The committee met at 4 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

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

We are pleased to be here in Kamloops and would like to begin by recognizing that our meeting today is taking place on the traditional territory of the Secwepemc and Shuswap peoples.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to acknowledge all of those impacted by the wildfires and floods this year. It’s been a very challenging year, and we would like to extend our gratitude and appreciation for those who supported and those who continue to support those affected.

We are a committee of the Legislative Assembly, and our membership includes MLAs from all three parties in the Legislature. Every fall, we visit communities across the province to meet with British Columbians to hear about their priorities and ideas for the next provincial budget.

This consultation is based on the budget consultation paper that was released by the Minister of Finance, and there are copies of this paper available today if you would like to refer to that.

In addition to these in-person meetings, British Columbians can also provide their thoughts in writing or fill out the on-line survey. The deadline for input is 5 p.m., Monday, October 15, 2018. For more information, you can go to the website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance.

We carefully consider all the input that we receive and use it to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be prioritized in the next provincial budget. Our report will be available on November 15, 2018.

To everyone who’s here today, thank you for taking the time to participate. We really appreciate hearing from you, and it’s very important for us to make these recommendations.

As far as the format, we have a number of registered speakers today. In order for us to be able to get through everybody and give everyone a fair chance to speak, we’d like you to keep your initial comments to five minutes, followed by five minutes of questions by the committee.

There’s also a first-come, first-served open-mike period at the end of the meeting, with five minutes allotted to each speaker, but we would ask that anybody who would like to participate in that please register now. Do not wait till the end. Please see Mariana, who is at the back.

Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed by Hansard. All audio from our meetings is broadcast via the website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

Now I’d like to ask our members, the members of the committee, to introduce themselves. We’ll start with our Deputy Chair, Dan Ashton.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton to Peachland. It’s nice to be back in Kamloops again. Thank you for hosting us.

S. Cadieux: I’m Stephanie Cadieux, Surrey South.

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

P. Milobar: Peter Milobar, all the way from Kamloops–​North Thompson.

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

N. Simons: Nicholas Simons, Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great, thank you.

Assisting our committee today is Jennifer Arril, who is over there, and Mariana Novis, who is back there. They’re from the Parliamentary Committees Office and do a lot of work for us. Thank you.

Steve Weisgerber and Amanda Heffelfinger are here from Hansard Services, and they are recording the proceedings.

First up we have B.C. School Trustees Association — Gord Swan.

Hello, Gord. How are you?

G. Swan: I’m well. Thank you. I’ll also be leaving you with some of these wonderful buttons just in case you’re somewhere Friday, because that’s when most schools will be celebrating Orange Shirt Day.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Excellent.

Budget Consultation Presentations

B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION

G. Swan: As you know, my name is Gordon Swan. I’m president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, and I want to thank you, first, for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon.

As I’m sure you appreciate, boards of education across B.C. have a vested interest in ensuring that the funding provided to school districts is not only sufficient to deliver programs and services that we believe are critical to our students to meet the challenge of the decades ahead, but also that that funding can be directed efficiently and effectively to address their needs and priorities.

While additional funding would certainly be welcomed and well used, it’s equally important that these funds provided to us are able to be spent in the best interests of students, and this has not always been the case.

The ability of boards of education to allocate finance and other resources to meet the locally and provincially determined needs of students is currently significantly restricted by a variety of policies, targeted allocations, external restrictions and contract clauses.

[4:05 p.m.]

The result is that school districts are not free to spend the dollars they are provided by taxpayers in the most efficient and effective way possible. In short, we’re not getting the best value for the considerable sum of dollars currently being allocated to the system.

My first request to you is that boards of education be provided with significantly more flexibility to assign the funding they are provided to better address local school district priorities based on student needs within those districts. There’ll be 60 variations of that around the province.

Likewise, we need to reduce the red tape that hinders construction of new schools and additions to existing structures. There is no legitimate reason why it should take up to two years to obtain approvals and permits necessary for a school to be rebuilt or built. This can be up to two years after the funding has initially been announced and assigned.

It’s critical that school districts, municipalities and the provincial government instead work together to ensure that projects move ahead as quickly as possible. At present, there are simply too many procedural barriers to achieving our common goal of accelerating the pace of school construction.

My second request is that every effort be made to ensure that school district capital construction projects can proceed as quickly and efficiently as possible. At the start of last school year, the government provided a very sizable increase to the K-to-12 budget for implementation of the settlement arising out of the Supreme Court of Canada decision on BCTF collective language. The approximately 2,800 additional teachers that the money funded and that have been provided to schools will reduce class sizes and improve school services.

What is important going forward, however, is sustainable, predictable funding that allows school districts to establish long-range strategic plans and sustainable programming that properly utilizes these resources as well as our existing staff and learning resources. Whatever funding you provide going forward must be sustainable, predictable and transparent to the school districts.

This must include fully funding the new collective agreements that we’ll be bargaining in 2019, comparable compensation improvements that should be provided to our exempt staff, the cost of additional students in many communities around the province, the introduction of new initiatives on mental health and, perhaps more significantly, the planned establishment of preschool child care and early learning centres across schools in B.C.

If we are to maintain our position as one of the best — and, in my mind, the best — education systems in the world, there must be ongoing commitment to fully fund all the costs of the system, both the system as it currently exists as well as the expanded system government envisions and we envision for the future.

The current introduction of new curriculum is an example of the needed modernization. But it’s important that the initiative must also be properly resourced. Failure to pay increased costs for new initiatives would simply mean making cuts to existing programs or services. This would definitely be a step in the wrong direction.

The year ahead will almost certainly see the introduction of a new funding distribution model for the Ministry of Education. While we support that initiative, we also maintain that any changes must address specific issues. Funding directed to the needs of Indigenous students must be protected. The way in which we categorize students in special needs for the purpose of allocating must be changed.

School districts and communities with declining enrolment must have programs protected. Boards of education must be provided greater flexibility to spend the money they’re provided to meet locally determined needs and priorities.

Finally, I would like confirm to you that the money directed to public education is money very well spent. Please consider the funding of our schools in the K-to-12 programs as an investment in B.C.’s future, not simply as an expense. There is no other commitment that is more important in our world today and certainly nothing more important than ensuring the success of our children in the world to come.

Thank you. I’d be happy to take any of your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Gordon. I just wanted to clarify one thing. In terms of the flexibility that you are talking about, could you maybe just give some examples of why that’s needed, how that’s needed and how that would work?

G. Swan: We’re currently implementing a new curri­culum, right through K to 12. There are barriers to that in exist­ing policies. Certainly, the 1,400 or so clauses that were put back into contract…. Some of those go back to 1982 and don’t actually match to what we’re trying to do in inclusion. They actually speak to exclusion, where you’re only allowed two special needs children in the classroom.

We certainly look at that, not only through bargaining but just looking at policy and going: “When you bring back in language that is 20 years old, and where we are now in terms of mental health, in terms of special needs education, we really need to look at that carefully.”

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks for the clarification.

[4:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Thank you for the presentation. We heard yesterday from your organization representing principals and administrators and the concern that they have around compression of salaries, a gap in the benefit plan between teachers and administrators and the difficulty they’re starting to find around some of the rules of having to declare whether you are an administrator or teacher — that you can’t teach a class and be a principal or vice-principal, and that type of thing, as well. Do you have any thoughts on that in terms of how that’s affecting yourselves as trustees?

G. Swan: It has affected us in a couple of areas. We have several administrators, actually, whose background is in special education. I have, in my district, an administrator who has her master’s in clinical psychology, but with the Supreme Court ruling she cannot actually practice that craft in any of our schools. That has to be designated to a B.C. Teachers Federation member. Yet, as I say, she has a master’s in clinical psychology.

Just in the last couple of days, PSEC let us know that the wages, up to 2 percent, had been approved, but there was no money that came with that. We have to find that money within our existing envelope. It doesn’t make sense that, for our administrators, we would, as government as a whole, approve a wage package but say that there’s no money to go with it. That just doesn’t make sense. If we agree, after having a freeze over several years and having that soft freeze come off, that we should pay to remove that compression, then we should certainly put the dollars on the table to ensure that we can actually do that.

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

Well, thank you very much, Gordon. We really appreciate your time and the thought you put into these comments. We’ll take it all into account.

These guys have come a long way. Thompson Rivers University Students Union — Leif Douglass, Cole Hickson and Nicholas Warner.

Hello, gentlemen.

THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS UNION

L. Douglass: Thank you all, first of all, for the opportunity to present. We very much appreciate it. My name is Leif Douglass. I’m the campaigns coordinator for the students union.

C. Hickson: My name is Cole Hickson. I’m the vice-president, external, at TRU Students Union.

N. Warner: And I’m Nicholas Warner, campaigns committee representative.

L. Douglass: We’re just going to jump right in and give you folks a brief overview. Then we’ll be happy to take any questions.

C. Hickson: Our first recommendation is to re-evaluate the TRU funding formula. TRU currently ranks 20th out of 25 British Columbia post-secondary institutions in per-student funding. At the same time, TRU has exceeded the full-time-equivalent student targets in the last number of years. Another way to look at this is that from 2005-06, when TRU was formed as a university, to 2017-18, block grant funding in B.C. has increased by 11.8 percent above inflation, representing a real increase of $200 million. Over this same time, TRU’s funding level has only increased by 0.65 percent, representing a real increase of only $200,000.

Now, full-time-equivalent numbers for these years are not available from DataBC, unfortunately, but from 2007-2008, the earliest year available, to 2016-17, full-time-equivalent enrolments at TRU have grown by 22.8 percent, far exceeding the average growth in B.C. of 8.3 percent for this time period. This is an issue which has raised substantial concern within our community, with over 4,500 people as well as 30 community organizations and city councils in our region endorsing the call for a re-evaluation. So our first request is to re-evaluate the TRU funding formula to ensure it reflects the growing role of our institution.

L. Douglass: Our second recommendation is around student financial aid. That’s to create a provincial need-based grants program that is cost-neutral through phasing out our current investment into RESPs, loan remission programs and education tax credits.

Looking first at RESPs, the primary problem with this program is that they disproportionally benefit higher-income households. Only 25 percent of dependents from families in the lowest-income demographic have an RESP account when they turn 18, versus 70 percent of the highest-income bracket. Effective student financial aid should be doing the opposite of this. It should be helping those with the greatest need.

Looking to loan remission programs, these are ineffective as financial aid for two main reasons. The first is that loan remission programs do not help students without the financial resources to pay the upfront costs of post-secondary education or those who are debt-averse. Second, as loan remissions amounts and criteria are not generally publicly available and amounts vary year to year, students are often left unable to plan their finances for the upcoming year.

[4:15 p.m.]

Looking to education tax credits — also problematic for a couple of reasons. First, the majority of education tax credits are actually transferred to a future year or to a relative because students often don’t earn enough money to make use of them in that year. So it’s not really helping students while they’re studying and while they’re sort of struggling to pay for their education. Second, calculating benefits from tax credits is fairly complex, particularly for students who may be doing their taxes for the first time. This means students who are considering dropping out for financial reasons are unlikely to take into account benefits they might get from tax credits years down the road.

As a final note, the federal government is already moving in this direction by cutting some of their education tax credits and reinvesting it. We believe it’s time for our province to do the same. Finally, why are we recommending a need-based grants program? Need-based grants are targeted to those who need financial assistance. They’re provided at the time when costs are due, and the criteria for receiving them are transparent, allowing students to effectively engage in financial planning.

There are a number of academic studies that support need-based grants as the most effective financial aid strategy. Every single other province in this country has some form of need-based grants. We’re the only outlier at this point. So we believe it’s time for students in B.C. to receive a similar level of support.

N. Warner: Our third and final recommendation is to create a provincial strategy for international students. At TRU, international enrolment has increased by 38 percent since 2011, with international students now accounting for 56 percent of total tuition revenue. TRU is not unique in this regard either. Across B.C., there has been a 61 percent increase since 2011. This has brought significant economic impacts to our province, with an estimated impact at over $4.2 billion in 2016, making it our third-largest export. We can only continue to expect this to grow as well.

Increasing international enrolment has also created some challenges, though. Friction is increasing in communities across B.C. for limited affordable housing, in institutions for limited course offerings, and for the students themselves, who are facing social, cultural and financial problems.

This is currently a largely unregulated sector. This leaves the province vulnerable to the decisions of a few key actors at individual universities who are without the benefit of a systemwide approach. We believe that the province should have a role in ensuring that we can continue to maximize international educational benefits for all parties involved. As a result, we are recommending the creation of an international student strategy provincewide.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. On time, on budget — all good.

Firstly, I wanted to applaud you on your presentation. It’s very thoroughly researched, well presented, well articulated. I wish that a number of our other presenters would have this level of sophistication. Coming from a student association, you should be proud of that. That’s great.

Questions?

S. Cadieux: I understand the desire to switch from the completion-grant model to a needs-based-grant model. Have you done any numbers on it? Do you have numbers on it? Do you understand what that would mean for students if the program was shifted — who would benefit and who wouldn’t?

L. Douglass: We don’t have specific numbers in terms of that kind of detail. Our perspective is to basically say: we know that need-based grants work better for students who are on the edge of maybe enrolling, on the edge of dropping out. Any dollars that we can sort of move in that direction will be a good thing. That could be a small amount of dollars, or it could be a large amount of dollars. Across the country, honestly, there are vastly different numbers in terms of how they do that.

S. Cadieux: Then I would ask two other questions. The reality is that the money won’t go very far if it’s the same amount of money that’s there now. In your opinion, would that money be better spent on students in their undergraduate years or in their graduate years — or both? Should it be split, based on need, through whatever year of study it is, or should it be focused? Is there a province that has a model that the student unions are particularly enamoured with?

L. Douglass: Yeah. I mean, it’s a tough question in terms of saying undergraduate versus graduate. I think there are probably a number of more specific ways that graduate students get funding for their education. That’s probably a little different than maybe how an undergraduate student might be funded. Our focus has been, I would say, more on the undergraduate level.

[4:20 p.m.]

I don’t have numbers of front of me, unfortunately. I know at the federal level, it’s actually a huge amount of money that goes into education tax credits. It’s like $1.9 billion in accrued education tax credits at the federal level. I’d imagine that at the provincial level…. Unfortunately, I was unable to find those numbers for the province, but I’d say it’s probably not an insignificant amount of money that we have going towards these other programs as well.

S. Cadieux: It’s $30 million a year to completion grants, approximately. If you add that up by the number of students, if you were looking at it as a needs-based grant program, it may not do exactly what you’re thinking it should do.

L. Douglass: Totally.

S. Cadieux: You mentioned that there were a number of provinces that had needs-based grant programs in place. Is there one of those that you’ve looked at that you think is something that should be modelled?

L. Douglass: We’re not recommending a specific model. I think there are a few that could work. Some provinces go the route of what Canada student grants does and basically says: “We’re going to integrate this with the student loan system, and we’ll give a top-up grant of $3,000 a year depending on your income level.”

I know it’s been popular in the last couple of years, where Ontario and New Brunswick have gone in terms of saying: “If you earn under this amount of money, we’re going to basically give you a grant that will cover your tuition.” I mean, I think any of those models would be beneficial for students in B.C.

P. Milobar: Thanks for a great presentation again this year, guys.

One thing that I’ve been asking most of the student unions this year that they’ve left out of their presentations, which has seemed to have been a part of almost every presentation — and quite vocal in between presentations — over the years has been tuition rates and the lack of a tuition rate freeze. But this year it’s totally disappeared from everybody’s ask.

Do student unions no longer worry about the 2 percent tuition? Because my understanding is pretty much every institution keeps going to the max. Is there no longer a worry about that? Where has that fallen within the student union world?

L. Douglass: That hasn’t been one of our recommendations for quite a number of years, not in my memory. That hasn’t been our focus. I mean, if we wanted to move to a freeze instead of a cap, I’m sure we’d be very happy. I’m sure all sorts of students would be very happy. But it hasn’t been our priority for this submission, nor has it been for a number of years.

P. Milobar: Okay.

N. Simons: I’ll make a comment.

Thank you very much, by the way. I thought it was your subliminal fourth recommendation because of the front cover. It has about, I don’t know, 50 signs saying…. I thought that was a pretty good trick, actually.

L. Douglass: It’s an old photo.

N. Simons: All I was thinking was tuition fees the whole time.

C. Hickson: It’s a fun picture, for sure.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, we’re out of time. Thank you again for a really good presentation. We appreciate all the thought you put into all this. Fantastic.

Next up we have Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association — Dr. Tom Friedman.

THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY
FACULTY ASSOCIATION

T. Friedman: Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Just a little bit about ourselves. We are both a certified trade union and a professional association. We represent about 800 instructors, counsellors, librarians and educational coordinators here in Kamloops, at our Williams Lake campus and also in our learning centres in the Thompson-Nicola and the South Cariboo region.

Of course, we’re the ones who see the needs of students firsthand, and I’d like to congratulate the student union for their presentation. It’s going to dovetail very nicely with some of our recommendations as well.

We are calling, also, for a review of the funding formula for post-secondary education. We’d like that review to cover the entire province, so it would affect all public colleges and universities. But in Thompson Rivers University’s case, the argument that we make is that we are unique. I mean, every institution wants to think of themselves as unique. We are legislatively unique. We fall under the Thompson Rivers University Act that was proclaimed in 2005, and our legislative mandate is different from every other college and university.

First of all, we have to offer baccalaureate undergrad and graduate programs. We have to also offer adult basic education and training. We have to undertake and maintain research on scholarly activity. And finally, we have to serve the educational needs of our region, and we have a big region. It extends quite far, from Clearwater down to Merritt and from Lillooet and Lytton over to Kamloops.

[4:25 p.m.]

The funding formula that we operate under has been in place for nearly 20 years. The last time there was a review and a change in the funding formula — a major review — was in the late ’90s. The funding formula has never acknowledged what our legislative mandate actually is. That has created some real, serious cost pressures on our administration, our faculty and our students.

What we would like your committee to recommend is that the government initiate a funding formula review that would at least take into account the mandates and the needs of all of the public post-secondary institutions in the province. We know that some of the rural colleges have needs that are not being met.

I’ll give you one example. Over the last ten years…. We used to have learning centres in a number of smaller communities in our region, in Barriere and 100 Mile and Clear­water. That has not been the case for at least the last number of years.

We used to be able to send some of our faculty to Lillooet, for example, where there’s a great need, particularly among Indigenous learners, to get both adult basic education and also to at least start their academic programs. The cost pressures on our institution have not allowed that to take place. As we know, if people aren’t able to study in their own communities, it’s very unlikely they will end up building those communities as fully contributing community members.

We certainly applaud the student union for raising this issue. We know that councils and groups, including the chamber of commerce and others, have endorsed the need for Thompson Rivers University to be fully recognized in the funding formula.

Two other brief recommendations, and you can read more about them in our submission. We have an obligation to offer developmental programs for those of our community members who face physical and mental challenges. We have run these programs for years now, and we see the immediate beneficial impact on our communities. These individuals are given educational and job training that allows them to become productive members of our community.

We have an education and skills training program here in Kamloops and a work skills training program in Williams Lake. We are calling on this committee to recommend that those programs, like adult basic education, be tuition-free. We feel that accessibility is critical.

The last thing, and very quickly — I see my time running out — is we would like to have system-wide funding so that we can respond to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We would like to engage in meaningful reconciliation and decolonization, and that can only happen if our institutions are given the adequate resources to accomplish that.

Thank you. I’ll take, certainly, any questions.

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

Questions?

That’s interesting that you bring up the idea that the mandates are different. That’s something that we haven’t…. I’m not sure if we’ve had that presented to us — the point that different universities are under different legislation, let’s say, and have different mandates, and therefore different financial obligations to meet those mandates. That’s a very interesting thought. I appreciate that.

T. Friedman: Certainly, one of the challenges we have is to meet those mandates, particularly in the area of research. As you know, we’re a member of the research university consortium of B.C. We’re arguably the smallest member. We play with the big boys at UBC and SFU and UVic. We have an obligation to engage in research activities, and without the proper funding, it’s very difficult to fulfil that mandate.

[4:30 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): As far as development funding, has the university, or college group generally, looked at the cost of making all development no cost, as opposed to just adult basic education?

T. Friedman: We haven’t looked at specific cost, because the enrolment levels tend to change every year. But I know that I speak to the families of those community members whose children have been in the programs, and sometimes the tuition cost is a barrier. That would be a shame for those who are really motivated to seek a meaningful, productive life with employment, not to have that opportunity.

We can certainly provide some data on cost to the committee, because our provincial federation, I know, is working on that costing.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, if you wouldn’t mind following up with that, that would be very helpful. Thanks, Tom.

Dan?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): My question was answered. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So it’s pre-empted.

Well, thank you very much, Tom. We really appreciate the presentation.

Next up we have Kamloops Society for Alcohol and Drug Services, Phoenix Centre — Sian Lewis.

Hello, how are you? Welcome to our travelling roadshow. Sian, I don’t know if you can see this, but this is our sort of guideline. Hopefully, you can see that okay.

KAMLOOPS SOCIETY
FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG SERVICES

S. Lewis: Yes. I’m going to keep it to my five minutes.

It’s late in the day. I hope that, being later in the day, you’re still enthusiastic — maybe even more enthusiastic, because maybe it’s coming to an end.

My name is Sian Lewis. I’m the executive director for Kamloops Society for Alcohol and Drug Services. We’ve been providing addiction treatment and withdrawal management services regionally for almost forty years. I’ve submitted to you a list of provincial, national and international research bodies and government-affiliated groups and institutions that all call for expanded services and new investments for addiction treatment.

The current system of care is far from adequate and cannot meet the ever-growing demand. British Columbians struggling with addictions cannot access the health care services they so urgently require. With the recent injection of $71.7 million to B.C. by the federal government and the pending lawsuit against big pharma by the province, it appears there are new dollars available to address the opioid crisis, yet when we consider revenues over the long term, the provincial health budget lacks consistent and continuous funding for addiction treatment in general.

There is a viable solution to this. Did you know that by applying a nickel-a-drink levy to alcoholic beverages in B.C., we can raise $95.7 million and direct this towards addiction and detox treatment in the province of British Columbia?

What do we get for $95.7 million? We can operate existing detox and treatment facilities at full capacity. We can create new in-patient detox beds and decrease or possibly eliminate current wait-lists. We can establish and fund highly specialized treatment beds for youth, which is a focus in the province right now.

We can eliminate per-diem fees for residential treatment services, which currently create a barrier to access. We can increase prevention activities and initiatives to proactively offset the social harms related to substance use, and ultimately, see a reduction in hospitalizations related to alcohol use and deaths related to substance abuse.

In 2017, 1,450 people died in B.C. from overdose, yet more people die every year from alcohol. In Canada, in 2017, there were 3,996 opioid-related overdose deaths, yet in 2015, there were even more deaths — 5,082 — attributable to alcohol. I believe alcohol is a much greater concern.

Government benefits from the sale of alcohol. In the case of gambling, a portion of that revenue is directed towards gambling addiction treatment. I think it’s time that we did the same with the revenues from alcohol and help subsidize substance use–related addiction treatment.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information states that alcohol poisoning, alcohol withdrawal, liver disease, chronic alcohol abuse and other conditions are 100 percent caused by harmful consumption of alcohol, and resulted in 77,000 hospitalizations in 2016.

B.C. had the highest rate of these hospitalizations in 2016, with 15,000 admissions. Alcohol consumption in B.C. is increasing about three times faster than anywhere else in the nation.

[4:35 p.m.]

The cost of hospitalizations for alcohol abuse is estimated at about $2,000 more per stay than a regular hospital stay. Other significant costs include those related to enforcement and indirect costs, such as disability, insurance, premature death and loss of productivity.

In 2002, the total cost of alcohol-related harm in B.C. alone was estimated at $6 billion. And when we compare the costs associated to the consumption of alcohol with the revenues that we derive from alcohol sales, it is estimated that in B.C. we had a $73.8 million net deficit in 2012.

It is important to acknowledge the rapid growth in privatization of alcohol sales in B.C. and that our current liquor policy has resulted in increased access to alcohol, streamlined regulations and reduced red tape. This ultimately has led to increased sales, which leads to increased consumption, which increases those associated harms.

Increasing the cost of alcohol and applying pricing regulations and taxation to alcohol are deemed effective alcohol policies and strategies. The Canadian Institute for Health Information, among others, considers this approach one of the most effective and cost-effective ways to reduce alcohol harm population-wide.

In B.C., the prices of spirits and wines have not kept pace with inflation. Our 3 percent provincial alcohol tax is the fifth lowest across the nation. Therefore, a nickel-a-drink levy is a reasonable approach to generating new revenues to fund addiction treatment services.

In my paper submission, I have included other revenue-generating options that are available to government, and I welcome your comments and your questions. Thank you.

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

Questions?

R. Leonard: This one’s a bit of a silly one. When you say “a nickel a drink,” do you mean a nickel a bottle?

S. Lewis: Well, that would be up for discussion. We could approach it in bars or in restaurants where they’re serving beverages so that it would be applied a nickel a drink, and it would depend, again, on the volume of that drink how that would be applied.

If it were to be applied within liquor stores, I think one of my options there is that government does maintain the right…. It is my understanding. I’ve had the conversations with some politicians that I had the pleasure of hanging out with in the policy institute of the Lower Mainland, which is conducted by the United Way.

They said that government does have that right to direct the Liquor Distribution Branch to make increases in pricing. That could be the avenue. Then maybe a nickel a drink wouldn’t be the application, but figuring out some sort of calculation where it’s reasonable for people to expect that hike in price.

R. Leonard: If I may follow, it’s really helpful for us to have heard this story of alcoholism in our province. I think, as you have stated, it doesn’t have the same kind of a splash but obviously has a big effect in our culture.

I think the bottom line is that you’re looking for more resources to support treatment…

S. Lewis: Absolutely.

R. Leonard: …and supporting families to become…. I’m not sure. I won’t go to whether alcohol-free or whatever. But you’re talking about providing more resources so that help is there when people need it.

S. Lewis: Yes, having access.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a question for you. Isn’t it a bit difficult to separate out addiction that way? I know, for example, one of the members of my family who suffers from addiction. He has to abstain generally — alcohol and drugs. In a sense, addiction is addiction, in some respects. You can’t make it whole like that.

Separating it out like that seems a little…. I understand the point that you’re making, but I also think that, generally, we need way more detox and treatment — period — for alcohol and for drugs, across the board. I wouldn’t want to sort of diminish the opioid crisis in relation to alcohol. I think it’s all important.

S. Lewis: Yeah, but that’s not my suggestion.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No, no. It just seems…. I’d hate to pit the two against each other in any discussion, because I understand that there may be more deaths from alcohol. I get the point. But I just want to make sure that when we’re deliberating, really, the idea is that we need way more services — period — for recovery.

[4:40 p.m.]

S. Lewis: We do. My point is more about that we do benefit from the sale of alcohol. When we think about the opioid crisis, a lot of that is what we term “illicit drugs,” right? Those are not controlled substances. I call them non-regulated substances.

What I’m suggesting is that when we are experiencing a net deficit because of the sale of a certain product in our society…. Because of the extenuating other costs like enforcement, health care costs, and so on and so forth, we need to relook at how we’re funding. I agree. I’m not splitting out the different substances. This would just make it possible for us to find a new revenue stream.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s a revenue stream. What would you think about cannabis, for example? I mean, it’s coming on stream. Is that…?

S. Lewis: That’s one of my options as well. It’s around the corner, so I couldn’t really make a statement about how that might look. But I do want to make a quick mention that alcohol withdrawal is the only withdrawal that a person can actually die from. That’s why our in-patient medical unit is set up the way it is.

Alcohol, much to people’s…. I think people aren’t aware of it, because the opioid crisis has really grabbed everybody’s attention, which is great. We’re finally getting the attention on addictions we’ve always needed. But it wasn’t until some­thing like this happened that people are waking up to it.

Alcohol still is 50 percent or more of what we see on our unit. It has always been and will always be, even with the opioid crisis. Those other hospitalizations, when I talk about them costing more, are the alcohol-related withdrawals.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Right. Thank you, Sian.

T. Redies: I just want to make more of a comment, I guess. First off, I appreciate your presentation, because unlike many others, you’ve come forward with, actually, a solution on how to fund it.

I think what’s particularly attractive with your particular solution is that it’s earmarking funds directly from the sale of the product that potentially creates the problem, and it doesn’t go into general revenue. I think that’s what you’re primarily getting at. From my perspective, it makes a lot of sense.

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

S. Lewis: Thanks so much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks for your work. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce — Brant Hasanen and Joshua Knaak.

KAMLOOPS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

J. Knaak: Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak. As you said, my name is Joshua Knaak. I’m the president of the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce and the co-chair of the business advocacy committee, formerly called the policy committee. Brant Hasanen is a past president of the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce, a former president of the B.C. chamber and the other co-chair of the business advocacy committee.

Today we want to just chat on two issues, both of which are policies that originated from our members at the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce and were passed by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. The one that I’ll speak to briefly at the end actually just became part of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as it is provincial and federal in nature.

Brant is going to speak to the first issue here that our members have made us aware of and that we’d appreciate your consideration on.

B. Hasanen: Thanks, Josh, and thanks very much, everybody, for giving us an opportunity to share some thoughts with you. What I’d like to touch on briefly is a situation that has been going on for a few years now. Again, I’d like to put it on the record.

We currently have a $500,000 issue with the finance and taxation department. It’s a situation, at this point, of guilty until proven innocent. What’s happening is that the tax department is demanding and receiving from our businesses…. The provincial sales tax department admits that it was already paid, but they’re demanding that $500,000 be paid again just from the businesses in Kamloops alone.

This is a case of the real property contractor audit blitz. The government has pulled from the bank accounts of our businesses here $380,000 of tax assessments, $55,000 of interest penalties and over $5,100 of other penalties — in Kamloops alone, not including any other part of the province. It’s also going on in Kitimat, it’s also going on in Victoria, and it’s also going on in the Kootenays. That we know of. There are a lot of others that we don’t know of.

The issue dates back to the transition of the HST to the PST. The details of it are laid out in the handout as well as what you’ve received on line. But the thing that I think is the real kicker here is the fact that our businesses are out this money. It’s been demanded and legally withdrawn from their bank accounts.

[4:45 p.m.]

There are two things that we’re looking for here. One is fix the problem, and No. 2 is give the businesses their money back because they’ve already paid it.

J. Knaak: The second item is a policy that passed this year, and it has to do with the carbon tax. A concerning shift that we noted was the shift away from revenue neutrality in the carbon tax, a situation where the carbon tax goes into general revenue, which creates, obviously, a concern.

Now what is the incentive to decrease pollution? The government can become very easily reliant on the proceeds of the carbon tax to fund general revenues — pay for hospitals, pay for roads. Then, secondly, if the carbon tax does have the desired outcome of reducing carbon emissions, how do we make that up? Do we make that up simply by increasing the carbon tax so that we’re generating more revenue from lower amounts of carbon? It creates a rather concerning scenario and departs from what was originally suggested as being a situation of a revenue-neutral tax where polluters were punished or incentivized to reduce pollution, but it was returned back through other means.

We recognize that this is provincial, certainly. It’s also federal in nature, so this is going to the federal government, as well, with what you’ll see on the handout — a request that they require revenue neutrality in the collection and distribution of carbon taxes. We would certainly encourage B.C. to return to this in their budgets.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Two points. You’re done. Okay. Thank you very much.

P. Milobar: Brant, maybe just to add a little background for people that may be listening. With the real property contractors, essentially what happened was when there was the switch back from the HST, they were still charging their customers PST. They were remitting the PST to the government.

The government was being made whole, but because there was a quirk in how the language, the age, of the legislation they went back to when they reinstituted the PST from HST…. Because they didn’t have a stamp on the bill that the customer signed acknowledging they were paying PST, even though the invoice they were paying had PST itemized on it…. That simple lack of a stamp acknowledging that they were paying PST is what has created all this problem.

B. Hasanen: That’s exactly why there’s a $500,000 problem just in Kamloops alone. Thank you. That’s spot-on.

P. Milobar: It’s not that they haven’t collected the PST. It’s not that the government wasn’t paid the PST that they were owed. I don’t want people to think that that’s what’s happening here. It’s a case of them, essentially, being asked to pay the PST twice.

B. Hasanen: They’re not being asked to pay, Peter. They are being forced to, and they have paid. So right now these businesses are short. This is money they had to borrow from the bank or do whatever they could do in order to stay in the business for fear of litigation and future fines.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for your presentation. When you presented this to the Ministry of Finance, what was the response when the provincial chamber…?

B. Hasanen: The response was: “Thank you very much. That looks like a real issue. We’ll look into it.”

N. Simons: Okay. Good.

B. Hasanen: We did receive a letter back from the Minister of Finance, Carole James. There is a letter, which Todd Stone has in his office, where she does not acknowledge that it’s an issue, whereas we have evidence of $500,000 that the provincial government has — that they’ve collected from the businesses twice.

N. Simons: Is this being pursued by the provincial chamber, or are you guys going through Todd Stone to get it resolved?

B. Hasanen: Yes and yes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Now, we did have a presentation today in regards to the carbon tax. One of the suggestions was that if it wasn’t, let’s say, revenue-neutral, perhaps there would be some sort of transparency. At least, if you’re going to spend it on renewable energy, that those line items show up, so it’s trackable. Is that something that you would consider as a potential alternative to neutrality? I mean, in a sense, it’s accountability but in a different way.

B. Hasanen: That’s a great point. The question or the line in the sand here, which is very blurred, is: what is revenue neutrality? To the businesses who are writing the big cheques to the government, revenue neutrality is: the money that they’re being asked to contribute to the government is being used to work on reducing carbon emissions in the province of British Columbia. But when an announcement comes out that this money is not going to be used for that but go into general revenues, that’s very disturbing because it goes against the whole intent of what the carbon tax was originally initiated for.

[4:50 p.m.]

J. Knaak: To answer your question, without knowing the specifics of it, it sounds like that’s a step in the right direction, certainly. We’re saying that if this is an extraordinary tax, then it should be spent on extraordinary or one-time, limited-time expenditures, right? If it becomes something that we are now reliant on for funding general revenue, that’s when it becomes very concerning. Frankly, this gets down to the whole conversation around the business environment and competitive factors between the provinces, but that’s a whole other issue. I think the real concern is when it becomes part of general revenue.

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

J. Knaak: Thanks for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): You bet.

Okay. Next up we have PacificSport Interior B.C. — Ron McColl and Linda Stride. That’s a great name, Stride, for Pacific­Sport. I like that.

PACIFICSPORT INTERIOR B.C.

R. McColl: My name is Ron McColl. I’m the board chair of PacificSport Interior B.C. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the committee. Unfortunately, Linda Stride is unavailable to attend due to family commitments, and our executive director is out of the province. She will be providing a written presentation to the committee at a future date.

PacificSport Interior B.C. is a member of the viaSport Regional Alliance. Okay, I’m going to set that aside and turn the clock back to 1994. The city of Kamloops and its volunteers had just come off a very successful 1993 Canada Summer Games. Not only were the games very successful; the volunteer effort left the city with many legacies, one of them being a cash legacy of $500,000.

Also in 1994, the province of B.C. put out a white paper on sport, proposing the development of regional multisport networking centres to help sport move forward through coaching. This opportunity from the province was some­thing the city of Kamloops endorsed and jumped on directly and said: “This is for us. We want to go forward.”

They used the interest off the legacy fund money to support the start of PacificSport Interior B.C. — back then, known as the Regional Multisport Network Centre — and that started us off on a track of supporting sport within our community. Multisport means that we’re supporting sport, not a very specific sport…. We’re not teaching people how to play soccer or how to swim. What we’re doing is doing the general aspects of sport that are important — physical activity, physical literacy, etc.

These Regional Multisport Network Centres started to pop up throughout the province. Over time, they became known as PacificSport centres. As further growth took place and there were a few holes in the province, the program began to expand and develop, and other centres came on board under different names. Then funding for sport came through viaSport, and all provincial funding goes through viaSport and is filtered out to sport from there.

Through that process, we formed the viaSport Regional Alliance. We have nine regional centres that provide multisport services throughout the province of B.C. These services are important, as they support the development of the local sport organizations and development of coaches, and help with communities as they grow.

[4:55 p.m.]

Each centre has its own board of directors. Each centre has its own unique style suited to the regional community. We believe the alliance is a mechanism that the province and viaSport can use to deliver many more sport services.

You will probably hear from other PacificSport Centres, either in the Fraser Valley or Nanaimo — very similar. We are making one corporate ask for the viaSport Regional Alliance of $500,000 to help us promote physical literacy throughout the province, to promote the training of individuals who are dealing with children and need to have those skills to develop physical literacy so that we can have it spread throughout the province.

It’s a health objective. It’s an educational objective. It’s a sport objective. It doesn’t cut through one part of the government; it cuts through many different sectors.

We believe we have the delivery system that will suit the province of B.C., and I would just put that forward that. Thank you very much. It would be nice if we could go forward with our programs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Ron, for your presentation. Yeah, we have been hearing from PacificSport organizations. We appreciate the presentation.

I have one question about the $500,000. Has the organization, as an alliance, already figured out how that would be allocated? In particular, I’m just concerned that, let’s say, smaller or rural areas get sufficient funding or that urban areas have enough funding. Has that discussion taken place?

R. McColl: Some of that discussion has taken place, and yes, there are systems. In this region, we have reach into Merritt, Salmon Arm, Barriere. We have people that can assist us in delivering those programs in those areas.

The regional nature we have. Yes, we’re based in Kamloops. We started in Kamloops. But we have a regional reach because we’re closer to those communities and are able to work with them directly.

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

We’re going to just take a two- to three-minute break.

The committee recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the Invasive Species Council of British Columbia — Dr. Brian Heise.

INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL OF B.C.

B. Heise: Thank you very much for letting me speak this afternoon. I’m Brian, and I’m from the Invasive Species Council of B.C. I’m chairman of the board. We are a non-profit organization in the province. We’re the largest one in the province dealing with invasive species — actually, the largest in the country.

We have a volunteer board that has three basic pillars to try to get lots of diversity there. One of those pillars is from government. We have all levels of government represented — provincial, federal, etc. We also have a second pillar which is industry, so we have people on the board from forestry, oil and gas, mining. The third pillar is community groups, so that would be education, research — the area I’m from — that sort of thing. We like to have a nice broad perspective on things.

Why invasive species? Why am I talking to you about it? Invasive species cause millions of dollars of damage to the economy. That’s actually right now. It also can affect, going into the future, various industries like forestry, like agriculture. You probably hear about zebra/quagga mussels. If they get in, it’s going to affect infrastructure such as irrigation, but also they would wipe out sockeye salmon, for example, if they got into Shuswap Lake locally. That’s something we can talk about later if you’d like. Lots of effects there.

As well, we have a lot of disturbance in the Interior. We’ve had a horrible fire season. Then we had a flood season down in Grand Forks. Whenever you have a disturbance like that, you have an opportunity for new plants to move in and cause economic problems for agriculture in the area. We think that in any restoration work being done, you have to consider invasive species. That’s where we come in. We think that’s something that really should be looked at, at that point.

Also, some of the new industries, whether it’s going to be pipelines going in, whether it’s going to be expanding power lines, etc. — all these things disturb soil. They disturb the ecology of the area, and invasive species can move in. That’s why I’m concerned about it.

What can we do about it? I have three key messages there. No. 1 is about funding. Right now the province spends quite a bit of money on invasive species. Thank you. That’s excellent. We think it should be more. We’d like to see it maybe doubled up to around $15 million a year. That may seem like a lot of money, but being as you spend a lot more money treating something once it’s here and you spend less money preventing it getting here, we think it’s money well spent.

The second thing is that we believe setting up an invasive species trust fund would be a great idea. A trust fund would have a pool of money available so that if we had sudden disasters such as a zebra/quagga mussel infestation or…. Just recently in Vancouver, we’ve had Japanese beetle, which has caused a lot of problems for agriculture.

[5:05 p.m.]

It eats up lawns. It really affects the industry for horticulture. So there’d be a source of money there.

We don’t expect government to come up and say: “Here, take a few million dollars.” But we have mechanisms that allow a funding formula to be put into place. That formula could be such things as little tolls on tires for recreational vehicles. It could be a little sticker tax on trailers for boats. It’d be a user-pay system where we could funnel money into invasive species action. We think that would be a cost-effective way of doing that.

Another thing that could be done would be to help enforcement and regulations. Right now, we don’t have an invasive species act. We think that would be a really great idea. It would close some loopholes, such as…. We have fire ants down in Vancouver, in the Lower Mainland.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Naramata.

B. Heise: Naramata, yeah, exactly. They get into the riparian zone there in Naramata.

They’re moved in through soils, so we need to tighten up regulations so that soils have to be treated properly before they’re moved from one part of the province to another. Doing things like that will really close these loopholes. They wouldn’t cost a lot of money but would really help a lot — and, again, save the government money in the long run.

Then the last thing is closing down pathways. Pathways can be things you don’t really expect. For example, Home Depot, Canadian Tire. We all love these places. We all go there. I may go there on the way home tonight. But what they do is they sell plants that are invasive. If we work with them, some of these plants they’re selling…. We can actually stop them selling that. We have programs that encourage industry to sell other plants.

You don’t want to lose money. You want them to be profitable. But if you can choose a different species to sell, a different species of plant, we can protect agriculture in the area. It’s that side of things. Pet stores…. We don’t want people releasing gold fish into local lakes or lizards into their local forests. There are ways of working with industry so that we prevent a lot of those problems.

To summarize, I have only two messages for you, the take-home messages. One, the Invasive Species Council of B.C. is a great partner. We have all sorts of partnerships. We do, actually, work with the provincial government right now. We’d like to see that expanded. We’re a great organization to work with. Secondly, money spent now on invasive species is an investment that’s going to save you a lot more money down the road at the end.

That’s it. Hey, pretty good timing. Thanks very much. I’m open to questions, of course.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Doctor. Appreciate it. Just for my own interest, what are you a doctor in?

B. Heise: I’m a biologist. You’ve got a mayor of Kamloops. Welcome to Kamloops. Welcome to TRU. I actually teach fisheries here at TRU.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, wonderful.

I just wanted to ask you a quick question about this. You’d mentioned us coming up with some kind of funding formula. It is always nice…. Probably to echo what Tracy may say — it was said to one of our past speakers — it’s great coming to us with a plan for how we can fund things, as opposed to just saying: “Hey, give us some money.” So thank you.

Could you just elaborate a little bit more on what type of user-pay scenarios you could see and why? You’d mentioned…. Was it boat licences? Because they’re bringing mussels into lakes, maybe they should pay.

B. Heise: Exactly. The province has a program that is in place to inspect boats as they come across the border, whether it’s across from the States, whether it’s across from Alberta. That could be expanded.

How do you pay for it? We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We already have programs like that down in the northwestern states. I believe the way it works is you get a little sticker system. Every year you pay, I believe — I could be wrong — $10, let’s say, for the whole year. You get a sticker on your trailer, a little licence there. That shows, and that gets you, like, a passport to be inspected.

That is a user-pay system in which boaters would have a fairly minor cost, but they are paying for this inspection service, whether it’s inspection dogs or whatever. That’s one example.

Another one could be….

B. D’Eith (Chair): And boaters are used to paying a lot of money for everything.

B. Heise: Oh, yeah. It’s an expensive hobby.

B. D’Eith (Chair): What’s another 10 bucks? No, just kidding. To all the boaters out there, I apologize.

B. Heise: It’s that sort of thing. It’s the same thing whether it’s recreational vehicles — quads, for example — or that sort of thing.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Doctor, again, congratulations on what you’re doing. I know how hard you folks work.

You had mentioned a state. Idaho does it, and they have a huge uptake. But you don’t put a boat in the water in Idaho unless you have a sticker. They’re doing their best, trying to catch as many as they can coming our way. Again, through Don’t Move a Mussel, etc., B.C. is doing a very admirable job to ensure that we don’t get the infection.

If we do get the infection — and the doctor has heard my story on this — we have to have a plan in place. I sure hope invasive species B.C. has plans or is working with the provincial government so that if we do get an infection, we can quarantine that area immediately and address the situation.

[5:10 p.m.]

B. Heise: Yes. We have looked at a few emergency scenarios, had some desktop exercises. I think there’s always an opportunity to be working a little closer together — the province and organizations like ours. We look forward to having that relationship get better in the future.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Well, I did get to see what happened in Montana when they got the possibility of an infection. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. That has all been made available to us here in British Columbia through PNWER, and I sure hope we utilize that.

B. Heise: Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Doctor, you mentioned about how sometimes industry would come in and do certain things and cause a disruption that may cause invasive species. Are you satisfied that there’s enough regulation around companies coming in, if it’s disruptive? There are other regulations for other types of activities — you know, environmental pollution and contaminants. But does it go far enough, in your opinion, in regards to invasive species?

B. Heise: I think there’s a mixture. I think there are a lot of good regulations out there that just need a bit more enforcement, perhaps. There’s certainly a perception out there on the land base, when we talk to communities — the rail lines being one example — where perhaps there could be a little more monitoring of what happens there, because there are some problems.

Other ministries are doing a great job. In fact, for example, we provide training sessions for industry to help them — forestry, oil and gas — so they know what they can do to take care of these invasive species.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Wonderful. Well, thank you very much for everything you do for us in the province. We appreciate your presentation.

B. Heise: Thank you so much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Kamloops Symphony Society, Western Canada Theatre — Kathy Humphreys and James MacDonald.

Hello, and welcome. Please go ahead.

KAMLOOPS SYMPHONY SOCIETY,
WESTERN CANADA THEATRE

K. Humphreys: Greetings to you all, on behalf of the staff, volunteers, board members and artists of the Kamloops Symphony, Kamloops Art Gallery and Western Canada Theatre. Thank you for making the time to hear our oral submission today.

The arts community is thriving in Kamloops and in the B.C. interior, with thanks in part to the investment that this government is making in the B.C. Arts Council. All three of our organizations were encouraged to see a modest increase in operating funding from the Arts Council this year. Thank you very much for your support.

Government operating funding, such as that we receive from the B.C. Arts Council, forms the foundation for our organizations. Without this core operating funding, our organizations would not be able to exist, let alone create innovative, exciting and engaging programming. B.C. Arts Council’s early career development program also regularly funds the creation of new intern and co-op positions, which helps us create new careers in the sector. We call on the B.C. government to continue increasing the investment of the B.C. Arts Council over the coming budget cycles.

The arts play an important role in the fabric of the Kamloops community and surrounding underserved regions. We are an important driver of tourism throughout the year, and we play a role in improving the quality of life for our citizens.

Our programming is regularly identified as a key indicator for livability by newcomers to the city. We’re also an important economic driver for the region. Patrons within 100 kilometres or more regularly travel to Kamloops to take in our exhibitions, concerts and productions. We’re also considered valuable members of the Kamloops business community and actively participate in local community events, and, in partnership with the local chamber of commerce, develop networks of business contacts throughout the region.

[5:15 p.m.]

Nevertheless, as organizations in the Interior, we face many challenges that our colleagues in the Lower Mainland do not face. Our organizations, and others in the Interior as a whole, are not as well funded as our counterparts in larger urban centres. We see higher costs for artist travel and residency than our counterparts due to increased distances. Artists who choose to reside permanently in Kamloops have limited opportunities to engage and train in their craft. More access to professional development and travel funds is needed.

With Kamloops having near record-low vacancy rates, finding affordable housing is an issue for both artists and administrators. This has proven to be a challenge for our organizations as we seek to attract and retain top-notch human resources. We encourage the government to continue investment in affordable housing throughout the Interior, in affordable intercity transit and in increased training and professional development funds.

Another priority for our community is the modernization of existing facilities and the creation of new arts infrastructure. Kamloops is a growing and thriving community, and demand for arts infrastructure, performance, exhibition, rehearsal and workshop space is at an all-time high.

Our primary performing arts venue, the Sagebrush Theatre, is a 40-year-old facility that is nearly continually booked throughout the year. The lack of available dates at the venue has resulted in the symphony and theatre company, as primary tenants of the venue, being hindered from seizing opportunities and responding to community interest and demand.

The future of the arts in smaller communities depends on our provincial government making a commitment to adequately fund the B.C. Arts Council so that it may more fully address its mission to engage all British Columbians in a healthy arts and cultural community that is recognized for excellence. Every one of the goals and strategies in the current B.C. Arts Council strategic plan points to the importance of providing opportunities for access and inclusion throughout the province. With your assistance, we can continue to make this a reality right here.

We thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to the provincial budget process and look forward to the government’s continued investment in the sector and community.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I really appreciate your comments, and full disclosure, I shared offices with the Alliance for Arts and Culture when I ran Music B.C. So you don’t need to convert me. I’m well converted.

I just wanted to bring to your attention the Canada infrastructure program that was recently announced, which can include cultural infrastructure, but you have to apply. So those things will come up, just so that you’re aware of that. It’s a bilateral fund with the federal government.

K. Humphreys: You may know, in terms of facilities, that we had a failed referendum for a new performing arts centre a couple of years ago.

P. Milobar: I’ve forgotten.

K. Humphreys: I’m so sorry, Peter. We tried so hard. Peter was our mayor at the time.

We’re hoping that there will be a renewed interest in reviving some form of that project in the future. So we would be looking, for something that big, definitely for provincial, federal and donation support and everything we can possibly do to make it a reality. But I think there are also smaller infrastructure projects, and we can look at whatever funding is available for those as well.

B. D’Eith (Chair): One thing you brought up in regards to…. It seems like you mentioned either a regional disparity or a rural disparity. You said that it’s tougher to get funds. Can you elaborate on that? I’m curious to know what that means in terms of Kamloops and the region.

K. Humphreys: Yeah. There’s a huge regional disparity. One of the things that…. I did some research a couple of years ago on this, and I honestly did not have time today to look that up, but I know that, for example, four professional orchestras outside the Lower Mainland receive less in funding than one small theatre company in Vancouver might receive. The art form is one of those things that’s extremely expensive because it’s such a heavily human resource dependent thing, with 50 professional musicians — or in the case of the Vancouver Symphony, more than that.

Our grant from the B.C. Arts Council…. We did get a small increase, as we said, this year, which was lovely to see for a change. But the highest grant we’ve ever had from the Arts Council is $36,000, and that was quite a few years ago. For many years, it’s been less than that.

[5:20 p.m.]

We’re a $1 million organization, so the provincial government is not funding us at all well. I have to say that we’re really fortunate that we are able to exist in Kamloops, and a lot of that has got to do with what the city of Kamloops provides. Otherwise, I think we would not have a symphony orchestra at all.

The pressures, as costs increase and funding does not, make it extremely difficult to sustain what is really…. I’ve been talking about the symphony, of course, because that’s what I know the best, but I’m sure it’s the same for Western Canada Theatre and the same for the art gallery and for other small companies who are seeking funding.

The arts sector in B.C. is a major employer. We have more artists in B.C. than anywhere else in the country. I think it’s an important part of what makes B.C. such a great place to live and such an attraction for others. I think it’s important.

J. MacDonald: One of the challenges is also that there’s a lot of discussion about the affordability for artists to live in the Lower Mainland, which we can completely acknowledge is a challenge. We are starting to face that ourselves.

It’s also, as Kathy mentioned in the presentation, the costs that we have to bring in the artists that we need. Because as we try to develop the local community, which is also part of our presentation, internship and apprenticeship and mentorship is such an important part of what we all do in our professional arts organizations. But to do that, we need to bring in professional artists. The cost to do that adds such a massive, massive budget line to us each year. Yes, there’s an affordability issue in the Lower Mainland, but those artists who come here add a lot to our budgets.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. You have a huge supporter of the arts over there and a peer that we all enjoy working with.

We’ve heard loud and clear from all around British Columbia. Haida Gwaii — the lady that was talking. Exactly the same thing about the availability and the cost of bringing artists up to perform in Haida Gwaii.

Again, keep up the good work. It is something that each and every one of us enjoy in our own way, so thank you.

J. MacDonald: If I may say one other thing, both of our organizations and the art gallery, along for the reach that people come in here…. We also extend into the province itself. We both tour through the Interior, to the Lower Mainland itself as well.

Then the final thing I just wanted to mention, too, is that we also do a lot of work with the Indigenous community. For us to develop Indigenous artists in the community and workshop and work with the emerging artists, we need to bring in national Indigenous artists that come in from elsewhere. We have been able to access specific programs for that, but that’s something on an ongoing basis that becomes more and more important as part of our mandates. That’s, again, something that we can’t necessarily resource here that is an additional cost to us to bring in.

K. Humphreys: I also want to say that the importance of the operating funding, the base funding, can’t be stressed more. Sure there are programs available, special project funding you can apply for, but you need the resources to be able to spend the time applying for those, creating the projects, seeing it through. When we’re barely able to manage what our basic mandate is, it’s really hard to be innovative and creative and do a lot of new things that we are expected to do and that we would love to do.

B. D’Eith (Chair): The dilemma of all non-profits, it seems. Yes indeed.

We’re over time now, but thanks, Kathy and James, for everything you do for the arts community. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association — Gordon Bacon and Thomas Koester. Please, gentlemen, go ahead.

[5:25 p.m.]

KAMLOOPS AND DISTRICT
FISH AND GAME ASSOCIATION

T. Koester: We’re pleased to be here. Peter Milobar is the MLA for both of us, and we have had meetings with him before. So thanks, Peter.

Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing us, as members of Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association, to address you with some of our interests and concerns. Our club is a member of the B.C. Wildlife Federation and is now celebrating its 100th year as an organization. We’ve been around a long time, and we’re not founding members.

We’re an organization of outdoor enthusiasts — basically, fishermen, hunters and conservationists — and our main interests lie with the fish and wildlife resource in British Columbia. Today we are specifically concerned with declining steelhead populations in both the Thompson and Chilcotin river systems and the degradation of wildlife habitat that’s due a lot to industrial and agricultural land use, forestry land management, urbanization and wildfires. And I could add invasive species. I was listening to a former speaker and thought: “I should have put that in there.”

I’m going to let Gord talk a bit about the steelhead, because he has a lot more expertise than I do.

G. Bacon: I will preface this with the fact that I started fishing steelhead in 1960, and I’ve fished the Thompson and Chilko probably at least a third of the time in those 60 years or more. I’m very concerned about it, and I have been for many years.

I’ll explain that we have been fishing and watching and meeting with FLNRO — that’s the group that we have to deal with — for many years concerning the steelhead situation. If you look at the last page and not look at the writing…. It may come as a surprise to you, but it’s not to me. I have been plotting this graph since about 1980. You’ll notice the graph at that time was about 3,000 fish returning every year to spawn, and last year it was about 107 fish. That’s getting to the place where there are no fish left.

The problem is that we’ve been looking at that and I’ve been talking about it for this long — and a number of the people in our club have — and we have not been able to convince the professionals in the field that this is irretrievable. Now we have apparently done so this year — finally. I almost dropped dead when I heard it. But it’s now looking at the Species at Risk Act federally.

All that I want to point out about the steelhead is that there is no point looking after a fish like this with regulations that don’t allow you to do certain things, because that’s not management; that’s after the fact. It doesn’t make any difference what you do. If the fish are there, that’s great. But if they’re not there and if you see a curve declining like that, you’ve got to do something. And just to be really specific about it, we’ve had this problem with salmon.

The other thing I’m going to tell you is we don’t know what to do about it and we don’t know how much money it’s going to take to do what has to be done. But I can tell you what does need to be done. The people in FLNRO have to learn that doing research and research papers and that sort of thing is immaterial.

You have to get on the rivers and lakes in all the places in the province. This is for wildlife too — for Tom. You’ve got to be doing something in the field so you can enhance the species and stop it declining. It’s a simple fact that if you don’t enhance, you lose, and we are losing all the way through.

[5:30 p.m.]

I would suggest that it’s better to turn it over to Tom, because he’s got much more to talk about than myself. But it’s really just two sides of the coin. One is fish, and the other is wildlife.

T. Koester: One of the big concerns in our club is with wildlife habitat and the land base that supports birds and wildlife. A lot of people in B.C. think of wildlife as the big ungulates — the deer, the moose, the bears and those sorts of things. But habitat loss really affects everything: birds, small mammals, reptiles — all of it.

The moose and deer populations are declining in the cen­tral Interior. That’s a known fact. However, short-term solutions are just not the answer. Some of the examples of what’s happening with wildlife habitat are the massive clearcuts that are going on in the province. A lot of it is because of the pine beetle infestation. These large clearcuts, especially in our area, are replaced by a single species. They’re almost always lodgepole pine. Wildlife really need a variety of vege­tation. A single-species forest is not very conducive to wildlife.

Many of these land decisions are made by the forest industry right now. If you’re aware, the government has actually placed a lot of the management of the forest land base in the forest companies’ hands. Our wildlife biologists are not really consulted to the extent that they were some years ago.

A second reason is that there’s aerial spraying of herbicides and pesticides. This is practised in various parts of the province, a lot of it in the Prince George area. What this is doing is trying to eliminate the deciduous plants so that the conifers can grow. Those are the money-makers. The wildlife biologists do not appear to even be consulted regarding the aerial spraying of these chemicals.

We spoke to our local wildlife biologist last year. He said he wasn’t aware of any of it happening in the Kamloops area. We asked him to investigate, and he came back and said: “Oh yes, there is some going on in the Clearwater area.” He really had no idea. He was not consulted. He was not informed. We have a real concern about that, because that really affects the wildlife populations.

You’re very aware of the increased wildfires, huge ones, in our area. This really affects wildlife populations. The wildfires may increase wildlife populations of some species in the short term. But the issue is really the management of access and reforestation efforts that are based on dense forest cover, which results in wildlife habitat loss for the long term.

The water flows are significantly and negatively impacted by these large, uncontrolled fires: large losses of timber values, property losses and massive fire control costs. Efforts and dollars are required for prevention through controlled burns, forest sanitation and those sorts of things.

Another one that’s of some concern is urban expansion. It seems to adversely affect critical wildlife winter range, resulting in some human-wildlife conflicts. We have a Bear Aware program, very active, in the Kamloops area because we have wildlife coming into town. We’re seeing a lot more deer right in urban areas. Coyotes are increasing in urban areas.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Tom, we’re at just over nine minutes now, so if you wouldn’t mind wrapping up, Dan would love to ask you a question.

T. Koester: Okay, I will finish it up.

Basically, what you might find surprising is that we’re not coming here asking you to invest millions of dollars in a specific ministry or a specific program. We really believe that we have to effectively manage the water and the land base in which the fish and wildlife live. Any funds that are directed into the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations really needs to be not research based, but needs to be focused in on actual things that happen to improve the land base and the water.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Gord.

Questions?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just a comment. Gentlemen, thank you for what you and your peers do in going back to where you had said — the early ’80s — and charting it out.

I understand that hunting licences and fishing licences are on the rise again. I hope you folks will be the mentors of the next generation coming along, to ensure that they’re as involved in the system as you folks have been. It’s imperative.

[5:35 p.m.]

T. Koester: We are very involved in teaching little kids to fish. We host family fishing days at Walloper Lake, winter and spring. I’m involved in teaching a hunter training course. Our members are really involved in it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s wonderful.

Thanks, Tom. Thanks, Gordon. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have Thompson Rivers University — Christine Bovis-Cnossen and Barbara Berger.

Okay. This is our little guide here. If we could try to keep it to five minutes and then we have time for questions, that would be wonderful.

THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY

C. Bovis-Cnossen: Perfect.

Weytk weytk-tp. Christine Bovis-Cnossen ren skwekwst, Senkukwpi7 te TRU. Good afternoon. I’m Christine Bovis-Cnossen, the interim president and vice-chancellor.

B. Berger: I’m Barbara Berger, vice-chair of the board of governors. On behalf of the Thompson Rivers University, TRU, board of governors, welcome to Kamloops and to our beautiful Kamloops campus, which is situated on the traditional and unceded lands of the Tk’emlúps te Secwepemc within Secwpemculecw, the traditional territory of the Secwepemc people.

We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public consultation on the next provincial budget. Education is one of the best long-term investments society can make. The profound impact of post-secondary education, in particular, cannot be underestimated in the lives of students, in its value in building and shaping the economies of our communities and in the innovation we see around us that improves our world.

TRU acknowledges and thanks the B.C. government for the investments made for current and future students of TRU. This includes significant capital contributions for our newly completed industrial training and technology centre and a future nursing and population health building. These facilities will ensure that our students receive the best education in the best surroundings, positioning them for success in their chosen professions.

The province has also provided us with a loan to increase affordable student housing through the purchase of Upper College Heights. We’ve been able to increase access to education, thanks to provincial initiatives such as the elimination of adult basic education fees and the introduction of a new graduate student scholarship fund. Additionally, former youth in care now have the benefit of accessing an education at TRU through the provincial tuition waiver program.

Lastly, TRU would like to acknowledge the government support for a new degree in software engineering. It allows our students to finish their education here in Kamloops. It really was a great way to start 2018.

C. Bovis-Cnossen: Barb gets to do all the thank-yous, and I get to do the other bits. I’d like to echo our vice-chair’s thank-you to all of you for your support of Thompson Rivers University. It would be remiss of me not to highlight a few areas that we would like to bring to the attention of this committee.

TRU’s new degree in software engineering, which saw its first cohort start a few weeks ago, is part of a broader vision to provide our students with specializations in electrical and computer engineering, which are also in significant demand across Canada, and support this tech strategy of British Columbia. Being able to offer degrees in electrical and computer engineering at TRU will mean that we can keep our local talent here for the benefit of the B.C. Interior communities.

The new ITTC facility, which MLA Leonard opened a couple of hours ago, affords us the opportunity to expand trades and technology programming by up to 33 percent over our current numbers. However, to reach their fullest potential, these programs require ongoing investment and a change in how we look at the funding framework of trades training in British Columbia.

[5:40 p.m.]

The ITA funding allocation and budget model have not been reviewed in nearly 20 years. We would support a review and a revision of how ITA programs are funded across B.C., as well as moving to a three-year budget model for the ITA, and we would look at funding of new programs.

When we open our new nursing and population health building in early 2020, we will have the facilities to accept more students in our existing health care programs. But filling the critical shortage for nurses and other health care workers also requires support from the province to increase nursing seats here in Kamloops — and Williams Lake, I would also hasten to add. TRU also asks for support in establishing a new nurse practitioner program to support the health care in the Interior.

It was announced last week. The Premier has publicly declared support for the joint proposal from TRU, UBC Okanagan and UNBC and our respective cities of Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George for the purpose of establishing three complementary provincial research chairs to understand and address local and regional natural disaster risks and recovery. The publicly declared support by the Premier, which aligns with the province’s new community resiliency investment program, aligns very much with the research of what we are doing in partnership with the other Interior universities, and we look forward to hearing more about what this support may look like in due course.

Finally, one request. This is something you’ve heard probably from students. To make education more affordable for students, TRU wholeheartedly supports the B.C. Federation of Students’ request for an additional provincial investment of $5.2 million in BCcampus for the open textbook project, which would create free academic resources for all of British Columbia’s students. It’s something we believe in very firmly, with an open access mandate and being the institution that houses the open learning division for the province.

Thank you. Kukwstsétsemc. We are happy to take any questions you might have. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you today, and you have the leaflets of all of our good things.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thanks, Christine and Barbara. We really appreciate that.

I just have a quick question about open textbooks. We’re hearing about that, but we also heard that there are some challenges in terms of faculty not getting credit, let’s say, for work that they do in textbooks — counting towards research they’ve done, the type of publication they might get — and also being compensated properly if they write a textbook. Could you just speak about the challenges around that so that we can understand it a bit better?

C. Bovis-Cnossen: One of them is…. We actually were overwhelmed with applications. We internally funded $45,000 of funding. We increased that to $60,000. Eight faculty members are actually writing open education resources here at TRU, and that is going to be saving students across B.C. $250,000.

The challenges, I understand…. And they get credit for it. They’re getting course release to do this. We’re actually saying: “You don’t need to teach a course to give you the time.” We also have a good group of instructional designers within open learning who are going to facilitate them to support the translation of work into an open textbook.

The issue is when it comes to tenure and promotion. This is down to the individual standards for each department, faculty or school and recognition. As part and parcel of tenure and promotion, you need to demonstrate how your work has been peer-reviewed with regards to impact. It is an issue.

One of the things I have said is that I would like our departments and our faculties and schools to actually look at that. There is a process by which…. Open textbooks don’t automatically appear in BCcampus. They are vetted, and there is a screening process. I think we need to look at our standards. Each institution has to look at its standards for tenure and promotion and find ways that we can support colleagues for providing this important service to our students.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Fantastic. Thank you for that. I asked the same question and didn’t get such a fulsome answer. So I very much appreciate that.

P. Milobar: Thanks for the presentation. We heard from the student union and faculty earlier around funding levels.

[5:45 p.m.]

Could you maybe…? It kind of struck me. I was walking by, and they were setting up for the TRU Sports Task Force breakfast in the morning, the fundraising breakfast for bursaries.

To maybe get a bit more context for people, every university has been saying: “We want to see a different funding formula. We need more supports for our students and for our programming.” Can you give us a sense of what the community has done to try to meet government halfway on that in terms of where your bursary levels have been going over the last four or five years — just rough numbers, in terms of growth and local support for students at the same time — so that it’s not just an ask of government but that communities themselves have been stepping up?

C. Bovis-Cnossen: I can give a few rough numbers on that one. According to our TRU Foundation, we now have just over $25 million in our endowment fund. I don’t have the exact number on disbursements, but we are seeing an increase in the number of scholarships and bursaries being made available to students, either for tuition fee support or, more importantly, for living expense support or to help purchase textbooks.

We’ve been getting an awful lot, not just from private donors but from corporate donors as well, in order to help underpin the affordability for students with regard to post-secondary education. The exact amount of disbursements — I can’t give you how much was handed out last year. I do know how much we have in the endowment, and we are actually looking to increase that. We’ve also made an investment in hiring another person to help with financial aid and awards, to get the word out there about the scholarships and bursaries that are available to students.

We have extreme gratitude to our community for actually increasing, through either private or corporate donations, support for students to make post-secondary education more affordable.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. I want to thank you, too, for your gracious hosting of me at your opening today. It was pretty impressive to see the students — the pride that they have — the faculty and the facilities. It’s quite amazing. Hearing presentations earlier talking about the uniqueness of TRU, I would say that you are the mouse that roared. I’m listening with great interest to the concerns you have, to make sure that you prosper.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, but I really appreciate your presentation and would like to echo the thanks for allowing us to be hosted here today. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have A Way Home Kamloops Society — Fred Ford and Katherine McParland.

This is your guide. We’re trying to aim for five minutes for your presentation and then five minutes of questions.

A WAY HOME KAMLOOPS SOCIETY

K. McParland: Okay. It’s cold and dark, and the snow is falling. Your feet are numb. With fingers like icicles, you need a place to be warm. Your tummy rumbles as you try and remember the last time you ate. Loneliness sets in as you remember loved ones from the past. A car pulls over. You get in. You don’t know who the person is. In desperation, you place your wet socks on the dashboard, praying that they will dry. Does this person have a place that you can go? Every hour is a struggle of survival. Is there anyone to help?

This is the voice of youth homelessness and of many young people across our province. A Way Home Kamloops was the first community to implement a youth homelessness action plan in all of British Columbia. We’ve been implementing the plan for five years now. What we recognize is that we’ve done all that we can at a local level, and now is the time for provincial investments and support to help communities do this important work.

A few years ago I met the amazing Fred Ford. He was working with Metro Vancouver and doing research across the province around girls’ experience of homelessness. We met, and we began discussing the need for a provincial plan to end youth homelessness in our province. We partnered, and we co-founded the B.C. Coalition to End Youth Homelessness. This includes 40 organizations from across B.C., and we’re growing every single day.

[5:50 p.m.]

We have come together with the single purpose of developing a provincial plan that will end youth homelessness in B.C. Since bringing together this group of people, we have had support from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing which allowed us to bring together seven different government ministries with B.C. communities and young people with lived expertise of homelessness to begin that journey of: what does a provincial plan look like?

The plan would include a strategy for housing, prevention supports, and it would articulate the role of ten different government ministries. We’ve reviewed the mandate letters, and there’s a role for ten different ministries. Our goal is to have a cross-ministry committee that’s in partnership with young people with lived expertise and B.C. communities.

We’re working currently with the homelessness action plan leads, and we are filtering information from the B.C. coalition in a monthly report. We’ll be going through each different ministry and articulating their responsibility and what communities are seeing on the ground. We’re really working in collaboration with government, as we know that we all have a role to play.

In my other role, I’m a master’s student at the Representative for Children and Youth office. I’ve had the opportunity to embark on first-voice youth consultations across the province. We’ve gone to 12 communities. We’re implementing three more youth forums next week. These voices will help inform a report that will speak to the needs of young people across the province and what their voices are. We strongly believe here in Kamloops that the plan needs to be led by B.C. communities and young people with lived expertise.

Today I come to you asking for a distinct youth homelessness action plan. The interventions that we use for adults do not work for young people. We need to have programs and services that meet the distinct needs of young people. Currently there’s no federal or provincial youth homelessness funding program.

Now is the time for change. We also ask that this plan be informed by B.C. communities, as those are the voices that are the most important and that will ensure the plan is a living document implemented at the local level.

Today, in closing, I ask you to do what we’ve been able to do here at the local level and all come together. We all have a stake. Young people are suffering out there. We need to create change. These young people need to hear our voices — that we support them and that we will prevent, reduce and end youth homelessness in British Columbia. I stand rooted in action, and I ask you to please stand with me for young people so they have a way home. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Katherine. We really appre­ciate the passion that you have for this issue. I just had a quick question or clarification. When you’re talking about youth, is that up to a certain age? Maybe you could tell us that just so we have some framework.

K. McParland: Young people are ages 13 to 25, although that’s controversial. I understand 30. I’m still a young person.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I appreciate that. It just gives us a little bit of context in terms of that.

One of the challenges we have in the community I’m from is that there are certain facilities for adults, but a lot of times the teenagers don’t have access to that, or it’s kind of dangerous for them to be with adults. It’s different. It’s not an appropriate type of housing. We’re finding that some will actually just not…. They don’t have any of those resources.

The second part is that they sometimes don’t trust adults. They sometimes will use pseudonyms. For us to get the documentation is very difficult, to even prove that they’re there. We know they’re there, but let’s say Children and Family doesn’t necessarily have them in the computer, even, because they’re….

I know that’s a very convoluted question. I apologize. I’m just saying there are certain challenges with youth that are different than the adult scenario. I’m wondering, in your experience here on the ground, how you deal with those kinds of issues.

K. McParland: We’re creating innovative services for young people. Last year we spoke about the safe suites for youth. That would be a zero-barrier housing option, with 24-7 staffing, that provides a bridge from the street into homes.

[5:55 p.m.]

What I think would be the greatest example of how…. You were saying that we don’t know how many young people are experiencing homelessness. Kamloops was the first community in all of Canada to conduct a youth-specific homelessness count. What we identified, the same week as the federal point-in-time count, was 56 young people that were currently homeless, while the federal point-in-time count identified six youth. I think that speaks to the magnitude of how we are underestimating these issues.

This year we noticed a doubling. We had 92 young people that identified they were homeless May 8 to 10, and we know that’s a minimum number.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. I mean, it’s difficult. I know that sometimes kids are couch-surfing because they’re having trouble at home. They are homeless. But how does that figure into the numbers? Then you have some that are actually street entrenched at a young age, even, and it’s very disheartening.

F. Ford: I just wanted to add that we’re also encountering many youth that are officially within the provincial government system. They may be in foster homes. They may be in group homes, but they’re not going there. Often they aren’t counted as homeless, but clearly, we’re not offering services that adequately meet the needs of those youth. They are ending up on the street, couch-surfing and in shelters as well.

I think it tells us something about the need to change some of the existing systems. Sometimes I think we sit back and say: “Well, we’ve actually got places for them.” But if they’re not going there, there’s a reason for that, and we need to change the way that we do things.

The other issue of these arbitrary cut-off points of 19 or even 24 or 25…. We know that more than 50 percent of youth in Canada between the ages of 20 and 30 rely on their family for emotional and financial support. Youth who have been in the system or who have otherwise been troubled have an even greater need for support well into their 20s. I think that’s an important point that you’ve raised as well.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Do you mind if I ask one more question? Another tough issue that I’d love you to speak to is just the idea that some young people are being preyed upon by unscrupulous people, let’s say. One of the problems, of course, is having housing. It’s nearly like some of the people who are preying upon these children, really, just wait outside. They know where they are.

Have you had any experience in trying to create, in a sense, nearly like with battered women or something, where they have a safe place to go which is actually private and nobody knows…? Have you looked at any of those types of options at all?

K. McParland: Yeah. We did a pilot. Our young people here in Kamloops call that experience “survival rape.” They say that they do not have a choice. It’s that or their basic needs, having housing.

What we are working towards is safe suites. It’s a zero-barrier housing option that would provide that safety. We did a pilot, and we had four young people that we took directly off the street — young women. What ended up happening is the streets came in. Staff went out. There was sexual exploitation happening, overdoses, suicide attempts, domestic violence. We had to pause the project because young people were not safe without those supports.

We’ve been trying all that we have. I feel like we have an idea, now, of how to get that resource in our community and just hope we’re successful.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much. I totally dominated, and I apologize to the committee if they had any questions. Any other questions?

N. Simons: We’ll get you back later.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. I know you’ll get back at me.

Thank you very much for your presentation and all the work you do for the youth. We really appreciate it. Nice seeing you again.

K. McParland: We’ll send out our in-person meeting report as well as our strategy.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you.

Next up we have Literacy in Kamloops — Fiona Clare.

Hello, Fiona.

LITERACY IN KAMLOOPS

F. Clare: Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to speak about the importance of provincial funding for our provincial literacy network. I’m Fiona Clare, the literacy outreach coordinator for Literacy in Kamloops, and I’m presenting on behalf of our task group of 13 members from different organizations.

[6:00 p.m.]

Literacy matters at home, at work and in the community. Canadians with stronger literacy skills enjoy better health, get better jobs, make more money, manage their money better, stay safer at work, can better support their children’s learning, engage more in their community, volunteer more, are more likely to vote — important for you guys — and feel they can influence government, which is why I am here today.

Last year you recommended an increase in funding to provincial literacy groups who deliver community-based literacy programs for all ages. We are grateful for the $2.185 million that the Ministry of Education provided at the end of the 2017 fiscal year. But this was less than what was recommended and is less than what is required.

Still, it is helping us develop and maintain literacy and learning programs across the province, unique programs that support people who are not served in other ways. One such program is Storybook, which enables inmates at Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre to read to their children. This is from a letter from a former inmate:

“To the greatest people,

“I am writing this to express my gratitude. I’m very grateful for Storybook. I have been in several facilities across Canada, but I have never been offered such a great opportunity.

“I thought going to jail would be the end of my communication with my youngest daughter. That, to me, felt like life was over. I was ready to just give up. At that point, I had no intention of doing well in programs like this, because I didn’t even think these programs were available in jail.

“The program is amazing, because in the 14 months I spent in there, my daughter grew up with bedtime stories. I might not have been there physically, but to her, I was, and that’s all that matters. You have made a great difference in my life. God bless you all. Come to OCC-Storybook.”

Ian was transferred from KRCC to the Oliver correctional centre, which is OCC, where he continued with the schoolwork that he had started at KR and got his adult Dogwood certificate this last June. He came back briefly to KR, where he did Storybook again, and was then released. Thankfully, we haven’t seen him back yet.

Ian is just one of 60 guys who did Storybook last year. We mailed out 200 books to children of inmates. Currently I’m working with the new literacy outreach coordinator in Penticton to bring Storybook to the Oliver correctional centre, as so many inmates have requested it.

The Ministry of Education and Decoda Literacy Solutions are working together to plan for community-based literacy work. In the Kamloops-Thompson district’s five-year strategic plan, collaborating with and strengthening community partnerships is one of their six priorities. The Ministry of Education and Decoda are also developing ways to evaluate the effectiveness of our work. Although we have much anecdotal data, measuring our impact on society is challenging, even if we had the capacity and resources to do so.

What we do know is that in Kamloops this past year, we gave out 15,000 children’s books through our bright red bookshelves, 2,500 children read free books this past summer from our bright red book bus, 450 students in 22 schools got one-on-one reading support from 240 trained volunteers who put in 11,500 volunteer hours, 1,000 parents of grade 1 students in 33 schools learned reading strategies to support their children’s home reading in our Come Read with Me program, and 5,000 families tried to find a healthy balance between screen time and family time in Unplug and Play Week.

Kamloops receives just $11,280 annually from the Ministry of Education, through Decoda Literacy Solutions, to do all of that work to support literacy outreach coordination. This is not a lot of money, but it does provide us with the core funding for this coordinator position, which allows us to leverage more funds.

If we were to lose this core funding, Literacy in Kamloops would be done. That is exactly what has happened with the Kamloops early language and literacy initiative, which I think you just heard from earlier, because of the cut to Children First funding. For the past 16 years, Kamloops had boasted a strong early-years network and had an active coordinator overseeing the KELLI project, and we worked closely together. The KELLI coordinator is gone.

[6:05 p.m.]

Without paid coordinators, community tables cease to exist because no one is responsible for bringing them together to plan and implement partnership programs and events. Everyone goes back to working in silos. This results in competition for funding and duplication of services, which does not serve the community well.

Just this morning we hosted our 11th annual Raise-a-Reader campaign. You each have a copy of the local Kamloops This Week with the wrap which highlights some of our work in this community. Over the past 11 years, we have raised $800,000 to support local literacy programs not just in Kamloops but in the communities of Barriere, Chase, Clearwater and Logan Lake. That’s pretty impressive leveraging.

This fundraising campaign is well supported locally. Just this morning we raised $12,400 in just two hours, hawking a free newspaper. We are grateful for the percentage of matching funds that we receive from the ministry, and we hope that will continue.

We ask that the government provide increased annual funding for the coordination of literacy work, as recommended last year. We need a minimum of $2.5 million for the province — a small investment when you consider the reach and impact of our work.

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

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great.

N. Simons: Well, a very impressive list of accomplishments and an inspiring story of the gentleman who’s reading to his daughter. Can you tell me if it was complicated to arrange that program and what it looks like on the ground? Do people go into the institution? Do they speak to the prisoners, or is it by phone or what have you?

F. Clare: Yup, not complicated; just need someone to make it happen. When we brought our literacy table together, Kamloops Regional Correctional sent somebody to our table. They said to me: “We’ve heard about this Storybook program that’s happening in Surrey at the women’s prison and in Nanaimo at the women’s prison there, and we want to have something like that in our community.”

I phoned the Surrey correctional centre and asked them. They then communicated with Kamloops regional — sent up some paperwork on how it works. We partnered with the John Howard Society. They recruit the volunteers for the program. They get the clearance. The prison bought a laptop, and John Howard provided the CDs. Literacy in Kamloops buys all the children’s books.

There are four volunteers. I’m one of them, and we take turns. We go up on a Monday night for an hour, for the visits. The inmates have to sign up for the program. Then they come up, usually four or five, and choose a children’s book. We record them reading it, and then we burn it onto a CD, put it in the envelope with the book and mail it to the child through their school district.

They love it. All the inmates just say it’s the best program ever. They really love it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s wonderful. Thank you, also, for all the work you do for literacy. I’m just wondering if you could talk a little bit about analog versus digital and how it’s impacting you. I was reading one of those books to a kid of a friend of mine, “A is for…. B is for…. C is…” — one of those books. We got to B, I pointed to the book, and she said: “iPad.” In their mind, that’s the new reality.

I know you said getting people off their devices…. But in a lot of respects, encouraging people to maybe read on their devices is not a bad thing. So I’m just wondering: how does digitization impact what you’re doing, and how you do you see the future of that?

F. Clare: Well, we try not to be seen as digital dinosaurs, even though we are promoting a lot of books in print. There’s still a lot of research around…. Basically, what we’re aiming for is a healthy balance. That’s what Unplug and Play Week is about. It’s more balance in your recreational screen time — not so much your homework and reading screen time but recreational gaming screen time — with active family.

I think that there’s a lot of research now that…. People go digital. They go to e-books, and then they go back to books. They actually like the feel and the tactile sense of it and turning pages. And it’s way easier to get back to. You want to reread that sentence? It’s easier to scan back in a book than not. But I think digital literacy is extremely important, and we are doing it a lot. I think, also, that it came so quickly. Everybody embraced it.

[6:10 p.m.]

It’s really being pushed, as well, in education, and I don’t think we yet know what the impact of it is. There’s a lot of this research showing now that there’s more attention deficit disorder because of the screen time. I would say reading on line…. We do so much of it all day, but it’s a different kind of reading, as well, because you do a lot of skimming and skipping and scanning. It’s not so much that deep, inferential reading that you get when you’re reading a novel. If you prefer to read a novel on line, I’d say to go for it, as long as you’re reading.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m curious how it would impact and whether or not there are any ways to leverage the money that you have through digitization as opposed to…. You know, printing books is very expensive as opposed to providing, let’s say, a free e-book or something like that. I’m just curious if there are some possibilities for enhancing programs for those kinds of things.

F. Clare: We are doing a lot of that through the school district. There are lots of apps where children are doing that. All of our books…. We don’t actually buy most of the books. We do a huge Heap the Honda Children’s Book Drive. So the 15,000 books — the majority of them are donated books.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, great. Well, thank you very much. We really appreciate all the work you do and the presentation. This was very cool. Thanks for giving us that.

F. Clare: Thank you. It was good timing.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up is Yellowhead Community Services Society — Joanne Stokes and Jack Keough.

YELLOWHEAD COMMUNITY
SERVICES SOCIETY

J. Keough: The five minutes. I’m sort of reminded of Mark Twain’s comment: “I would’ve written you a short letter, but I didn’t have the time, so you got the long one.” I may be skipping over little bits of this. The other thing I guess I should add, too, is that of all the presenters we’ve heard so far, I think we’re the only ones not asking for money. We’re going to ask you to think things differently. We’ll get to that later.

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation, Mr. Chairperson and the committee. I also should acknowledge that we’re meeting on the unceded territories of the Secwepemc Nation and their traditional territories. My name is Jack Keough. I’m the executive director of the Yellowhead Community Services Society. Attending with me is Joanne Stokes, who is our vice-chairperson, formerly a school trustee with school district 73 and a long-time resi­dent of Barriere recently relocated to Kamloops.

Our organization has been delivering a wide range of community-based services and programs in North Thomp­son since 1989. At present we have an annual operating budget of $4 million, roughly, and employ 65 to 70 indivi­duals on a full- or part-time basis. We have five locations in the North Thompson — three in Clearwater, two in Barriere.

We also have a presence in a number of other small rural communities outside of Kamloops, including Ashcroft, Clinton, Cache Creek, Lillooet, Lytton and Blue River. Our organization is unique in these small communities, and also, we serve a diverse range of populations.

We deliver a wide range of early childhood programs. I won’t get into them. They’re too lengthy — IDP, supported childhood development. But I will say, because I think it’s part of the narrative here, that 11 years ago we had zero licensed child care spaces — I see Ms. Cadieux; I was on the Provincial Child Care Council at one point for a term — and we now have 85 licensed child care spaces. In ten years, we developed those and recently opened a ten-space Indigenous multi-age program.

We offer women’s service programs, mental health and substance use, safe home, child and family services. We deliver two transit systems, one in Clearwater and area and the other in the Ashcroft-Clinton-Lillooet corridor, which includes the health connections.

[6:15 p.m.]

We are responsible for managing Success By 6, Make Children First, early years. In addition to that, our most recent endeavour is to develop a 26-unit affordable housing project for low-income families, seniors and persons with disabilities. We also have a contract with Thompson Rivers University, and we deliver the employment program of B.C. at our two Work B.C. offices in Barriere and Clearwater.

I say this because I’m not trying to do anything other than say we have our tentacles in a lot of areas in these small towns. That’s the first message. The second message is we have to scale up. We have to attach 0.6 of an FTE to 0.4. That is how we achieved our growth. Part of my message, I guess, and challenge to you is to think differently in your deliberations as you run the government of this province.

In 2001 and subsequent to that election — I’m not sure if anybody here was in the Legislature at that point — we had anticipated some changes. The government of the day ran on a mandate to reduce government significantly. So we contacted Peter’s predecessor, Kevin Krueger, and Community Futures, and we organized a community event we called Building Community Partnerships. We saw what was likely to happen, and we wanted to try to get ahead of that wave and ahead of that curve if we could.

Of course, ironically, the day before the event, the closure was announced of the Bear Creek correctional facility. Subsequent to that, there was a reduction in roughly 60 percent of the forestry staff, closure of the income assistance office, and on it goes. So we had a massive loss of jobs going out.

I’m reluctant to make this comparison, but losing those 100 good-paying jobs would be analogous to shutting down the university in this city. What would be the economic impact? People would scream if that was to ever happen. And all under the guise of economic efficiency and administrative efficiency. That would be the level of impact, if you can compare the number of jobs and the populations.

In 2003, we hosted the first Rural Communities Summit in Clearwater, which was the first of many rural conferences that occurred over the next ten or 12 years. The Lieutenant-Governor attended, as did the Premier at the day, Premier Campbell; five cabinet ministers; I think 20 caucus members; 30 mayors from around the province. We wanted to bring those elected people and also key community stakeholders to, in essence, talk about the one driving message: how do we maintain sustainability and build capacity when there’s nothing upon which to build?

As I was listening earlier, I was remembering a book of Salman Rushdie regarding the conflict in Nicaragua. One of his lines in the book was that Nicaragua was a country of ones — one oil refinery, one port, one electrical facility. Well, our communities, until fairly recently, were communities of zeros. So we had to build our own infrastructure, whether it be daycare services, whether it be other programs.

When you’re building and building and you take advantage of initiatives like Success By 6, which is intended to help you build capacity, you take that seriously and you do what you can with it. When there’s a shift in government, there’s a shift in priorities, often, in rural communities.

My history goes back a little ways — my union days in the early ’80s, the restraint in Bills 2 and 3 and the ’82-83 programs. There was a pretty significant reduction in government services in those days. It happened again in 2001-2002.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Jack, I don’t mean to interrupt. We’re at seven minutes now, so I just want to make sure there’s some time for questions.

J. Keough: Okay. I’m going to wind up here.

It’s seeming like we’re sort of edging to that now. Some of the points we wanted to raise are that…. It’s ironic that we’re meeting in this building, because we’re looking at losing the only Thompson Rivers University contract we have. If you look at the legislation, it’s supposed to have regional coordinators. That’s at risk of disappearing.

Early years, Success By 6, Make Children First — we’re not sure what’s happening with that. We’re expecting an RFP, but we don’t know if it’s going to be available in rural commun­ities.

[6:20 p.m.]

The employment program of B.C. Our catchment is gone. It’s part of Kamloops now. That’s what happens.

I’ll leave it at that, but let me just touch quickly on the Greyhound issue before. We know it’s happening. There will be somebody picking up the ball on the major centres — Kamloops, Kelowna, Vancouver, Victoria. I have no doubt that’s going to happen, but who’s going to provide the feeders? That is the economy of scale.

I’d like to talk about that more, but I know we don’t have the time. But instead of going back to where we have another Highway of Tears, do we have a Highway 99, a Highway 97, a Highway 1, a Highway 5 — similar scenarios? I think we need to get ahead of that.

Our recommendation, if I can say that, is in the ’90s, and even more recently, the province created the Ministry of Women’s Equality. It was a good thing. It was valuable. Things got looked at through a lens that maybe didn’t happen before. There’s a significant amount of attention being given to Indigenous issues and reconciliation, and it’s a good thing. It ought to happen.

What we’re asking is to bring another lens in. In fact, we see those almost as a three-legged stool. Bring in that lens of what’s happening in the rural communities. It’s not just good enough to say that there’s legislation that says that there shall be a coordinator for Thompson Rivers in Chase, Clearwater and Barriere and then you talk to the senior levels of those organizations, and they tell you it doesn’t define what it is — that it could be a laptop. That’s often what happens. We’re asking you to consider that, to look at that.

I was reviewing the mandate letter of Minister Donaldson. There’s very little, with the exception in the name, of what’s happening around rural development. We think that that should be broadened, and maybe in another term, it will be.

I’ll end there because I know I’m running out of time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Jack. Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of time for questions, but I think you certainly made your point.

To reiterate, you’re asking for there to be a lens in regards to looking at impact of decisions for rural B.C. — in other words, if a decision is made, always ask what impact that would have, Is that kind of, in a nutshell, what you’re saying?

J. Keough: That’s what happened with the Ministry of Women’s Equality.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We have that now with Truth and Reconciliation. Every single letter, every single minister is being asked to look through that lens. What you are asking, just to reiterate, is another lens to look at it: how do all your decisions impact rural B.C.?

J. Keough: Absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, perfect. Thank you so much, Jack. Thanks, Joanne. We appreciate it.

Next up we have Kamloops YMCA — Colin Reid.

Hi, Colin. How are you?

KAMLOOPS YMCA

C. Reid: Good evening. It’s a pleasure for me to be here tonight. I’m a little nervous — the first time I’ve ever spoken in front of a group like this.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Don’t worry. He’s the only one who bites. It’s okay. [Laughter.]

C. Reid: Tonight I’ll be speaking from a local perspective of the Kamloops Community YMCA-YWCA. But in parts of my presentation, I’ll bring in the flavour of the size and the scope and the perspective of the YMCA in British Columbia.

Choices. Building a budget is all about choices. As a charity, we make choices every day on what we do, on who we serve, on what impact we have, on what resources we need, and where and how we invest in order to build the health and the well-being of the citizens of British Columbia.

As a direct service provider to citizens, we’ve seen and welcomed people of all backgrounds, circumstances and abilities. We work tirelessly to help each of these citizens to reach their potential to live a healthy life and to be a contributing member of a civil society.

In Kamloops, one in four citizens that access many of our services is subsidized or sponsored directly by our charity. In British Columbia, through the YMCA, last year over 22,000 citizens were given direct financial assistance to participate in health, fitness, wellness, child care, employment, outdoor camps and affordable housing. The value of this investment was $3.2 million.

[6:25 p.m.]

The people we serve in the direct-subsidy situation generally are those who find themselves in a vulnerable situation — those needing a helping hand or a lift up. They are young children, young families, single parents, seniors, those with a disability or a health issue, the underemployed — and in some cases, the grossly underemployable — those new to our country and province, those who have fallen on hard luck. At the YMCA and the YWCA, we welcome everyone.

So what does this have to do with provincial budgets? When government fiscal policy changes and results in increased costs to charities, for every dollar we spend on increased costs, it takes away that same value of dollars that we have available to help people.

An example of this is the proposed changes to the MSP premiums. The introduction of the employer health tax impacts many charities. In my organization’s case, the costs for the employer’s share of MSP doubles, and in the case of the B.C. YMCA, the increased cost is over $1 million. That’s $1 million less we have to serve the citizens of British Columbia.

The second point. Charities are a trusted service provider for a multitude of services in our society. Many of these services are in partnership with government. Charities need a seat at the table, to be treated fairly and have equal access to funding levels in the programs that currently exist. Charities can be trusted to help build a strong and vibrant British Columbia.

Here are some of the current inequities. On community infrastructure funds, we don’t have a way of being a direct applicant. We only get access to these funds through a relationship with your municipality. This puts all charities and their local municipal governments into a race to see who and which project can get to the top of the list. Charities miss out on much of this funding.

Our main building in Kamloops was built by funds from the province, ourselves, the community and the municipality. This building is old and tired. It needs a refresh, modernization or replacement in order to serve the citizens of this region for the next 50 years.

When we don’t have equal access to apply for these infrastructure funds, we miss out, and our facilities head in one direction. And it’s not the preferred direction of being modern and relevant. This impacts our charity’s ability to build greater social infrastructure to serve our community and its citizens. The province should find a way to open up these funds for direct relationships with B.C. charities.

On housing. There’s not a more significant investment for citizens than housing. Charities are prepared to do their part to help create affordable housing, but the funding gap for capital and the operating requirements of many of these projects result in very large funding gaps for charities. This puts us at significant financial risk. We’re trying our best to meet the housing crisis, but the funding levels don’t cover the cost.

On the issue of child care. The B.C. YMCA is the largest provider of child care services in the province. We want to be part of the solution for meeting new child care spaces and opportunities. While this opinion has not been shared with the minister yet, the current funding formula for creating child care spaces places charities at a disadvantage.

Charities are only eligible for half a million dollars to build child care spaces, while municipalities are eligible for $1 million. Charities in partnership with local school districts are only eligible for half a million dollars. This places charities at a disadvantage. The capital cost to build these spaces easily exceeds $1.5 million.

Outside of Vancouver, the majority of municipalities are not in the child care delivery service business. They leave that work to local charities and organizations and other service providers. This now forces the municipalities to engage in this service area. This policy does not work for my charity.

In summary, I recommend that the province become a strategic partner with the charitable sector to help meet the social infrastructure needs of our province. Charities can be part of the solution. Further, to open up the various infrastructure funding opportunities directly to charities and to create equal values of grants available to charities for child care capital investment. And last, please stop increasing costs, thereby reducing our capacity to serve citizens — the very citizens that both of us know need our help.

[6:30 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Colin. Appreciate that.

Just a clarification. On the numbers that you mentioned, was that taking into account the Minister of Finance’s announcement in regard to non-profits and charities raising the threshold to $1.5 million and allowing larger organizations to split that up amongst…? If you had, let’s say, the YMCA Vancouver and YMCA here…. It’s not the whole province cap. You can split it. Has that been taken into account?

C. Reid: On the child care?

B. D’Eith (Chair): No, on the EHT.

C. Reid: On the EHT, yes. The problem with part of the proposed regulation is that it’s site-specific. You have to have a certain percentage of your employees in a particular site, and you can’t be at that site with somebody else. The stories you’ve heard from some of the presenters that are here tonight…. You can see that we all have partnerships and relationships. In our case, we share one of our sites with a boys and girls club. While we have a third of our employees working there, two-thirds of our employees are working someplace else.

The Ontario model doesn’t work for us. I think your policy is based on the Ontario model. I’d encourage you to revisit that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I’m not sure that answered my question.

S. Cadieux: Yes, it did. I can explain.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We can talk about that off…. Well, I understand that you can explain. I understand it as well. That’s not my understanding.

N. Simons: You should explain it, then.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, Stephanie. You go ahead.

S. Cadieux: The site-specific piece? If an organization has five separate locations where they have employees, they can divvy it up per the number of employees per location. But if you share that location with another organization, then it doesn’t work because it’s not your location. I understand there is still a large challenge for a large number of the charities.

B. D’Eith (Chair): For some. Okay. Thanks. I understood that as well.

N. Simons: What discussions have you had with the ministry about this, and what’s their response so far?

C. Reid: We’ve consulted with the ministry on the employer health tax. We were one of the first to speak with them. We have had some face to face. We’ve given feedback on the current policy. We haven’t had a formal response.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Colin. I certainly appreciate the challenges in regards to applications and charities versus districts and things like that. Certainly, we appreciate your comments in that regard. Thank you very much for your presentation today and the work you do in the community. We really appreciate it.

Make Children First, Interior Community Services — Sue Lissel and Valerie Janz.

MAKE CHILDREN FIRST KAMLOOPS

S. Lissel: Hi, everyone. We are here representing the early-years community of Kamloops. I am the manager of Make Children First. In Kamloops, we only receive Children First money, which is a distinction from many other communities, which I’m hoping you’re hearing from as you tour around the province, that have a collection of both Success By 6 and Children First. Interior Community Services is here as they host our initiative and are also very involved in our work in the community.

I think some of our partners in the community have alluded to this. We’re losing some money, and it matters. We have, as Make Children First Kamloops, been funded since 2002. We will lose that funding as of March 2019. These cuts in our community mean the loss of three jobs: mine as manager of the initiative, an early literacy coordinator and a part-time early identification consultant. Collectively and in partnership with all our community early-years professionals, that is a lot of collaboration. We touch the lives of many families with young children.

We’ve been aware of these cuts for about three months, but we still have a lot of questions about how these funds are “to be redirected.” We understand we’re getting a regional government in-house director of operations, but we have not been given any other information for the rest of the funding. We would like to know where it’s going.

In light of these cuts, we would also like to question the direct award of up to $500,000 a year for three years, with the possibility of renewal, to the Family Support Institute of B.C. We’re wondering why this direct award was given without a chance to formally challenge for all of us who are losing our jobs and our place in the community.

[6:35 p.m.]

The removal of MCF funding in Kamloops means that there is no community initiative with the mandate to support all children and families. We have always made strategic plans and decisions based on the idea of proportionate universality. This means that we are trying to even out the disparities between children who are doing well and children who are not doing well, while improving outcomes for all children. In practice, this means we offer services and resources to all families with young children and additional targeted services for highly vulnerable children, and we’re trying to diminish the barriers that they’re facing.

We’re very pleased to see the significant investment in the child care community, but it’s only one aspect of a well-rounded community support system. Our community is losing access to leadership as well as opportunities to collaborate and address these needs together. This is something our community does extremely well, and some of my colleagues and partners have already alluded to this. Together, we’ve been able to leverage our time, energy and resources and to support all families in our community.

V. Janz: I am Sue’s partner in crime here. I’m specifically going to this document, which I’ve got some extra copies of that I will share. Of the points that I really want to pick out here, some of them are around the consultation process, but also, some of them are about the recommendations that we would like to speak to and that we as a coalition agreed to.

First of all, this document speaks to a four-phase review. Although it sounds very impressive in this document, we don’t feel, as a community, that it was transparent or thorough enough. Our community of Kamloops, with Children First funding since 2002 and a reputation for being a very functional and productive early-years coalition, was not part of the targeted conversations or think tank referred to in this as a reference. Not one person from our organizations, our coalition from Kamloops, was contacted to participate. There’s no indication in the document who was part of the think tank or the targeted conversations.

Also, on page 3 of this document, paragraph 3, the rationale for cutting the early-years funding cites the results of the EDI, which is the early development instrument, which indicates the increasing vulnerability of children in B.C., despite investments of $7 million per year. That’s the quote. That’s provincially funded.

Making decisions solely on this research is really flawed thinking and contradicts, actually, a statement on page 14 of this document, which states: “There needs to be a strategic approach around the use of data tools that goes beyond the EDI.” On the one hand, they’re saying they’re using the EDI as the rationale to cut the early-years funding. Then in the same document, they’re saying there needs to be a bigger context, which we would agree with.

To put local funding in context, the amount of Children First funding that Kamloops gets equals $43.40 per child per year, so it’s not a lot of money. A lot of communities have about up to $5 per year, and this is for all children under five.A better question might be: how much more vulnerable would children be without this early-years funding that has been going on? There are so many other environmental and systemic circumstances that need to be considered within this funding portfolio, within these early years.

The other things that we would like…. That’s sort of a bit of the complaints, potentially, about the rationale of cutting the funding. But there are some good things, some good recommendations, that have been brought out in the document and a few that we would agree with, with our coalition and with the work that we’ve been doing in Kamloops.

The first one would be on page 11: do not start from scratch and change everything. There’s a lot of good work that has been going on in this province, and starting from scratch would be a waste of time, money, effort and, really, a slap in the face to the good work that has been going on in communities.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that the funding streams of Success By 6 and Children First should be combined. That definitely would save efficiencies all over.

[6:40 p.m.]

The third one would be that communities want to have a leadership role in identifying community-based challenges, priorities and strategies to address the needs. The beauty of this funding was that it was community-specific, that it wasn’t dictated by provincial outcomes. Communities decided; they worked with strategic plans. In many, many communities, this worked very, very well, including ours. I think this is why it’s very challenging for us to hear this.

In closing, I really want to note that Kamloops will suffer the loss of this early-years funding, as will many cities and small towns in B.C. The work will not be picked up without leadership. We all know what it’s like to do work off the side of our desks. It won’t be picked up without leadership and funding at the community level. Additional staff positions within MCFD are not the answer and will not provide the same level of autonomy or flexibility to meet the immediate needs of our community.

I guess, really, that’s all we have. We hope that you take this into consideration. We’d really like to know where the money gets redirected to. We know of some regional positions within the ministry that are happening, but we haven’t really heard anything else. Ideally, for our community, we’d like things to stay the same, but we understand that that decision is made, so we’d like to be part of moving forward.

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

N. Simons: You’re the only place that didn’t combine the early-years with the Success by 6. Is that possibly why, when the government decided to redirect, which sounds to me like you think “eliminate”…? You’re talking as if it’s being eliminated and not redirected. If it’s being redirected, what makes you so pessimistic that it isn’t going to reappear or be funded in a different stream without the Success by 6 component?

S. Lissel: Well, it’s because we’ve been told that the money is no longer. We’re being told, without a doubt, that our funding ends as of March 2019. To replace community coalition money with a director-of-operations position is a far cry from redirection. That is a whole new strategy.

N. Simons: No, I know. I was quoting you when I said “redirect.” What do you mean by “redirect”?

S. Lissel: I’m quoting the ministry with that. Those are not my words.

V. Janz: That was in the email we received, yes.

S. Lissel: They’re saying it’s not coming away from the early-years, that it’s being redirected into service delivery and family navigation, which, we could argue for many hours, we currently do.

N. Simons: Right. Are you having ongoing discussions with the ministry?

S. Lissel: The ministry doesn’t really respond to what we’ve submitted so far.

V. Janz: There is provincial work with the Federation of Child and Family Services, and there are some provincial conversations happening. We’re doing what we can do, but it’s hard to know.

N. Simons: It’s not March yet, but I hear you, and I understand your frustration.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just in terms of the role of the committee, as well, I just want to make sure that you understand. We appreciate your frustrations and your concerns, and we obviously talk about these things, but our role would not be to get back to you on this issue. It would have to come from the ministry.

I would encourage you to get your local MLA involved, because they can actually often get….

P. Milobar: We’ve met.

V. Janz: Yeah, we’ve met. We’ve talked about it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I was trying to say that without naming a member on the committee. It’s only that often the MLAs can get right to ministries a lot quicker, so I’d encourage you to do that. Of course, we’ll discuss this issue as a committee as well.

Any further questions at all?

P. Milobar: Just to clarify, Mr. Chair. Similar to what the Finance Minister had told one of our earlier presenters, I directed them to this committee.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, there you go.

S. Lissel: We just want everyone to know that we’re upset with the change, and we think it’s not for the benefit of our community.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just want to make sure that in terms of expectations, you understand what the role is and that we appreciate your making the presentation. We will certainly discuss it.

S. Lissel: Yes, we understand that.

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

I believe that’s it. A motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 6:44 p.m.