The committee met at 4 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton and the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to begin today with the recognition that our public hearing today is taking place on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish people, specifically the Snuneymuxw First Nations. I would just like to thank them for sharing this incredible island with us today.

We are an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly, with a mandate to hold public consultations on the next provincial budget. The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper, which was recently released by the Minister of Finance, which includes the following three questions.

What are your top priorities to 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 building 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 by person, via teleconference, video conference or Skype.

There are numerous other ways that British Columbians can submit their ideas to the committee. They can complete an on-line survey or send us a written, audio or video submission. More information is available at the committee’s 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 today, we thank you for taking your time today to participate.

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, the deadline for any submissions is five o’clock on Monday, October 16, 2017. The committee must issue a report by November 15, 2017, 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’ll have an open-mike period at the end of the meeting with five minutes allotted to each presenter. If you wish to speak, please register with Stephanie at the information table.

All meetings are recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services, and a complete transcript of the proceedings will be posted on the committee’s website. These meetings are also broadcast live via our website.

I’ll now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. Doctor, I’ll start with you.

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

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

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

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

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

S. Cadieux: Stephanie Cadieux, Surrey South.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial and Stephanie Raymond from the Parliamentary Committee’s Office. Also, Michael Baer and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services are here to record the proceedings. I have to say that these are four of the hardest-working individuals that you’ll find.

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

For our first presenter today, we have Innergex Renewable Energy. Colleen and Patricia, thank you very much for coming today. Good to see you both again. As you know, ten for the presentation and five for questions. The floor is yours.

Budget Consultation Presentations

INNERGEX RENEWABLE ENERGY

C. Giroux-Schmidt: Thank you very much for the opportunity to make this submission to the committee today.

For those on the committee not familiar with Innergex Renewable Energy, we’re a leading Canadian renewable energy power producer. Active since 1990, we develop, own and operate wind, solar and run-of-river hydro facilities and carry out our operations with more than 170 employees here in British Columbia, in Ontario, Quebec, Idaho and France.

Innergex has been part of B.C.’s electricity sector since 2004, and we plan to continue to be here as an active partner for the next 40 years and beyond. To date, we’ve invested over $2 billion in the province, representing about 5 percent of the total electricity supply here in B.C. All the electricity we produce is sold to B.C. Hydro.

Partnerships form the foundation of our operations, both here and abroad, whether it be with Indigenous or non-Indigenous communities, as equity partners in our projects, with our local contractors and suppliers and with B.C. Hydro. We understand that our business is more sustainable when we are working together to build a safer, more resilient and clean electricity system for today and future generations.

[4:05 p.m.]

We applaud British Columbia for its commitment to re-establishing B.C. as a climate leader. Innergex is looking forward to working with the government and all of you and communities to implement lasting and effective climate change solutions.

At Innergex, we believe that climate change is real and that renewable electricity provides a clean, cost-effective and sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. We believe that British Columbia has an opportunity to lead the world in the transition to a carbon-free energy system and, in doing so, maximize the economic, social and environmental benefits that will accrue.

B.C. is poised to regain its position as a leader in the fight to combat climate change. We have an unparalleled opportunity to make swift and deep cuts to carbon emissions by leveraging our world-class clean electricity to power our homes, vehicles and industry.

Over 60 percent of our total energy use today is from fossil fuels, whereas nearly 100 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources. The capital and technology are available today to shift away from fossil fuels to clean electricity.

From a rapidly increasing fleet of electric vehicles to energy-neutral passive home designs to high-voltage transmission lines that can transport clean electricity to communities and industries across the province, B.C. needs to keep pace with other jurisdictions that are taking action on climate change. A strong commitment to electrification is one of the most effective pathways to get there.

The transition to a low-carbon future will take advantage of B.C.’s vast existing renewable resources. However, in order to meet growing demand from electrification, new sources of renewable electricity supply will be required.

For example, if one-third of B.C.’s current vehicle fleet of 3.6 million cars was electric, it would require roughly 5,000 gigawatt hours a year of new electricity supply. A fully electric two-train LNG facility producing 12 million tonnes per year of LNG would require 500 to 600 megawatts, or 4,000 to 5,000 gigawatt hours a year of electricity. Full electrification of the upstream gas production to 10 bcf per day yields a load growth of up to 7,400 gigawatt hours per year.

Innergex has the experience and expertise to support a sustainable buildout of new renewable energy resources and unlock jobs and economic opportunities for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across the province.

B.C. also has the opportunity to support neighbouring jurisdictions in decarbonizing their energy systems through clean electricity exports. Jurisdictions that are rapidly phasing out and shutting down coal plants and increasing their renewable energy targets are looking at a variety of new sources of electricity supply. Renewable power, backed by firm hydro capacity from B.C., could be on the top of their list if B.C. positions itself to take advantage of these opportunities.

A plethora of different political, economic and climate factors are coalescing on the west coast, and we believe it is time to revisit the opportunity for B.C. to help California meet its climate and energy goals. To achieve this, B.C. needs a clean electricity export strategy to ensure that we reach our potential as an energy superpower in the northwest and harness a cooperation between all levels of government, B.C. Hydro and the renewable energy sector.

In addition to supporting climate change mitigation, renewable energy can be used as a driving force to revitalize Indigenous and non-Indigenous rural communities across B.C. There is an untapped opportunity to leverage the buildout of the renewable energy sector to bring new jobs and economic development and allow communities to take an active role in the transition to a 21st-century, low-carbon economy.

We at Innergex have experienced firsthand the impact that renewable energy projects can have when a local community plays a partnership role in the project. We believe that these partnerships are an indispensable part of the future of renewable energy development.

We know that there is significant interest in communities to develop these projects. A recent survey on Indigenous clean energy, published by the BC First Nations Clean Energy Working Group in partnership with the UVic School of Environmental Studies and Clean Energy B.C, demonstrated a widespread involvement and interest in renewable energy amongst Indigenous communities in B.C.

Half of the 105 respondents are already involved in the clean energy industry in some way, from ownership to receiving royalties, and 98 percent of the respondents, which is over half of B.C.’s Indigenous communities, responded that they are or would like to be more involved in this sector.

However, communities have also identified significant barriers to participation in the industry. The majority, 75 percent of Indigenous community survey respondents, indicated that they have projects in mind that they have not yet pursued or been able to pursue. They identified three primary barriers to developing projects: a lack of opportunities provided by B.C. Hydro’s programs, a lack of community readiness and difficulty securing financing.

[4:10 p.m.]

To tackle these barriers, the government can leverage two successful existing programs in British Columbia. The first is the innovative clean energy fund, and specifically within that, the Community Energy Leadership Program, which is part of the fund. Under its mandate to reinvigorate the fund, government could expand the current grant program structure to include a production incentive for kilowatt-hour power produced by community and First Nations projects.

The second program is the First Nations clean energy business fund. This program could be expanded to provide a production incentive to develop renewable energy projects that are also helping to achieve reconciliation objectives. These incentives would reflect the additional value created by community renewable energy projects in terms of economic development to both urban and rural B.C., community empowerment, reconciliation objectives and clean energy generation. These benefits would be covered through the tax base with no additional cost to electricity ratepayers, while ensuring that the buildout of clean energy generation in the province occurs at the community and Indigenous level.

B.C. has a unique opportunity to lead the world in the transition to a carbon-free society. By making a strong commitment to electrification and electricity exports, not only can we reduce greenhouse gas emissions within our own province and neighbouring jurisdictions, but we can also unlock unprecedented opportunities for economic benefits to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across the province.

Thank you for your time. We would welcome any questions you may have.

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

Any questions of Colleen?

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation.

I recognize you can’t, probably, give me a lot of detail here, but I’m interested in what the average costs are per megawatt hour on the projects that you’ve been involved in, just as a comparison. I think sometimes some of the smaller projects are a little bit more expensive than what it costs for hydro power. I’m just curious if you can give me any insight into that.

P. Lightburn: There’s definitely a range of project costs, but what we’re seeing — and I think the most important thing to look at — is that project costs are coming down rapidly over time, whereas hydro costs typically have remained fixed over the past number of years. For communities, this represents an opportunity to start planning, making investments and bring in new electricity sources that are becoming more and more affordable.

T. Redies: Just one follow-up question on the California opportunity. We’re already exporting a fair amount of power down to California. Where do you see the additional opportunities? Is it the intraday markets?

C. Giroux-Schmidt: No. I think right now we’re, I would say, opportunistically exporting. Where we have the daily surplus, we’re trading, but there is a much larger opportunity to intentionally export to California.

They’re increasing their renewable portfolio standard and the percentage of electricity they want to have for renewable sources within their state. That blended B.C. electron coming from large hydro, combined with wind or solar or other opportunities…. There’s an untapped marketplace there that wasn’t available to B.C. historically. There’s also been a barrier, from a regulatory perspective within California that’s still there, to date, on how they consider large hydro in that renewable portfolio standard. Thirty megawatts is their cutoff. However, where they’re going now, there seems to be an openness to revisit that.

B.C., in the past, has made quite a significant push to change that, and we feel that the time is right to renew that push. We may have different outcomes this time.

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

A. Weaver: Well, you’re speaking to the converted, right? But I did want to know: if there were calls for power…? Maybe you could outline some of the regulatory barriers that companies like yours and others have in terms of actually producing power here. What is needed for you to actually produce power?

C. Giroux-Schmidt: Load. The biggest barrier right now is load. That’s why electrification is such a key policy plank to this. As we power more and more of our lives through renewable electricity, which is a carbon-free fuel, there’s a pretty significant opportunity. As you know, over 60 percent of our energy today that we use is from fossil fuels. So incrementally, as you start to increase that, there’s a much greater need for more electricity.

A. Weaver: Very specific question: if there was a call for power at ten cents a kilowatt hour, would industry be able to respond?

C. Giroux-Schmidt: Yes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): He was waiting to get that one in. I know. That’s good.

Thanks, Colleen. Thanks, Patricia.

Up next we have the British Columbia Dental Association — Jocelyn Johnston and Dr. Wan. Thank you for coming today. You have ten minutes, sir, for the presentation and a five-minute question period.

B.C. DENTAL ASSOCIATION

K. Wan: Good afternoon. My name is Dr. K.K. Wan, president of the B.C. Dental Association. I’ve been practising in Vancouver’s Chinatown for over 30 years. With me is Jocelyn Johnston, our executive director.

[4:15 p.m.]

On behalf of our members, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before this committee. The BCDA is the voice of dentistry in B.C., with over 3,400 members. Our profession contributes $2 billion to the economy each year, employing around 17,000 dental professionals.

A big thank-you to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction for his $6 million commitment earlier this year to improve oral health in B.C. The $5 million improvement is to the healthy kids program. It means we can treat children earlier, with a wider range of preventive services. The increase in dental fees will encourage families to seek care earlier. The ministry grant of $210,000 to the BCDA’s Save a Smile program will support the urgent dental needs of children under 18, for families in need.

Last, the $790,000 provided for B.C.’s 20 not-for-profit dental clinics will help them to provide low-cost or free treatment to the homeless, the working poor, seniors and many ministry clients. Last year these 20 clinics treated a total of 57,000 cases.

J. Johnston: Oral health is an important part of overall health, and poor oral health left untreated impacts the public health care system. A recent UBC study reported that non-traumatic dental conditions accounted for more than 12,000 visits to emergency rooms in B.C., costing taxpayers $1.5 million. Operating rooms are also affected. Currently 23 percent of the pediatric surgical wait-list is for dental treatment alone.

The tragedy is that dental disease is preventable. However, it’s also progressive and, if left untreated, leads to pain and infection, which can become a medical issue. This year the BCDA released its report A Path to Addressing Critical Gaps in Dental Healthcare identifying 42 recommendations to improve care for medically-complex patients. That’s persons with disabilities, children and seniors.

As the association begins its work on implementing these recommendations, we know we can’t do this alone. We are reaching out to stakeholders to partner on solutions. We welcome the opportunity to work with the B.C. government to improve the oral and overall health of these patients.

There are three areas we want to highlight. The first is persons with disabilities. Providing safe and effective treatment to a person with a disabilities can be challenging. They can present with complex medical histories. They may not be cooperative and may need assistance or care that a typical patient may not. For example, providing a filling to a patient with muscle spasms makes a simple procedure become complex.

Many patients require general anaesthesia for their dental care due to their medical condition or because they can’t be managed safely in a dental office setting. Unfortunately, wait-lists of up to 24 months are not uncommon. For the patient and the caregiver, this can be traumatic, especially if the patient is non-verbal, which can lead to self-harm or violent behaviour.

While waiting, the patient’s pain and infection will be managed by painkillers and antibiotics, both of which the medical community is trying to reduce the use of. If the condition worsens, the patient will require emergency care from a medical clinic and/or a hospital emergency room.

Currently there are over 96,000 clients registered as persons with disability. This is twice the number of income assistance clients. These patients often fall between the cracks of the Ministries of Health and Social Development. Better coordination of care is warranted.

In 2015, this committee recommended that the Ministry of Health initiate discussions with the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to improve dental care for ministry clients, including preventive care and dental health education. We believe that these discussions have not occurred but are still necessary.

We also believe that including the BCDA in these discussions is important to identifying where improvements can be made. For example, the community partners program contracts with private facilities to provide sedation for dental patients covered by the Ministry of Social Development.

[4:20 p.m.]

The cost for sedation under this program is $1,000, compared to the cost of $1,500 when provided in hospital. These are real savings, but the program has not been sufficiently funded, and this care is only available in four Lower Mainland clinics. This is a lost opportunity to improve access in more communities and reduce health care costs and the demands on hospitals.

I’d like to share the story of a 20-year-old woman with a disability covered by the ministry. Because she had reached the program limits, she did not receive two basic dental procedures: a filling and a pulpotomy, which, essentially, reduces diseased tissue. The patient developed endocarditis, a serious infection of the heart. The source of the infection was her decayed tooth. She was hospitalized for several days at a significant cost to the health care system. In this case, the Ministry of Social Development saved $160, while the Ministry of Health incurred a $6,000 hospital stay.

This is not an isolated case, and we believe that together we can do better. There is merit in moving the persons with disability portfolio to the Ministry of Health. It is the patients’ medical conditions that qualify for Ministry of Social Development coverage. The focus of the ministry, then, is to assist the client to live within their communities, but they still need the support of the health care system. Having the Ministry of Health as the lead agency for persons with disability would provide a greater capacity to manage health needs and quality of life, with less focus on program restrictions.

The second area that we’d like to talk about is the Ministry of Social Development’s dental plan. While we are pleased with the improvement in the healthy kids program, we now have a situation where children’s fees are 74 percent of the BCDA’s suggested fee guide, while adult fees remain at 56 percent because the fees have not increased in 11 years. The expense-to-gross ratio in a dental office is 65 percent, so dentists are subsidizing the system. Only 30 percent of dentists accept the ministry fees as a full compensation. Some dentists will charge an additional fee to cover costs.

The concern is that fewer and fewer dentists will accept the ministry’s fees, which will only continue to limit access to care. The 20 not-for-profit clinics throughout B.C., such as the Abbotsford Food Bank and the Prince George Emergency Dental Outreach Clinic, treat both ministry and non-ministry clients. Often it is ministry billings that subsidize the care for those who cannot afford treatment. Without a fee increase, their ability to provide care will be eroded. We strongly urge the government to review this program and increase the fees to a fair level.

Our final concern rests with low-income seniors, a group that traditionally does not have dental benefits. Teeth age as the body ages, and with it come the increased risks of dental disease. Age-related impairments and medications only compound this risk and, with it, the risk of infection.

Dental professionals treat frail seniors, but the work is complex and challenging. Moving a frail senior from a wheelchair to a dental chair comes with risks. Only limited treatment can be provided bedside, either at home or in a care facility, without a dental suite. Even the ability to schedule appointments with long-term-care facilities is fraught with challenges.

We support integrating dental coordinator positions into long-term-care facilities, such as Northern Health has done in Prince George. The coordinator would oversee tasks such as scheduling, coordinating and assisting the treating dentist in the facility — tasks that often discourage or frustrate the dentist. The coordinator would also ensure that patients receive dental treatment and assist care aides in providing daily mouth care.

We believe it is time, as the economy is improving, to create a low-income-seniors dental plan, similar to the healthy kids program. As our population ages, the number of seniors will increase and, with that, the number of low-income seniors. As illustrated with the case of the young woman with endocarditis, there is a similar risk of increased hospitalization as a direct result of untreated dental disease.

In conclusion, the BCDA remains committed to the delivery of world-class oral health care to all British Columbians. But we cannot do it alone. Working with government, we believe we can achieve this goal.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Jocelyn and Dr. Wan, thank you very much.

P. Milobar: Thank you for the presentation.

A lot of times, when we get a menu of options or suggestions, not everything gets enacted. So out of the three, are these in priority — one, two, three of priority? What would be your one, two, three of prioritization for the government to look at?

J. Johnston: Well, for the benefit of the patients, probably the persons with disabilities is an area that is increasingly of concern. And the second is the increase of fees for the ministry, because we haven’t seen that in 11 years. We really do welcome the improvement for kids, but also, it really is difficult for our dentists to continue to treat when next year the costs are going to go up, the fee guide is going to go up, but we won’t see a compensating increase. So from our members’ perspective on providing care to that client group, that’s very important.

[4:25 p.m.]

We know that there’s work to be done with persons with disabilities. You can see we’ve attached our report to our submission today so that you can see some of the things that we’re focusing on. That is our association’s goal: to try and implement some of those 42 recommendations.

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

Interjection.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I was remiss. We have Mitzi Dean on the phone. Mitzi is the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

Mitzi, sorry for not introducing you, first of all.

M. Dean: That’s okay. Thanks, Dan. I appreciate you accommodating me.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Do you have any questions?

M. Dean: Not at the moment, thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay, great. Thank you.

Folks, thank you very much for coming today.

Next up we have Nanaimo Youth Services — Steve Arnett and Mike Bonkowski. Gentlemen, thank you for coming today. We have ten minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.

NANAIMO YOUTH SERVICES ASSOCIATION

M. Bonkowski: We are Nanaimo Youth Services. I am Mike Bonkowski, president of the board of directors. We have Karen Velthuys here, who is our current CEO, and Mr. Steve Arnett, who is our past CEO and is now engaged as a special consultant to the board. Steve and I will be doing the presentation — as Steve puts the protocol vest on. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

We’d like to present our budget recommendations for public investment in the future of B.C.’s vulnerable and at-risk youth population. We are a registered charity in Nanaimo since 1969. We provide what we call a wraparound continuum of services for vulnerable and at-risk youth in the Nanaimo region. You’ve got a copy of our agency brochure as part of our submission.

So 47 percent of the youth that we serve are urban Aboriginal young people. Now, our mission’s primary goal is to create an environment which will empower youth to reach their fullest potential. Our efforts are designed to ensure that we don’t contribute to learned-dependency situations and that we do honour the dignity of the youth and young adults we serve by delivering services and programs for other people’s children that we would entrust to our own children or our relatives’ children too.

I’d like to turn it over to Mr. Steve Arnett.

S. Arnett: It’s our honour to speak to you today on behalf of NYSA and the young people we are privileged to serve. I come to you today as the former CEO of NYSA, a professionally trained social worker who has been in practice for 35 years, an MNBC Métis senior citizen now.

I speak to you today in deep respect to honour the memory of my late friend and relative in spirit, Marjorie McRae, former elected Chief of the Gitxsan people and renowned Indigenous educator. She devoted her life to raising up the children and honoured me with this feast vest made by Hereditary Chief Spooke, bearing my great-grandmother’s family crest, instructing me to wear it for important occasions of protocol related to advocating for youth, such as this occasion.

The vulnerable and at-risk young people we serve are a diverse group with varied needs, added complex challenges, and those persist especially for Indigenous youth, youth in care and youth with disabilities. We want to draw your attention to this generally poor and vulnerable at-risk group of youth, who we specialize in trying to leverage into the full social and economic life of the community as contributing citizens. Most haven’t completed high school, or if they have, they have the so-called grade 12 leaving certificate, which is not equivalent to a formal Dogwood and actually impedes much of their lives in the early years, when they think they actually have graduated from high school.

In our opinion, these youth, our community’s children, are a resource base of future contributing citizens, productive workers whose potential is not currently maximized by government under the present EPC model of labour market investment. The situation is exacerbated by limitations to help these youth that have arisen for us since government replaced its former direct contract funding relationship between itself and other non-profit agencies, like ours, to deliver employment services to youth. With the current funding regime, we’re now under subcontract to a private sector primary contract whose policy framework, model of service, definition of bottom-line results is often inconsistent with the long-term type of support that objective evidence proves these young people benefit most from.

[4:30 p.m.]

Employment readiness for vulnerable and at-risk youth is much more than just a job. The tragic outcomes for Alex Gervais, Nick Lang, Carly Fraser — all the other teens in care who took their lives while in B.C. ministry care — demonstrate that truth and call out for dramatic, coherent, consistent policy systems change across multiple government ministries, in the best interests of B.C.’s vulnerable and at-risk youth.

This is not one individual’s fault. It is our collective shame. No one individual could have stopped, perhaps, what happened with Alex, but as a system, we can. We need to wrap around these young people so their choices are steeped in love, opportunity and potential. We appeal to government to restore the direct funding relationship between it and the non-profit sector that evidence and our lived experiences at NYSA demonstrate works best for B.C.’s most vulnerable and at-risk youth.

Vulnerable and at-risk youth profile. I would strongly encourage you to read Amy’s Story in the back. She would not have been able to access our holistic service in the way she did under the present government funding regime, and she is one of thousands.

One of our intents in our presentation today is to introduce the committee to a description of the social supports that are and have been helpful to unemployed youth — emergent adults we are privileged to serve — and some of the challenges those vulnerable children have and continue to face as they proceed along a path toward successful transitions to adulthood. It is my hope that committee members will recognize the funding and policy change opportunity which exists in parliament to unleash the full individual power and potential of this population of youth for both their and the general public’s greater good.

We attempt to mirror an extended family atmosphere when kids come to our doors. We want them to feel genuinely cared for.

When we finish this conversation, we hope that the lived experience offered for your consideration will illustrate that our professional practice model of evidence-based social support is informed by the lived experience of youth in conjunction with the knowledge transfer of an extensive body of research and, most particularly, the work of several leading researchers relative to what successful transition to adulthood entails and means for the youth we are reflecting on.

The expert panel has put out a report just recently. They say the world of work has changed. I’ll let you read that for yourself. For some youth who have gone through intergenerational trauma and need to heal and a variety of other things, it becomes even worse. The fact is that Canada has a slightly higher than average share of working-age persons living in poor households…. The national average for youth poverty is at 18.5 percent in the country and 20.01 percent in B.C.

The Premier’s mandate letters to all individual cabinet ministers collectively charges them with a duty and an expectation that they will make substantive progress on designing and implementing a provincewide poverty reduction strategy with legislated targets and timelines. Our purpose of submission is to assist that poverty reduction strategy by informing and influencing change as we are able in the new government’s inherited employment program and the B.C. policy applications that observably thwart the progress of many of the vulnerable young people NYSA is privileged to serve as we try to help them escape the poverty condition.

Some of the aspects of the policy model for the specialized population actually contradict the body of knowledge that is empirical in nature of what works for unemployed youth, and the current literature and research on successful transitions to adulthood do not in any way support that method when applied to unemployed, vulnerable, at-risk young people.

The federal expert panel says that all programming for young people who live in poverty and are struggling to find work with lack of education needs to be flexible and holistic. While it’s true that the government has allowed a few satellite offices like ours to have a dedicated youth employment service, we have a funding model that subcontracts for youth that’s based on piecework and a time-and-motion model of cash flow that isn’t compatible with what we do.

I’m going to skip from that page over to page 11 and just briefly say that those kids that we don’t get to will become part of the need population. They will drop out of the workforce. They are the people who create and sustain the cycle of poverty.

Then, if you’ll go to page 12, I’ll just say to you that we have three recommendations. We urge government to implement a renewed, evidence-based best practice across ministries that supports an EPBC public policy perspective on behalf of these young people — one that works based on evidence.

[4:35 p.m.]

We want to make substantial investment in permanent rental housing for young people, and we want to grow the social capital of vulnerable at-risk youth to address our labour market demand and, in the end, to create a civil society.

In closing, we applaud Premier John Horgan’s government for taking such quick action to reduce poverty. It seems to me we have an opportunity of a generation here to change things for young people. I think we all, across party lines, understand that the difference between those who have and those who don’t is an issue that has to be addressed.

I thank you for listening to me. As always, I write more than I’m able to get out in ten minutes. I can see Stephanie laughing. She has heard me before. Thank you very much. It’s an honour to address you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Mike, very much.

Questions of the gentlemen?

J. Brar: Thanks for your presentation.

I just want to ask for a bit more clarification on your recommendation today. You are proposing, under that recommendation, investment in a stipend to be paid. Can you describe more as to who it should be paid to and how much should be paid?

S. Arnett: Well, it’s our experience, through some of the federal funding and some of the provincial funding, that there can be a small stipend to come and learn that allows you to literally still eat and have shelter while you take time out of what you might have been doing, either working at a job in the above economy or working at a job in the underground economy.

The last time we addressed you, we talked about having an opportunity to take kids who don’t learn in traditional ways and put them into coding courses, just as we’re doing with grade 4s and 5s in the education system now. These are kids who are out of school and haven’t had grade 12. Put them through a six-month course using the Microsoft, free, Scratch coding course, and pay them a stipend while they can learn some skills and then, when they go into small business, they can actually help some of the small businesses with social media and a variety of other things.

The issue is…. Truly, I’m here to say, as I end my career, that I would not have a graduate degree and have had the life I’ve had if I had not stumbled on a place long after I had left school at 15 with less than a grade 10 education and if I hadn’t had an opportunity to have a little bit of money while I learned and got my grade 12. In those days, there weren’t some of the services we have.

I only say that publicly because, as I sit and reflect on the life that I’ve had, some people think I actually have contributed somewhat. I believe, with all of the kids who walk through the doors, that we have this potential wealth-creating machine, socially and economically, that we are missing.

J. Brar: Are you suggesting this particular policy for youth that are freshly graduated from school? I’m asking you because they do have, for the young people who are on welfare, earning exemptions. They can work, actually, and get paid for that. We do have now, I think, a program for kids who were in foster care, after they leave that situation. So is this what we want?

S. Arnett: We’ve been part of the tuition…. NYSA worked with the tuition-free supports across universities with VIU. We’re aware of some of those programs.

I’m talking about a comprehensive policy, really, that takes kids and says: “You don’t learn in the normal way. You don’t learn in the normal kind of structures of education, but if you were in the kind of environment that NYSA and some other places….” We believe, and we have had experience, that kids find a different way of being, and they don’t have to worry about whether or not they’re going to be able to eat tonight or if they can pay for a roof over their head.

I realize our time is up. It’s hard to go into detail on these things. What I just say to you is you have an opportunity here, and we need to change some policies, folks.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, gentlemen. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your presentation.

Up next we have North Island Students Union — Andrew Dalton. Mr. Dalton, welcome. Thank you for coming.

A. Dalton: Thank you for having me.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): You’ve probably heard. Ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. The floor is yours, sir.

[4:40 p.m.]

NORTH ISLAND STUDENTS UNION

A. Dalton: Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Andrew Dalton, and I’m the executive director of North Island Students Union. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to provide comment for the preparation of next year’s budget.

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

For the purpose of this presentation, I’d like to focus on two recommendations — the increased funding to colleges, institutes and universities and the implementation of those education-related recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that are the purview of the provincial government.

For nearly two decades, funding for institutions has failed to keep up with inflation, and the post-secondary sector has failed to see any significant increases to funding. In fact, operating grants for institutions have declined by 20 percent since 2001, when adjusted for inflation. Students directly experience the underfunding 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 that institutions need to find ways to make up for the funding shortfall. This cost is put onto the backs of students through high tuition fees, ancillary fees, food costs and even parking costs.

At North Island College, students last year were hit with two such fees. First, the institution introduced the learners resource fee. This was followed by the introduction of paid parking on the Comox Valley campus. These are both excellent examples of costs being put directly onto students. Combined, the fees meant that full-time students were paying over an extra $200 each per semester. A specific reason provided by the college for the introduction of paid parking on campus is cutbacks and shortfalls of government funding in years past.

As institutions come to depend on user fees to make up larger and larger portions of their budgets, students get forced into more debt and are put under immense financial stress. Students and their families should not be forced to make up for the shortfall in public funding provided to the institutions. Properly funded institutions would be an important step in breaking the cycle of student debt and would mean students could access the supports and services they need when attending college or university.

For the upcoming budget, the B.C. Federation of Students is recommending the restoration of funding back to 2001 levels adjusted for inflation. This would come out to be approximately $200 million for the year 2018-2019.

My next topic. Indigenous people are the fastest-growing demographic in Canada, yet the education gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners remains significant. In Canada, 8 percent of Indigenous learners hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to 24 percent of the rest of the population. Indigenous students disproportionately feel the effects of an underfunded education system. Underfunded institutions mean a lack of, or overwhelmed, services for students, such as academic advising or counselling. This can also mean a lack of culturally sensitive support for Indigenous students.

Many of the disadvantages facing Indigenous students, such as unemployment and lower incomes, can be traced back to the gap in educational attainment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Self-determination and self-sufficiency will only be achieved when there is equal access to high-quality K-to-12 and post-secondary education.

The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission lists specific and tangible steps that can be taken in the post-secondary sector to respect Indigenous cultures and significantly improve outcomes for Indigenous leaners. While many of the recommendations are directed towards the federal government, the provincial government has an important role to play in helping institutions implement the recommendations.

In order to assist institutions to close the education gap, indigenize campuses and implement other recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we are recommending that the government provide funding for these initiatives. Strong Indigenous student services, cultural respect and acknowledgment of other ways of knowing will make a difference in educational attainment, but they will not happen without the necessary financial resources.

In closing, I’d like to express our appreciation for the past support shown to several key recommendations made by our students union and the B.C. Federation of Students. Last year we spoke to the reintroduction of funding for ABE programs, and we’re grateful for the recent changes. We hope that the committee will once again recognize the financial hardship and personal debt that students and their families are being forced to bear and will support our recommendations for the 2018 budget.

[4:45 p.m.]

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.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Andrew. Good presentation.

Any questions of Andrew?

A. Weaver: We have a lot to say and comment. We’ve heard a very common theme from…. Which local are you with in the B.C. federation?

A. Dalton: Local 15, North Island College.

A. Weaver: Okay. We’ve met with Locals 1 and 3 in the last couple of days.

A. Dalton: You’ll hear from a few more today, I think.

A. Weaver: I see that, yeah. Unified message.

A. Dalton: Yeah, absolutely.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Well, that’s good. Reinforce it. Thanks, Andrew. Greatly appreciate it.

Up next we have Hear-Say Unlimited, Joanna Neilson. Is that correct?

J. Neilson: Yes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Ma’am, just a quick question. Communication Matters — is that you also? There was a question at the registration. Is it Hear-Say Unlimited or Communication Matters?

J. Neilson: It’s actually both.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Normally in that situation, we don’t hear from…. There is an opportunity to make a submission. But I’m going to make a quick executive decision. If you wouldn’t mind keeping it short and precise.

J. Neilson: That is my intention.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Go ahead, please.

COMMUNICATION MATTERS B.C.,
HEAR-SAY UNLIMITED

J. Neilson: Mr. Ashton, hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly, good afternoon. My name is Joanna Neilson. I have been a teacher and a speech-language pathologist for the past 43 years, most of that time in British Columbia. I speak to you from that background and on behalf of Communication Matters and other advocacy lobbying groups who are working hard to try to access improved services for our clients in this province.

Speech-language pathology services in this province are in a dire crisis. I have submitted to you a detailed handout. I do not intend to read it to you. I hope that if you have not had the opportunity to read it yourselves by this time, you will soon.

I would welcome any questions later, if you have questions about that handout. I’m also very aware of the fact that you’ve been travelling around the province for several weeks and that you’ve been hearing from many other presenters, all pleading for increased services, increased awareness and increased funding so that they can do their jobs better and serve the people of this province better.

In B.C., the needs are truly great. The advocates are truly strong and many, and there is active competition for limited public moneys. I know that at other sites, some of my professional colleagues have already spoken to you, concerned about the inadequate number of speech-language pathologists in B.C. and asking for an increase, especially in pediatric speech-language pathologist staffing, so that we can better serve our young at-risk clients and patients and their families.

I will not repeat what my colleagues have told you, and I will not read you my handout. I will simply remind you of our primary concerns, and I won’t do that in great detail so that we have time for questions afterwards.

We are concerned about outcomes for our clients. There is an abundance of research to show that children who are at risk, who have special needs as preschoolers, go on to have sad lives if they don’t get the identification and the intervention services they need at a young age.

In my 43 years, I have had the delightful experience of seeing children who do get services that they need, when they need, of the quantity and quality they need. I’ve seen children who, as infants, could not tolerate being touched and who did not have any social interaction skills. They have gone on to be engineers at the University of Alberta.

[4:50 p.m.]

I have seen children who screamed in a fetal position in a corner of a room, who went on to become teachers. I have seen students who could not read or write, who were bullied at school, who had no communication skills, no self-regulation skills, behavioural disorders, go on to be tax-contributing members of our society, gainfully employed and raising happy, healthy children. That’s the delight of having been in this job for a long time. That’s also the delight of having been in private practice for most of my career.

I have also worked in the public sector — in schools, in preschools, in health units, in hospitals, in long-term-care facilities, in palliative and hospice care facilities. Perhaps that gives me a different oversight of what is possible when services are provided that are needed early in life and what is not.

We need more speech pathologists in this province. If we look at national professional standards and recommendations, the real number, for pediatric services only, is that we need 1,500 additional positions. That gives us caseloads and it gives us reduced waiting lists so that we can appropriately serve the expected number of children in this province who need our services, which is currently 57,000 children. Only 5 percent of them are currently being served by speech pathologists.

We’re missing a lot of children, and that’s resulting in not only dismal qualities of life later, for many of them, but also a huge expense to the government, to society, to the public, because they often go on to need special education services, physical and mental health services, financial supports, social supports, judicial system interventions. They rarely are gainfully, fully employed, so they are not contributing taxpayers in our society either.

There’s a huge decrease in services’ effectiveness if they are started later in life, and there are significant barriers to accessing our services — not just the shortage of available speech-language pathologists, but there are also geographic barriers. The services are not evenly distributed across the province.

There are financial barriers. The services are not always publicly funded, and parents cannot always access or afford private services even if they are available.

There are also problems with ministerial policies and practices and administrative issues that are making this situation more dire than it needs to be. In my handout, I have listed some of the requests that we, as a profession, have of you to improve the situation.

Now I’d like to focus my time on just reviewing what those requests are, and I’ll be glad to answer the questions.

We ask that we have recognition from you and support from you that the supporting of young children in risk categories in this province, and supporting their families, is of significant importance. We ask that to effect change, an interministerial committee be struck to address these concerns and issues.

Why an interministerial committee? Currently there are at least three ministries involved with speech-language pathology services to young children, and there are many more government ministries that are impacted when those children do not get the early support services they need.

We suggest that the improvements to early childhood support services, especially early identification and early intervention programs, be an immediate focus for all ministries involved. To further this, we ask for an immediate increase of 200 full-time-equivalent speech-language pathologists serving the under-school-age population in this province.

[4:55 p.m.]

This is simply a crisis intervention number. An adequate number would be 1,500, but we recognize that’s an enormous and likely unachievable financial commitment and an unrealistic goal at this time.

However, we would also ask that in recognition of the importance of this issue, there is a commitment to annually increasing the number of pediatric speech-language pathologists in this province until we can achieve levels of staffing ratio to need that is consistent with our national and international professional standards and recommendations.

Thank you very much for your attention. I’ll be glad to answer any questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

P. Milobar: Thank you for the presentation.

I have no doubt that there is a shortage. We heard from a mother earlier in the week who was very compelling with the story of her child.

Obviously, by your presentation, we’re second to the bottom, in terms of FTEs to caseload and all that. The 1,500 would bring you up to the national standard. I’m just trying to get a better understanding. Is the rest of the country below the national standard as well? Is it doctors and other health professionals where there’s a general shortage, below standards, across the board? Or are we the outlier? Everybody is right at the national standard, and we’re well below it. Do you understand what I’m trying to get a sense of?

J. Neilson: I do. Thank you for your question. The answer is not easy, and it involves several factors. The first factor is that British Columbia has the second-lowest speech-language pathology to population staffing ratio of anywhere in Canada. We are currently staffed at 23.2 full-time equivalents per 100,000 population.

A second factor is that British Columbia does have a higher than national average special needs population ratio. We are very skilled at now saving early premature babies. They are in a high-risk category for needing our services.

There are a number of other factors, which include the interministerial responsibilities for speech-language pathology services. That 23.2 staffing ratio includes speech pathologists serving all ages, from birth to geriatric, and certainly not all of those are in the pediatric population.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Joanna, thanks. You’re going to have to shorten your answers down. I apologize. We have three other questions.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation.

I actually had a question regarding the early identification. Not everybody is maybe plugged in to a lot of the different resources that are available. What role do speech-language pathologists have in the interaction with, say for instance, doctors? That seems to me the first point of contact for a lot of families with children who may be in need and who may not even identify that need.

J. Neilson: There are extremely variable policies, practices, programs and services across the province. One of the things that is needed, in my opinion, is a more systematic, well-thought-out, well-planned, well-implemented and well-interlinked system of programs, services and practices.

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation.

How many speech-language pathologists are we actually graduating in B.C.? Do you know that?

J. Neilson: I’m not aware of the current figures, but I am aware that the funding for the training seats is based on publicly available jobs in the province two years prior to the beginning of the master’s program. I’m also aware that the number graduated is nowhere near the number possible or the number we need. I’m further aware that great numbers of those people graduating in our province are leaving the province.

T. Redies: For other opportunities. Okay.

A. Weaver: I would like to come back to Peter’s question. I didn’t feel that I got the answer that I think he was looking for. What is the national standard per 100,000 population? What does Ontario do, for example, relative to the 23.2 that we have here?

[5:00 p.m.]

J. Neilson: Ontario is actually the third-lowest staffing ratio. The best is the Yukon.

In terms of what the staffing ratio is, recommended national practice standards and international practice standards say that pediatric caseloads for full-time-equivalents should be no more than 40. And they’re averaging over 100.

The wait-listing time, which is one of our big, big concerns — between time of referral and time of assessment — is suggested as no longer than two months. It’s currently averaging 15 months. Between the time of assessment and the time of intervention beginning should be no longer than three months, and it’s averaging 18.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Joanna. Appreciate it.

J. Neilson: Thank you very much.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just maybe check it. We’ll just explain what transpired and why.

We have Robert Botterell coming up next. Robert, I’m slipping you in because I hear there is something, but we have another. So I’m going to have to cut you really close to the time, okay?

R. Botterell: I’ll be five minutes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay. Thank you. Our apologies for you having to run away so quickly, but we understand.

ROBERT BOTTERELL

R. Botterell: I really appreciate being in this. My name is Rob Botterell. I wish to speak today about the pending decision of the B.C. government that will affect budgets, including Budget 2018, for many years to come. The decision is whether or not to terminate the Site C dam. This matter has been referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission, and its report is due on November 1.

The fundamental question for the Utilities Commission is: before spending another $7.3 billion on Site C dam construction over the next seven years, is there another less costly viable option? If the answer to that question is yes, then British Columbians are best served by cancellation of Site C.

Where does this standing committee play a vital role? You’re the guardians of budgets and budget recommendations and, also, probably the most financially prudent people within government. That’s why you’re on this committee, I expect.

Financial prudence dictates adopting a less expensive viable option. The savings will generate both budget room and capital spending room for other high-priority budget items in this and future budgets. So that’s the linkage.

In my view, the Utilities Commission already has the information analysis it needs to answer this question and to advise the B.C. cabinet the financially prudent decision is to terminate Site C. I want to emphasize there are lots of other impacts, but the focus of this presentation is on the financial impacts.

All of the question of whether or not to continue building Site C ultimately comes down to four questions. What is the cost to complete? What is the cost to terminate? What is the cost of a viable alternative to Site C? And what adjustments are required for the most likely further cost overruns on Site C and the most likely level of load forecast?

In the middle of the second page, you can see a chart that shows the actual level of demand for electricity in this province and then the forecast. The forecast is very aggressive.

Key points in the analysis. Sunk costs are excluded. There are likely to be additional cost overruns, and we’ve used the Deloitte number rather than any other number. This is confirmed by president Chris O’Riley of B.C. Hydro, that there are additional project risks and cost overruns on the way. Attempts will be made to mitigate, but the fact is it’s there.

Deloitte, for the Utilities Commission, found that B.C. Hydro overstates demand by 30 percent. Wind is the least cost option alternative, and it’s readily available in the same area as Site C.

There might be other mixes of renewables, but we’ve focused on wind. It’s viable, and it’s deployable as needed. We’ve used industry-standard references, and the results of this prepared analysis show that the savings from cancelling Site C and replacing it with wind will be at the low end $2 billion and at the high end $4.37 billion.

[5:05 p.m.]

What’s the importance of that? It reduces the province’s debt, and it also provides opportunities for other capital projects that I’m sure you’re hearing about.

Our view is, and my view, personally, is…. That’s why I’m here today. This is the third time I’ve been before this committee on Site C. In fact, the last two times were in Courtenay, so this is a little closer to home. Cancelling Site C is the financially prudent decision for this and future budget cycles. I urge you to make this point in your report and in discussions with your colleagues.

The other point I want to make is that this is a non-partisan issue. This is a huge impact on future budgets for this province and on the debt capacity of this province. It’s too important an issue to be a political issue, a partisan issue. It should be focused on: let’s get to the bottom of this.

Yesterday the B.C. Utilities Commission released their modelling for an alternative to Site C, and their projected savings are greater than the projected savings I’ve just presented. Over the next few days, we’ll be debating that and getting to the bottom of it.

I do thank you for allowing me to make this short presentation. I think, from my perspective, the main thing I want to emphasize is that this is a very, very important issue with huge financial implications, so financial prudence should be the order of business in deciding how to proceed.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

A. Weaver: Obviously, I agree 100 percent with your assessment. What’s important is that we have on record Innergex — before you, speaking today — saying that if a call for power at ten cents a kilowatt hour was to be issued, that industry would respond favourably.

I thank you for your compelling analysis. I don’t think it would appropriate for this committee to weigh in on recommendations while it’s before the BCUC. That’s my view. I don’t know about others. However, I’m looking forward to a review that highlights the issues you’ve raised.

R. Botterell: I think it’s open to the committee to flag it as an important issue without taking a position on it.

P. Milobar: Our recommendations come forward on November 15, so November 1, it’ll be long gone.

Maybe you touched on it early and I missed it, but you used “we” and “our” a lot when you were talking about your calculations. Was it just you and some friends, or was it an organization? Just so I get a sense of how the calculations got….

R. Botterell: Oh, yeah. That’s fair. The calculations were prepared by Robert McCullough, who is an economist from Oregon. I use the royal “we” a lot because I’m a lawyer. I should use “I” a lot more.

P. Milobar: Just checking. My dad used to say: “We’re going to go cut the lawn.” It was always somehow me behind the lawnmower, so I get that.

R. Botterell: My daughter who’s in the Coast Guard calls that being voluntold.

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

Robert, I hope everything is good with the family. We were able to sneak you in, and you made it within time, so great. Travel safe. Thank you.

Up next we have Canadian Sport Institute for the Pacific — Wendy Pattenden.

Mitzi, I’ve been remiss. If you’re still on the line, we have a hard time hearing you. If you have any questions, please speak up, would you?

M. Dean: I will speak up. Thanks, Dan.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Right before you step up, I would like to introduce MLA Michelle Stilwell. Michelle, thanks very much for coming.

M. Stilwell: Thanks for having me.

CANADIAN SPORT INSTITUTE PACIFIC

W. Pattenden: Perfect timing with my presentation — actually having Michelle here, as one of our most decorated athletes in this country.

First off, thanks for having me. I’m here today to talk about something I’m very passionate about: the power of sport and why medals do matter. My personal mantra is everything I need to know, I learned through sport. I grew up in a sports family. Probably, you were thinking I was going to say kindergarten, but I said sport.

My sports family. My great-grandfather was a world champion speed skater. Both my grandfathers were officials — one an OHL referee and the other a gold-test judge in figure skating — and both my parents were professional athletes. So as a child growing up, it wasn’t: would I be involved in sport? It was: which sport would I be involved with?

Needless to say, I did choose tennis. I was fortunate to have played professionally on the WTA tour for six years, and then I went on to coach our national team and Olympic team for 13 years. I now proudly have served as the CEO of the Canadian Sport Institute for the past 18 years.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’d like to talk a little bit about if you recall your reaction to the announcement of the 2010 games coming to Vancouver and Whistler…. I was actually in the crowd at B.C. Place at that time when the IOC made that announcement. I just want to say that my reaction at the time went from pure joy to pure panic in about 15 seconds. That was because I realized the immense pressure that was going to be on Canada’s athletes to perform at a home games.

I think most of you will recall that we had never previously won a gold medal at home. I remember thinking that even if we hosted the best games possible, which I knew we would, as a country and as a province, we would’ve failed as a country and a province if the home team did not perform. So I was involved with Own the Podium in the early stages in 2005, and there the big debate was not really around the medal predictions; the debate occurred on whether we should make this target public.

The target was 35 medals, at that time. We were discussing: would this only add to the pressure for our athletes competing at home? In the end, we did go public with that target.

Again, just curious what your reaction was to Own the Podium at the time, if you were excited about that possibly of owning the podium. Or were you a little embarrassed by this un-Canadian type of approach, to be so loud and proud about our objectives? I’m just posing a question there. Of course, you can probably predict which side I was on.

Again, how many medals did we win at the 2010 Olympics? We won 26 medals — very proud of every one of them. I’ll say none was more important than the last one. I call it the golden goal by Sid the Kid. You probably know what I’m talking about there. That is the one that broke the record for the most gold medals at home by any nation, which was 14.

I want all of you to — and you should — feel very proud of the fact that British Columbia’s sport system is a key contributor to Canada’s success on the world stage. Here in British Columbia we have a proven track record and a sport system that results in performance on demand at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This journey along the performance pathway is sustained by incredible provincial sport organizations and multisport organizations that are in place to support the aspirations of our youth that are passionate about sport in the province.

A couple of quick stats. Again, we have a very proud reputation for producing some of Canada’s greatest athletes — Michelle included, who’s in the room. In Rio — again, you may not know these stats; it’s my job, so I know these stats — B.C.-affiliated athletes won 50 percent of Canada’s medals and 34 percent of Canada’s Paralympic medals. With the 2018 Winter Games less than four months away, rest assured our athletes will build on that success from the 2014 games, where on the winter side, B.C. athletes accounted for 32 percent of Canada’s Olympic medals and 44 percent on the para side.

My organization, the Canadian Sport Institute, is independent, not-for-profit and a registered charity with the Canadian amateur athletic associations. We’re in place to deliver on the sport excellence policies of Sport Canada — Own the Podium, ViaSport and the province of British Columbia. Together we are working hard to create a stronger sport system for the development of athletes, coaches and our integrated support teams.

Programs and services are delivered to over 2,100 athletes across 64 different sports. I have three locations here in British Columbia — Victoria, Richmond and Whistler — but we’re further supported by the PacificSport Network, which is around the province. That was a network that I created in 1999 when we started the institute.

Our mandate is to help Canada win medals. I think if you think of us as the pit crew…. Really, my team is the team behind the team. They’re very preoccupied with finding that extra inch through innovative performance solutions and evidence-based interventions that will ensure athletes are prepared and ready to perform.

Upon reflection, having said all that, listening to all those stats, these incredible performances on the world stage have done something much bigger. What they’ve done is actually change our nation forever, in my view, in terms of nation-building. As a result of 2010, it felt great to be Canadian. Everyone was wearing the red and white. How many of you were actually at the games? Did you go to see any of the events? You couldn’t walk down the streets of Vancouver or Whistler. Everyone was in the red and white.

I believe that this confidence and positive impact trickled down to the community level, where sport can be a means for advancing broad public policy. Now when I see a medal, I see the shine of the medal and how the power of sport can be felt across a number of areas.

[5:15 p.m.]

Sport can and is a difference-maker for a number of critical social issues. It’s an investment, not an expense. Athletes inspire everyday people to do extraordinary things, including being more active. All of us can feel good about leading a healthy and active lifestyle.

I’ve got a few tangible examples of how sport can transcend across various sectors to address a wide range of social issues and community priorities. In health, when it comes to improving health and cutting health care costs, sport participation and physical activity are leading preventative health care measures. Mental health is a critical issue in our province, and research has shown the benefit that regular physical activity can have on improving mental health.

In education, there are numerous studies that show the correlation between being active and getting good grades. B.C. post-secondary institutions are ready and willing to contribute to significant applied sport research projects that will leverage additional federal funding through the Innovations for Gold program and that will enable us to stay at the forefront.

In business and innovation, we hire many of the top scientists in the country. I have a staff of 75 people, incredible scientists. We really are a hub here in B.C. for sport science and sport innovation. It’s one of the best-kept secrets, I would say, in our province.

Then, coupled with the next three Olympic and Paralympic Games occurring in Asia, I would ask that you consider the opportunity for business- and knowledge-sharing through an Asia-Pacific gateway strategy. That opportunity has never been higher, with the next three games being in Asia.

In the end, I believe that medals do matter, for all the reasons I’ve explained. However, it is the journey and the lessons learned leading up to that performance and after that performance that make a difference in our society.

I encourage you to invest in sport. We have numerous projects that could benefit greatly from additional support, such as investing in applied sport research projects that will showcase the talent in our post-secondary institutions here in British Columbia. I would encourage you to expand our Canadian sport school network program to every region in this province, allowing the next generation of athletes in grades 10 to 12 to stay and train close to home. And I would encourage you to embrace the Asia-Pacific gateway strategy, using sport as a mechanism to open the doors for dialogue and transfer of knowledge with Korea, Japan and China.

Finally, I’d like to leave you with one parting thought. The true power of sport can be realized by redefining our notion of sport. Sport is a concept that drives beneficial activity. Its practice positively impacts not only health, education, and business and innovation, as I’ve mentioned, but sport can deliver direct gains across 12 of the government’s 19 ministries. The other day I actually looked up the ministries and put some check marks in terms of how sport could help deliver gains or outcomes for each of those ministries. I don’t believe there’s another sector that can make that claim.

Thank you to our government for its strong history of investing in sport. Your continued support is very much appreciated in support of our organization’s purpose, which is powering sport and inspiring excellence.

S. Cadieux: What I did notice in your presentation was the trajectories in terms of performance athletes. We have a good trajectory happening in the summer…

W. Pattenden: Yes, the trend is upward, for sure.

S. Cadieux: …and for our able-bodied athletes in winter but not for Paralympic athletes for winter sports. Is there a recommendation related to that?

W. Pattenden: For sure. There was, I would say, with the 2010 games a bit of a blip, being a home games. We had a superpower team at that point, and then a number of athletes retired.

It’s actually a timely question. I’m heading to Toronto on Wednesday, where Own the Podium is hosting a Paralympic summit for three days to brainstorm, in term of strategies on: how do we reverse that trend and get a more upward trend on the para side? Certainly, it’s something I’m very passionate about and involved with.

S. Cadieux: Yeah. I’d follow up this, I think, in terms of beyond the Paralympic athletes and the performance athletes. I think if we’re looking at engaging young people with disabilities in healthy activities and sport, we don’t want to forget about winter sports here in British Columbia.

W. Pattenden: Correct. Our hub in Whistler is incredible. It’s actually busier in the summer, believe it or not, than the winter. Again, prior to 2010, we didn’t have a huge winter presence in British Columbia, but now, as a result of the facilities that were left over, we do. So I agree with you 100 percent that we can’t lose sight of that.

[5:20 p.m.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Wendy, thank you very much. Great presentation.

Next up we have the Foundry. We have Steve Mathias and Pamela Liversidge. Folks, you have ten minutes. I’ll give you a warning at eight and then five minutes for questions. So please, the floor is yours.

FOUNDRY

S. Mathias: Thank you very much. We very much appreciate the importance of the previous presentation on sport, especially with our young people.

My name is Steve Mathias. I’m a child and adolescent psychiatrist. I’m also in the department of psychiatry at St. Paul’s Hospital and the executive director of Foundry. With me is Pam Liversidge, who is our director of policy and partnerships and a former member of the Ministry of Health.

Today I’m here to talk about Foundry. I hope that by the end of the presentation, if you haven’t heard of Foundry before, you’ll be proud to hear that this is in our province. We’re one of four jurisdictions in the world to have a model like Foundry. It’s one that has just been getting off the ground in the last year. We’re here to talk about what we believe should be our vision in this province for mental health and substance use services for young people aged 12 to 24.

As you’ll see on the first slide, 75 percent of all lifetime cases of mental health disorders — and this includes substance use — begin by the age of 24. And 80 percent of substance use issues present by the age of 20. Severe mental illness typically really presents in late adolescence.

In British Columbia, slide 2, about 130,000 young British Columbians access the health system for mental health and substance use services. But the prevalent studies suggest that there are probably another 130,000 waiting on the sidelines, not seeking help or not really knowing where to go for help. And those 130,000 that are seeking help are probably seeking help in walk-in clinics, in primary care settings and in emergency rooms.

As you see with the third graph, orange really is the area of illness due to mental disorders. With young people aged ten to 30 — the age bar is along the bottom — you’ll see that orange really is the main issue that assails our young people.

On this fourth slide, you’ll see the mental illness burden of disease, compared to physical illness. And there’s really no comparison when it comes to this age population. If you were to design a single intervention for young people based on prevalence of illness, it would be a mental illness intervention.

While we spend $96 million a year in this province on child-youth mental health, serving 25,000 children and adolescents, we do not have a line item, until the last year, for emerging adults. For young people aged 17 to 24, other than the Foundry line, we do not have dollars set aside for young people specifically with mental health challenges. This is something we’re trying to change with our conversation today.

Slide 5. Nationwide, the lack of investment in youth mental health and substance use services has been costly and, I would argue, catastrophic. There has been an 85 percent increase in emergency room visits over the past five years for youth in their late teenage years. In fact, this population has been described as the second most expensive emergency room population in the country. There’s been a 50 percent increase in in-patient admissions.

I think all of us are painfully aware that one in four fentanyl deaths in B.C. are young people. When we talk about four people dying a day of fentanyl overdoses right now, one of those is a young person — every single day. With our fragmented system, young people struggle to find access points.

Now, aside from the mental health concerns that we have, I think that there are some serious socioeconomic concerns. The reason I’m bringing this up is on slide 6. In countries like Australia, they’ve started talking about mental wealth and the importance of mental wealth. If you look at this population graph, the thing that strikes me in all of this is that we have lots of folks in our age group — 50, 55, 60, 65. But we have a tapering population. If you look in the red box, that is the group that is going to be paying taxes and that needs to be productive in the next ten, 15, 20 years. And that is the group right now that is not getting services in our mental health and substance use system.

[5:25 p.m.]

The opportunity to shape our province’s mental wealth is now. Foundry is an opportunity to develop a provincewide, systemic approach with a focus on prevention and early intervention, while building on existing community-based resources and supporting community integration. Really, the thinking behind Foundry is that for every dollar spent on prevention, there’s a $5.60 return, and for every dollar spent on early intervention, there’s a $3.26 return. Foundry is hosted by Providence Health Care and, by 2018, is set to be the largest youth mental health and substance use service initiative in Canada, working with over 100 partners in 11 communities.

Slide 8. Our vision for Foundry is to transform access to health care for youth and families by, first of all, integrating and augmenting existing services with a common brand; establishing a network of youth-friendly, branded storefronts; and providing youth services, such as web-based virtual clinics and phone help lines. Our goal is to enhance provincial efforts to ensure that all young people have access to services by partnering with the philanthropic community, ministries, health authorities and community organizations.

You might ask, if you haven’t heard already, what is a Foundry centre? They’re one-stop shops where young people and families can get the help they need, when they need it, for kids aged 12 to 24. They’re built starting with a community table, meaning we have groups of leaders coming together — young people, families, health providers, MCFD, schools, municipal governments, non-profit organizations, divisions of family practice and indigenous organizations.

These centres provide core health services — mental health, substance use, primary care and peer support — as well as social services — income assistance, housing support, developmental disabilities services. What we’re trying to do is have a one-government approach to supporting young people in this province.

So far we’ve had 11 communities funded by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, as well as philanthropy, with a very strong commitment from the Ministry of Children and Families. Sites in this province were selected from a process launched in December 2015. We currently have two Foundry centres on the table in each health authority, and they’ll be open by the end of 2018.

Our first-phase communities and sites that are actually open are in Campbell River; Kelowna; North Shore; Prince George, which was opened yesterday; Vancouver-Granville; and Victoria, which will be opening in just a few weeks. We also have Abbotsford, which will be opening in the valley and is yet to be announced officially, we also have sites in Penticton and Maple Ridge and Richmond coming up, with a northern site to be determined.

On the following pages you’ll see what it looks like inside. These centres are designed to be youth-friendly. The Granville Youth Health Centre was the first one opened two years ago. Foundry North Shore is over 8,000 square feet of youth services and was opened just last month. Foundry Prince George had their opening yesterday, and it was just a fantastic event, with over 200 people coming out from the community to participate in the opening.

Foundry Campbell River has been open since April, and making a difference already in their community as folks come in for supportive employment opportunities, addiction service and primary care. Foundry Kelowna opened in September and has been offering an early psychosis program, as well as the primary care, mental health and substance use services that are offered in the space.

What’s been really exciting for us is that communities have overwhelmingly responded to Foundry. The news and the media around these events and the hope that communities have for these centres has been overwhelmingly positive. As community organizations, sometimes as many as 25 come together to work in these spaces.

We’ve also shown that there’s been a great deal of in-kind resources leveraged. For every dollar spent of ministry dollars, we typically see three dollars of community services coming to the table. And we’ve done the same in an e-health domain, as we are about to launch Foundry on line in November, which will be bringing a lot of existing services together under one umbrella that’s easily navigated by kids.

Our proposal to future-proof our young British Columbians by 2021-22 is pretty straightforward. We’re proposing 30 of these centres around the province, with 20 Foundry spaces in addition to those centres to help with rural and remote communities. We are proposing a robust virtual clinic accessible to all children and youth in our province. And we’re looking for sustained funding for our central organization to support the work of partnerships, policy implementation, community integration, evaluation and clinical excellence.

[5:30 p.m.]

On page 19, this is the comparison, and in many ways, this is the decision that we have to make. This is the off-ramp near my house. This is $36 million, and this is effectively what we’re asking for today. The budget that you see there is a capital budget to open up 30 spaces and 20 spokes as well as an annualized operating budget that would come in at about a third of what the child and youth mental health budget is currently to support our young adults in this province.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Steve and Pamela, thank you very much.

M. Dean: I have educated myself on the Foundry over the past couple of years. I’m just wondering. When you talk about that budget figure, is that just targeted at that age bracket? Or is it all children and youth? You talked about child and youth mental health services, but you also talked about a specific age bracket.

S. Mathias: We’re specifically targeting the age bracket of 12 to 24, which has been described as transition-aged youth.

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation.

I’m curious why, with Surrey having the largest youth population, I believe, in the province and the fastest-growing, we haven’t seen a Foundry in Surrey.

S. Mathias: Certainly, in discussion with Fraser Health, this has been an area of need that’s been identified — obviously in Abbotsford and in Maple Ridge. They’ve identified five communities within Surrey that would likely benefit from a Foundry. We are working with the health authority and with the local MCFD office as well as lead organizations to identify what is most doable, understanding that our first phase was really a proof-of-concept phase, to show that this could be done.

We went through a competitive kind of process, bringing communities to the table. I think the most comprehensive applications were the ones that have been funded thus far. I don’t think that there’s any doubt that we would be proposing several sites in the Surrey area, were we to be funded moving forward.

J. Brar: Keeping in mind our limited time, I will be precise. First of all, you have a pretty ambitious plan for the expansion, so I would like to know what your funding source is. Is it completely the province of British Columbia, or do you have other sources as well?

Secondly, I would like to know…. We have a stand-alone Ministry of Mental Health. How do you fit into that new ministry, and how do you work with them?

S. Mathias: The first question is that in building these centres, we have found a very strong commitment from philanthropy to come up with matching dollars. That has been the model thus far.

As far as the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, we are firmly entrenched in their policy in the development of a key strategic plan and vision for this population in the province.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Pamela and Steve, thank you very much.

Just before we go to our next presenter…. MLA Leonard Krog, Esq., sir, welcome. It’s always a pleasure to see you, especially in your own country.

We have a five-minute presentation from Greg Wirtz. Greg is with Cruise Lines International Association, North West and Canada.

Sir, thank you for coming today. The presentation, since it’s slipped in, is five minutes. There will not be any questions from the committee, but again, you have the opportunity to make a submission. It has to be in before five o’clock on the 16th.

G. Wirtz: Thank you. I’ll be less than five minutes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay. Well, thank you for coming.

CRUISE LINES INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, NORTH WEST AND CANADA

G. Wirtz: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity.

I am Greg Wirtz. I’m the president of Cruise Lines International Association, North West and Canada. Our association is based in Vancouver, and we represent the cruise lines operating in Canada. Our association has been a pillar of the B.C. economy for decades, with 15,000 jobs associated with B.C.’s cruise industry and some $2.2 billion in economic benefits to our province each year.

Currently British Columbia’s cruise industry is facing some serious competitive challenges. That’s why we’re here today asking for your support for a small change to tax policy that will enhance our competitiveness and further the growth of our industry while reinforcing British Columbia’s environmental leadership and promoting the use of cleaner-burning fuels.

[5:35 p.m.]

Please allow me to explain. Cruise ships operate in this region typically between Vancouver and Alaska or Seattle and Alaska. Alaska is the marquee destination, and Vancouver and Seattle are the primary home ports. Each year more than one million cruise guests and tourists sail to Alaska from either Vancouver or Seattle as home ports. The ships often call at B.C. destination ports, like Victoria, Nanaimo and Prince Rupert as well.

The cruise lines, however, acquire the vast majority of the services and supplies needed by the ships — like fuel, food and other supplies — in the home ports, Seattle and Vancouver. Each home-port call in Vancouver creates $3 million of direct benefits to the B.C. economy. In total, there were more than 230 home-port calls in Vancouver this year alone.

When ships buy fuel for an international voyage, it is normally tax-exempt. This is just like airlines flying on international voyages. The fuel purchased is tax-exempt, recognizing that taxing fuel exports is not good tax or economic policy. In B.C., cruise lines can purchase what are known as residual fuels, or bunker fuel or heavy fuel oil, for their Alaska voyages on a tax-exempt basis.

Cruise lines also purchase cleaner, refined fuel, known as marine gas oil, in B.C. However, due to a historical artifact of B.C.’s tax legislation, these marine gas oil purchases are only tax-exempt if used in what is called a gas turbine engine. The legislation is more than 15 years old, reflecting that the only cruise ships at the time using marine gas oil were gas turbine ships. Today most ships can operate with the cleaner marine gas oil whether they have gas turbine engines or traditional internal combustion engines. In fact, most cruise ships today are equipped with internal combustion engines, as will be most of the $50 billion in new cruise ships currently on order. Gas turbine ships just have not caught on.

Cruise ships with the much more common internal combustion engines will have to pay three cents per litre on the cleaner-burning fuel when purchased in British Columbia but not on the less clean-burning bunker fuel. A cruise ship that’s home-ported in Seattle, Washington does not pay any such tax on their fuel used in international voyages. As a result, Washington state enjoys a significant fuel-tax advantage over British Columbia in attracting cruise ships, and their passengers, as well as the associated work and supplies needed to support the cruise ships, their thousands of passengers and crew.

In recent years, Seattle has outpaced Vancouver as the home port of choice for cruise ships. There are a number of reasons for this, and a long-term strategy is needed to help British Columbia remain competitive. However, in the interim, a small, positive change regarding the taxation of cleaner-burning marine gas oil would send a very encouraging signal to the cruise industry that British Columbia remains committed to a sector which contributes $2.2 billion in direct and indirect spending in our province, including $712 million in wages and salaries.

In summary, if British Columbia provides an expanded exemption for the purchase of marine gas oil, it will (1) eliminate a significant competitive disadvantage in attracting cruise ships to British Columbia’s port cities, (2) send a clear signal of support to a key revenue-generating industry in the province and (3) help create jobs in related industries on which British Columbians rely.

I do have copies of a letter and a short backgrounder, which I’d be happy to give to you for your reference. I’d welcome questions, although I acknowledge you can’t ask them.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Greg. Just make sure you get the presentation in by Monday at five. Okay?

Next we have the Douglas Students Union. I have Steven and Tanysha.

Tanysha and Steven, thank you for coming. You probably heard that you have ten minutes for the presentation. There are five minutes allotted for questions, if required, and I’ll give you a two-minute warning.

[5:40 p.m.]

DOUGLAS STUDENTS UNION

T. Klassen: Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Tanysha Klassen. I’m the director of external relations for the Douglas College students union. I’m joined by Steven Beasley, who is our executive director. Our students union represents more than 12,000 members studying at the New Westminster and Coquitlam campuses of Douglas College. I’d like to just acknowledge that we’re meeting here on the traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation.

The Douglas Students Union is part of the B.C. Federation of Students. In the written submission from the federation, you’ll see a number of priorities that students believe are important to improving our system of post-secondary education and growing the economy in British Columbia.

These items include increased funding to colleges, institutes and universities; the implementation of a student debt reduction strategy; the implementation of those education-related recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; the regulation of tuition fees for international students; and a one-time funding increase to BCcampus for open educational resources. Though we endorse all of these recommendations, our presentation today will highlight only a few of these items.

Student loans are a vital part of our post-secondary education system because they enable those from low- and middle-income backgrounds to access the education that they need. The reduction of interest charged on students loans, effective August 1, was a welcome relief to those paying back loans as well as those currently incurring loans for their studies. We’d like to express our appreciation to the past government for taking this historic step. That said, the changes implemented this year are only a first step.

The application of interest on any level of student loan creates a two-tier system in which those who can least afford the cost of post-secondary education pay more than those who are able to pay up front. A student graduating with a debt of $25,000 will pay an additional $6,000 more in interest charges. A student with $40,000 of student debt, a number not uncommon for mature students with families who have returned to school, would produce an interest bill of nearly $10,000.

For the 2018 budget, students are again recommending that the province commit to the complete elimination of interest charged on student loans to ensure we have a fair system of post-secondary education in which those that need loans are not charged a higher rate for the same education as those who can afford to pay up front. The costs of pursuing a post-secondary education, both the direct educational cost and the cost of living expenses, continue to climb, and resources available to students and their families have not kept pace.

More than 75 percent of baccalaureate students rely on third-party funding to enable them to pursue a college or university degree, and of those that graduate, 50 percent do so in debt. The requirement to take on debt as a means of post-secondary funding is itself a deterrent for graduation, and a direct link exists between debt and completion rates.

The available research indicates that completion rates for those who carried less than $1,000 of debt was 71 percent, while the completion rate for those carrying more than $10,000 of debt was a meagre 34 percent. The same research also found that if non-repayable grants were available, they would have a positive impact on indebted students’ likeliness to remain in studies. Given this research, it’s disheartening to see that the most recent Canada student loans program statistical review reported that B.C. is in the top three provinces for average federal student loan debt. This doesn’t even take into account debt incurred from provincial loans, banks or other borrowing sources.

The Douglas Students Union joins other student organizations in recommending the establishment of an up-front, needs-based grants program. Such a program would not only improve the ability of those from low- and middle-income families to enter the post-secondary system. It would, perhaps more importantly, help ensure that once in the system, those students are able to successfully complete their studies and join, or rejoin, the provincial labour force.

The next issue that we’d like to highlight in our presentation is international student tuition fees. Currently there is a near-complete absence of public policy or regulation on the ways in which institutions recruit, register, enrol and charge international students. In relation to tuition fees, in particular, the absence of regulation means that institutions are free to set fees at whatever cost they see fit, without consistency across the province. As funding has declined in proportion to expenses, international fees and recruitment have increased to fill that gap.

One of the biggest challenges to international students, from a financial perspective, is the inability to properly budget for a four-year degree. In any given year, fees may increase by 3 or 5 or 9 percent or whatever the institution deems required to balance its budget. This is an unsustainable model that often results in students struggling to stay in B.C. to finish their studies. This year Douglas College applied a 9.4 percent increase to international students as of September 1. Notice was only issued to students on June 28, leaving essentially no time to find the additional resources, let alone make a new plan for September.

[5:45 p.m.]

These sorts of huge increases, with virtually no notice, are not at all fair to students, many of whom are not wealthy and whose participation in our education system is the product of their entire family savings. This example is a prime one, and it illustrates the need for some basic provincial regulation to protect the interests of international students and also the broader interests of our province.

International students pay a vast amount into the local economy on such items as living expenses, arts, culture and recreation. According to a report for Global Affairs Canada, it’s calculated that in 2015, these expenditures totalled $3.12 billion in annual spending and contributed to the creation of over 26,000 jobs. This is a direct contribution of $1.77 billion to the provincial GDP and over $176 million in income taxes.

It should be noted that B.C. has experienced a boom in international education this year, as more students are choosing Canada over alternate countries due to current conditions in those countries. We suggest that this not be seen as an endorsement of Canada but rather as a vital reminder that international education dollars are inherently mobile. Central planning and regulation by the B.C. government is needed not only to ensure fairness for international students but also to assure the many aspects of our economy that rely on international students choosing B.C. over other options.

For this year’s budget, students recommend that the province commit to amending the tuition fee limit policy to include fees for international students.

The final item that we’d like to address is one-time funding for open educational resources. Textbook prices rose by 82 percent between 2002 and 2012 and now typically cost up to $225 per course. 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 just to pay for their books. Others compromise their educational experience by opting to not buy books at all, shortchanging their academic goals.

One solution to this problem is open educational resources, or OERs, notably in the form of open textbooks. These are high-quality resources available in digital formats for free, or for a very low cost in print. OERs 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 OERs as a solution to the textbook dilemma and empowered BCcampus to oversee their implementation provincewide. Our recommendation is to provide one-time additional funding of $5 million to BCcampus. This infusion of funding will allow BCcampus to create and adapt open textbooks and support materials that reflect and serve the diverse needs in context of students and educators in B.C. This provincial funding will add to the resources already being allocated at colleges and universities that are working with faculty to implement OERs locally. This work is currently occurring at Douglas College and is supported by the students union.

Students, faculty and institutions are all working collaboratively and investing their resources in making OERs work around B.C., but we need an investment from the B.C. government to make substantial headway.

Every statistic that we’ve spoken about here represents real people struggling to carry the costs of their education, each with their own story. For example, I grew up in east Maple Ridge being co-raised by a single mother and my grandparents. My family owns a small business that’s been passed through generations, with my mom’s single income from this occupation supporting a family of five. Growing up, I spent all of my time before and after school at my grandparents’ house, as my mom left for work early and came home late in order to provide us with the best life she could, given the circumstances.

All three of my siblings have been helped by my family as much as possible, but we all rely on student financial assistance as well. Although it’s been and still is quite difficult for my family, I know for a fact that many others face a multitude of challenges greater than my own. For example, I don’t come from an immigrant family where English is my second language or suffer the kind of intergenerational trauma left by the residential school system. I’m from a town that had access to institutions like Douglas College, and I’ve had lots of non-financial support throughout my journey.

We’re here advocating for those like me, but more importantly, for those who have not had the same privileges and opportunities and those who have been unjustly denied access to education. In order to build a diverse, adaptable and strong workforce, as well as a healthy and functioning economy in British Columbia, we need to provide an accessible platform for basic post-secondary education. The future of British Columbia rests on the shoulders of students who are working hard to join B.C.’s workforce despite the multitude of barriers in their path.

I believe that we really have an opportunity to take some of those barriers down in order to secure the shared prosperity of our common future. Thank you for your time, and we look forward to your questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Tanysha, thank you. Steven, thank you.

[5:50 p.m.]

T. Redies: Thanks very much for your presentation.

Just going back to the international students, do you have any data in terms of how many international students have had to quit or leave the province because of tuition increases?

S. Beasley: One of the things we are trying to do provincially now is compile as much of that data as possible. The challenge is that we’re not sure exactly how it’s tracked by the institutions. But certainly, the submission being put forward by the B.C. Federation of Students will have a bunch of statistics that are available on international education and the mobility of international students.

Certainly, that is something that we’re hearing increasingly from international students when we speak with them, but that’s on an anecdotal basis. We’re working to compile that information. Again, it’s about what data is tracked provincially and what data is tracked by the institutions and trying to combine those things.

J. Brar: I don’t have a question. I just want to comment. We appreciate your time and presentation today. We have heard from a number of student associations. I think you are the most organized group in lobbying for your cause. So we’ve heard from different groups. It’s mental health issues, housing issues, tuition fees, international students and all that. We have heard a lot about that. So I appreciate your time and coming here today and making the presentation.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Well, Tanysha and Steven, thank you very much. We greatly appreciate it. Thanks for coming.

Up next we have North Island College — John Bowman. Sir, welcome.

J. Bowman: Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): You probably overheard me. Up to ten for the presentation and up to five for questions. The floor is yours.

NORTH ISLAND COLLEGE

J. Bowman: Thank you very much. I hope that Friday the 13th hasn’t been too wearing on you.

Interjections.

J. Bowman: It’s Friday the 13th.

First of all, I want to thank you for making this opportunity available to have input into the development of next year’s provincial budget. In the short time that I have, I would like to share with you some information under three broad headings.

Firstly, a little background information regarding North Island College and the geographic region that we serve. Second, I’d like to touch on a few issues and challenges related to enabling learners in our region to gain access and be successful in completing college programming close to home. Specifically, these issues are the lack of equitable funding resources and programming capacity at North Island College to serve British Columbians living in the region.

We feel it’s imperative to provide in-community program delivery for learners living in rural and remote areas to complete adult upgrading, developmental, trades and technical programs.

Lastly, an issue that I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about already: the need for on-campus student housing. And what would this presentation be without a few recommendations for you to consider?

By way of background, the geographic region served by North Island College comprises two-thirds of the land mass of Vancouver Island and a large portion of the central mainland coast. We have a population of approximately 160,000 people. In the north Island region, we are home to 35 First Nations communities, and in 2011, 12 percent of the overall population was of Aboriginal ancestry.

Our institution operates from campuses in the Comox Valley, Campbell River, Port Alberni and Port Hardy, and we have a small learning centre in Ucluelet. We offer a comprehensive range of education and training programs and deliver programming through traditional face-to-face instruction methods at our campus-based facilities and through on-line and hybrid programs, as well as through high-definition interactive instructional TV. In fact, North Island College has been a leader in the province and all of Canada in the delivery of interactive instructional TV.

In 2016-17, NIC enrolled a total of 4,400 domestic students in credit programs, and 377 international students were enrolled, coming to us from 36 different countries. Sixteen percent of NIC’s domestic students were of Aboriginal ancestry. In that year, NIC’s operating budget totalled $41.2 million, with provincial funding accounting for 65 percent of our total revenue and student tuition and fees 21 percent. It’s interesting to note that in the span of three years, those percentages changed from 72 percent for provincial funding and 15 percent for student tuition and fees.

North Island College and the rural colleges, generally, are more dependent on provincial core funding than are the larger urban institutions, which have the ability to generate more diverse revenue streams, including larger capacity for international student enrolments.

[5:55 p.m.]

Our fiscal and program delivery capacity challenges at NIC are exacerbated by inequitable annual provincial-based operating grant funding, which is substantially lower on a per-capita basis than the average for rural colleges.

NIC has been, and will continue to be, committed at its core to being a community college, and one of the most important strategies we follow in connection with that commitment is to bring the college to learners and communities that can’t come to us. Over the past three years, we’ve delivered 12 programs in communities across the north Island region in which we did not have dedicated college facilities.

Making some programs available locally is the only way many residents of small, more remote First Nations communities, in particular, are able to access them. Many prospective learners have children and other family commitments that make it impossible to relocate or commute to a larger centre to attend college-based programs.

For others, the cost of living associated with being away from home, the culture shock associated with daily living in a larger community and the absence of social supports that family and friends provide are significant impediments to accessing and successfully completing specialized programs that are only available through on-campus delivery.

As an access-oriented college, NIC welcomes and applauds the provincial government’s decision to remove tuition on adult basic education programs. The rural and remote areas which our region comprises have higher levels of high school non-completion as well as lower levels of post-secondary education completion compared to the provincial average.

In 2015, the elimination of $372,000 from NIC’s operating grant and the implementation of tuition fees on ABE courses caused an overall drop in enrolment, which necessitated significant contraction of our ABE program offerings. However, our projections now for the next two years, based on enrolment figures from the past, are that demand for ABE, which is tuition-free, will surge in the region. As a result, we are seeking an equitable compensation model that returns the $372,000 to NIC’s base budget to allow us to provide in-demand course offerings.

Our historical actual FTE enrolments show that before the reduction to funding and the implementation of tuition, we consistently achieved our enrolment target of 572 FTE students in adult basic education. When tuition was implemented in 2015, we made the difficult financial decision to charge the lowest tuition for ABE in the province, well below the provincial maximum that was set by the province of $1,600. Yet as a result, our enrolment dropped by over 30 percent, where 140 FTE students no longer came to the college.

NIC is a multi-campus institution that serves a student population with a wide range of learning needs, across a number of ABE subject areas. These factors, combined with our commitment to offer in-community programming, mean that our ability to serve students appropriately demands a flexible financial model, so that we can plan and redeploy resources annually to achieve the most impact.

A contemplated tuition reimbursement model, based solely on a per-actual-student-enrolment amount, would further disadvantage NIC, which prioritizes providing access at the lowest possible tuition cost, and reward institutions who charge the maximum amount.

B.C. colleges have been operating in a challenging fiscal environment for many years. At NIC in the past seven years, we’ve had to make cumulative, unfunded budgetary adjustments totalling $4.2 million, or about 10 percent of our current annual budget. Those adjustments were made necessary as a result of inflation, cuts to provincial funding, requirements to self-fund collective bargaining settlements and other cost pressures.

It was only possible to balance our annual budgets through a combination of expenditure reductions, cost-efficiencies and additional revenues from student tuition, most notably from international students.

The topic of student housing has become an important issue in British Columbia in the past few years, and it’s important to highlight that the need for new and additional student housing is not solely confined to greater Vancouver and Victoria.

I want to commend the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, the Hon. Melanie Mark, on the completion of her whirlwind tour of 25 post-secondary institutions in August. I noted that when she was speaking to the Vancouver Sun on September 1, the minister provided some key reflections on her experiences about the top concerns she heard from students and institution leaders.

She said: “In every community, it was about housing, student debt and mental health. Young people were talking about their quality of life and the stresses of trying to do it all and not feeling like they’ve had a break….Specifically, on housing and affordability, people think this is a Lower Mainland issue. It’s not. It’s a provincial issue.”

[6:00 p.m.]

At North Island College, we completed a feasibility study in 2014 for the development of student housing in the Comox Valley. We documented a need and a business case in the near-term for 184 student beds. We currently estimate that project at a cost of $13.5 million.

Our student housing need is being driven by the needs of students who are moving from other parts of the north Island to study at the Comox Valley campus as well as by dramatic growth in our international student enrolments. There is currently a lack of good-quality, affordable rental accommodations in the Courtenay-Comox area suitable for students. The rental vacancy rate in our community is 0.5 percent.

In addition to generally benefiting students, the development of on-campus student housing will assist in addressing the broader issue of access to affordable housing, as the pressure students create on available rental housing units will be alleviated. It will enable us at NIC to develop complementary services and afford the opportunity for NIC to work in partnership with Island Health to support patients and families who must travel to the North Island Hospital in Comox Valley.

To end, I’d like to offer these recommendations. Number one, for next year’s provincial budget, provide equitable base operating funding to support tuition-free adult basic education policy. Second, provide rural community colleges with additional annual funding to give the capacity to deliver in-community education and training programs.

Third, implement policy and legislative changes necessary to provide greater financial flexibility to institutions. Namely, reduce the restrictions on post-secondary institutions to enable them to utilize their existing resources to assist in self-financing the development of construction of new campus student housing facilities and allow institutions to borrow and incur debt to assist in financing the development and construction of new on-campus student housing.

Lastly, implement required policy changes and provide a portion of the capital funding necessary to rural community colleges to finance the operation and construction of new student residences.

Thank you very much for your attention. I’d be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sir, thank you. I appreciate that, John. Distinct and to the point. That’s good.

S. Cadieux: Thank you for your presentation. I’ll note, though, that I think you’re the third of the presenters that claimed to have the lowest ABE tuition rates prior to the change. We’ll have to go back and look at that.

I just have one question, and I don’t know whether you can answer it. We have to be brief, but it’s a curiosity. What are your completion rates for your ABE programs?

J. Bowman: That’s a very good question. They vary. For students who are coming to us to complete prerequisites for specific programs, for health science and trades, they’re very good. They’re high. For students who are coming at lower levels, they tend to be not as good. We do see, certainly, students who repeat courses and can be in the system for quite a while. But I don’t have the specific data. It would vary by goal.

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

R. Leonard: I have to ask a question, since he’s coming from my community. Welcome, John. Thank you very much for your presentation.

I was at the college when the Minister of Advanced Education came, and I did hear that question about equitable funding for the ABE program and the fact that other programs have suffered as you have propped up the ABE program. I’m wondering, in terms of a solution…. How do you see the province being able to provide that equity? Is it just to say the provincial standard was thus? How do you see creating that equity?

J. Bowman: I think the place to start would be to go back and look at the reductions that were made to each institution’s operating grants to coincide with that decision. In our case, it was $372,000 annually. On top of that, there were the cuts to ESL English-language programming. So it was half a million dollars for our institution. We think the place to start would be to restore that funding and then look at a longer-term plan for funding ABE within the college system.

As I mentioned in my presentation, we need to get ABE programming out into smaller communities where the class sizes are going to be smaller. There needs to be some recognition that students won’t leave their communities to take adult basic education. It’s got to be provided close to home. That’s going to be more costly, but it’ll be more successful, and they’ll have supports in their home communities to complete and be successful.

I think it’s a complex issue but one that we need to take not a one-size-fits-all approach to the issue.

R. Leonard: If can I ask just…. No?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sorry, no. I apologize.

[6:05 p.m.]

John, thank you. I apologize. It’s just that we’re on a tight schedule, and you’re right at 15 minutes. I apologize.

J. Bowman: I understand. No problem. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I have to be fair to everybody. Thank you.

We have the Vancouver Island University Students Union. We have Avery Bonner and Sarah Segal. Is that correct?

A Voice: Yes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks for coming. Appreciate it. Ten minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions, if required. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. Thank you again.

A. Bonner: Good evening, everyone. I’ve been informed that I’m the last presenter. I guess that’s good.

A. Weaver: You’re standing between us and home.

A. Bonner: Yeah, that’s right.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): So short and sweet. We’d really appreciate that. You have ten minutes.

VANCOUVER ISLAND UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS UNION

A. Bonner: Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Avery Bonner. I’m the director of external relations for the Vancouver Island University Students Union. I’m also a student in the political studies and history program at VIU. I’m joined here by my colleague Sarah Segal, who works at the students union office as well.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide comment for the preparation of next year’s budget. We understand you’ve heard the voices of other students unions today, and we are here to add our voice regarding the concerns of students. Before beginning, I would like to acknowledge that today’s hearing is on the traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nations.

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

However, for the purpose of this presentation, we would like to focus on three recommendations — the first being increased funding to colleges, institutes and universities; the second, the implementation of a student debt reduction strategy based on a comprehensive grant program and the elimination of interest on student loans; and the third, a one-time funding increase to BCcampus for the production and enhancement of open educational resources.

For the first, for nearly two decades, funding for institutions has failed to keep up with inflation, and the post-secondary sector has failed to see any significant increases to funding. In fact, operating grants for institutions have declined by 20 percent since 2001, when adjusted for inflation. Students directly experience the underfunding of institutions in their everyday lives on campus. A lack of provincial funding means a lack of supports and services for students in important aspects of campus life such as advising and counselling. It also means that institutions need to find ways to make up for the funding shortfall, sometimes resulting in program cuts, which we have seen, as well, at VIU.

This cost is put onto the backs of students through high tuition fees, ancillary fees, food costs and even parking costs, which we have also, unfortunately, seen at VIU and are currently dealing with. At VIU, parking is a significant issue, with limited spaces and a high cost for parking passes, which do not assure parking spaces. In fact, recently, a student has taken it upon himself to start an on-line petition and has gathered over 1,200 signatures at our university.

As institutions come to depend on user fees to make up larger and larger portions of their budgets, students are 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 funding institutions is an important step towards breaking the cycle of student debt and would mean that students could access the supports and services they need when attending colleges and universities.

For the upcoming budget, the Vancouver Island University Students Union, along with the B.C. Federation of Students, is recommending the restoration of funding back to a 2001 level, adjusted for inflation.

[6:10 p.m.]

Our second point is in regard to a student debt reduction strategy. B.C. students and their families continue to struggle with ever-increasing levels of student debt, as the cost of pursuing a post-secondary education remains far greater than the resources that students and their families have at their disposal.

Graduate outcomes surveys conducted by the Ministry of Advanced Education demonstrate that more than 75 percent of college or university graduates rely on a third party to help them pursue a college or university education, through their family, friends, employment, bank loans and government student loans as well. In fact, according to the most recent Baccalaureate Outcomes Survey available on the ministry’s website, 47 percent of graduates report using government student loans or bank loans to fully or partially fund their education.

The government’s B.C. student outcomes surveys are useful in tracking funding sources for students who have graduated. However, these surveys do not capture those students who’ve been forced to end their studies without completing yet who still carry debt, which they will need to repay.

Research shows 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. According to McElroy, completion rates for students who carried less than $1,000 of debt was 71 percent, while the completion rate for those carrying more than $10,000 of debt was only 34 percent.

McElroy’s research also found that even if part of their financial aid was in non-repayable grants, this had a positive impact on their likeliness of staying in school. This demonstrates that students without the burden of debt, or at least with a smaller burden, are more likely to complete their studies. Yet the most recent Canada student loans program’s Statistical Reviewreports that B.C. is in the top three provinces for average 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. This investment would have a significant benefit as it helps realize a return on public funds invested in low- and middle-income learners who may have otherwise left school without graduating and who would otherwise have limited or lower-quality participation in the labour force.

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

While student loans help those who could not otherwise afford the high cost of education get through the door, they do so with an added expense to B.C. families as a result of the interest applied to the loans. The reduction of interest charged on the student loans, effective August 1, is welcome relief to those who are paying back loans. However, the application of the interest on any level to student loans means that a student who can afford to pay up front pays only the cost, but a low-income student who needs to access student loans will pay thousands of dollars in interest. As you can see, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, for a student to have less money to pay for a more expensive education.

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

The final item we would like to address in our presentation is one-time funding for open education resources. Tuition fees and ancillary fees are not the only financial barriers that students struggle with these days. The high cost of textbooks has become a serious obstacle to accessing post-secondary education in British Columbia. Textbook prices rose by 82 percent between 2002 and 2012 and now typically cost more than $200 each. Sometimes they can be more expensive than the course itself costs.

[6:15 p.m.]

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 books. Others compromise their educational experience by opting not to buy books at all, shortchanging their academic goals. I’ve done this before myself.

In our recent conversations with students on our Nanaimo campus, students reported spending upwards of $1,200 a semester for textbooks and required materials. We heard from students who shared the personal impact of high textbook costs. They had less resources for food, rent, recreation and transportation home to visit family.

There is a solution to this problem. Open educational resources, notably in the form of open textbooks, are high-quality resources that are available in digital formats for free or at very low cost in print. OERs can ease the burden of expensive textbook costs and can 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 OERs as a solution to the textbook dilemma and empowered BCcampus to oversee its implementation provincewide.

Our recommendation is to provide one-time additional funding of $5 million to BCcampus. This infusion of funding 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 a sustainable system to maintain these open textbooks and create open education resources that are usable by all students, including those with physical and/or learning disabilities…

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Avery, just a sec. You’re well into your question period. I don’t know if there will be questions.

A. Bonner: I have this much more.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay. Sorry. I didn’t want to interrupt you.

A. Bonner: That’s okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.

… and create and adapt required ancillary resources, such as assignments and quizzes, to support open textbooks.

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

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

Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions if we have any time left.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): That’s good. Thank you, Avery and Sarah.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you. A good job.

A. Bonner: I wanted to say, on behalf of all students, that we really appreciate the work that you’re doing. We know that sometimes it can be long hours.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Yup, it is. Thank you, and have a good evening.

Now we’ll adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 6:18 p.m.