identified OER as a solution to the textbook challenge and empowered BCcampus to oversee its implementation provincewide. Our recommendation is to provide one-time additional funding of $5 million to BCcampus.

This funding will allow BCcampus to create and adapt open textbooks that reflect and serve the diverse needs and contexts of students and educators in B.C.; develop sustainable systems to maintain these open textbooks; create open-education resources that are usable by all students, including those with physical and/or learning disabilities; and create and adapt required ancillary resources, such as assignments and quizzes, to support open textbooks.

B. Berchowitz: In closing, we would like to express our appreciation for the past support shown to several key recommendations made by our students union and by the B.C. Federation of Students. We hope that the committee will once again recognize the financial hardship of personal debt that students and their families are being forced to bear, and support our recommendations for the 2018 budget.

By helping people access post-secondary education, the government is ensuring the future of a productive society and workforce that will help our economy continue to grow and prosper.

Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Brianne. Thank you, Courtney.

Questions?

A. Weaver: We’ve heard, I don’t know how many times, about the housing and the student campus issues. We’ve heard that loud and clear from every post-secondary institution we’ve met over the last three or four days, so you’re not alone in that.

I wanted to come to the open textbook one — your recommendation there. I wonder if this project is going to be successful or not, because it relies on the goodwill of faculty to develop resources and make them available to everyone, and have someone who’s worked there for a long view. There are some people who’ll do that. But I don’t know how it…. You’ve identified a problem, which is an 82 percent increase in textbook prices. I’m not sure that this solution is going to solve the problem.

At some point, really, it’s the responsibility of the instructors to actually not pick textbooks that are gouging students. And they can, because there are means and ways of developing courses and offering resources that do not require you to purchase very expensive textbooks. I think part of the problem is on the professors, who need to be told not to do this. You can get the test bank and all the lazy solutions, but you’re paying for it.

I don’t know…. I get the concept of open education. It’s requiring a lot of goodwill. I’m wondering if you’ve seen that at Okanagan College with specific examples of people who are willing to do the work for the open textbook initiative.

C. Kindlein: That’s actually a really great question. There is an entire program, the water engineering technology program, at Okanagan College that has committed to using open resource textbooks. There is no cost for those, for all of their students. So it is doable.

We recognize that it is somewhat on the professors. That’s something that we’re working on, on an institutional basis.

A. Weaver: Did they do that as part of open education, or did they do it separately?

C. Kindlein: They did it separately. It’s been happening for a while now.

The thing is….

A. Weaver: That’s what I do as a prof too. I do my separate…. I put my own website behind a password and let the student access for free.

C. Kindlein: There are some other examples of that, but that’s an entire program that got together and decided that needed to be done.

What we need now is the start of those resources, and this would help develop those. Then, once they have the usable resources, I think it’ll be a lot easier to get professors on board with it.

A. Weaver: The problem, though…. There’s intellectual property assigned to that course that was developed by those people for that program. Then you start to…. When you cross intellectual property issues with other institutions or other profs, it gets messy. That’s why I wonder.

[11:20 a.m.]

Great idea. I’m wondering whether this…. I hope it does work, but we’ll see.

B. Berchowitz: It’s certainly our goal, working with faculty associations and also working on ensuring that there’s tenure provided for folks that are creating that content that’s new and exciting and innovative and allowing that flexibility. We’ve heard some faculty who want the flexibility that exists with the OER materials — that doesn’t exist right now.

There definitely are those lazy, old school folks who are comfortable with buying the materials and not really understanding that the price of textbooks have gone up so much. With all the other fees students are paying, it’s getting quite challenging. We’re certainly hoping to find solutions, and this is one solution to do that: to build it, and they will come.

P. Milobar: One of the other presenters may have touched on it as well. Everyone’s mentioned restoring the funding levels to 2001. Is there an actual dollar figure of what the upfront injection of actual cash…? As I’ve said to some other groups, when we’re recommending budgets in any government of any political stripe, it isn’t dealing with line items that say restore funding. It says X amount of dollars, right? It ultimately has to translate to a dollar figure in a budget.

Do we know what is the injection of cash into the system for that request of the 2001 and adjusted for inflation? Because every student union has asked for it, so I’m assuming there has been research done by the student unions to know what the order of magnitude of that request is.

B. Berchowitz: We don’t have an exact figure in mind. I think part of the goal was sort of modelling after what other provinces have as their starting basis and determining: where B.C. does fit in against that? What are their tuition fees that they’re paying?

When you compare the first-year arts programs and getting a sense of how helpful that market is, that fund, and depending, as well, as the different institutions will have different….

P. Milobar: Sorry. You’ve lost me, though. The request has been very specific. The request from every student union group in B.C. that we’ve talked with in the last couple of weeks has been to restore funding in B.C. to 2001 B.C. funding levels adjusted for inflation, not what all the other provinces and averages….

I’m assuming there’s been research done by the student unions for that request. I’m not asking for the exact dollar, but there must be an order of magnitude of what that dollar figure on that request actually equates to.

B. Berchowitz: It’s a great question. I don’t have the exact number for us, but I think the math is figured out to be the current amount that’s provided for institutions now, plus the additional $200 million. That would bring it back to 2001 levels when adjusted for inflation.

P. Milobar: Okay. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Well, ladies, thank you for your presentation. I appreciate the bluntness of this. This is nice to see.

B. Berchowitz: It is minimal.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): You had a great presentation, and it makes our life a lot easier. Thank you. Have a good day.

A. Weaver: Be careful of drawing a line through two points.

B. Berchowitz: Sometimes all you need is just: “Here is the statement.”

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): It was very effective, so thank you. Have a good day. Thanks for coming, and thanks for the backup there.

Seeing nothing else, we will adjourn at this point in time.

The committee adjourned at 11:22 a.m.