Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services
Colwood
Monday, June 10, 2019
Issue No. 72
ISSN 1499-4178
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The
PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
Membership
Chair: |
Bob D’Eith (Maple Ridge–Mission, NDP) |
Deputy Chair: |
Dan Ashton (Penticton, BC Liberal) |
Members: |
Doug Clovechok (Columbia River–Revelstoke, BC Liberal) |
|
Rich Coleman (Langley East, BC Liberal) |
|
Mitzi Dean (Esquimalt-Metchosin, NDP) |
|
Ronna-Rae Leonard (Courtenay-Comox, NDP) |
|
Nicholas Simons (Powell River–Sunshine Coast, NDP) |
Clerk: |
Susan Sourial |
CONTENTS
Minutes
Monday, June 10, 2019
8:45 a.m.
Council Chambers, City of Colwood
3300 Wishart Road, Colwood, B.C.
1)Victoria Residential Builders Association |
Casey Edge |
2)Victoria Sexual Assault Centre, Integrated Sexual Assault Clinic |
Grace Lore |
3)Cridge Centre for the Family, Brain Injury Services |
Geoff Sing |
4)Pearson College UWC |
Désirée McGraw |
Carly Milloy |
|
5)Boating BC Association |
Lisa Geddes |
Don Prittie |
|
6)The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. |
Richard FitzZaland |
7)Cowichan Watershed Board |
Chair Ian Morrison |
Tom Rutherford |
|
Chief William Seymour |
|
8)Professional Employees Association |
Scott McCannell |
9)Canadian Bar Association B.C. Branch |
Margaret A. Mereigh |
10)Law Society of British Columbia |
Jason Kuzminski |
Elizabeth Rowbotham |
|
11)B.C. Sustainable Energy Association |
Tom Hackney |
12)Cruise Lines International Association |
Donna Spalding |
13)B.C. Common Ground Alliance |
M.J. Whitemarsh |
14)University of Victoria |
Carmen Charette |
15)West Coast Environmental Law |
Andrew Gage |
16)Umbrella Society |
Evan James |
Sharlene Law |
|
17)BC SCRAP-IT Program |
Dennis Rogoza |
18)Victoria Hospice Society |
Tom Arnold |
Kevin Harter |
|
19)Deborah Rutman |
|
20)Elders Council for Parks in B.C. |
Colin Campbell |
21)BCEdAccess Society |
Tracy Humphreys |
22)Board Voice Society of B.C. |
Jody Paterson |
23)Camosun College Faculty Association |
Chris Ayles |
24)Destination Greater Victoria |
Paul Nursey |
25)Lana LeBlanc |
|
26)South Island Wellness Society |
Lila Underwood |
27)AccessBC Campaign for Free Prescription Contraception |
Dr. Teale Phelps Bondaroff |
28)School District No. 62 (Sooke) |
Scott Stinson |
Margot Swinburnson |
|
29)Deloitte |
Jamie Sawchuk |
Chair
Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations
MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019
The committee met at 8:46 a.m.
[B. D’Eith in the chair.]
B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We are thankful to be here today on the traditional territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt, Scia’new and T’Sou-ke First Nations, and we would like to acknowledge their traditions, values and enduring wisdom.
Today I’m very happy to welcome the Hon. Carole James, Minister of Finance, who is here to present the Budget 2020 consultation paper.
We appreciate you taking the time to speak with us today. The floor is yours.
Presentation by Minister of Finance
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much. Thank you so much to the committee to be able to kick off your tour and to be able to have a bit of a discussion to really set the context. As you go into your budget consultation processes and as we start our budget consultation work around government as well, it’s good to talk a little bit about last year’s budget — the numbers, where the situation is and the kinds of priorities that we’ve set — and then the kind of work that you’re going to do while you’re on the road.
I think it’s important to acknowledge that for the first time — thank you, committee — you’re heading out early, an early opportunity to be able to have people present. Certainly, from my perspective, I think that to allow this kind of opportunity for consultation, more time for consultation, is a real plus and provides a real opportunity for the public to be able to engage but also for myself and for government to receive the information.
As you can see from the slides, these are the statutory requirements that are coming up, and I thought it was worth just reminding folks where things are at. As you can see, you kick off the budget consultation. The first quarterly report comes in September, so that’ll give us the first read for this existing year that we’re developing a financial statement for. I’ll talk a little bit about that as we go along.
The report on the budget consultation, statutorily, has to be in by November, as you can see, but the hope is that’ll actually come early. This early process will give an opportunity for that information to come in. Again, I think that’s a critical piece, to make sure that we’re hearing from the public as we go through that process. Again, you can see, second quarterly report by November.
Then the Economic Forecast Council — these are the independent economic forecasters around the province. They meet with myself. They give their read on what they believe will be the numbers for the upcoming year as we develop the budget. They give us a revised number again in January, just in case things change. And then the budget date is there for February 18.
As someone who had the good pleasure to sit on this committee in opposition for a number of years, I want to thank you for your work. I know you’re heading out on the road. I know the schedule is grueling, having gone through it. But I also know how critically important your work is and, more importantly, how valuable people in communities find it when you’re there firsthand.
I have to tell you that I hear that from individuals in communities — that they really appreciate the fact that the committee comes to their community, that they have a chance to be able to present firsthand, that they have a chance to see all of you and meet folks that sometimes they don’t get a chance to meet in the same way in their communities. So I just want to say a huge appreciation, from my point of view, for the work that you’re doing.
We’ll just take a look, as I said, to set the stage, at a little bit of a summary on Budget 2019, just kind of an update. Briefly, a little bit on our economic performance, which obviously is for the ’18-19 budget year, and then an opportunity for you to ask any specific questions.
Just a reminder about our three priorities for government, as you can see: making life more affordable, improving services people depend on — I always consider those the basics: health care, education, the kinds of things that are important to the people of this province — and then building a strong, sustainable economy. We’ve worked very hard to make sure that we’ve focused on those three priorities.
Certainly, I know members around this table will know that the demands are endless. You will certainly hear that on your tour as well — that there are a huge number of things that people would like to see changed — and you’re not able to do everything. So to be able to set priorities and to determine those priorities and focus on those priorities, I believe, is critical.
The other piece I just want to mention before I move along is that each of these are integrated. As a government, we’re really looking at how do we make sure that by investing in people, we are also investing in a strong economy. How do we make sure, by improving services, we also recognize that that will help grow investment and grow businesses in British Columbia?
You will have heard me say…. And I describe it often as our budget being balanced fiscally and balanced in its approach. That’s critical, from my perspective. I think the days of doing one or the other or saying that these compete with each other are gone. I certainly hope that the importance of integrating these services is really something that we will continue to see.
Taking a look at the priorities for Budget 2019, again, I think one of the real focus areas for us is making sure that the people who help build our strong economy benefit from the wealth of our economy. That is important. If we don’t invest in people, we won’t see the economy continue to grow. They are key to our economy. So Budget 2019, really, is about providing opportunities, opportunities for all British Columbians, and builds on the foundation of our first two budgets — so again, not recreating, but in fact, building blocks, as you look at each of the budgets.
As you know, in our first budget, one of the areas that we focused on was our made-in-B.C. child care plan. Again, it’s a perfect example of an area where this is an investment, yes, in people, in making sure that children have the best start in life and making sure that families can afford good quality child care, but it is also a critical economic piece, particularly with the kind of hot labour market that you see in British Columbia — lowest unemployment rate once again this past month.
When you see those kinds of numbers, it is critical that we see people getting back into the workforce — that we have the workers for the jobs that are created. And child care is key to women’s participation in the workforce, because it’s mainly women, still, who are doing the child care duties. So to be able to provide that kind of support, as I said, is both a social piece, but it’s also a critical economic piece for British Columbia.
Building on that in Budget 2019, we are introducing the B.C. child opportunity benefit. This is combining the previous existing benefit that was there for children that the federal government has invested in, adding provincial dollars and creating an opportunity for parents to receive support for their child from zero to 18. The existing benefit only goes up to age 6. We will extend it, starting in 2020, to age 18, because there isn’t a parent who doesn’t talk about the challenges that they have with their children past age six. Those costs don’t stop at age six.
Of course, medical services premiums. Again, we’re eliminating medical services premiums, which provides a support and also reduces, again, the tax burden on middle-class British Columbians and makes a huge difference.
Looking at business competitiveness and talking a little bit about the pieces that we put in place — again, economic, but also support for the public. We’ve invested more than half a billion dollars to help businesses in every corner of British Columbia be competitive.
One of the pieces in Budget 2019 was $800 million, in partnership with the federal government, to reduce taxes for business investments, to provide opportunity for businesses that were looking at expanding in processing or manufacturing or, in fact, green equipment. They will now be able to look at those write-offs immediately when they put the investment in, which provides a real opportunity to be able to spur on investment and provide support to businesses.
We reduced the small business corporate income tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent, again making it second lowest in Canada. As of April 1, the PST on electricity has been completely eliminated for businesses — 50 percent last year, 100 percent in this budget, which is about a $150 million savings for businesses. Hopefully, to come back to our sustainability message, it’s an opportunity, as well, for businesses to look for electrification of their businesses, which is something that’s part of CleanBC that we want to be taking a look at and that provides an opportunity for us to meet our climate action strategies as well, which is a huge support.
Funding CleanBC, one of our major planks in this year’s budget, the largest investment and most comprehensive climate plan in North America, focuses on the areas that you would imagine: transportation, buildings, retrofits, support for businesses and individuals, family affordability through a rebate for families. That rebate will go up each year as the carbon tax goes up.
Then the area of businesses and trade-exposed industries. There’s a fund, again, for trade-exposed industries that they will be able to access to be able to get support if they can show they’re meeting the benchmarks for the cleanest in the world standard, which are being developed right now. Then they’ll be able to simply pay the base of the carbon tax, and they’ll get a rebate around the additional carbon tax, recognizing that there has to be a transition and that it will take some time for businesses to be able to reduce and provide that support.
Long-term revenue-sharing with First Nations — again, an agreement that I’m very proud we’re able to include in our budget. Over $3 billion in provincial revenue is expected to be shared with First Nation communities over the next 25 years. This is one of the most historic revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations. I’m sure most of you know this around the table, but this will provide a base of dollars for First Nations communities that they can then count on and use to leverage further economic investment in their communities.
One of the real challenges for First Nations is that if they get grants or proposals written, they don’t get that as ongoing money. This will provide them with a base of ongoing money. Every First Nation in British Columbia will receive a base amount, and then there’ll be a portion that will be based on population, to provide support for larger First Nations, and then a portion that will also be based on rural communities in recognition of the challenge for rural communities.
I think the last piece I just want to mention on the revenue-sharing is that this is also an opportunity for rural communities to see economic development. Many of our First Nations are in rural communities, and those dollars will be spent back in communities. Anyone who was in Terrace and Kitimat during the Nisga’a treaty will talk about the fact that there was a downturn at that point in the forest industry and fisheries. What kept those communities going was the Nisga’a treaty, because it brought resources into the community that then were spent on buildings and support with local businesses in those communities. This is also an economic opportunity for those communities as well.
Then the last piece is student loans. On this slide is the area of eliminating interest on B.C. student loans, again, to provide an opportunity for students to be able to…. I’ve already had, and I’m sure other MLAs have had, this experience of students talking about what a relief it was to see the dollars going to the principal and not to interest on each of their payments now. The difference, psychologically, that that makes for students who are starting their work careers, who want to get out from under their debt, makes a huge difference.
Building British Columbia. One of the things about having a strong economy, as you would know, is that we need a good foundation for that strong economy. Again, we’re making sure that we have the infrastructure and the facilities to keep that economy growing. This just gives you an idea of where the $20 billion in infrastructure is being invested over the next while. You can see….
I consider those the basics. You’re talking about health, transportation, post-secondary education. These really are critical areas for investment in British Columbia. Just a few infrastructure highlights: new Pattullo Bridge providing a safe crossing, school investments. Again, I won’t run through them all. I know you’ll have a copy of the presentation.
A huge number of health care investments: communities from Terrace to Dawson Creek to Vancouver. The B.C. Cancer Agency, Children’s and Women’s Hospital getting major investments, one of the largest investments we’ve seen, and providing that infrastructure.
As you talk to companies about where they look to invest, competitiveness is critical — we need to make sure we remain competitive — but they also look for quality of life. They also take a look at jurisdictions to see whether there are good schools for the children of their employees. They look to see whether there’s quality health care. Those are now important investment decisions that they make. That’s why it’s critical, again, that we make sure we’re putting these capital investments in place to be able to attract investment.
As you know, we’re a small open economy in British Columbia. We have to be competitive with other jurisdictions. We have our environment. We have our location. We’re ideally suited. But it’s important we make sure these infrastructure pieces are in place as well.
To go through a few of the economic indicators that are important for us to pay attention to, I think the biggest piece to note — and you certainly have heard me say this during budget presentations as well — is that we’ve continued to enjoy stable economic growth in British Columbia.
Labour conditions. Certainly, we are leading the country when it comes to low unemployment numbers. We’re now, I think, at 22 months running where we have had the best unemployment number, the lowest unemployment number in the country. We’ve continued to see the vast majority of jobs concentrated in full-time positions, which, again, is a very good sign.
The other piece that people often look at when it comes to our economy is where you’re seeing wage growth and where wage growth is occurring, because it’s a sign of a strong, buoyant economy. British Columbia has the strongest annual wage growth in the past ten years. That’s happened in this past year — over 4 percent, which, again, is a very strong number when it comes to providing support and providing strength to our economy and to the people who help build the economy.
Domestic and trade indicators point to continued growth — and continued growth in 2019. But I just want to take a minute to kind of talk about the upcoming economic year, because you are seeing signs of global slowdown. Certainly, if you talk to economists, they will say that it is time. It is due to see a slowdown in the economy after very hot economic growth in both China and the U.S., and Canada as well.
The last two growth reports that have come out for Canada, and in fact, the U.S. and China, have shown a slowdown in the global economy. If we start seeing a slowdown in the global economy, you will continue to see a slowdown in all of the provinces, because certainly, the economic forecasters have started downgrading their growth projections based on global growth that is occurring around the world.
We are still expected to lead the country in growth here in British Columbia, but we do expect to see a moderation. We do expect to see a moderation over this next year in our projections.
I think that’s, again, another important piece of your work as you’re meeting with people and as you look at developing your report. If things do tighten up, if we do see a slowdown in growth globally which impacts all the provinces, then it will be even more important to be able to look at our priorities and to look at the pieces that are important to focus on.
We do, as you know, have prudence built into the budget. That was important. We have contingencies, forecast allowance — surpluses each of the three years. Contingencies are at $1.5 billion, forecast allowance at $1.1 billion. So you’re looking at over $2.6 billion of contingencies, of just-in-case dollars built into these three years. It’s an important piece to mention, because certainly the indicators are showing a bit of a slowdown globally. I think that’s a piece to pay attention to.
Let’s talk a little bit about home sales and prices, because this is certainly, if you’re a British Columbian…. Or in fact, right now, anyone globally is talking about British Columbia and our housing market and what’s gone on in our housing market. I’ve just returned from an investors tour down the Cascadia — Washington, Oregon, California — and certainly, I have to tell you, in every meeting we had, housing was one of the topics. Many big cities are also facing some housing challenges in the U.S. as well.
I don’t need to tell people around the table the challenges that we’ve faced in British Columbia when it comes to housing and house prices and the challenge of being able to both recruit and retain employees when it comes to the housing market, when it comes to the challenges.
As you know, we’ve developed a 30-point housing plan. I am cautiously optimistic that we are seeing some changes that are positive indicators when it comes to managing the affordability of housing in British Columbia. You have seen housing sales decline by about 24 percent compared to 2017 — the most significant declines, no surprise, greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.
That obviously has an impact when it comes to the property transfer tax in the budget. That adjustment was built in. We did build in a drop in the property transfer tax dollars by about $300 million to $400 million. Again, as we get to the first quarterly, we’ll have an update on that to see the difference that that will make in this year. We expect it’ll be, again, a drop in the budget. But when you take a look at bringing those dollars in versus trying to find affordable housing and trying to develop the ability for people to be able to live and work in their communities, it’s certainly a critical piece that needs to be looked at and needs to be addressed.
You are seeing a moderation, which is what we are looking for. You’re seeing a drop of about 7 percent in the average home sale price in British Columbia in 2019, which shows a moderation. Certainly, that’s been reinforced by the IMF, by the CMHC, who have all said: “Keep going. This is the right direction to go. You need to be able to continue to look at moderating the market.”
Just to give you an idea, at the peak of market last May, a single-family home in greater Vancouver — and this is average prices, remember — was $1.6 million. Now it’s $1.4 million, about 11 percent drop, a nice moderation, as you’re seeing, but we know that we still have work to do. Also, anecdotally, you’re hearing about less condo flipping now that we’ve put some measures in place around condo flipping, which is a positive sign.
Housing starts. People often ask about housing starts, because we recognize how critical it is to deal with both supply and demand. There is not one tool that’s going to address the housing market or affordability. Government doesn’t control all of the tools, as you know. Mortgage rates make a difference. Federal rules around mortgages make a difference. The economy will make a difference. So with the tools we have, you have to address both supply and demand.
As you can see, construction has significantly increased over the past three years. In 2018, housing starts averaged 40,000 — 40,857 units, which was a modest drop from 2017. But as you can see, as of April 2019, 51,093 housing starts, which is a very strong number, well above the historic level of 30,000 units. So I think that, again, shows a strong sign around dealing with both supply and demand in British Columbia.
Diversified economy. Again, this is a huge strength in British Columbia. The fact that we have enjoyed stable economic growth really is because we aren’t susceptible to simply one area of the economy. It’s also part of why we’ve taken on the housing issue, because we know how important it is to remain diversified, to not count on one area of the economy to be able to bring in dollars. But, in fact, to look at a broad range across the base gives us a real ability to weather outside factors.
The uncertainty of trade issues and the trade disputes going on continues to be a challenge. As you know, two weeks ago, it looked like the North America trade agreement with Mexico was going to be signed. Then the President decided to bring in some penalties and tariffs in Mexico, and then that was gone again by the weekend. That really causes uncertainty, which really impacts investors. They’re taking a look to invest. They want certainty. They’re looking for certainty. The CUSMA trade policy, the challenges around softwood all have an impact when it comes to British Columbia.
Again, when we take a look at our outside rating agencies, very pleased to, once again, see that British Columbia has attained the highest credit rating given by Moody’s, S&P, Fitch. We’re the only province that has triple A credit rating in Canada. Again, if you look at the comments from the rating agencies, they talk about competitiveness in our province. They talk about sustained surpluses, affordable debt and transparency of financial reporting. That’s important.
Again, we include the risks in the budget. We don’t avoid talking about that. We include a three-year plan. Again, we take a look at the challenges. So I think this really shows the kind of strong economic base that is there.
Just to close off, to thank you again for the opportunity to be able to just give you a quick overview as you head out on the road and to thank you for the work that you’re doing.
As you know, we have four key questions for British Columbians to respond to during this budget process, and they really focus — again, as I talked about — on the importance of priorities. We can’t do everything.
The first question: “What are your top three priorities to help make life better for you, your family and your community?” Again, hopefully giving people an opportunity to be able to look at what they would put in their priorities.
“If you had one dollar to put in programs and services across government, where would you divide it?” Again, helping us to be able to determine where British Columbians are really seeing the needs.
“Given the high level of demand for government programs and services, how would you pay for new and enhanced programs and services?” Do you believe we should increase taxes? Do you believe there should be additional resources put in place? Do you believe that something should be closed off and those resources put to something else? There are all kinds of variety of opportunities that people have to be able to talk about that.
Then the last one: “What are the top three actions government should take to build a diverse and sustainable economy and support businesses and industries across our province?” Giving people an opportunity, again, to have a say.
Thank you, all of you, for the work you’re going to do. Thank you for the schedule that I know you have to manage over the next few weeks, and I really look forward to the report. I think, again, the work that you did last year — the report that came in — really provided an opportunity to be able to know how the public feels around British Columbia.
I know with going out earlier this year that we’ll get the information earlier. It will give even more of a chance to be able to study that and integrate that work into the work and the priority setting that we do as government.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Minister James. We really appreciate you coming in and giving us that update.
We have time for some questions from members, if there are any questions from members.
I just had a question in regards to…. Certain measures have been taken in regards to money laundering and other issues. I’m just wondering. I know it’s early days, but have you seen any impacts in terms of revenues or other indicators at this point to see how some of those measures are working?
Hon. C. James: It’s early going yet. As you’re aware, both the Attorney General and my ministry, Ministry of Finance, have both done reports in the area of money laundering, the Attorney General focusing on the criminal element — gaming, luxury cars, horse racing; the Finance Ministry report really focusing on where the gaps are in regulatory systems or in existing financial systems that provide openings for money laundering.
Those two reports now have been tabled. As you’re aware, we’ve also called a public inquiry. But the public inquiry doesn’t stop the work that’s being done with those two reports. So we are looking right now at implementation of those reports. Some pieces have been taken on already. For example, the fact that we have put in place the transparency registry so that numbered companies, corporations and trusts will now be required to disclose who is behind those corporations, numbered companies and trusts when they buy land in British Columbia.
If you are a citizen right now, you have to register on the land registry. It has your name, your address, your basic information. But if you have a trust or a numbered company or a corporation, you aren’t required. You can just put the numbered company down.
Well, one of the areas that has been strongly recommended — in fact, we moved before the recommendation came in from one of the expert panels — was to put a transparency registry in place so that everyone will disclose what’s there.
There are protections for people who legitimately can’t have that information disclosed. For example, there may be trusts put in place for women fleeing abuse. There is a legitimate reason, obviously, for them not to have the information disclosed on the transparency registry. Those protections are built in. But this will be a first in Canada, first in North America. We’re certainly looking forward to sharing that with our colleagues across the country, because again, I think the important note in both of those reports was that money launderers don’t stop at boundaries. They don’t stop at borders for provinces. If one province closes a loophole, another province…. They’ll move somewhere else to be able to find that loophole.
We’re looking across the board at all of the financial institutions — some of them federal, some of them provincial — to take a look at where loopholes can be closed, where there are opportunities to put in place regulations that are going to prevent money laundering.
It’s early going yet, but I think you’ll start seeing, over this next year, some real changes that I believe are important.
I think one of the things that people often forget…. They may think that money laundering is something that just impacts casinos, because that’s certainly been the most public story. But, in fact, money laundering impacts every family.
If you look at the opioid crisis, for example, in British Columbia, what fuels the drug trade? Dirty money — money laundering. If you look at the impact of the drugs, the illegal drugs and the poison drugs in the system right now, with fentanyl, etc. — that’s impacting every community in British Columbia, rural and urban.
I think the other piece that’s important to acknowledge is that it also builds a lack of trust in our public institutions, and that, again, isn’t healthy. It’s not healthy when people worry about whether our banks or whether our public institutions are seeing money laundering happening. We need to build up trust in those institutions, and I think that’s a critical piece that also has to be part of the recognition of the work we’re doing on money laundering.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Hon. C. James: My apologies. I didn’t introduce my staff who are here. Heather Wood, who is our deputy to Treasury Board, is here, and Brady Yano, who is my executive assistant, has come along as well.
Thank you for you support, and thank you to the Ministry of Finance, as well, for the work they do when it comes to both preparing the budget as well as the ongoing issues that come up during the year.
I think the people of British Columbia are very well served by ministry staff and the work that they do, not simply for our government but any government that’s in place. I think that’s a positive for all of us.
M. Dean: As the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I just wanted to say welcome to the middle of my constituency. Thank you for coming to Colwood. Thank you to the whole committee for being here, as well, but thank you to you, Minister, for coming out into the community. I appreciate it.
Hon. C. James: Thank you very much. It’s great to be here.
Enjoy your travels. Enjoy the presentations that will come. Remember how much people appreciate you being out there, as you get into your 12th and 13th night on the road. People really do appreciate it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Minister. We appreciate the presentation.
Hon. C. James: Thank you so much.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We’ll take a short recess.
The committee recessed from 9:17 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
[B. D’Eith in the chair.]
B. D’Eith (Chair): Good morning, everyone.
Just a reminder that 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 a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from the government and opposition parties, and every fall we hold public consultations and visit different regions across the province. Of course, this year we’ve moved the consultation to June to enable the committee to deliver a final report to the Legislative Assembly earlier in the budget process. We will be reviewing this timeline and welcome feedback from any of our presenters on the change — and anyone else, of course — at the end of the consultation.
Our consultation is based on the budget consultation paper that was released by the Minister of Finance, and we have just heard from the Minister. There are copies of the paper available here today for anyone who is interested in reading it.
We’re holding public hearings in many communities over the next two weeks, and there are still spots available for anyone who would like to reserve a spot to share their ideas with us. We also invite British Columbians to provide their thoughts in writing or to fill out the on-line survey. Details are available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance. The deadline for input is 5 p.m. on Friday, June 28, 2019.
All of the input we receive is considered carefully and used to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be in the next provincial budget. Our report will be available in late July or early August. To those of you here today, thank you for taking the time to share your input.
As far as the meeting format, to ensure that we can hear from everyone who took the time to speak today, I would kindly ask that everyone respect the following time limits. Each presenter has five minutes to share their input, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. We welcome you to provide any information that you are not able to share in writing.
If there is anyone who hasn’t registered in advance who is in the room and would like to speak to the committee, please see Stephanie, who is over there at the information table, and we’ll do our best to accommodate you.
Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed. All audio from our meetings is broadcast live via our website, and a complete transcript will be posted.
I’d now ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, and perhaps we’ll start with MLA Rich Coleman.
R. Coleman: I’m Rich Coleman. My riding is Langley East.
N. Simons: I’m Nicholas Simons, Powell River–Sunshine Coast.
R. Leonard: I’m Ronna-Rae Leonard. I’m from Courtenay-Comox.
M. Dean: I’m MLA Mitzi Dean for Esquimalt-Metchosin.
D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Hey, good morning, everybody. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m from Penticton.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Once again, I’m Bob D’Eith, MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission.
Assisting the committee today are Susan Sourial, right here, and Stephanie Raymond, who is at the table over there, from the Parliamentary Committees Office. We have Steve and Mike over from Hansard, who are doing the recordings. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Now the reason that we’re all here. The first presenter is Casey Edge from Victoria Residential Builders Association.
If you’d like to come up, you can have the hot seat, right there. Casey, when we get to about one minute, I’ll give you a little heads-up there, and we’ll go from there. The floor is yours.
Budget Consultation Presentations
VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL
BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION
C. Edge: Good morning, Chair and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present today.
I’m Casey Edge, executive director of Victoria Residential Builders Association. We have approximately 200 members — over 100 builders, building the majority of single-family and townhomes and some commercial multifamily in greater Victoria.
It was interesting for me to listen to the Minister of Finance talk about how government doesn’t control the housing market. I guess it depends on your perspective. From our perspective, three levels of government tell us where and what to build through zoning, when to build through permits, how to build through the building code and how much money they want from the build. That sounds to me like a lot of government involvement. It may not be just one government, the provincial government, but it’s certainly multiple governments that we have to deal with.
Today I want to speak to you about housing affordability. In 1989, I worked for the Calgary Economic Development Authority. The average price of a home was similar in both Calgary and Victoria, $150,000. I thought: “That’s not going to last,” so I moved to Victoria in 1991 and bought a home. It seemed pretty obvious to me at the time that housing prices would rise and those that wanted to move to the west coast should do so earlier than later. If that was obvious to me, it should’ve been obvious to a lot of people, especially those employed to plan and create government policy.
In 1996, demographer David Foot published his Canadian bestseller Boom, Bust and Echo, which described how demographics impact our economy. It also predicted today’s housing demand, including the revival of the rental by the large echo group.
Foot says when you get a big group of people moving through the same stage of their life at the same time, that’s what generates the megatrends around us. Yet successive B.C. governments of all stripes fail to address this inevitable demand by continuing the policy of self-determination for municipalities, undermining enforceable regional planning and giving us 13 local governments in the CRD and even more in the GVRD.
Regional greenbelts, such as ALR, had already been established as well as urban containment zones restricting housing growth. It was left up to small councils strongly influenced by community associations to deal with the massive demand that everyone knew was coming, including government officials.
A key flaw in B.C. government policy is that unlike Alberta’s Minister of Municipal Affairs, B.C.’s minister does not have the power to amalgamate communities when in the best interests of responsible regional planning and infrastructure. An amalgamated Calgary launched LRT in 1980 with half a million people. Portland launched LRT in 1986 with the same population that Victoria has today. However, the CRD’s hodgepodge of local governments prevents responsible regional planning for transportation such as LRT, infrastructure and housing.
In 2001, the average price of a single detached home in Victoria was $259,000. We built 1,264 homes. It was a period of economic stagnation, including flat housing prices. The economy did improve, and after being held back for a long period of time, there was a 41 percent rise from 2003 to 2005. Nobody blamed foreign buyers or called for a speculation tax on vacation homes.
In 2009, there was a global meltdown. In 2013, we saw the third-lowest single-family housing starts in 40 years. As the economy and population growth improved, home prices again leaped by double digits — 24 percent from 2014 to 2016.
Today, despite record housing starts in Greater Victoria, we have not kept up with population growth of 10.9 percent since 2011. Housing has only increased 9.8 percent during that time. Insufficient supply during population growth will boost housing prices. The housing affordability issue is not as complicated as some would claim. Foreign buyers, money laundering and family vacation homes are not the main drivers of rising prices.
The main drivers are historically low interest rates, low unemployment and insufficient supply for a large generation of millennials now starting families. It’s a strong recipe for the affordability crisis today when you add a large generation of retiring downsizing baby boomers and government policies that establish greenbelts in urban containment zones while handing over zoning to small community groups and councils.
What’s the solution? Some governments, like California, are implementing statewide policies overriding municipal low-density zoning, especially along transit lines. If B.C. is going to establish regional greenbelts, it must also establish regional density policies in urban areas.
I’ll add two more government policies adding to unaffordable housing. The first is a federal policy called the mortgage stress test. The intent was to protect homebuyers from too much debt during rising interest rates, but it also reduced a homebuyer’s purchasing power by 20 percent. Banks are now offering fixed ten-year rates as low as 2.99 percent, so in these cases, the stress test offers no real benefit while reducing the ability to purchase a home.
The second policy is the B.C. energy step code. This enables 160 municipalities to set their own energy efficiency levels and was recently revealed to be flawed only a few weeks ago by Natural Resources Canada at a national building code meeting.
I’ll sum up. Housing density necessary for affordability must be implemented by the province regionally and not left to the discretion of small councils.
Second, be aware that the mortgage stress test has already eroded housing affordability and presently offers little benefit in a changing market.
Last, the B.C. energy step code is taking homebuyers down a path of unintended consequences. Wait for the national building code diligence to complete its work, which should be done in the next year or so.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.
Members, any questions?
R. Coleman: Do we get a copy of your presentation?
A Voice: It’s here.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. It was submitted electronically, so we didn’t have the printed version.
R. Coleman: That was very well done, Casey.
C. Edge: Thank you very much.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We appreciate it. Thank you so much for your time.
All right. Next up we have the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre integrated sexual assault clinic — Grace Lore.
Just a reminder that if we could keep the comments to five minutes, then that allows time for questions. I’ll give you a one-minute warning at some point. The floor is yours.
VICTORIA SEXUAL ASSAULT CENTRE
G. Lore: Thank you for the opportunity this morning. My name is Grace Lore. I’m with the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre integrated sexual assault clinic. I’m also here with the support of other centres from around the province, including centres in Kamloops, Howe Sound, Surrey, Vancouver and Prince George.
While crime rates in B.C. have been in decline in recent years, sexual assault rates continue to rise. Moreover, this crime remains under-reported and underprosecuted. I’m here to encourage you to include in your budget consultation report the need for dedicated, predictable and secure funds for emergency sexual assault response. This funding should come from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General — with support, in the form of resources and standards for responses, from the Ministry of Health. This funding is needed to guarantee trauma-informed services that integrate medical care, forensic exams, crisis support and options for police reporting.
The costs associated with sexual assaults are significant, both in the short term and the long term, for survivors, their families, our communities, businesses and the provincial government. Proper care provided in the immediate aftermath of a sexual assault can substantially reduce the long-term costs of sexual assault in B.C., estimated to be more than $32 million for the provincial government and $29 million for individuals and businesses. However, in most areas of the province, there is no coordinated crisis support for survivors of sexual assault. Where there is care coverage, it’s not always available. The lack of dedicated resources makes services precarious, and more needs to be done.
I can speak to specifics in other areas during questions if it would be helpful, but I’d like to tell you of something that’s happening on the south Island. The Victoria Sexual Assault Centre’s integrated clinic serves as a model of best practice for emergency response. We used to serve survivors in the emergency room department, but this can be chaotic, and providing confidential, trauma-informed service is extremely difficult. If survivors want to report to police, they need to go to a second location, the police station, and retell their story. This can be re-traumatizing for many.
In 2016, we opened this integrated clinic, the only one of its kind in Canada. Survivors of recent sexual assaults, of any gender, over the age of 13 can access medical care and crisis support, have forensic exams done and have options for police reporting in one confidential, secure, safe, culturally appropriate space. The integrated clinic includes a medical room, a fully equipped police interview room and has been used by police and RCMP across the region. They often attend emergency responses, but they also book the room to conduct interviews after the fact.
The benefits are hard to overstate. Since opening up the clinic, our emergency responses have gone up 124 percent. The trauma-informed care for survivors reduces the short-term and long-term impacts and the associated costs. We’re diverting individuals from the very busy Victoria General Hospital and, with that, saving MSP and the Ministry of Health significant dollars. We hear from forensic nurses that the more contained space is better for evidence collection. The number of police-supported interviews went up 400 percent. We’re returning officers back to patrol more quickly and saving local and regional police time and money.
We’re also starting to learn about the impacts directly for police officers, particularly when it comes to vicarious trauma, which is contributing to mental health issues and burnout among our police. Still, there are no dedicated funds for sexual assault response. The clinic received a generous grant this year from government, but we will be at risk of closing next year unless structural issues around funding are changed. Despite the benefits to survivors, despite the long-term and short-term cost savings, despite the benefit to front-line workers like police and nurses, we will close. Moreover, no clinics like this will open elsewhere in the province.
There’s an opportunity for B.C. to be a leader here. The VSAC clinic needs security, and there’s an opportunity to create others around the province. In smaller communities, scalable models are possible. Moreover, the VSAC clinic and the creation of similar models that provide culturally appropriate trauma-informed care are consistent with the province’s and elected representatives’ obligations under UNDRIP and the new calls for justice under the missing and murdered Indigenous women inquiry report.
I’m not here asking for something new, something additional. Police are already interviewing survivors. They’re already investigating sexual assaults. Emergency departments are already attending to the needs of sexual assault survivors. Doctors and counsellors are already dealing with the short- and long-term effects of trauma, as are our communities and families. Instead, I’m asking you to consider a better, more cost-effective, more trauma-informed, patient-centred way to provide this care.
As you undertake this important work, please include in your report the need for dedicated, predictable and secure funding directly for emergency sexual assault response from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, in collaboration with Ministry of Health.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Very good.
M. Dean: Thank you, Grace. Thank you for presenting, and thank you for all of your work and for the work of everybody on the team and the volunteers, who are there as well, I know.
I know that you’ve also done a lot of work engaging with other community partners and stakeholders. Can you just kind of update us the bit on that, because the grant was provided from the government but also knowing that there are other stakeholders and other supporters of the clinic as well?
G. Lore: Yes, absolutely. We will be submitting a budget submission by the end of this month, and one of the things that really matters to us is that collaboration with other key stakeholders and service providers. It’s only possible to provide sexual assault emergency response in collaboration with police and nurses.
We have strong support from the association of regional police chiefs. Deputy chief of Saanich — soon to be chief of Saanich — Scott Green wanted to be here with me this morning but was unable to because of other commitments. We have support from the Sooke RCMP. Central Saanich just recently took the step of actually incorporating some resources in their police budget for us. We have strong support from forensic nurse examiners.
Our budget submission will include letters from centres around the province that are also in need of this. The integration of services requires strong collaboration with police, RCMP and nurses, and we do so very significantly.
R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. I had a couple of questions. One of them is around…. I believe that prevention saves money. You stated some of the statistics on the incidence of reporting and saving. Is there tracking amongst the police and RCMP and health centres and emergencies in terms of the reduction in time and resources that are having to be applied? I know it is probably difficult if the number of reports are going up.
G. Lore: We do have some of that information, in terms of when it’s provided out of the clinic as opposed to out of the hospital. At the hospital emergency room, our sexual assault responses are about three to four hours, which is not bad considering an emergency room. But we do provide forensic and medical care in an hour at the clinic.
This is very significant, particularly for Victoria police and Saanich police. Instead of going to Victoria General and sitting there for four hours, they’re one hour at our clinic. It’s also time for the forensic nurse examiners. But as significant as the reduction in time is the fact that every time we provide an emergency response at the clinic, as opposed to hospital, there’s about $1,300 not spent. That’s walking into the emergency room. That’s the doctor at the emergency room. That’s the extra time for forensic nurse examiners. That’s the time for police officers off patrol.
So there’s a significant reduction in time but also in broader efficiencies, which we’re providing at the same time as actually providing better trauma-informed care. There are so many win-wins of this model, both in the immediate and long term.
R. Leonard: Just one follow-up. You’re operating it here, and you say that other communities need it as well. Twofold question: how do women know where to go, and how do you see this rolling out on a broader provincial level?
G. Lore: Sure. The Victoria Sexual Assault Centre has had an integrated team since 1992. We have volunteers on all the time. It’s staff in the office who are doing other things during the weekdays, and then evenings and weekends we have volunteers.
If someone presents to the emergency room, our team gets paged, then they have the option to leave the hospital and go to the clinic. If someone goes to a police station, our team gets paged. If they call the new crisis line, the Vancouver Island crisis line, our team gets paged. So it’s very integrated. There are a number of ways that survivors, in the immediate aftermath of an assault, are trying to access care. Our team kicks in. Survivors themselves need do nothing to access it.
In terms of other parts of the province, there’s a ton of opportunity out there. Surrey Women’s Centre provides hospital accompaniment to Surrey Memorial and Abbotsford. They have no dedicated resources to do this. They have, for space, a clinic space where they provide other services. With appropriate dedicated funds to emergency response, it would be possible to add into that space the capacity to provide care for emergency sexual assault.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Grace, we’re over time. Do you feel you’ve answered that question enough?
G. Lore: There are opportunities in Kamloops and Prince George as well.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Nick had a very small question. But you’ve got maybe 30 seconds, so if we could be really quick.
N. Simons: I’m wondering where you mean by Howe Sound.
G. Lore: Right now there are forensic nurse examiners in Squamish. It’s the Howe Sound Women’s Centre. There are forensic nurse examiners in Squamish, but there’s no hospital accompaniment. They don’t have capacity. There are no forensic nurse examiners in Whistler. The women’s centre there, in Squamish, with dedicated resources, would be able to create a sexual assault response team and the necessary relationships that go with it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Grace. We really appreciate the presentation.
Next up we have the Cridge Brain Injury Services — Geoff Sing.
Hi Geoff, how are you?
G. Sing: Good morning. Well, thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a reminder that we try to keep the initial comments to five minutes, if we can, to allow time for questions. I’ll try to give you a minute warning if you can see me.
CRIDGE CENTRE FOR THE FAMILY
G. Sing: Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to share with you, and my thanks to you, to the citizens of B.C., and for the work that you’re doing.
I wanted to share with you regarding an issue of intimate partner violence and brain injury and the need for you, in your wisdom of Solomon, to consider funding support for this issue.
A little bit of background. I’m with the Cridge Centre for the Family. We are the oldest non-profit in western Canada, 145 years. I haven’t been around that long, but we have. We started out as an orphanage. We have four core services. We have services for children, infant to daycares; seniors assisted living; and two services of supporting women who are escaping relationship violence, including a transition house and second-stage housing. The area that I’m responsible for is supporting survivors of traumatic brain injury.
The latter two services are a unique position that we need, and we’re positioned in — to support women escaping relationship violence and brain injury.
A couple of stats for you — 7,000 to 1. For every identified professional hockey player with a concussion or brain injury, there are 7,000 women in Canada who will suffer a brain injury result of intimate partner violence. And 70 to 90 percent of women who escape relationship violence will receive a brain injury; 60 percent of them receive a brain injury through strangulation.
So 250,000 women in Canada will experience a brain injury result of intimate partner violence. Within the Cridge itself, 200 of the 300 women they serve received a brain injury. Our challenge is that there are no services designated for intimate partner violence and brain injury.
I just handed out…. I apologize that it came in late. This kit just came out this past week.
We did a study through UVic. We were looking at women coming through our transition house, five women identified as survivors of brain injury. If you did a quick summary about it, some of the impairments that they received as a result of their brain injury: shaken, violent; “I received my brain injuries over the course of years, several times, through brain injury”; higher chances of depression, of PTSD.
How has the brain injury changed your lives? Mood swings; difficulty coping; feelings of shame, anger, isolation, self-blame, hopelessness; memory loss; confusion; personality changes.
So women coming with a brain injury, with IPV, and we’re trying to support them through this transition from a transition home into second-stage housing for them to try and be good moms — and without recognizing and identifying the brain injury? That’s a challenge. That’s where we need to provide support.
This is sort of self-serving, because the Cridge is in a little bit of a unique position. We do transition support for women, and we do have the brain injury. On the second page I’ve given you, we’re looking at five pillars of work that we’re doing. This is all partnership. We’ve partnered with the University of Toronto, agencies back east and throughout B.C. We want research, training support, direct services, housing. The first gentleman, about housing — we’d love to talk to him about developing more housing for individuals.
The study that we did…. We need awareness for males. We had the researcher for us…. She asked all the abuse victims that she spoke to: did your partner have a brain injury? Out of five, do you know what the number was? Five — 100 percent.
The challenge is that these men with brain injuries…. I’m not saying that they’re not…. Survivors can live well. That’s the issue we want here. But it’s a downward cycle that we’re struggling with. That’s where we need support to establish services. There’s no dedicated service, okay?
I’m just going to wrap up here.
Some of our ministries of support are working in silos. I’ve identified seven ministries that…. If you took a little bit of a chunk of support, we could provide good services for intimate partner violence brain injury.
We look at Children and Family Development; Health; Social Services; Mental Health and Addictions. And, friends in the NDP, it should be Mental Health, Addictions and Brain Injury. They’re related. It’s all part of the parcel.
The Attorney General; Indigenous Relations; Housing. These are all part of the ministries that are in silos. If we brought them together for support for intimate partner violence and brain injury, it could be successful.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time now. We’ve got to go to questions.
G. Sing: Okay, one more. We need brain injury to be cancer. When you get the cancer diagnosis, you get everything. We need that for brain injury.
Again, I’m not slamming my NDP friends, but the change at ICBC, of designating brain injury as minor? Wrong. Brain injury is a serious impairment. If we put good supports in, we’re going to have better outcomes for all the survivors, their families, their loved ones, their networks. It’s a good investment for us.
Sorry, I’m over. You get my passion here.
B. D’Eith (Chair): No, no. We appreciate your passion, Geoff. We really appreciate your passion.
N. Simons: I’m interested in these statistics. I think one of them says that 1.6 million Canadians acquire a brain injury. It’s just an extremely high number.
I’m wondering. My question is: when we’re talking about brain injuries and people with neurodiverse abilities, why haven’t you mentioned fetal alcohol at all? That’s a brain injury as well.
G. Sing: Because that’s a number that you…. It is, Nicholas. We provide services for people with fetal alcohol. If you bring in all the brain injury–related issues that we’re talking about, you, as the Finance Committee, would be scared, because we’re going to be asking you for more and more money.
I’m giving you an example. Cancer has 18,000 diagnoses per year. In brain injury alone, not including FASD…. There are 22,000 new brain injuries per year in B.C. I don’t think we even include the IPV stuff. So if you can open up your coffers, that would be helpful for this service.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Appreciate it.
M. Dean: Thank you for all of your work in this area and to everybody on the team.
I’m interested in how it is diagnosed. Is it that you have a brain injury or you don’t have a brain injury? Is there a barrier, or have you experienced a barrier around reporting, particularly because…? If you have a diagnosable injury, is it then more of a risk that someone’s going to be prosecuted, and that creates a lot of barriers to victims of IPV seeking safety?
G. Sing: First of all, the diagnosis is really, really helpful, instead of, for some of the survivors, going through an expensive $4,000 or $5,000 MRI or what have you.
That’s the beauty of a partnership that we have with this couple up in Kelowna, Paul van Donkelaar and Karen Mason. She’s executive director of transition houses in Kelowna. Her partner is a researcher in Kelowna. He developed a simple diagnosis to identify women who may have experienced a brain injury as a result of intimate partner violence. It’s a real short, snappy diagnosis.
We, the Cridge, are trying to partner with the University of Victoria to develop that here, because we have this unique opportunity with the survivors that we support in the intimate partner violence — that we have with our transition homes.
I’m sorry — the second part of your question, Mitzi?
M. Dean: The barrier around criminality. If there’s an injury, does that then actually make it harder to report, because of the fear of the criminal justice system?
G. Sing: There’s this concern that if a women is diagnosed with a brain injury, that will be weaponized against her — of being a good mom, or what have you. That’s — pardon my language — a crock. We identified that abusers, potentially, are survivors of brain injury themselves, so we’re sort of on an equal playing field. Just because you have a brain injury, that doesn’t mean that you’re going to be a bad parent.
If we provide the supports that they need to address these issues of memory loss, confusion and what have you — all the impairments of brain injury — we can make them a better parent. It won’t be weaponized against them. They can better serve their children. They can better serve their families. They can better serve their community.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time, Geoff. But I just, before you go…. Opening the coffers. I get that, but as the Finance Committee, it would be really great if you had a little bit more of a specific ask, so that when we do deliberate, we’d be able to actually…. Is there a specific ask that you’re asking for here so that we can get our heads around it?
G. Sing: Self-serving — I would love to see…. You have a chance to be on the ground floor of leading great services, new services and innovative services. I could say, for the Cridge Centre for the Family, we could start with half a million and do great services within our community. Part of it is that I have another hat. I’m with the B.C. Brain Injury Association.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Let’s talk about that. So as far as the B.C. Brain Injury Association, is there a specific ask, or are we going to be hearing from them as well?
G. Sing: I don’t think so.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, maybe it would be good — and I’d appreciate this, Geoff — if you could follow up with them if they don’t present and then make sure that there’s a very specific ask. It’s very difficult for us to deliberate on, obviously, a very important issue if we don’t know what the recommendation is. If you could help us with that, I think that would be helpful for the committee to deliberate.
G. Sing: And then I would just share that back to Stephanie?
B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes.
G. Sing: Perfect.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, well, thank you very much for your passion and all the work that you do in this very important area.
G. Sing: Thank you very much for your time, and thank you for your efforts. I appreciate it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): No problem.
Next up we have Pearson College — Désirée McGraw and Carly Milloy.
Désirée and Carly, just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we’ll have time for questions. That would be great.
PEARSON COLLEGE
D. McGraw: Thank you so much for including us in these discussions today. It’s our privilege to be here among you. We appreciate the opportunity to present our case in support of Pearson College. I know that we circulated a document in advance of this. Hopefully, you’ve had a chance to look at that.
Maybe I could just get a sense from those of you around the table: how many of you have heard of Pearson College? Okay, that’s fine. Just trying to gauge sort of the level of detail about how much background I should provide. I will delve in just to say that up the road, in Metchosin, you have Canada’s school for the world. It is Canada’s, and one of the world’s, most diverse colleges and educational institutions in terms of geography. We have students selected from 160 countries and every province and territory of this country.
So 25 percent of our students are Canadian, and 75 percent are selected from 160 countries. It’s a mini-UN up the street, right here in the ‘hood, basically. We were established in 1974 as the brainchild of Lester B. Pearson, Canada’s only Nobel laureate and former Prime Minister, to bring a United World College to Canada. There are now 18 United World Colleges, and we are Canada’s United World College.
When the founders of the college were looking for a location, they started off out east, and they eventually moved west. Lester B. Pearson’s vision was to have…. Because the original college was the Atlantic College, they wanted a college of the Pacific. So it’s actually Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific and United World Colleges Canada.
They were very deliberate. Many locations throughout the country had the opportunity to establish this college. They were very deliberate about coming to British Columbia and specifically Vancouver Island and specifically the southwest tip. It was a very deliberate decision by the founders to bring Pearson College to this part of Canada.
Really, the mission of United World Colleges is to make education a force to unite people’s cultures and nations for a more sustainable and peaceful future. Every year, we have up to 200 students, ages 16 to 19, spend a two-year intensive academic program. We’re the first IB school in Canada. We’re leaders in international education and also a very strong focus on experiential education, including land-based and play-space education around the sea, around the water and the forest.
We are unlike any other school, not only because of the diversity of our students geographically, but 90 percent of our students are on financial assistance. This is not a typical private school. We do not choose students based on whether their family has the ability to pay. In fact, the vast majority of our students means test to require financial assistance and scholarships. These are not elites. After their time at Pearson, they go on and become leaders in their communities and their countries. Some stay in Canada. I think about Senator Pau Woo, who is the leader of the independent Senate federally. He came to Canada as a Pearson scholar. But many will go back to their countries and their communities to make a difference. In that sense, they do become leaders. So not elites.
I will also just say, because I don’t think this was in the brief, that up until 2020…. Between 1981 and 2012, the B.C. government supported Pearson to the tune of $7 million over that almost 30-year period. But since 2012, there has been no support from the government of B.C. Support from the government of B.C. is critical, not only in and of itself. It’s critical to unlocking federal funding, particularly around infrastructure and scholarships, as well as getting other provinces on board. It’s very hard for us to make the case to other provinces if our own province is not supporting us.
So we hope very much that the government of B.C. will re-engage with pride in supporting this unique institution, which is unlike any educational institution in B.C. or the country or, in fact, the world. Understand that pretty much every other student in B.C. receives some kind of support from the government, even private schools. I believe we’re the only educational institution that receives no support from the B.C. government. So we hope that that can change. We think we have a great story to tell.
We have a very strong focus on peace and reconciliation. Fourteen percent of our students are Indigenous. Many are coming from B.C. The incoming class alone…. So just to say that we have 21 B.C. students right now, fanning out not only to Pearson but to the other United World Colleges. Many of those are Indigenous students.
The funding that we’re hoping to re-engage the government on is around support for our Indigenous students. So the request is for $240,000. That’s essentially the average that we would’ve received between 1981 and 2012, and that’s specifically for Indigenous students from British Columbia coming to Pearson College.
Of course, if the government would see fit to supporting more students from B.C. and Indigenous students from across Canada who come to B.C., we would love to have that discussion. But we want to just start there, because we think there is so much alignment between those two pieces.
I’m over my five minutes, and I’m happy to answer questions.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Désirée.
N. Simons: Thank you very much. Yeah, it’s a great school. We hear lots of really good things. Where do you currently get your funding, and what funding do you get from other provinces?
D. McGraw: We have four revenue streams. We raise, with our endowment, about half of our budget every year. So I spend a lot of time out on the road fundraising. We also generate some revenue from our facilities. And we do have now, over the last few years, a portion of our budget that does come from tuition — so the 10 percent of our students that are paying full tuition fees and some partial fees, as well. But, again, a typical private school would have 90 percent of their revenues coming from tuition. For us, it’s much lower than that. It’s less than a third.
From other provinces, our greatest supporter is actually Alberta. We receive $775,000 a year from Alberta. Obviously, with the new government, we have some concerns about our heritage fund, and it will help us secure that funding if B.C. is on board. We also have Newfoundland, P.E.I and some of the territories as well, but the most significant government supporter is Alberta. We are in active discussions with the federal government to re-engage them as a founding partner of the college. We’ve just gotten the green light that we qualify for infrastructure funding. So certainly, support from B.C. will be really key in that regard.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just before we go, can I ask a quick question? We’re talking about K to 12 and, partially, post-secondary as sort of a hybrid. Is that…?
D. McGraw: It’s actually…. Again, we’re quite unique. We’re actually, technically, post-secondary. We fall under the Ministry of Advanced Education, but we’re pre-university. The age group is 16 to 19, so it’s like grades 12 and 13. In Quebec we have — I’m from Quebec, originally — something called CEGEP. It’s that same age group. But it is a bit of a hybrid, which has, I think, presented a challenge, because we sort of are in a unique category, if you will.
M. Dean: Just quickly wanted to say thank you for all of your work. Pearson is a close neighbour of mine, and I really appreciate what a jewel they are. The work that you’ve been doing, Désirée, especially in terms of reconciliation, is leading. Thank you.
D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just to your presentation. We don’t…. If we’re looking, it’s easier…. What’s it cost as a student — full, not on a ride but full?
D. McGraw: Great question. So for the very few students who are paying full fees, we’re $55,000 right now. That’s very much at par with other…. We’re in the middle of the boarding…. So people live on campus. It’s very much in the mainstream of boarding schools in British Columbia.
D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Per annum?
D. McGraw: Per annum. Again, 10 percent of our students are paying that, so it’s a very small proportion. That’s why we raise…. We want to choose the best and the brightest students of promise and potential, regardless of their means. That’s why we raise funds for the 90 percent of our students who require support. But that is effectively what it costs to…. Then we have deferred maintenance.
I should just mention that we also volunteer, to the tune of about $100,000 a year from our costs, to cover being ecological guardians, eco-guardians, for marine ecological reserve Race Rocks, if you’ve heard of Race Rocks.
Our students, through our marine science class, which was developed — the first in the world, which is now used by IB schools all over the world — at Pearson College, do the monitoring. We have an eco-guardian out there from Haida Gwaii. That is all through B.C. Parks. Again, that is something that we cover the costs to run a program there and monitor the very diverse marine wildlife there.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Just one last thing before you go. Have you approached the Minister of Advanced Education yet? Have you talked to her or…?
D. McGraw: I believe we have Minister Fleming, who’ll be coming later this month. We’re excited about that. We have not been able to get the Minister of Advanced Education to the campus. We are hopeful that she will come. Yeah, I think we have not been able to secure a visit.
B. D’Eith (Chair): But you are looking for funding from Advanced Education as opposed to the Minister of Education, or does that…?
D. McGraw: Yes. We made a much more ambitious ask….
B. D’Eith (Chair): What do students get at the end? I mean, is it like a K-to-12, grade 12, grade 13 degree or diploma or…?
D. McGraw: They get what’s called the IB diploma, the International Baccalaureate diploma, which is world recognized. As I say, we’re the first IB school in Canada. They can use that towards their university degree. Most of our students would only need to do three years of university, rather than four.
B. D’Eith (Chair): It might count towards the first year. It’s sort of like grade 12…. Do they get a grade 12 certificate as well, or not?
D. McGraw: They don’t get the Dogwood. It is the IB. But it’s more than a high school. It’s like a high school plus first year of university, essentially, depending on the courses and the levels that they take.
B. D’Eith (Chair): So it’s in-between. But there are some precedents, at least in the trades. There’s Riverside, which is in Mission, where they actually go in-between, and they get their trades. So there are some other models that are being funded by the Minister of Education that are that sort of overlapping.
D. McGraw: That’s encouraging. Obviously, we’re passionate about the school right here in this area. It’s a special place, and it’s my pride and my privilege to be able to head it.
I can tell you the students are incredible. We are the only pre-university opportunity for refugees to get an international education. So our students are…. Two of the students who came to us as refugees are going to UBC, both on full scholarship. Their stories are quite incredible. They fall in love with Canada and this part of Canada. It’s so much a part of their experience here.
We hope that the government of B.C. will support us.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much.
Next up we have the Boating B.C. Association — Lisa Geddes and Don Prittie.
Just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we’ll have time for five minutes of questions. That’d be great.
D. Prittie: Before she starts, I’ve been the recipient of hiring some people from Pearson College — unbelievable, great kids, for what it’s worth.
B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Excellent.
BOATING B.C. ASSOCIATION
L. Geddes: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. As we were introduced, I’m Lisa Geddes. I’m the executive director at Boating B.C. Association. I’m here with our president, Don Prittie.
First of all, I’ll tell you a little bit about our association. Boating B.C. represents all sectors of the recreational boating industry in British Columbia. It’s comprised of more than 300 member businesses for whom we advocate to all levels of government.
Recreational boating is a key economic driver, employing over 17,000 full-time individuals in the province and contributing $2.2 billion in annual revenue to the provincial economy. While our economic impact is significant, most businesses in our sector are small to medium in size and are located in small coastal and waterfront communities, where boating as a seasonal activity is critical to the local economy.
Today we would like to bring to your attention two provincial sales tax–related matters that are a source of frustration for the industry and that negatively impact B.C.-based businesses, tourism, the provincial economy and the provincial treasury.
As you are likely aware, B.C. is home to endless recreational boating opportunities, with 27,000 kilometres of coastline and thousands of lakes and rivers. It is an activity enjoyed by British Columbians, tourists and people who frequent B.C. on a regular basis. It is not uncommon for residents of neighbouring provinces or those from out of country to enjoy the experience so much that when they are in B.C., they purchase or want to purchase a boat and return frequently to enjoy our waters at their convenience.
However, under current provincial tax policy, those consumers are only exempt from PST if that boat is delivered to them in their home of origin at the expense of a dealer or a broker.
As an example, we spoke to a small dealership in the Interior last week that spends $50,000 every year delivering boats to the Alberta border. On those boat sales, the government did not get paid PST. This small business had to invest $50,000 in delivery services, and the customer had to follow the dealer’s delivery truck for hours to get to the border so that they could take possession of their boat and then take it wherever they would like.
Clearly this is a disincentive to purchasing a boat in B.C., even when the stated purpose is to use the boat in our province at least some of the time. This policy does not apply to other products such as ATVs or motor vehicles, which can be purchased PST-exempt and picked up by the consumer at a B.C. dealership.
We believe it is in the province’s best interest that the purchase of a vessel also be a simple and inviting proposition, because the net result is a positive contribution to the economies of our coastal and waterfront communities, our marinas, restaurants, tour operators, fuel and retail businesses.
Instead, we’re creating undue expense and effort on the part of boat retailers, and we’re doing the same for the buyer, who upon receiving their boat, is forced then to transfer the craft back into British Columbia should they choose to enjoy our beautiful province and spend their money here.
The Boating B.C. Association is trusting your ministry will see the logic in revisiting this policy and creating a mechanism whereby verification of the buyer’s home of origin can be established in a straightforward manner and that determines whether PST applies to the purchase or not.
We also wish to bring to your attention a second PST policy that is impacting B.C. businesses that facilitate repairs or servicing of boats belonging to out-of-province owners. Currently if a repair or servicing of a craft takes place within the province, the boat owner pays PST on parts utilized as part of that process. However, if those same parts are shipped to that same owner in their out-of-province home, they do not pay PST on those parts.
This has a very real effect of out-of-province owners choosing whether they wish to defer work so that they are not subject to PST. As a result, our small marine-servicing businesses lose out on a servicing opportunity, and local businesses are not benefitting from fuel sales and other related spending that may occur by keeping the vessel in B.C. Again, this is a disincentive for out-of-province boaters to have any servicing or repairs conducted in British Columbia. The policy impacts small businesses and, as a result, the local economies in small coastal communities in which they operate.
Again, we believe that the provincial government has a shared desire to see B.C. businesses and our economy flourish, and are requesting a mechanism to relieve the PST on both of these circumstances so that we can keep our coastal and waterfront communities strong.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for the presentation.
Any questions from the members?
Interjection.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, it was very concise.
Just one thing I did want to mention. You had mentioned that the ministry should consider this. Just keep in mind that this is an all-party committee of the Legislature. We’re not actually the Ministry of Finance.
What we do is we actually get presentations and make a presentation to help inform the budget. I would still, obviously, encourage you. We’re not representing the minister here, per se, so any of these kinds of requests for PST exemptions and things should still go to the Minister of Finance directly.
What I’m trying to say is that we make recommendations but that we don’t have the power to enact those. It’s the minister and the government that would act on any recommendations. Does that make sense?
L. Geddes: Absolutely.
B. D’Eith (Chair): The point is that it’s great you’re here and presenting to us. I just want to make sure that you understood that.
D. Prittie: We have sent a letter to the minister, and we’ve also requested a meeting with the minister in regards to this exact discussion.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I just want to make sure, because this is really important. Some people, when they appear in front of the Finance Committee…. They sometimes think it’s Treasury Board or the minister. It’s just important to make that distinction.
R. Leonard: Just to get an understanding more about your Boating B.C. Association, who are your members?
D. Prittie: Our members are just about anybody that you might see at a major boat show: marinas, boat sellers, accessory people, manufacturers, engine providers, maintenance providers, canvas shops, detailing companies, all kinds of small businesses that service and take care of and sell to the recreational boating industry — and some small commercial, but it’s mostly recreational.
R. Leonard: Okay, thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions? Great.
Well, thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate it.
Next up we have the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. — Richard FitzZaland.
Just a reminder that if we could keep the comments to about five minutes so that we have about five minutes for questions, we’d really appreciate it. Okay, thank you. The floor is yours.
FEDERATION OF COMMUNITY
SOCIAL SERVICES OF
B.C.
R. FitzZaland: I’m Richard FitzZaland from the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. I would like to acknowledge that we’re meeting today on the traditional lands of the Xwsepsum and the Lkwungen-speaking people.
I’ve sent, in advance, the presentation. There’s a lot of detail in that. I’m not going to read that to you. I would like to first acknowledge the work that this current government has done in addressing the social service needs of this province.
Universal child care, looking at a change to the network of care for children that are in the care of the government, reimagining community inclusion, poverty reduction — these are things that we have been advocating for, for many years, and that we are very pleased to see happening. It is, I think, important for this committee to understand that all of those things that are being done depend upon a healthy and vibrant community social services sector.
Many of the speakers that I’ve already heard — sitting here in the audience — are talking about very important programs, very important services that don’t just address the needs of a few people. We’re talking about a significant portion of the population of this province who experience violence, who experience traumas of many kinds, who need a job, who are looking for a job, who need supports for their elderly parents.
All of you at this table, at some time in your life, are going to need the services of the community social services sector. You or your family and friends are probably using them right now. It’s important that that sector be strong. These initiatives with the government are very important. But for them to be successful, the sector has to be there and be strong.
We are more fragile today than we have ever been in my memory, because there is so much need. There is so much demand for the services of the sector. After years of neglect and underfunding, the sector just doesn’t have the capacity to be able to do what needs to be done.
We’re encouraged that there are a number of collaborative initiatives under the way to look at both. For example, reimagining community inclusion, where we’re looking at a system of care and systems of supports for people with disabilities: how does it look? What do we really want to be supporting and doing for people with disabilities?
The changes, collaborative work, that’s happening with the Ministry of Children and Family Development in a number of areas, including neurodiverse children with special needs and children in care and children out of care — all that work is good. There’s a round table that has been set up between the sector and the government to look at some of the more acute issues that are affecting the infrastructure of the community social services sector in its capacity to do what needs to be done.
I would encourage this committee…. Whatever recommendations are coming forward from that working group, we would recommend that it be fully funded. We would recommend that the recommendations coming from the Minister of Children and Family Development to look at a different structure for services for children and youth with special needs be funded, that the initial stages of recommendations coming from reimagining community inclusion be funded.
Underneath all of that, we recognize that we can’t just go from funding contract to funding contract to funding contract and sustain the infrastructure of the community social services sector as it needs to be. An investment needs to be made in that infrastructure. Money that has been put into wages — that’s been great, but it’s been for only part of the sector. It needs to be for the whole sector, and it needs to be more than what’s been done. I mean, really, we’re barely competing in a very tough labour market.
But there’s capital cost and operating cost and the cost of doing business that needs to be supported in this sector if agencies like the Cridge, that presented earlier…. If they’re going to survive, they have to have the basic fundamental structure to be able to continue to offer those good services they do.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.
Questions?
M. Dean: Thanks for all of your work and the work of all of your members as well. As you say, we’re all impacted by this sector. What would success look like as a result of the round-table process, or is it too early to identify that?
R. FitzZaland: Well, I know what I would see as success. I think that it’s too early to know what will be recommended from that round table.
There needs to be a different relationship between this sector and the government. If you just look at this sector as a collection of vendors, that you go out occasionally with an RFP for a particular service and you get the response…. You have a contract and then move on to the next RFP. If that’s the relationship you have, it’s not going to work, because there’s no way for the infrastructure to be there, for the agencies to be there, in a sustainable way on a contract-per-contract basis.
For one thing, many of the contracts are subsidized by the agencies as it is, through fundraising and volunteers and the rest of it. Having volunteers do work is a good thing. In many respects, they’re the right people to be doing the work.
Having a competent, well-supervised, well-resourced group of volunteers is not cheap. “Volunteer” doesn’t mean “cheap,” right? You need somebody to recruit them, to train them, to supervise them, to provide the infrastructure for them.
There needs to be a different relationship. There is work that will be addressed separately but also as part of the round table around relooking at procurement in this sector and moving from the model that we have to a model where you’ve got these community agencies — basically, a partnership between the government, the communities and the agencies that were formed in those communities, based in those communities — that are there to provide these important services, there at the table in advance saying: “This is what we need. Here are the demands.”
Then working together, say: “Okay, well then, what does service look like, and where’s the best place for it to be provided?” Build that infrastructure to do it. Now, that doesn’t mean turning them into government operations and having government employees, but it does mean realizing that they are, nevertheless, an extension of the government.
This is how the government does its business. When you’re talking about CLBC, talking about the Ministry of Children and Family Development, talking about the Solicitor General, talking about anti-violence services, all of these services, you have a government side of it, a government employee side of the service, and then you have a community side of the service. But it’s one service; it’s one network. It can’t be planned, resourced and operated in a fragmented way. It has to be done in a united way. For me, it would be success if we could get to that model.
N. Simons: Just to be clear, your organization represents the non-profit sector, the for-profit sector and the charity sector as well? So you have also quite a diverse constituency.
R. FitzZaland: Yes.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?
Well, thank you very much, Richard, for your presentation. We really appreciate all the work you’re doing in our community.
Next up we have Cowichan Watershed Board — Chair Ian Morrison and Chief William Seymour.
Just a reminder that we have a total of ten minutes, so if you could limit your first comments to about five minutes, that will give us five minutes of time to ask questions.
COWICHAN WATERSHED BOARD
I. Morrison: Excellent. Well, I’ll kick things off. I am Ian Morrison. I am the chair of the Cowichan Valley regional district and electoral area director for Cowichan Lake South–Skutz Falls. But probably one of my most important jobs is the co-chair of the Cowichan Watershed Board. I appreciate the time you’re taking. I understand you’ve all got the background material. I’ve done enough minister meetings at the UBCM to know to speak quickly and get to the point. So I’m actually going to go off my speaking notes, off script, and get right to the point.
Unlike the group that was just in here speaking from a sense of fragility, I think that we come here today from a position of strength. We have a unique and effective collaboration and organization in the Cowichan Watershed Board. I’ll be turning to my co-chair here in just a moment, but we come to you with, I think, a track record of success and a strong organization, moving forward in a very uncertain time and environment. We’re dealing with issues in our watershed, a heritage river, a number of crisis scenarios that are facing us in the next little while.
I’ll mention again that position of strength, in that we’ve got the citizen science, we’ve got DFO sitting at our table, we’ve got ministry folks sitting at our table, and we see a win-win-win scenario that is not going to be reaching into the pockets of government. I think there’s an opportunity for funding for our ask. What that is, is that we’re looking to ask the provincial government to create a dedicated and sustainable funding source for organizations like what we have. There are other similar organizations throughout the province.
We think we have a model…. We know it’s being exported to other parts of the country, where people are saying: “How are you working with First Nations? How are you achieving some of the incredible success and collaboration that you’re achieving? How are you doing that in local government and with your First Nations neighbours?”
We’re looking to ensure that this model can be sustainable, operate long term and be those experts in the field, because the provincial government has, through its nature, pulled back to some extent in the field, boots on the ground. We’ve got the people that are the boots on the ground in the community, and I think, given the Water Sustainability Act, we have the potential to deliver and to make this a win-win-win situation.
With that, I’ll turn to Chief Seymour.
W. Seymour: Thanks, Ian.
[Hul’q’umi’num was spoken.]
[Thank you for taking the time to hear us. I acknowledge that we are on the territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees nations.]
[Translation provided by Chief W. Seymour.]
I want to thank you for taking the time to hear us, and I acknowledge we are on the territory of Esquimalt and Songhees nations.
Moving forward, climate change is everywhere, we know, and we all need to step up. When we look at the work that needs to be done, we’re turning to the government and looking for support and funding, one way or another. We’ve just finished an application to move forward with looking at work for our weir.
Still, when we look at lake levels, how low it is this year, we’re actually seriously thinking about pumping the lake to keep the water in the river flowing, and that’s dire. When you start pumping the lake down and the lake becomes lower than the river, it’s no good. There’s a lot of work that needs to happen, and we’re here to ask for your support to help the Cowichan Watershed Board move in the direction to look at what we can do for climate change. Over the years, the Cowichan River has met record lows in probably the past 16 years. It’s not getting better. We need to do something to ensure that that river flows.
We need to look at the conservation of our fish. Last year we lost about 80,000 fry because of the low river flows, and we can’t afford to do that. Cowichan Tribes shut down the community for fishing in our river, for our own community members, and we keep pushing government to do the same with sport fishing. I know that’s got nothing to do with you guys, but I just want you to understand how dire our river is.
We need your support. Hi sa’ ap ca.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation.
N. Simons: Thank you very much for your presentation. It sounds like you’re conveying the urgency of the situation. Is this year the first time the community’s been unable to get its food fish? Or is this…?
W. Seymour: It was probably about 1982 when Cowichan first shut the river down for community fishing.
N. Simons: So it’s a very delicate system.
W. Seymour: It is.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We had similar issues — I’m from Maple Ridge and Mission — in some of our lake systems. We couldn’t send out 25,000 fry, I think it was, because of the lake and river issues. So it’s happening all over. I appreciate what you’re saying.
In terms of remediation and what you need to do, what do you see as some solutions to the issues? How do you see this being remediated?
I. Morrison: Well, if I could, part of our ask is for the normal, regular operations of an organization such as the Cowichan Watershed Board to be funded through a pool of funds.
Specifically to this, and Chief Seymour has already made mention of it, his community has voluntarily shut down their in-river fishery, yet we’ve still allowed sport fishing to continue on in that. Most ethical sports fishermen don’t do that. They won’t fish in those scenarios. We’ve got broader questions around replacing of the weir to ensure a water supply.
Now, there are different funding applications that are being done, but the host group, the core group that’s operating this, is the watershed board. Those are the people that, you might have seen, are out in the tributaries, that are rescuing the fry, that are bringing them back to the main channel so that we’re maintaining that outflow of biomass so that it can reproduce and come back to the rivers.
It’s our coordination of all of those volunteers and experts on the ground. It’s tough in a regional district, given our funding restrictions, for us to be able to just fund every year, annually, that sort of operation. Municipalities could; regional districts can’t. Because we see it as a major provincial responsibility and a federal responsibility, a pool of funds that could be leveraged by our group would be a huge asset for us.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?
R. Coleman: How much are you spending a year?
I. Morrison: Mr. Rutherford, our annual budget?
T. Rutherford: Our annual budget is about $250,000 a year. We get $70,000 from the local government, and the rest are grants.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Well, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.
We’re just going to take a two-minute break, just to stretch your legs, Members, if that’s okay — just a short recess.
The committee recessed from 10:46 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.
[B. D’Eith in the chair.]
B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the Professional Employees Association — Scott McCannell.
Scott, just a reminder that we try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, and then we have five minutes for questions.
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
S. McCannell: Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to make a presentation today. As mentioned, my name is Scott McCannell. I’m the executive director of the Professional Employees Association. I’m going to talk about professional reliance today and, perhaps more specifically, licensed professionals working for the province.
To start off, there’s a deck, a PowerPoint presentation, that’s been provided with just a little bit of context on who the PEA is. We were certified in 1974 to represent the professionals working for the province. Since then, we’ve grown. We now have ten bargaining units, about 2,800 members across the province. Most work in the public sector. On this second slide, you can see the types of professions that are in the public service — agrologists, engineers, registered professional foresters, geologists, pharmacists and veterinarians.
I wanted to give a little bit of historical context here. In the early 2000s, the government, as we understand it, set goals to reduce the size of the public service by a third and also reduce various regulations by the same proportion. As is our understanding, the government determined that they would actually need to change the model of natural resources oversight in British Columbia, moving away from ministry staff approving plans, permitting and so on and, in many instances, moving much of that responsibility to outside professionals that were either employed directly by natural resource proponents or were consultants. The concept was that licensing bodies would ensure due diligence, compliance and enforcement through codes of ethics and then disciplinary processes.
There were some fairly significant impacts as a result of that model, and various watchdog agencies in British Columbia did sound the alarms over some of those impacts for a number of years in the mid-2000s and subsequent to that — the Auditor General, B.C. Ombudsperson and then the Forest Practices Board, to name a few. This is just a sample. Certainly, concerns about the way forests are managed. I’ll speak briefly to the Auditor General’s compliance and enforcement of the mining sector audit from 2016.
I guess I’ll speak to two points. The Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines compliance and enforcement were inadequate to protect the province from significant environmental risks, and there had been an over-reliance, even at the design stage, of that tailings pond going in. I’ll move to the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria. They did a very detailed review of professional reliance about five years ago. One of their main conclusions was that much of B.C.’s deregulation goes too far in handing over matters of public interest to those employed by industry. Sometimes we use the analogy of the foxes watching the hen house when we’re talking about that.
The model has changed. This government established a review of professional reliance as a priority. That review was completed. Legislation was introduced — the Professional Governance Act. It primarily put some shape around roles and responsibilities of those outside professionals and also has established an office of the superintendent, which will focus on governance-related matters within those licensing bodies. Good steps forward.
One of the key recommendations from that professional reliance review was to identify opportunities to improve ministry staffing — that’s what I’m here to talk about today — to enhance government oversight. There’s a quote I’ll read. “In the course of the review, it became very clear that staffing levels due to past cuts make it very difficult for some ministries or some business areas…to meet basic levels of oversight.”
This was also reflected in a study by Evidence for Democracy, which is a non-profit. Their mandate is to ensure that there is science-based decision-making in governments across Canada. They did a survey and a study in 2016. One of the key findings was that 68 percent of our members felt that there weren’t sufficient resources within their ministries to have those ministries fulfil their mandates.
I’ll move on to the next slide. It just shows a historical trend line of the number of professionals in the public service. You can see, at the far left-hand corner, a very significant downturn, with the introduction of professional reliance, and then, in the last couple of years, a slight upturn. That’s really good news, and we’re heartened by that and think that those are steps in the right direction.
I’ll talk briefly about other significant groups of employees in the public service. If you take a look at this pie chart, you can see, since January of 2012 through to February of 2019, the number of BCGEU positions. It’s obviously a much larger union than the 1,200 members that work as professionals in the public service, but they’ve grown by 9.2 percent. The number of management-excluded positions has grown by 19.4 percent. If you take a look at the little bar graph there, it’s actually a 0.3 percent increase in the number of professionals.
We just pick these numbers because we’re having conversations in bargaining. I think you’ll see the same shape regardless of which years you choose.
We’re basically here with a simple message today. We really believe that in-house, licensed professionals working for the province are needed for professional oversight. We’re encouraging the committee to prioritize more funding for professionals to, in our view, achieve the government’s goal of restoring and enhancing public confidence. That is an integral part of that.
It was interesting to hear some of the comments about boots on the ground and climate change. It is, in our view, definitely a more complex environment, generally, for natural resource development in British Columbia. Hopefully, the committee is able to see some priority around more professionals in the public service.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Scott.
Questions?
N. Simons: I hadn’t realized the precipitous drop in the professionals within the public service. It confirms what we also hear as MLAs, in terms of confidence people have in local issues where government has some decision-making authority. I really appreciate you summarizing it so well. Thank you very much for that. It was more of a comment.
R. Leonard: You represent public servants who are professionals or professionals across the board?
S. McCannell: We are a trade union. Our largest bargaining unit is the professionals that work directly for the province of B.C. — the foresters, agrologists, veterinarians, psychologists, and so on.
I might just comment. Thank you for that remark. It was a 25 percent cut in terms of going back to the early 2000s to where we are today. Your point about community consultation certainly…. That theme is something that comes up in all kinds of conversations that we’re involved in. Our members are of the view that that was one of the real downsides, that they weren’t actually out there in the communities — especially that boots-on-the-ground presence in the forests and other parts of the land base.
N. Simons: Can I just ask one follow-up question? You said a 25 percent cut. Now, some of those ministries had a larger than 25 percent cut to their budget. Where was the largest loss of professional…? Which ministry would have lost the most professionals?
S. McCannell: The Ministry of Forests. We have done a sort of profession-by-profession breakdown. I think in response to Mount Polley, for example, we definitely see a slight uptick in engineers and geologists. But foresters have continued…. Even to this day, there’s just a steady, steady decline of professional foresters.
N. Simons: Is that study available?
S. McCannell: Yes. We can definitely provide that to the committee. We’d be delighted to.
N. Simons: That’d be great. Thank you very much.
B. D’Eith (Chair): That’d be very helpful. Any other questions?
Well, thank you very much, Scott. We appreciate your presentation.
S. McCannell: Thank you for the opportunity.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Margaret A. Mereigh, who’ll be presenting.
Welcome. You’re from the Canadian Bar Association. Fantastic.
M. Mereigh: I hope you’re still a member.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I believe I am.
CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
B.C. BRANCH
M. Mereigh: Good morning, everyone. Margaret Mereigh, CBABC president, Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia. The Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, is a voice of B.C.’s legal profession. We represent 7,200 lawyers and students in the province.
Today, as I did in September of 2018, I would like to focus on two main issues: legal aid, specifically, legal aid family law funding and the tariff; and, also, unified family courts, known as UFCs.
We recognize that certain programs and services foster the well-being of individuals in our society as a whole. If health care was not publicly funded, people would not be able to afford the cost of accessing hospitals or clinics or doctors. If education was not publicly funded, some people would not be able to afford to send their children to school.
We say the same goes for legal issues. The law plays a significant role in everyone’s life and daily interactions. It is essential that we recognize that there is a public responsibility to ensure funding that permits reasonable and meaningful legal advice and representation for those who cannot afford it.
Now, CBABC members hear and see many cases of people who are struggling to solve their legal problems. In the family law legal aid area, approximately 71 percent of applicants are women. I recently heard of a case of a single mother trying to get custody after the father had falsely alleged that the mother was suffering from mental health issues. After the support of a legal aid lawyer, this woman was able to gain custody of her children. She has since gone on to complete a master’s degree in women’s studies from UBC and now works with the women’s shelters and centres.
Currently a single mother of two children earning in excess of $35,000 is not eligible for legal aid in this province. Additionally, the number of parties presenting with mental health issues in family proceedings is increasing, whether that be mild depression, anxiety or major mental disorders such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. People who experience these conditions need help to understand the process and to make their way through the process and to make necessary decisions in their lives.
The assistance of a lawyer is crucial to navigating various court processes, to completing documents and to assisting individuals in hearings and in mediation processes. Lack of counsel often means relevant information is not presented in child protection either to child protection authorities, to the Crown or to the court. Last year, approximately 10,000 people were turned away from legal aid because of eligibility difficulties and challenges.
Now, not providing a person with legal representation means, effectively, that this person is self-represented. The system is slowed down, and others, who are waiting for their matters to be heard, are delayed. That includes parties, witnesses and the police. In family law cases in provincial court, approximately 40 percent are self-represented. In Supreme Court, 10 to 15 percent are self-represented. Family law legal aid requires an influx of funds of approximately $15 million.
With respect to unified family courts, the Supreme Court and the provincial court divide jurisdiction over family matters. This is inefficient, complicated, costly and confusing. We are essentially maintaining two parallel systems of court, and this often leads to delays.
A unified family court means one level of court for all family law matters, simplified rules and procedures, a specialized bench, a federally appointed judge and a strong and cooperative resolution focus with extensive services for children and families. We encourage the provincial government to work with the federal government. The federal government is committed to having UFCs in this province. We need the provincial government to make the application for one.
Finally, I acknowledge that the government has made some increased funding in several areas, as well as recently, in the spring, a one-time funding, announced in March of this past year, to prevent the withdrawal of services of legal aid lawyers.
There is money. PST on legal services was over $200 million, collected in 2018. There is money to fund a legal aid system. While the increases demonstrate an understanding that more funding is required, the new funding is only a fraction of what is needed to ensure that the poor and working poor in our province are able to access legal aid and navigate the justice system to resolve a range of problems.
I leave you with this. Family law legal aid funding requires $15 million. Unified family courts in this province require this province to actually apply to the federal government for that money that’s available. Legal aid tariff requires $16 million to $20 million.
I thank you for the time. We look forward to working further with the province to increase access to justice for all British Columbians. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a question for you. Are you aware of any other services in the province that their clients have to pay PST on, other than legal services?
M. Mereigh: No.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I didn’t think so.
Sorry, that’s the lawyer speaking.
N. Simons: You have to declare a conflict there.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Do I have to declare a conflict?
I do remember the time when one of the women I articled with…. One of her jobs at legal aid was to fire 500 legal aid lawyers. That was a very sad day for the province.
Any questions?
Thank you very, very much for your presentation. We really appreciate it. Was there anything else you’d like to add in your time?
M. Mereigh: As the tax on legal services continues, understand that all British Columbians who are paying for legal services are also paying that tax as well, and the purpose behind that tax was to fund legal aid for those who could not afford it. We’re holding up our side of the bargain. We’re asking government to hold up theirs.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.
Next up we have the Law Society of British Columbia — Jason Kuzminski and Elizabeth Rowbotham.
Just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to five minutes, we have up to five minutes for questions. We’d appreciate that.
The floor is yours.
LAW SOCIETY OF B.C.
E. Rowbotham: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. We’d also like to thank the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations for hosting these consultations on their territorial lands.
My name is Elizabeth Rowbotham. I’m an elected bencher with the Law Society of British Columbia. I’m here today in that capacity. I am also a lawyer with the legal services branch, Ministry of Attorney General. I do not advise the province on any aspect of budget development, and I’m here solely in my capacity as a bencher with the Law Society.
As you may know, the benchers, as a term, refers to the governing board of the Law Society. It is the Law Society which regulates the legal profession in the province of British Columbia. In addition to elected benchers such as myself, the benchers also include representatives of the public, who are selected and appointed by the government to the Law Society. The Law Society is distinct from the Canadian Bar Association, from whom you have just heard, which is a voluntary association for lawyers.
The Legal Profession Act sets out the Law Society’s regulatory mandate and provides that the Law Society’s core rule and functions include the protection of consumers of legal services, upholding public confidence in the administration of justice and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons.
Today there are three main areas that I’d like to speak to you about. These are money laundering, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action and legal aid.
With respect to money laundering, the Law Society enforces stringent rules to ensure that lawyers do not facilitate money laundering. If there is evidence that a lawyer may have breached these rules, the Law Society has the resources and the expertise to take disciplinary action. The Law Society’s investigation enforcement team includes 15 auditors; four forensic accountants; two forensic analysts; a former senior RCMP investigator who has experience in criminal proceeds of crime investigations; and discipline counsel, who have experience with money-laundering matters.
As Dr. German recently noted in his second report on dirty money, the Law Society of B.C. is recognized as a best practice amongst Canadian law societies with regard to anti-money-laundering initiatives. The Law Society welcomed the land owner transparency act and the amendments to the British Columbia corporations act introduced. These important measures will provide information that will assist money-laundering investigations by the Law Society and by others.
Finally, the Law Society supports a provincially appointed commission of inquiry into money laundering. We’d like to recommend that the inquiry be informed of the initiatives and actions taken by the Law Society and by others and that the inquiry make recommendations about what further steps may be taken to address money laundering.
Last year in the Law Society submissions to this committee, Dean Lawton, QC spoke about the Law Society’s commitment to advancing the two calls to action that were directed towards the Law Society and law schools in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. In that regard, the Law Society has established a permanent standing committee to advise it. This committee is comprised of Indigenous lawyers, benchers and community leaders. The Law Society is currently reviewing the recently released national inquiry into murdered and missing women and girls report and the call for justice directed to the law societies in that report.
It is the Law Society’s request and recommendation that the next provincial budget include allocations for expanding restorative justice programs and for training writers in Gladue reports. Regarding legal aid, the Law Society’s vision is that all British Columbians, regardless of their means, deserve access to legal advice and representation. Like the CBA, we recognize and welcome the new investments that were made in Budget 2019 as well as the interim funding that has been provided to avert a service withdrawal by lawyers who provide legal aid services.
We welcome these announcements. They represent an important shift in how government is approaching legal aid. However, as the CBA identified, a significant gap remains in what is needed to fund legal aid services not only for criminal law cases but also for women, Indigenous people and persons with mental health and substance use issues. For instance, it has reached a point where 50 percent of women who meet the eligibility requirements for legal aid for family law are unable to get help because the funding has run out. For those 50 percent that could get funding, the funding again runs out before they are able to resolve their problems.
The Law Society respectfully recommends that Budget 2020 allocate funding and resources to enable the Legal Services Society to increase the tariff rate to levels necessary to extend access and to attract and retain legal counsel. The Law Society is committed to working with the provincial government and all members of the Legislative Assembly to collaborate on these and other initiatives that make positive changes in our communities.
Subject to any questions the committee may have, those are our submissions. Thank you.
R. Coleman: You mentioned the money laundering and the public inquiry. What is the Law Society’s position on opening up the privilege of trust accounts that are mentioned in the report? I know there’s a Supreme Court decision that protects the lawyer-client privilege of trust accounts. Yet it is a place money can flow through.
What is the Law Society’s position on taking a step back from that and saying: “Okay, we’ll open that up too”?
E. Rowbotham: I can tell you that the Law Society is working with the Federation of Law Societies — so the Federation of Law Societies is a federation of all the law societies across the country — regarding the rules regarding trust accounts, trust verification rules, and disclosure and how much money can be put in the trust accounts with the expectation that there is a uniform process across the country.
I understand that there may be certain modifications to the rules in the future, but I do not expect that they will change the Law Society’s current position that trust accounts are privileged or that certain aspects of trust accounts are privileged.
J. Kuzminski: I think, just to add to that, there’s been some talk about the work that the federal government can do with the federation in regard to trust accounts.
Different ideas have been explored about a way that there could be a different way of reporting into a neutral third-party entity that allows for the continuation of that kind of investigation and allows it to follow the money. That work is being done, again, by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada with the federal government.
I think the Law Society is actually willing to be a participant and partner in ways to resolve that issue. But at the same time, the privilege that we’re talking about belongs to clients. The Law Society’s position had been and has been that clients’ privileges, for a variety of reasons, mostly legitimate, are worthy of protection, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld that.
R. Coleman: I know that the Supreme Court said yes, but if you look at the reports, it shows, as an opening within the money laundering issue — something I wasn’t aware of — that they weren’t subject to FINTRAC and other things. If you’re ever going to get to the end of this public inquiry, I think you’re going to be asked about whether you’re going to change that.
E. Rowbotham: The Law Society will welcome further questions and discussions on this, but right now, like I say, the Law Society, the federations and the federal government are looking at this matter — is my understanding.
R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. Now, you said you wanted to see restorative justice expanded and more supported, as well as the Gladue report. Do you have numbers for that? Do you have a sense of what magnitude of increases would move mountains?
E. Rowbotham: No, I do not at this time. However, the Law Society staff is willing to talk to your staff and explore what those numbers may be.
J. Kuzminski: I think the chief challenge is that some of the research work really belongs with government — about where they want to provide those allocations.
With respect to the Gladue report, the traditional problem has been that funding is made available for the reports, but the report writers, the capacity among report writers, isn’t there. So the investment is targeted to what may have been asked for, and the research and analysis says: “This is the number of reports we need.”
The shortfall or the gap is in the number of people that are capable of doing the writing and, if you talk to Indigenous communities, where those writers are coming from. Frequently, they’re concerned that some of the writers don’t have backgrounds as Indigenous people. So there just needs to be some work to make sure that we’re closing that gap or filling the gap.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a quick question in regards to…. We just had the Canadian Bar Association present on PST. Did you have a specific recommendation in regards to PST on legal fees in your presentation?
E. Rowbotham: No, we don’t.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Do you have a position on that?
E. Rowbotham: I will have to confer. I don’t believe we do.
J. Kuzminski: We haven’t taken a position on the PST itself. I think, as you’ve asked, it’s the only profession that has the tax applied to it. I think the CBA speaks for….
B. D’Eith (Chair): Historically, do you know why that was put in place?
E. Rowbotham: This is going back some time. This is my personal understanding. There was an understanding that that was an agreement — that the profession agreed to the imposition of that tax. The tax is paid by clients on legal services. The understanding was that it would go to fund legal aid.
In fact, actually, the understanding was that all of society would contribute to legal aid through a special tax on legal services. So users who could afford legal services would basically help to pay for legal services for those who are unable to obtain it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Right. Okay. That was my understanding as well.
Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.
Next up we have B.C. Sustainable Energy Association — Tom Hackney.
Okay, Tom. Just a reminder that if you could keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for about five minutes of questions, that’d be great.
B.C. SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ASSOCIATION
T. Hackney: Yes. I think I can do that.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members, and thank you for this opportunity to give input in the 2020 budget. My name is Tom Hackney. I’m the policy advisor for the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association.
BCSEA is a charitable association of citizens, professionals and practitioners who are committed to promoting the understanding, development and adoption of sustainable energy in B.C.
We have a vision of B.C. meeting all its needs with clean, renewable energies that do not contribute to climate change. Our activities include public education — for example, our Cool It! climate leaders program for middle school children. We also intervene in the public interest in the Utilities Commission reviews of B.C. Hydro’s and FortisBC’s energy plans. At the municipal level, BCSEA supports B.C. municipalities to adopt and achieve community-wide target of 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.
We strongly support the direction signalled by the CleanBC climate action plan. Likewise, we support the government’s instruction to B.C. Hydro to explore low-carbon electrification to move energy loads off fossil fuel use and onto B.C. Hydro’s clean, renewable electricity.
We believe that when it comes to budgeting and spending power of the province, the budget is crucial to support these policy initiatives. One of the most important things the province can do is shift infrastructure spending away from projects that encourage more car and truck traffic and toward projects that encourage more walking, cycling and use of public transit. In line with the principles of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, we urge the province to shift money away from urban highway expansions and to public transit systems including electrification of buses and active transportation like walking and cycling.
We recommend the government implement in its budgetary process a green screen for all infrastructure spending. The criteria would of course include greenhouse gas emissions, but a key need is to have objective, transparent, not arbitrary and consistent with B.C.’s legislated greenhouse gas reduction goals criteria. Green spending really should be green.
When I look on the government’s green infrastructure webpage, for example, I do see some projects that are highway expansions that look to me as though they would increase greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them. This is going in the wrong direction. Please do not replace the Massey Tunnel with a ten-lane bridge. Improved transit, especially if electrified, is the solution that supports climate goals.
When it comes to building, we commend the government for its oil to heat pump incentive program and its better buildings B.C. program. We recommend the government plan to achieve a general upgrading of the whole building stock to a high level of energy efficiency with increased incentives. This would be a truly green infrastructure investment, and it would generate green jobs — jobs that are really contributing to the solution and a sustainable future.
We support the government’s investments to develop a green economy, green industry and green jobs. Changing from our business-as-usual economy to a sustainable economy requires this kind of leadership and encouragement of innovation. This is an investment that could yield real dividends in future.
Finally, we commend the government for increasing the carbon tax. This is a good signal to B.C. citizens and businesses that climate action needs to be part of everything we do.
That is my presentation.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much, Tom. I have a quick question before I open the floor.
When I heard you talking about highways…. I appreciate the fact that more vehicles on the road that are gas vehicles creates more of a carbon footprint. But with the CleanBC move to electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles by 2040, have you taken that into account in terms of highways, if they are using clean energy vehicles as opposed to…?
I appreciate that we should be moving towards transit, but have you taken that into account in your analysis of the future and highways and things?
T. Hackney: Yes, indeed. We do commend the government for supporting electric vehicles. But we really believe that the really sustainable change is a change to move people out of their personal mobility vehicles and this idea that we can plan our whole society around lots of long-distance transportation. All this transportation, EVs and…. It all requires very high overheads. We think that to become more sustainable, we have to become enormously more efficient in all areas of transportation; hence, more walkable communities and more public transit is preferable. But not to detract from electric vehicles.
R. Leonard: Thanks very much for your presentation. On that particular note, I think that one of the challenges that we have in British Columbia is recognizing that not everybody lives in an urban centre where we have the densities that can support public transit. A lot of our economy requires people to move in fairly big distances and independently, as well as the movement of our goods through the province.
I look at a road that’s made of asphalt. It’s made out of petroleum products. I’m impressed that we’ve moved to hot-in-place asphalt, where we’re basically recycling the asphalt. But recognizing that there are other challenges that we have in terms of transportation, that we have to adjust how we do…. I think that’s one of…. I’d like to hear about how we address those challenges, not just the public transit issues, which I totally support. I am challenged to see how we can address those rural and remote communities and the various economies that mean travelling great distances.
T. Hackney: Thank you, ma’am, for raising that question. My comments were, indeed, focused on solving the situation in the urban context. The space limitation didn’t let me go into a more general talk about transportation, but I think that’s where electrification would come in more. Just an overall look at our whole use of energy in society, a thoroughgoing look from top to bottom…. Yes, we will still use energy, but it’s time to start thinking of it in the overall green context.
M. Dean: I’m wondering whether representatives from your organization have been able to participate in the sustainable energy consultation that’s been rolled out in the active transportation.
T. Hackney: I’m aware of a number of initiatives going on. Are you talking about the southwest transportation strategy?
M. Dean: No. The government, through the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, has been going into communities with lots of different stakeholders to find out about how everyone can come together and promote active transportation, for people to get around places without using vehicles.
T. Hackney: I’m actually not aware of that initiative. Can I follow up with you?
M. Dean: Sure.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?
Okay, well thank you very much, Tom. We really appreciate your time and your passion for our environment. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Next up we have Donna Spalding from Cruise Lines International Association.
Before you start, just a reminder that if you can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that’d be great. Then we have time for questions.
CRUISE LINES
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
D. Spalding: Thank you very much to the committee members and the Chair for having me here this morning. I sincerely appreciate it.
Cruise tourism is a really positive contributor to B.C.’s economy. We’ve been a pillar in British Columbia’s economy for several decades now. Despite that, despite historical increases this year in the number of cruise travellers sailing to Alaska as well as the anticipated increases in future years, we should not be complacent about our place in the international marketplace. Challenges and obstacles to remaining competitive need to be addressed for British Columbia to maintain its share of this important economic driver.
The cruise industry contributes more than $2.2 billion annually in direct and indirect spending in our province, including $712 million in wages and salaries that generate 17,000 related jobs. Those statistics are from 2016. We are anticipating a new economic impact study — hopefully, for this year.
Recognizing that the government has supported the cruise industry in the past, in 2017, the support for the change in tax policy — specifically, the expansion of the motor fuel tax exemption to marine gas oil — protected those 17,000 jobs linked to the cruise industry in B.C. and signalled the province’s support for the continued economic growth of cruise tourism in British Columbia. Additionally, this change reinforced British Columbia’s environmental leadership in promoting the use of cleaner-burning fuels. In short, the tax change was a successful and sustainable outcome to protect air quality as part of the economy for B.C.
On behalf of Cruise Lines International Association and our 14 member lines here — and many more member lines who don’t visit British Columbia — we’d sincerely like to thank you for that change in the tax policy.
Overall, industry projects that 30 million travellers will cruise worldwide in 2019, up 6 percent from 2018. The Alaska cruise market is growing even faster than the global average. In British Columbia, we are experiencing a 21 percent increase in the number of cruise passengers for Vancouver, and in Victoria, 2019 over 2018, a 9 percent increase, which are records for both ports.
In comparison, Seattle is scheduled to host 219 cruise ship calls this summer, with more than 600,000 passengers embarking on cruises from that city, about 100,000 more than Vancouver, which will have 290 ship calls. The 100,000 additional passengers Seattle will see, despite fewer actual ship visits, is made possible because the ships are larger. Seattle’s capacity for hosting the larger ships outstrips Vancouver’s.
While the positive change regarding taxation of cleaner-burning marine gas oil signalled to the cruise industry that B.C. remains committed to this sector, Seattle continues to take steps to capture a greater share of the Alaska cruise market. It’s worth remembering that, as recently as 2000, Vancouver had virtually 100 percent of the market of cruise passengers visiting Alaska, but, as mentioned, Seattle now has more passengers leaving than Vancouver does.
This spring the ports of Seattle and Tacoma announced plans for a new $500 million cruise ship terminal in partnership with cruise lines to help accommodate the larger ships that are increasingly entering the fleet — increasing size of ships and increasing number of ships coming into the fleet. This will give Seattle three terminals, accommodating a total of five ships at any given time. While it has served us very well, in comparison, Vancouver only has Canada Place, with its three berths and limited ability to handle the larger ships that are coming into the fleet.
Tourism is one of British Columbia’s fastest-growing industries, and the cruise industry has been contributing to the success. Securing British Columbia’s future opportunities in this regard requires foresight and planning. Accommodating larger ships attracts unique cruise lines, managing a greater number of cruise guests, many of whom return to the British Columbia communities that they visit. It requires a partnership and strategy that engages government at all levels: First Nations, tourism partners and cruise lines themselves.
We ask that the committee call on the provincial government to take a leadership role in bringing together these stakeholders and work with us in developing a comprehensive plan to maintain and grow B.C.’s share of the cruise market in the years to come.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer any questions you have now or in the future.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Donna, before we open the floor to other members, I was just curious. When you talk about expanding services and the ability to service larger ships, presumably — and I’m obviously not an expert in this area — things like the Lions Gate Bridge and other things must present problems for the larger ships. In terms of Vancouver Harbour, are you talking about specific changes in Vancouver Harbour or other options in this stakeholder…? I mean, are there options that you’re already looking at to be able to compete with Washington state? Maybe you could just expand a bit on that.
D. Spalding: Both. That would be the quick answer. The long answer is that we have been in consultation with the Port of Vancouver. Lions Gate Bridge is definitely a drawback. The port has already spoken with the Ministry of Transportation, and there is some opportunity to increase the height of the bridge without taking it apart again.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Really?
D. Spalding: Apparently.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Make it a drawbridge?
D. Spalding: Well, I joked and said: “What are you going to do? Give us all a wrench and send us out to crank on the cables?” I don’t know the technical details.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, it is a suspension bridge.
D. Spalding: It is a suspension…. Yeah.
The other opportunity is to look at how B.C. can present itself to find alternative sites for a terminal and how we can do that in conjunction with communities and First Nations.
If we look at places south of the tunnel, there could be opportunities in the river. There could be opportunities on First Nations land, where they could be part of that. There are challenges. There’s no doubt about it. The river presents its own. You have freshet. You have nine knots of current, regardless of which way the river is going, at any given time. It’s constantly dredged. It’s First Nations fishing grounds. But there are terminals up there that could be retrofitted.
What we’re really looking for is to involve the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Environment and the government itself — Tourism, especially — in how we can move forward the discussion and some ideas.
Minister Joly just recently announced a federal tourism strategy. We’re hoping that with that and…. Representatives of Cruise Lines International and our member lines recently met with the federal cruise caucus, which is interested in knowing how we can advance this.
B. D’Eith (Chair): There’s a federal cruise caucus?
D. Spalding: A federal cruise caucus, yeah.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Huh, the things you learn.
D. Spalding: So it is something that is on everybody’s minds. We’d like to see this continue to grow for B.C.
We think it’s great tourism. People come, and they really enjoy the province. We’ve seen studies that have been done in Victoria, for instance, by Destination Victoria, where they interview people who come back through the airport. “Yes, we came here on a cruise. Now we’re coming back because we want to spend more time here. We want to see more. We want to do more.” We see that with guests who are coming into Vancouver and getting on the Rocky Mountaineer and going off in the other direction, basically.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?
Well, thank you very much for your presentation.
Okay. Next up we have B.C. Common Ground Alliance — M.J. Whitemarsh.
How are you? Nice to see you again.
B.C. COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE
M. Whitemarsh: My partner in crime, Dave Baspaly, wimped out on me this morning, so I’m alone.
B. D’Eith (Chair): You get all the words, then.
M. Whitemarsh: I get to do all the words, yes. And I will hold it to five minutes.
We’ve been here several times before, talking about the B.C. Common Ground. B.C. Common Ground is a not-for-profit, member-supported society that has brought together those that are engaged in the act of ground disturbance. It could be oil and gas. It could be municipalities. There’s a huge conglomerate of persons that belong to B.C. Common Ground.
There is a universal trust of British Columbians that everybody that’s engaged in the act of ground disturbance has called B.C. One Call before they start digging. That’s not true. It doesn’t happen. You’ll see. I’m not going to read you my report. You all know how to read. I’ve put a lot of charts in here and things to show you. It’s all empirical data. It proves that the root cause of 51 percent of hits to underground utilities in British Columbia in the year 2017 cost British Columbians over $130 million.
If we took that 51 percent and halved it, that would halve the cost to British Columbians and to our taxpayers of British Columbia in the underground utilities costs that happened last year alone. I’m sorry I’ve only got 2017 stats here, because the DIRT report came out in 2018 for 2017 in November. This November we’ll get last year’s reports. Those are the only stats I have to go on. What we are finding is that there’s a correlation between how the economy improves and how the number of hits on underground utilities happen.
It’s like a spaghetti junction underground. I was blown away. I went to the city of Victoria, and they showed me their overlay map. It shows you all the streets in Victoria and where all the city of Victoria’s underground utilities are. Then they overlay that with Fortis and then Shaw and then Telus. It just keeps going on and on and on. Until, when you’re finished, it’s just like a spaghetti junction. Those are the people that report.
I was in a session one day where Kiewit showed a project they were working on in Vancouver. They had done all their due diligence. They collected all their maps. They were looking at what they had to look at, and they superimposed everything. As they were beginning to dig, someone came along and said: “Whoa, wait a minute. Over there, there’s an old factory that was taken down, and there’s all….” They found all kinds of stuff — a myriad underneath the ground. It’s just not recorded properly, and there’s no one major place for you to go to do it.
As I said, societal impacts to British Columbia in 2017 were $130 million. Both public servant safety and worker safety are at risk. Right now an excavator may need to call up to twenty different entities to find out just exactly where the mapping is and where the underground utilities are. It’s just a disaster waiting to happen.
We looked at the economic correlation, and then we applied it to how could we make this different for British Columbians. We know that unless there’s an observance of a universal one-call system, we’re not going to get there. There are too many moving parts all the time for us to be really sure on what we’re doing.
B.C.’s got projected growth, low unemployment, increased GDP, improving infrastructure projects that are coming along. It’s a perfect storm for things to happen and happen in a really bad way. I don’t want to be the mother whose child is in the ambulance that can’t get through because roads are closed, because there’s been a huge underground disturbance.
Mitzi, you will understand. I live in Sooke. You live in Metchosin. It’s not easy, sometimes, to get out of there. Those kinds of things could happen.
There’s no magic bullet or any grand gesture. I’m not here to tell you that this is what we need to do. What I would like to respectively suggest is that government include funding in the next budget to support public and worker safety by looking at the observance of a universal one-call system. It could be as easy as just making the rule that all B.C. Crown lands and government-owned properties must have that happen before anyone digs on them. It could also be, with the new community benefits agreements that are about to come out, that a requirement be included in those, “If you want to write that contract, you have to be calling B.C. One Call,” or whoever government deems that the one central point of contact is going to be so that we can do that.
I encourage you to read the report. It’s scintillating. I have, at the last page, given you a whole sheet of stats just for British Columbia that came out of the DIRT report. It really does scare the heck out of you when you read it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I’m curious. You hear often about, “Just call one place, and you’ll get the right answer,” but what you’re saying is that that’s just not the case and that there’s….
M. Whitemarsh: With oil and gas utilities, it’s mandated. That is the law — that oil and gas have to belong to universal One Call. It’s mandatory in the province of Ontario. It is in the Legislature — or was in the Legislature when it dissolved — in Alberta, and it’s going through there. There’s a private member’s bill before the House of Commons to make sure that it’s done on all federal lands.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Any questions?
R. Leonard: Thanks, very much, M.J. Who funds this now?
M. Whitemarsh: B.C. One Call? It’s BCCGA. BCCGA is member-driven, so the members do. We’re a not-for-profit society in the province of British Columbia.
R. Leonard: And you provide the B.C. One Call?
M. Whitemarsh: Yes, we provide the information and everything that goes through. When people call in to B.C. One Call, they purchase a ticket, and it’s not very expensive. I honestly don’t know what it is. That’s how they’re run. Again, it’s member-driven and not publicly funded.
R. Leonard: I’m just trying to understand the funding model. You have members who basically support making sure that their services, their utilities, are….
M. Whitemarsh: Yes. The National Energy Board, WorkSafeBC, Fortis, Shaw. Telus doesn’t. Quite a few of the big players. Then there are smaller ones too. The entity that I used to work for many years ago, the B.C. Home Builders Association, were members. It’s those people that fund it.
R. Leonard: Thanks. I used to be on a small community water improvement district board. It was old, and there were no maps. There’s a lot of that in B.C. I’m pretty sure we became a member of that.
M. Whitemarsh: You probably did.
R. Leonard: It’s just because some of our infrastructure was 18 inches down in the dirt — really not far.
M. Whitemarsh: Some municipalities belong — Surrey, the municipality of Langley. Victoria does, Vancouver does not, and Nanaimo does not. Some of the bigger ones don’t, but others do.
R. Leonard: If somebody is on their property, they dig, and they break a line, do those utilities have the capacity to recoup the repair costs from the person who’s…?
M. Whitemarsh: Yes. At our recent MLA luncheon, Minister Farnworth spoke to us and told us a story about his dad going through a gas line on his property. It cost him $6,000.
R. Leonard: Right, I’d forgotten that. Okay, thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Fascinating. Any other questions?
Seeing none, thank you very much, M.J. We really appreciate your time once again.
Consideration of Draft Report
STATUTORY OFFICERS INTERIM REPORT
B. D’Eith (Chair): Before we break, everyone, we do have one motion that we need to do. If you remember, we had an interim report from the statutory offices. When they presented, we had asked for an interim report, which the Clerk’s office kindly put together for us. If you remember from reading it, it doesn’t actually have the financial requests, but it does have a summary of the presentations. There were a few small changes that were suggested.
Thank you, Mitzi, for your suggested changes. Those have been highlighted in the report, so you can see those, from the last draft.
Did we want to go through them?
S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Do you want to go in camera to go through them?
B. D’Eith (Chair): Sure. Could I have a motion to go in camera?
N. Simons: So moved.
Motion approved.
The committee continued in camera from 11:49 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.
[B. D’Eith in the chair.]
Committee Report to the House
STATUTORY OFFICERS INTERIM REPORT
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you. We are back.
What we have in front of us is the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services…. We have an interim report on the statutory offices, for those who are listening. We meet with the statutory officers in the fall of each year to go through their budgets and then, in the spring of each year, we have interim reports on status and, often, supplementary budget requests.
The report that was generated by the Clerk’s office is a summary of the comments only and does not deal with the financial or the supplementary request for funding. The committee has reviewed those. Did someone want to make a motion?
R. Coleman: I move:
[That the Committee approve and adopt the report entitled Interim Report on Statutory Offices as presented today and further, that the Committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to work with committee staff to finalize any minor editorial changes to complete the supporting text.]
Motion approved.
R. Coleman: I move:
[That the Chair of the Committee deposit a copy of the report entitled Interim Report on Statutory Offices with the Office of the Clerk; and further, that upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or at the next following session, the Chair shall present the Report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest available opportunity.]
Motion approved.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Members. We’re going to recess now.
The committee recessed from 11:52 a.m. to 1:03 p.m.
[B. D’Eith in the chair.]
B. D’Eith (Chair): First up, for the afternoon, we have the University of Victoria — Carmen Charette.
Carmen, you’re up.
No bias. Even though I’m an alumni, I have no bias at all.
C. Charette: Always a pleasure to see our alumni.
B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Carmen, the way we’re setting it up is that if you could take five minutes for your presentation, it’ll allow us about five minutes for questions. That would be great.
Budget Consultation Presentations
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
C. Charette: Sounds good.
Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair and committee members. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share the University of Victoria’s priorities and recommendations for a better future for B.C.
First, I would like to acknowledge with respect that we are meeting on the shared traditional lands of the Coast Salish people.
UVic, as some of you know, is one of Canada’s premier research and teaching universities and routinely ranks among the top 200 universities in the world. We acknowledge the important contributions of the government of British Columbia to post-secondary education. These investments help ensure a high-quality and accessible education that benefits all British Columbians. Projects such as our new student housing also help address the challenges of affordable housing for many in the Victoria region.
Budgets are about people, and we are pleased to share our vision in creating opportunities for people today and meeting the challenges of tomorrow. We have four recommendations for your consideration today.
Our first recommendation is that the government invest in graduate student scholarships on an ongoing basis so that B.C. is in a better position to attract and retain talent that will bring economic and social benefits. Graduate students are at the heart of innovative research and its applications. We are thankful for the province’s $2.25 million investment at UVic to support 150 graduate students for two years. They will have a vital impact in B.C. and beyond.
Our second recommendation is for further investments in programs to support our students’ well-being. We believe every student has the right to live, learn, work and play in a safe and inclusive environment. UVic’s implemented both a student mental health strategy and a sexualized violence policy through the re-allocation of existing resources. But there is much more to be done. We must work together to protect and support young British Columbians.
Our third recommendation comes with a small financial investment of $2.1 million to train an additional 130 students each year in our health information science program. This will help meet labour market demands and improve health care for B.C. families. There is an estimated shortfall of over 8,000 health informatics specialists. This growing shortfall has resulted in problems deploying technologies such as electronic patient records, which is costly.
HIS is the only program of its size and scope devoted to health informatics in Canada. Our program is internationally recognized. We saw students’ applications more than double in one year. With such funding, HIS will be able to work with partners on projects in the digital supercluster currently lacking post-secondary collaboration.
Our fourth recommendation is that the government tap into the incredible expertise and assets in our post-secondary system and partner with UVic to deliver on the critically important goals of the CleanBC plan. Record temperatures and intense wildfires are stark reminders of the urgency of climate change. Several of UVic’s institutional priorities in areas of research align very well with the CleanBC plan, released last December. Providing solutions to local, national and global sustainability requires new understandings and practices, and UVic can play a key role in that area.
In addition to these recommendations, we look forward to ongoing opportunities to work in partnership with government, specifically in the following two areas.
About half an hour ago, in fact, Minister Melanie Mark and Minister Rob Fleming were at UVic announcing a $9 million investment in work-integrated learning and co-op, which will allow students to gain valuable workplace experience, create professional networks and ensure a smooth transition into the workforce. UVic is home to Canada’s third-largest university co-op program, integrating academic studies with relevant paid work experience in more than 40 academic areas.
Finally, we look forward to government continuing to view post-secondary institutions as partners in working with the Indigenous peoples towards lasting and meaningful reconciliation. We were very pleased to see the release of the draft principles that guide the province of British Columbia’s relationship with Indigenous people. These ten principles and the government’s engagement in reconciliation are commitments we share. We are thankful for the work we do with government on the delivery of increased programming to attract, retain and educate Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners.
In closing, UVic is committed to building a better future for people, places and the planet and to finding opportunities to work with our partners for a strong future for British Columbia. So thank you for having us today. Happy to answer any questions you may have.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Carmen. Just before we met today, we were talking about the new program at UVic law, where I graduated from. But I’m not sure if the members are aware that there’s potentially a new building coming. Could you maybe elaborate a little bit on that?
C. Charette: Absolutely. I’d be happy to.
Yes, this is a program that was in the works for probably 20 years. You may recall some thoughts being given to that years ago. I think the timing was right to launch this program.
We have our first cohort that started last fall — our first 26 students ranging from 22 years old to 69. Basically, half and half — Indigenous and non-Indigenous. As part of this very innovative, world-first program, we are planning a new building that will house a national centre for Indigenous law and will bring together people from across the country and from around the world to explore and discuss opportunities to bridge the different legal traditions that we have in our country and elsewhere. It’s a very exciting opportunity.
B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s very exciting.
C. Charette: We were also successful in obtaining some federal support for that building, so we are in the planning stage now.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Wonderful. Thank you so much for that.
Any questions from members at all? No.
Thank you very much, Carmen, for the wonderful presentation. Was there anything else you wanted to add before you go?
C. Charette: No. I think we’re clear. Again, thank you for your support, and we look forward to continuing working with you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much.
Next up we have Andrew Gage from West Coast Environmental Law.
Andrew, how are you?
A. Gage: Fine, thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Good to see you. Just a reminder that we try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so that we have time for up to about five minutes of questions.
Okay, all yours.
WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
A. Gage: Hi. I’m Andrew Gage. I’m a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, which is one of Canada’s oldest public interest environmental law organizations.
I’d also like to acknowledge that we’re here on the Coast Salish territory.
Thank you very much for your important work in preparing the budget — or working towards the preparation of the budget — and the opportunity to present to you.
My focus is going to be on climate change, which is not actually mentioned at all in the budget consultation document, except in the feedback form as a possible topic for giving feedback. Wildfires are mentioned in the consultation document but only as a future risk that should be monitored, which is quite ironic, given the impact that wildfires have had on the province and on the budget over the last couple of years.
I think that underscores that climate change is not generally seen as a budget issue except to the extent that climate programs require funding. On that note, we’re delighted to see that Budget 2019 did commit full funding for CleanBC and would like to see that commitment continue and increase as other aspects of CleanBC are finalized. However, when we talk about climate change being a crisis, we mean, at least for the purposes of this presentation, that it has major economic consequences, and those should be reflected in the budget.
Proper budgeting and financial management means we need to understand and anticipate increased costs that are facing our province and address them accordingly. Transparency requires that the public understand where those costs are coming from and how climate change is costing us. It’s our belief that identifying those costs as part of a budgeting process and the financial process may increase public support for climate action and for the measures that we need to put in place to reduce future costs.
Identifying what portion of those costs can be tied back to climate change is sometimes a challenge. It depends on the particular costs. But that doesn’t excuse us from trying to begin to get a handle on what climate change is costing the province. Financial losses and costs that perhaps should be included in the budget would include incremental harm to provincial assets, where we are accounting for assets on the province’s books, yet they are worth less due to climate change.
It’s been estimated that the mountain pine beetle, between 2009 and 2054, will result in $57.34 billion in economic losses, a significant portion of which would be in the estimated value of the provincial forestry assets. Virtually all of that loss is tied to climate change.
Increased damage to public infrastructure from extreme weather. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that for every dollar of insured losses, public infrastructure suffers about $3 of damage. Applying that ratio, the December 2018 storms that hit coastal B.C. would have resulted in an estimated $111 million in damage to public infrastructure. Not all of that is necessarily climate-related, but over time, it’s possible to discern that pattern and begin to quantify those costs.
Disaster response and relief are obviously a huge area, with UVic scientists estimating that the 2017 wildfires were seven to 11 times larger due to climate change than they would have been otherwise. The budgetary implications of that are obvious. Increasingly, it’s possible to estimate how climate change changes what we need to be allocating for disaster response and relief for wildfires and flooding over time.
Current adaptation costs. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has been exceptional in their program of integrating climate change projections into all of its road design and maintenance. They’ve been recognized internationally for that. In the long run, that’s going to result in more climate-resilient roads that save money, but up front, it’s a climate cost that we are paying now. That should be tracked in the interests of transparency.
More typically, climate adaptation costs aren’t integrated so well. The 2018 Auditor General report Preparing for Climate Change tells a story of how the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations developed a detailed plan of its adaptation requirements, only to find that funding was not available to implement those. The Auditor General talks about the conclusion that was: unless other tasks change or additional resources are provided, implementation of actions to integrate climate change seems likely to be slow, despite the many climate actions that are already being undertaken. Just to underscore the financial need there that’s clearly not being met currently.
Finally, future adaptation needs. The province, in 2012, commissioned a report that estimated that Lower Mainland municipalities will need to spend $9.5 billion between now and 2100 just to address rising sea levels. That is probably an underestimate, but we haven’t done the work to look at what provincial lands and infrastructure along the entire B.C. coast are at risk and what we need to be spending to deal with those types of impacts. The costs are huge.
In conclusion, we’re treating climate change as something that happens to someone else, rather than something that has budget implications. We need to start putting resources into evaluating what those impacts actually are on our bottom line, on our resources and on the costs that will be increasingly occurring in the years and decades to come — and how we’re going to manage to pay for those.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Andrew. Appreciate it.
Before we get started, I just want to clarify one thing. This committee is an all-party committee, so we actually meet to engage the public in consultation. We don’t actually prepare the budget.
A. Gage: I understand that. But you do make recommendations.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We make recommendations to the ministers and to the Finance Minister, and that, hopefully, informs the process. I just wanted to make sure…. We manage expectations.
A. Gage: I think I misspoke at the beginning.
B. D’Eith (Chair): No, it’s fine. I just wanted to make sure that any thoughts you’ve had would also maybe be directly conveyed to any ministers that may want to address those.
N. Simons: I’m wondering if you could just comment on the possibility that different levels of government are sort of expecting another level to identify what the costs are specifically. Municipalities or local governments have to invest in water, infrastructure, stabilization of watersheds or what have you. Can you just comment on that conundrum?
A. Gage: I think that definitely occurs. Many of the costs are borne by local governments that actually deal directly with the infrastructure that’s quite climate vulnerable, in many cases. Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. require their members, in designing infrastructure, to actually consider climate projections as part of their design. Some of those costs are being, hopefully, caught.
I think, ultimately, the resources available to local governments are limited. The province, both as the manager of a considerable amount of infrastructure and lands in its own right but also as the senior level of government, bears a significant responsibility to make sure that these costs are included in planning by both levels of government.
The relationship with the federal government, I think, is more complicated — another government that certainly plays an active role there. But again, because so much of the lands and infrastructure are actually provincially owned, B.C. has to play a major role.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a follow-up from me. I appreciate how important adaptation is, given the way climate change is going. But it seems a bit fatalistic to be saying that we should be planning for ocean rises instead of planning for not having that happen.
In other words, it’s sort of like…. Are you saying that we’re at a tipping point, and we just have to accept?
A. Gage: No, we’re not…. Well, we may well be close to a tipping point.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I know we’re not. But I’m just saying that if the world does what it’s supposed to do, hopefully a lot of the issues that you’re talking about are mitigated because the things don’t happen that everybody’s saying.
A. Gage: No, unfortunately that’s not correct. We have so much greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere, which will continue to have an impact for decades, that if we were to eliminate, globally, greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, we would still see significant sea level rise.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Right, okay.
A. Gage: It would reduce the amount of sea level rise in the longer term that we would have to deal with. That would certainly be valuable and is absolutely essential.
B. D’Eith (Chair): So you’re talking about the damage that’s already done.
A. Gage: It’s already in the pipe. Even if it’s not actually showing up yet, in terms of the sea level rise, the expectation is that current levels of emissions to date will cause…. The province is recommending that all municipalities prepare for a one-metre sea level rise by 2100, and that’s a fairly conservative figure.
The sea level increase by 2050, under most scenarios, is actually relatively modest. But it accelerates quite quickly after that, just based on what’s in the atmosphere today.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I was just curious. I just needed to clarify that in my own mind.
A. Gage: There are scenarios which see that sea level rise happen more dramatically, even under current levels.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Lower lying areas, okay.
R. Leonard: Thank you, Andrew. I appreciate this angle of looking at the budget. Just taking that climate action lens to everything that we do makes sense.
I was actually on council and fought for many years for us to adjust our flood levels in a municipality, and we were not able to do it until the province had that certainty to say: “Yes, you aren’t going to be costing developers or communities more, out of theory.” There was a real certainty around it. So we did raise the levels, but it took a lot of years to get to that point.
I think the question or comment that was made earlier about the relationship of an event and being able to attribute it to climate change and how we tease that out — I suspect that it’s a bigger process. But if I can paraphrase or boil it down, what you’re saying is we need to put money towards figuring out how we can cost it so that we can gauge whether or not we are making progress on climate change.
A. Gage: In the short term, I think that’s probably what’s necessary, yeah. Where ministries have identified particular adaptation needs, make sure that those are both costed and also funded.
R. Leonard: Just to….
B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re actually out of time, Ronna-Rae.
R. Leonard: A longer conversation.
B. D’Eith (Chair): It is a longer conversation.
Thank you very much, Andrew. We very much appreciate your presentation.
A. Gage: Thanks for having me. I will be giving some written submissions to elaborate on this.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Please. Thank you very much.
Next up we have Umbrella Society — Evan James and Sharlene Law.
Just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we’ll have five minutes for questions. The floor is yours.
UMBRELLA SOCIETY
S. Law: Thanks for having us. My name is Sharlene Law. I’m the executive director of the Umbrella Society. This is Evan James. He’s our housing manager.
E. James: Thank you for having us and giving us this opportunity today.
First of all, I’d like to take the opportunity to thank the government and all the MLAs for all the hard work they’ve done in helping to combat this overdose crisis and all the work in supporting people with substance use issues. There’s still a lot of work to be done, and that’s what we’re here to talk about.
S. Law: In your package, you’ll find a brief one-pager that outlines a little bit more about the services that Umbrella offers and some letters of support. The reason for the letters of support is that we’re currently in the process of purchasing one of the recovery houses we run, so we’ve been requesting letters from community service providers and from residents previous and present. These letters really speak to who we are, so I thought I’d include them so you guys could see a little bit about the impact and the work that we do.
You’ll also see our mission statement, which is on our webpage, and some key points about Umbrella. I would really like to draw your attention to the fact that we are a living-wage employer, which is rare for a non-profit, and that all of our outreach team are in recovery from addiction themselves. We are currently in our 19th year, as well. I’ve provided you with a brief snapshot of one year of stats of who we see and who we help.
Evan is going to talk to you a bit more about our housing.
E. James: Our housing model is something I’m quite passionate about. I’m going to tell you a little bit about what makes us so special and unique and successful.
One thing about our housing that’s unique is the length of stay. You’ll see that a lot of other recovery houses across the board have a three-month or a six-month stay limit. What you’ll see there is that people are focused pretty much full-time on finding housing for once they’re done, and for good reason — the housing crisis out there. We don’t have a length of stay in our places. We know that everyone is different and their situations are different. Some people will get their stuff together and be ready to move on after two months. Other people, at, say, the year mark, are just starting to scratch the surface and do some work around trauma or counselling or education.
All our housing is cost-effective, so we’re the only recovery homes in Victoria that are accessible for people on income assistance. We work with our residents on subsidies, as well, to help make their time at our houses more comfortable.
One thing we really recognize is that recovery is not a one-size-fits-all model. What works for me may not work for the next guy, and vice versa. We really try to accommodate that at our house. A lot of places are very structured — you have to go to X amount of meetings per week; you have to do this — but we work with the guys on an individual basis.
We have people at the house who are working full-time, so they want that accountability and support once they get a paycheque and have money in the bank and are sort of getting back to a regular life. That’s the missing piece for them. We also have people who volunteer or do recovery full-time, so they’re going to meetings. That’s what it takes for them to stay sober — to keep doing recovery and to treat it like a full-time job.
We also have people who are going back to school. A lot of people who are newly sober haven’t been to school since high school. It’s been years and years. We really help support them with that journey back into school to sort of decide what they want to do next, because oftentimes the line of work they were in before wasn’t healthy or wasn’t working or conducive to staying sober.
We have daily support staff at the house, so we’re always there to chat with guys, debrief, talk about what’s going on with them. We also have a counsellor on staff who offers one-on-one counselling for the men and women. That’s free of charge. Another unique part is that when people leave the house, they can continue to access the counselling, so they can come back and continue to work with Terry.
This is often a missing piece. People have told us that once they move on from recovery housing, they feel isolated and cut off from the supports they were accessing before, so we really try and make it feel like a family where they’re still included. They’re still part of the family. They come back for alumni events. We do barbecues. We do fun stuff out in the community as well.
Relapse is another topic that we’ve done a lot of work around. In other models, often, once someone has a slip or a relapse, their stuff is on the doorstep and they’re told: “Good luck. Go back to detox and start your journey over.” We recognize that when someone has a slip or a relapse, they need more support, not less. We work with them closely and offer as much support as possible to keep them safe and get them back to what was working for them before. We know they don’t have to burn everything down and go back through the hospitals and police systems and detox to get back to where they were. Sometimes we can support them and bring them back to the house.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Evan, we’re at five minutes now. If you wouldn’t mind wrapping it up, that would be great.
E. James: We’re at five minutes? Okay, I’m going to pass it back to Sharlene.
S. Law: We’re looking for support from the government to expand our model in the 2020 budget. We could fill five houses based on our current wait-list. That’s it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I was going to ask: “So what is your ask?” We can slow down a bit now. It’s fine. Could you maybe articulate the ask a little bit more just so that we understand what Umbrella is asking for here?
S. Law: We’re looking to expand our housing portfolio. We currently have three houses — two for men and one for women. Like I said, we could open five houses right now and fill them all with the wait-list. There is a massive need in the community. Our program is abstinence-based, so it’s for people that are working their recovery program, which is a little different than some of the other housing models out there, where people can actively use substances.
D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. When I was home last week, a gentleman that runs one of the homes in Penticton said: “It’s great, but we need more for females.” Do you find this? You said 3 to 1. You just said you run three….
Interjections.
D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sorry, 2 to 1.
E. James: Yeah, three total.
S. Law: In addiction, in my 11 years of doing this, it’s about 75 percent men and 25 percent women.
D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay, so the numbers work on that side.
S. Law: The model needs to be a bit different for men and women. In our men’s model, the men don’t mind sharing rooms, but the women really need the space and their own rooms. So the houses for women are quite a bit smaller.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I know, too, there are issues with children. I know up in Chilliwack, a new housing project just opened where they actually have child care and treatment on the second floor and housing on the third floor. It’s sort of all integrated, which is pretty cool.
S. Law: That’s the dream, absolutely — one stop fits all. That should be how it goes.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Are you the operator?
S. Law: Yes.
B. D’Eith (Chair): This is probably not part of this, but you might want to talk to our council in Maple Ridge, because they’re actually looking at abstinence-based housing models right now. I think that would be really helpful. I’ll give you my card after.
S. Law: Please. Thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?
R. Leonard: Just a quick comment. I appreciate that you do have a place for people to go who move on in their journey towards abstinence. I know that there’s a great need for just the housing-first model, but there’s also a place for abstinence-based. There are low barriers in other ways, but it gives a safe place for people who are ready to move on.
So thank you for your work.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate it, and thank you for all your work that you do. It’s very important work.
Next up we have the B.C. SCRAP-IT program — Dennis Rogoza.
Just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes and then have five minutes for questions, that’d be great.
B.C. SCRAP-IT PROGRAM
D. Rogoza: Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. It’s my pleasure to be in front of the committee again. I was here last fall explaining what the SCRAP-IT program is about. But of course, a lot of things have happened in the last while with respect to vehicles and electric vehicles, and so on. I want to explain that a bit and talk about the challenges and, really, the path ahead.
I’m with the B.C. SCRAP-IT program. It’s been around for 23 years, a long time. Its mission has really always been the same, and that is to reduce B.C.’s carbon emissions and also smog-related emissions from the older vehicle fleet.
How we do that is quite simple. We offer incentives to the owners of the old cars. The vehicle must be scrapped. In fact, it’s shredded, so it’s completely off the road. It’s replaced with an electric vehicle or, in fact, you can take a transit pass or car-share pass or electric bike.
We’re a fully operational platform, launched, as I said, in 1996. On slide 3, for those folks who want to look at what end-of-life vehicles look like and the pile of old vehicles sitting there, you can see just a few small samples of the 46,000 that we’ve actually scrapped over the years.
As I said, all of these vehicles basically are shredded, so they never come back on the road. As somebody said, they actually come back to you as a toaster.
The big challenge in transportation, really, is the size of the gasoline vehicle fleet on the road, from a climate change point of view. Currently it’s about 3.1 million vehicles, and it’s growing in size every year, far outstripping the sale of EVs. Another challenge inside that is that the ratio’s changing. We’re buying a lot more SUVs versus cars — it’s about a 2-to-1 ratio now — and generally, they’re less fuel-efficient.
The third one, of course, is we have this massive overhang of old, super-polluting vehicles that are on the roads here in B.C. If you look at it from, let’s say, a family point of view — on the next slide — almost 50 percent of the climate change–related emissions for a family is their car. So it’s the single biggest opportunity for a family to make an impact and reduce their emissions, actually — by making a change in their particular vehicle. If you look at the space-heating issues and water heating and so on, it’s a very, very small portion of their total impact on climate change.
In SCRAP-IT, what we do is we have two programs we’ve been offering. One is the electric vehicle incentive program, where we offer $6,000 for an electric vehicle and $3,000 for a used electric vehicle. Also, this year we introduced a brand-new electric vehicle charging program. It’s called a fast-charger program. If those of you who walked in noticed, there are two electrical chargers out front. Those are similar kinds of chargers. They charge your vehicle quickly. So we’ve been offering a free electric home charger in our two programs.
Both of these programs are privately funded. We receive no government funding for them. They’ve been incredibly successful. There’s no question that incentives motivate consumers. Our programs launched in early January, and they’re both complete for the year. By that I mean that we had a cap in terms of the number of incentives we could offer.
For example, in the electric vehicle incentive offer, we had 1,500 EVs we can offer, and we’re done. The response from the public has been absolutely incredible. The same is true of electric chargers. We’re also done, if you look at it from a program point of view. We’ve taken a waiting list, and we have over 500 people on the waiting list right now for an electric vehicle charger. This is just great news, I’d say, for the province. Consumers are responding in an extremely positive way. They actually want to do the right thing, and they’ve been doing so in spades.
We’re here to kind of seek the general support of the committee, because we think we’re an effective solution for families. Definitely, consumers want our programs. And ultimately, we actually enhance affordability too, because we put more value in the hands of people to be able to do the right thing.
In our view, there’s a need to do two things in the market. One is to not just put EVs on the road but also take the gasoline ones off the road. I’ll give you a quick example. I met with two friends recently who said, “We want to do this; we want to participate in your program,” and I said: “Well, we’re done for the year.” So they went out, and they bought two electric vehicles, and they sold their old junkers in the market. There’s a major opportunity, really, to take them off the market, but they said: “Well, they’re worth a couple of thousand dollars.” One person had a 15-year-old diesel-polluting vehicle, and it’s going to be on the road for another ten years.
That’s what we’re about. We focus, really, on a two-piece solution — by putting an EV on the road and by taking a gasoline-fueled, polluting vehicle off the road. We’d love to have the support of the committee and, ultimately, government. We’re just a mechanism here to be able to do the right thing, and customers actually want our program.
That’s my presentation today. I’m glad to take questions.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Dennis. Nice to see you again. How are you funded now?
D. Rogoza: Under the Ministry of Energy, there’s a low-carbon fuel program for oil companies, and one of the ways in which they can help offset their emissions in the short term is by funding innovative programs like ours. They get what are called “emissions credits” for that under the regulation. They’re capped by that, so that’s why our program is capped. It’s a very small-scale kind of program. That’s how it’s funded.
B. D’Eith (Chair): So it’s sort of a carbon offset–type situation? They get a credit for it.
D. Rogoza: Yes, exactly. They give us the money, we give them the offset, and they account the government for that.
R. Coleman: I have two questions. One is on the home charger. What kind of amp service has to be in to the building in order to make it operate at an efficient level to actually do the quick charging, and are we wired for that?
The second thing is…. I did a recent business review for a friend of mine and a client, and it appears that the auto-wrecker business, for lack of better description, is disappearing. It’s being sold into industrial land, and stuff’s being done. So what’s the capacity to scrap in the future?
D. Rogoza: In response to your first question, I’d say a rule of thumb — that’s probably the best way to think about it — is you have to use a 200-amp service. If you have that, that’s the best outcome. One hundred amp — you’ll need an electrician to come in and sort of say: “How does it all work?” Are you basically going to have a mini-brownout in your home? Or a fuse will be tripping or whatever?
I couldn’t give you a professional opinion about that, because every home is a little bit different. It depends what the load factor is and when you’re having the load. So I’d say, generally, it should be that. But there are some massive homes out there these days in which 200 is not adequate. It depends on your situation, how old the wiring is, where it is and all those things. So you need kind of an evaluation by an electrician to give you a real yes or no to that.
On the second question, our program and the scrappage capacity in the back end — we use a contractor called Schnitzer Steel. They could easily do 50,000 vehicles a year — not a problem. In our organization, with how we’re built today — because we’re very web-based, IT-based, very high throughput, if you will — we ourselves could probably do 40,000 vehicles a year as is. But we can’t do that. We’re just a flow-through organization, right? We need the incentives to attract people.
You may recall some time ago, MLA Coleman, that we had a conventional gas-to-gas program going back to the 2008-to-2012 period, at which point we only offered a $2,000 incentive to go from a fuel-inefficient gasoline vehicle to a very fuel-efficient vehicle. We used what was called a carbon calculator to do that, to generate the level of incentive. The more impact you had, the bigger the incentive. At its peak, we were scrapping 1,600 cars a month, just under that program — not an EV at all, right?
There’s a definite appetite, really, to take a lot of the old metal off the road. But it’s extremely helpful to have an incentive to do that.
It’s really quite interesting. We still have people come to us, because we just have a cash program of $100. We still get 500 cars a year with our program. As you go up at the incentive level, the scale increases dramatically.
R. Coleman: What do you see in the future? On the next end of it is: how will we recycle the battery? We’re recycling the car. What comes next?
D. Rogoza: You’re talking about electric vehicle batteries. Is that right?
R. Coleman: Yeah.
D. Rogoza: I think there are probably two visions ahead on that one. One vision is what’s called repurposing, where there’s a system set up where you take the EV battery out and use it for another purpose. You’re not going to use it on a vehicle, but you might use it for a B.C. Hydro backup situation or a remote cabin situation — something like that. The other is actually dismantling the battery completely.
We’re quite fortunate, actually, in B.C. because of the Trail smelter. There’s already a system set up whereby there are a lot of batteries, the conventional type, that end up there. They also have the capacity and the capability of managing the lithium ion batteries, which is really important.
The piece that’s missing in that is from when the vehicle comes to our scrap yard and gets to Trail, because there’s a whole infrastructure need here, in my personal view, for electric vehicles that pertains to training first responders, whether it’s a tow truck or a firefighter or a police officer or whatever. Also, who takes the responsibility and pays the cost of taking an electric vehicle battery out of that vehicle?
Because this isn’t a conventional gasoline vehicle where you start pulling parts off. Now you’re dealing with 440 volts. You’re dealing with safety issues. There is what I’d call a lack of infrastructure on that. There’s simply….
I don’t know if you noticed out there. About two weeks ago, there was a news story where a fellow backed his vehicle into the water with his boat. He had a plug-in hybrid, and he’d left it on and put it in the water. Well, when they took it out in a tow truck, the thing went on fire. I found it kind of interesting that…. I think it was the fire chief of that community basically said: “Well, we’re not adequately prepared to deal with this.”
I would say there’s what I call in a broad sense an infrastructure issue here related to training and management and who does what with the batteries, who pays for the cost of that and how it’s eventually managed. Your question is a piece of the big puzzle here. There are a lot of pieces that I don’t think…. Because EVs have been so small so far in the market, these issues haven’t really arisen yet.
B. D’Eith (Chair): But it’s coming fast.
D. Rogoza: Yeah. If you can imagine…. Well, I think B.C. Hydro forecasts 350,000 electric vehicles by the end of this coming decade. That’s a lot of electric vehicles on the road. There are a lot of issues around that. I don’t know who’s responsible for managing that. At this point, there’s probably nobody. It’s very distributed.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re over time, Dennis. I would love to continue this conversation, because it’s fascinating. Thank you very much for your program. It’s obviously helping, and I know a number of people have accessed it and are very pleased with it. So it’s sort of the other side of the…. You can incentivize people to buy, but getting the old cars off the road is another big piece of this whole puzzle.
Okay. Next up we have the Victoria Hospice Society — Tom Arnold and Kevin Harter.
Just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, and then we have five minutes for questions, that would be great.
VICTORIA HOSPICE SOCIETY
K. Harter: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for inviting us to this process. My name is Kevin Harter. I’m the CEO of Victoria Hospice, and I wanted to talk to you today about the role that hospices could play — the collaborative role we can play — in meeting the future needs of the community for both aging and dying at home.
Victoria Hospice has a rich history of over 30 years of being a leader in hospice care in Canada and Victoria. Right now we have 17 community beds. We have space registration of 400 patients for our community services, which are the in-home services through our PRT — palliative response team. We provide bereavement services. We provide both education on a national basis and research to define new innovations in end-of-life care.
As some of you may well be aware, B.C., as well as all of Canada, is going to be experiencing a demographic shift over the next 20 years as our baby boomer population ages from the under 75 to the over 75. Here’s where, specifically, I’d like to talk about Colwood and the Western Communities. While B.C. is going to be experiencing a significant — about 125 percent — increase over the next 20 years, Colwood and the Western Communities are going to be experiencing an almost 250 percent increase over the next 20 years. It’s going to be double what the rest of B.C. and the averages in Canada will be. It’s a significant increase overall.
We know that, on an overall basis, the demographics in the people that hospice is seeing are changing with this shift in the aging demographics. Our patient profile is adjusting from primarily cancer diagnosis–driven patients to more the co-morbidities that you experience with aging. Our average age right now of our clients is 75 for hospice care. With this shift, you’re going to see a fairly significant shift in what the challenges are that people are facing in that end of life, from the cancer to more the aging co-morbidities overall.
We know that the Ministry of Health’s service plan includes improving health outcomes and reducing hospitalizations for seniors through effective community services and continued improvement in other key primary and community care services. We know that B.C. Care Providers just produced a report where they called for 30,000 new long-term-care beds to meet this shift in demographics.
While we think that beds definitely play a part, we also know that the majority of these people want to age and experience end of life at home. They prefer not to go to residential care. They want to do it in the comfort of their home, where they’ve lived for most of their life. We know that, overall, about 75 percent of them want to age and experience end of life at home, yet currently, 45 percent are dying in the hospital, because those services are not there to be able to support them.
What we would like to do, and what we can do, is really step forward and provide the support that is needed. I come from 20 years in long-term care, and the majority of our people who were coming to us were people who were trying to live at home, but the caregiver had burned out and could no longer feel comfortable in providing that care. So they showed up at the emergency room with some issue, at which time they took up a bed in the hospital until a long-term-care bed opened up for them to go into.
We know that a majority of this focuses around the appropriate support for the person to be able to make that choice to age and die at home, the appropriate support for the caregiver to be able to do that and the appropriate support for the community. What we think we could do — and would like to do — is to build a centre, here in the Western Communities, that will bring a program together to provide all these supports for the caregiver, for the client and for the community that’s going to have to be there to support all these people.
If you take a quick look at Victoria, we have 3,000 beds right now. If we’re looking at a 150 percent increase, that means you need to build 4,500 beds to handle that. If you’re not building them, you’ve got to have the supports to take care of them. We’d really like to build, drawing from the innovations that are out there, a community program that can be spread to other hospices so that they can allow the people to have the option to age and experience end of life in place.
Thank you for your time.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.
I had a friend who was actually recently in a hospital. She waited for three days in emergency in the hall. When she got upstairs, she found that it was full of people who were waiting for long-term care, and that’s why she couldn’t get up there. Definitely, you can tell there’s this huge need and a growing need. I appreciate what you’re saying.
Maybe you could elaborate a little bit more. You’re talking about a community program, sort of a centre that would allow people to stay at home — but also other services. Maybe you could just elaborate a little bit more on that.
K. Harter: Well, part of our strategic plan is to really get out into the community and support them. We know that as people want to age and experience end of life, we need to be in the community supporting them. We would be looking at pulling together a number of existing programs and adjusting them to work together better as a complete program, such as Nav-CARE.
Nav-CARE sees one of our volunteers — we have over 300 highly trained volunteers — paired up with a caregiver to help support them, help them find the resources, to be there as somebody to talk to and to discuss things with, to support them through this journey of caring for their loved one and to support the loved one also. We know that there’s a program called compassionate communities. We’d really like to build these programs together and have them work as one contiguous program that sees an overall scope of services that would be designed to be able to address multiple needs and gaps.
B. D’Eith (Chair): You’re seeing integration of….
K. Harter: Yes. We believe that beds are also a key part of this, to be able to support it. However, we see the beds being mainly a support for the community. Not everybody is going to be able to age and experience end of life in place. Sometimes there are limitations.
You really need those programs that truly support them to, at the best of their ability, achieve what they want, to experience end of life and aging at home — but also have that support for areas to support them where it’s not possible. We’re looking to be able to engage and look for some support from the government to build this centre, evaluate and design that entire program, which we can then take out to other hospices throughout B.C.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. One quick question that’s a bit of a tangent. Some of the hospice societies that I’ve talked to said they’ve seen an increase in their need to provide bereavement services. I’m wondering if you’ve found that as well, just in terms of things like the opioid crisis or other crises that extend out to people. I’m wondering if you’re finding that as well.
K. Harter: Absolutely, we are. We are expanding our bereavement program right now to better support the needs of the community. We expect that in the future, with the loved one dying at home, there’ll be a need to ensure that they can support the caregiver during that time, which is going to be challenging. It’s one thing to have them die in a residential place. It’s another thing to have them die in their bed at home, absolutely. Bereavement plays a key part, not only in pre-death support but after.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.
Any further questions?
I appreciate your time.
Next up we have Deborah Rutman.
Hi, Deborah. How are you?
D. Rutman: It’s my first time here.
R. Leonard: It’s our first time here too.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a reminder that we try to keep the first comments to about five minutes so that we have time for questions.
DEBORAH RUTMAN
D. Rutman: Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Deborah Rutman, adjunct faculty with the School of Social Work at the University of Victoria, also principal and co-founder of Nota Bene Consulting Group, which is an independent research group based in Victoria.
I first started undertaking research focusing on youth in and from foster care in 1999 when my now 20-year-old daughter, Gabrielle, was six months old. Along with my colleague Carol Hubberstey and former youth in care and now MCFD team leader, April Feduniw — she is based on the West Shore — between 2004 and 2007, I undertook one of Canada’s only longitudinal studies on the lived experience of youth after they age out of care.
While this was a relatively small-scale qualitative study, it nevertheless showed that these young people had an extremely high rate of homelessness and deep poverty, had a very low school completion rate, had extremely fragile support networks, had poor self-rated health and a high level of mental health concerns and, for young women in particular, were highly vulnerable to victimization.
As our study and other Canadian and international research has shown, for most youth in care, a transition to adulthood does not exist. It’s a process denied. Our main recommendation from that study was that youth from care need to have the same gradual extended transition process to adulthood as youth in the general population. Now, I’d like to acknowledge the important investments that have been made in the last two B.C. budgets in relation to youth from care, in particular the tuition waiver program and the changes to the agreements with young adults with the AYA program.
At the same time, I have recommendations for Budget 2020. The first focuses on the need to restructure and enhance the AYA program. In its current state, many young people don’t qualify for the AYA program. Others may be unaware of it. Current data from MCFD’s own website indicate that only about 27 percent of youth are accessing this program, with the most vulnerable youth being the least likely to be able to access AYAs because of the eligibility barriers. For example, only 18 percent of Indigenous youth are accessing the program.
As well, the AYA program currently operates as a financial transaction rather than as a person-to-person supportive connection. Echoing the May 2018 B.C. coroners death review panel report, my recommendations are twofold. First, that the AYA program be expanded so that all young people aging out of care or on youth agreements are eligible for the program. Second, that rather than being a financial program, the program operate through relationship with a local, live person to offer support as needed. The supportive connection approach might be modelled after that which exists in England — a personal adviser that young people can access until age 25.
A note here. In 2018, just last year, the personal adviser program in England was extended to age 25 from having an age cap of age 21. It’s available to all care leavers, as they call it in the U.K., not just those engaged in an educational program.
My second recommendation for next year’s budget relates to the tuition waiver program. Again, the creation of the program is commendable, and it’s very encouraging to see that the number of students from care enrolling in B.C.’s post-secondary institutions has increased significantly in the past two years. However, we know that in order to successfully complete post-secondary, students who’ve lived in care require a range of supports beyond financial assistance, starting with but not limited to priority on-campus housing, as has been done in the States; child care; trauma-informed health and mental health resources; and opportunities for peer connections.
As you may be aware, in the past year or two a number of B.C. colleges and universities have engaged peer support coordinators, who employ a single-point-of-contact approach to help youth from care navigate within post-secondary. So my recommendation for the 2020 budget is to expand the tuition waiver program and adopt a wraparound, single-point-of-contact approach to supporting students from care.
I appreciate that there are cost implications to these recommendations, but nevertheless, research undertaken here in B.C., as well as in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, has demonstrated that there are long-term, significant savings that accrue from extending and improving the transitions of youth leaving care, and we know that the benefits in human terms are immeasurable.
I want to close by reminding us that supporting young people into their 20s is what we do as a society and as parents, and 92 percent of families in B.C. support their young adult children age 19 to 28 by providing financial, social and emotional support. Why would we expect youth who’ve lived in government care to transition sooner, faster, yet with fewer resources than their peers? Young people who’ve lived in care need the same level of support as, and arguably more than, my 20-year-old daughter Gabrielle, who presciently — I kid you not — asked me, at age seven: “Does the law make you move from home when you’re 19?”
Thank you for your attention.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I did have a quick question, just from a logistics point of view. You’re talking about a wraparound service around the waiver program. Because they can go to any program — we’re talking about rural B.C.; you can access programs all over B.C. — from a practical point of view, how would you see that service being able to roll out? If it was all at one school, you could have those economies of scale, so to speak. But when it’s spread out right around the province and there are all these different ways to access it, I’m just curious how you would envision that.
D. Rutman: I think it really needs to be fleshed out, and personally, I believe that the people who are now employed at several B.C. colleges and universities as those peer support navigators are really in an amazing position to gather their wisdom, to speak to the range of supports.
It’s not so much that I’m suggesting that this program…. By wraparound, it’s not like across the province. It’s more, I’m saying, that it should be recognizing that the support is not just financial. The support needs to be able to access or tap into and support those students in a number of different areas of their lives. That’s why I mentioned the fact that there are programs in the States where on-campus housing is prioritized for students from care, having access to child care — so removing the barriers that we can now start to document that exist for these students in that more holistic approach.
N. Simons: It’s interesting, because it’s sort of the role of a career counsellor/social worker/peer support person. I’m wondering: first of all, are you suggesting a guardian ad litem model, like they have in some jurisdictions, for the person in care having somebody to speak for them as they grow up? You said something about…. I don’t remember the term that you used.
D. Rutman: Well, “personal advisers” is the terminology that’s used in England now to refer to the post-majority support person.
N. Simons: Only post-majority. Okay.
D. Rutman: Yes. My understanding…. I mean, I’m not a lawyer by background, but guardian ad litem has more of that kind of that kind of legal perspective. This is not that. This is just saying that right now the agreement with young adults program comes in the form, essentially, of a cheque. But the handshake and “see you later; it’s been a slice” ends when a person ages out of care, at 19.
What I’m suggesting is that, as exists in the U.K., we have available to us an actual real, live person who they could still have a relationship with. My understanding, too, from the research in the U.K. is that the need for this diminishes in a natural way, just in the same way that we see that with some of the non-profits that offer post-majority supports.
It’s not like this would continue indefinitely. By age 24, 25, 26, you’re not going to see this big mad rush. But there still is a person, as opposed to a line item on your on-line banking saying, “Oh, I got my $1,000 a month,” or whatever.
N. Simons: So are you suggesting that the agreement between the youth and the province isn’t administered or looked over by a social worker, a guardianship social worker or someone who has had a relationship with that young person?
D. Rutman: To my knowledge, no, it is not. The guardianship social worker gets replaced by this program, but this program is not a live-body program. It’s a financial program.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Excellent. Well, we’re out of time. But thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.
All right. Next up we have Elders Council for Parks in B.C. — Colin Campbell.
Hi, Colin. How are you?
C. Campbell: I’m fine, thanks.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Good. Just a reminder, we try to keep the initial comments to five minutes, and then five minutes for questions.
ELDERS COUNCIL FOR PARKS IN B.C.
C. Campbell: Sounds good. Thank you, all, for doing what you do here. It’s a challenge sometimes, and it must be rewarding other times. I appreciate what you do.
Last year this committee wisely recommended an increase in funding for B.C. Parks. Government was unable to respond to your direction. Please ask again. We recommend a doubling of the B.C. Parks operational budget from $50 million to $100 million to bring it in line with other comparable parks systems and allow the system to play its full role in advancing crucial political and public priorities.
We will present a case for your consideration today. But first, we are the Elders Council for Parks in B.C., established in 2004. Most of our members are retirees from Parks Canada, B.C. Parks, regional parks and park-related NGOs. We have a rich talent pool of parks expertise.
This year, for the first time, we have entered into a dialogue with all three political parties in a genuine effort to help each of you to develop a set of park-support policies and targets that fit your philosophies, objectives and political aspirations. These discussions are at an early stage, but already we have learned from this process, and that learning has shaped this presentation.
It would seem that, politically, there are at least three policy directions that B.C.’s 1,000-plus park system can advance. You can grow the green economy, particularly in rural areas, especially tourism; abate some of the impacts of climate change; and practically advance our collective commitment to Aboriginal reconciliation in practical ways.
Parks are the core of B.C.’s $18.2 billion tourism industry, and now our residents are discovering Beautiful B.C. for themselves. Managing this demand requires management. B.C. Parks does not have the resources to provide effective management. We need management plans to determine where use is possible, permitting regimes that are policed, care and capacity measures based on good science, and complete inventories of our ecological systems to make sure that use is not abuse.
You can fix all of this, reduce congestion and grief, generate more tourism dollars and preserve the tourism golden goose that is “Beautiful B.C.”
Climate change. It turns out that our 1,000-plus green spaces that we call provincial parks are spewing out carbon dioxide that can help save the planet while delivering fresh, abundant air and water. There are at least two things that are needed to make parks a more robust contributor to climate change abatement. B.C. Parks needs to have the staff and the ecological data to manage parks with full knowledge.
At the minimum, they need the same level of staff and knowledge enjoyed by other provincial land management agencies, such as Forests. In addition, it would make sense to expand the parks system through Crown land designations and purchases to link our parks to facilitate natural movement corridors and thus protect species at risk.
Aboriginal reconciliation. Simply put, B.C. has the great gift of a rich, authentic aboriginal culture dispersed around B.C. There are many ways in which parks offer opportunities for attracting Aboriginal engagement and employment, but to achieve this, we need to modernize the way we manage parks — which leads me to my final comment.
Parks governance. The parks delivery system needs to be modernized. We need new, imaginative ways to better engage all British Columbians to actively support parks, better mechanisms for the delivery of camping services, more creative permitting regimes and new, creative ways to measure and assess the state of our parks system. Our current employees are dedicated. The system needs an upgrade.
In October 2020 in Vancouver, with the support of our patron, Her Honour Lieutenant-Governor Janet Austin, we plan to host an event to celebrate our fabulous parks and explore ways to make them better and sustainable. Plan to be there. We all have ideas that can really help.
We have four requests: recommend the increased annual funding for B.C. Parks in the amount of $50 million; link to actions that would modernize the parks system and make it more accountable, with ambitious targets and outcomes; continue the dialogue with us to consider how you can, together, direct such funding — we are non-partisan, and we can provide some help; plan to join us at Parks 2020 in October 2020 with your ideas. Please recognize that your personal commitment to adequately fund B.C. Parks is an urgent investment on your behalf for the next generation. They need our help.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Colin. We appreciate that.
Before I open the floor, I just had a quick question in regard to modernization. I know that some work has been done by the ministry in upgrading reservation systems and things like that. But when you say “modernization,” could you maybe elaborate a little bit more on that, so that I’d have an understanding of what you mean?
C. Campbell: Well, what I really mean is that the parks system grew out of the Forest Service. Its evolution has been very focused. It’s been quite focused on what it does. It’s had fewer and fewer resources, but it really has never had the ability to actually be hugely creative.
Parks need to be creative. They need to find new ways of doing things. The permitting systems that they use are out of date. That complicates making economic things happen in parks. The planning system is outdated. People need better ways to become involved, not just with the plan but after the plan. It prevents things happening. They have no database, really….
B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, for example, could you give me an example?
C. Campbell: Well, I just mean that if you were to look at the number of management…. Management plans were conceived many years ago as ways in which you’d get public engagement, quite properly, into a decision about what should happen in a park. Essentially, that meant involving everyone in a participation process that became clogged up. With First Nations engagement required, it becomes even more clogged up. Consequently, it needs to be modernized.
The system itself — with the lack of funding, the lack of permitting and the lack of plans — makes it impossible, virtually, for parks to respond, to really change. I don’t know if that helps.
B. D’Eith (Chair): No, no. I just wanted to get my head around what you were talking about here.
C. Campbell: That’s just a shorthand version. There’s more I could talk about in terms of engaging the public. They have marketing systems that look at parks as single places, when really you should be looking at them in terms of what experiences people get in parks and marketing those experiences.
If we pick up the phone and try and contact Parks as a volunteer, you can’t reach them. They’re just completely clogged up. My point is that by unclogging them, we actually can make Parks much more constructively helpful in moving B.C. forward on these initiatives.
N. Simons: My understanding is that the management of parks is often subcontracted, as opposed to previous years, when there used to be government employees watching over them. Do you see a relationship between that change, or was that just a symptom of a lack of funding?
C. Campbell: My personal view, and I was around at that time, or part of that time…. I really thought that privatization made a lot of sense for a seasonal organization. I’m still convinced that it allows various small businesses and groups to get involved in supporting and having a kind of a job group for a family group in remote parts of the province all around B.C.
But it has changed now. The amount of money we’re spending on contracting is huge. There is an argument that it’s difficult, for example, to actually ask a First Nation to bid on a contract when you’re in a nation agreement, basically. So there are complications in that process.
My guess is that some mix would be better. Some mix would be able to employ some own forces and the ability to contract.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?
R. Coleman: Out of curiosity, I don’t have the answer to this question, but how much of the park plate is getting to parks?
C. Campbell: How much of the park plate…? Actually, the park plate — that initiative, that future strategy — was the best thing that’s happened to parks in probably 30 years, quite honestly. It’s about the only thing that’s happened to parks in 30 years. It’s time to build on that. But my understanding is that all of that, except for the administration cost of ICBC, actually does get to B.C. Parks. I’ve heard people who deny that, but I don’t think that’s true. It has made a small difference.
R. Coleman: But we don’t know the quantum number.
C. Campbell: No, I don’t know the quantum number. If you like, I’ll try and find out for you.
R. Coleman: I’ll get it. I thought you might save me the trouble.
C. Campbell: You never know. I might.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Colin. I think that’s it. Thanks for your presentation.
I’m just going to take a short, five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 2:17 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.
[B. D’Eith in the chair.]
B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have BCEdAccess Society — Tracy Humphreys.
Hi, how are you?
T. Humphreys: I’m good, thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a reminder to try to keep the initial comments to five minutes and then five minutes for questions.
BCEDACCESS SOCIETY
T. Humphreys: Yes, I’ll do my best.
Thank you, all, for having me here. It’s nice to see. I’ve seen a lot of you pretty recently, but it’s good to be back in front of you all again.
I wanted to start by acknowledging that we’re meeting on the land of the Lkwungen-speaking people, where I also live and work. I was actually born on the land of the Sioux nation. I spent my early childhood on Mi’kmaq land, but as a settler, I didn’t know any of this until a couple of years ago, so I’m really grateful that we have an education system that has moved along in that regard and that my children know where they’re situated and the history of the land.
I’m the founder and chair of the BCEdAccess Society. We’re an entirely volunteer-run parent organization. We provide peer-to-peer supports for children and youth and parents of children and youth with disabilities and complex learners. We do systemic-level advocacy for equitable access to education. I hope that was clear.
Others will come to you with a specific dollar amount and ask. Supports for students with disabilities and complex learners in the education system are not quite so simple, unfortunately.
I was here last year. You may remember me. Everything that I said then is still relevant, but I’ll provide a written submission with more details on that along with some feedback directly from our families, because we only have five minutes.
Last year I mentioned that it had been ten years. This year, it’s now been 11 years that this committee has been making, essentially, the same recommendations to government on inclusive education, and there has still been little action.
There has been some, though. Notably, recently, over the last couple of months, the select standing committee on children and youth with special needs has been taking testimony from organizations and individuals on assessment practices, wait-lists and transitions for neurodiverse children and youth. It’s been really compelling. I’m really glad that organizations and, particularly, families have had that opportunity to speak their truth.
When we want to find out what a child with disability needs at school, we perform assessments. When we want to know where we’re at as a system, we need to do the same. What’s working? What isn’t working? We have some really excellent practices by EAs and teachers and schools and districts around the province that are great examples of what is working.
An example of what’s not working is the exclusion of children with disabilities from school. We’ve been tracking data on this, and it’s a significant issue in B.C., as we suspected. Many children are only attending partial days of school, for example — some as little as an hour or two a day. We’ve had around 3,500 individual reported incidents of exclusion since September on this tracker, and I’m not sure how well advertised we are. It’s happening in every district in B.C. In fact, it’s an issue all around the world, according to my counterparts across Canada, in Europe, Australia, Thailand and more.
Once we see, though, what is working or not, a plan needs to be put in place. How can we replicate those successes? How can we do better? Are there specific issues like exclusion that need urgent attention? What are our hopes and dreams for education as a province? Can we build a better system, beginning with all students in mind?
Our current education system was built for children who don’t really exist. There is no typical student. UVic professor waaseyaa’sin Christine Sy contends that education in Canada is and always has been a colonial project. In the spirit of truth and reconciliation, we should be actively seeking to create a better system that enacts our true goals and includes all rather than try to patch up the system that we do have.
I’m bringing back two of the recommendations that we made last year. The first one is that we’d like to see an audit of the education of students with disabilities and complex learners in the B.C. public and independent school systems, to be undertaken as soon as possible, similar to an audit of the education of Aboriginal students in the B.C. public school system, which was completed in 2015 and has resulted in some effective changes.
The second is that we request that the government establish a royal commission on education to comprehensively review and produce a vision, guiding principles and action plan for early learning, K-12 and post-secondary schooling, remembering, of course, to begin with inclusion of all students. The last Royal Commission on Education was 30 years ago. The information and expertise already exists, with many of the leaders in the field of education already working in our own province.
I want to note that these recommendations reflect the overall budget consultation and priorities of this government. In our written submission, I’ve outlined the specific ways in which that happens. Implementing these recommendations would be a true step forward in achieving these goals.
I just want to finish by saying that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that when government provides benefits such as education to the general population, they have an obligation not just to provide the law but also to take positive steps to ensure that members of disadvantaged groups such as persons with disabilities benefit equally from those services. Funding remains a major issue in ensuring that education is accessible for students with disabilities. Ultimately, education spending is a cost-effective, proactive and preventative use of our tax dollars.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Tracy.
Questions?
N. Simons: I appreciate…. Our eyes were opened and our hearts were touched by so much of the testimony we heard in the Child and Youth Committee. One of the things that seemed to get a lot of people’s attention was the impact of the lack of adequate funding, shall we say, to allow children to simply participate. Can you just describe, perhaps, the impact of the lack of education resources our teachers have to deal with?
T. Humphreys: I could talk about it from so many perspectives, but I think that the big impact is a societal one. When children are excluded from school, their parents, the family…. They get called in. Let’s say the school calls and says to bring their child home. They get called, and they have to drop everything. They might have a job. Employers don’t really like this when it happens repeatedly. Sometimes what will happen is that the person will eventually lose their job. There’s a breakdown in family relationships. There can be the end of relationships, which leads to single parenting, which is even more challenging. So unemployed and parenting solo.
The child is having struggles and challenges, and the parent doesn’t have the support in the home that perhaps would have been available at the school. So there are struggles in those relationships. Sometimes it gets pushed to the point where the recommendation becomes, “Maybe you should put your child in care so that we can better help them,” instead of providing help at the school level in the first place and in the home to provide a better situation for that child. The only way they can support them is by removing them from the home.
Those are some extreme cases, but they definitely have happened.
N. Simons: It’s hard to summarize in a short period of time.
T. Humphreys: Yeah, it is.
N. Simons: Thank you for being here again.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Tracy. We really appreciate it. Very nice seeing you again. Thanks for all your work on this.
Next up we have the Board Voice Society of B.C. — Jody Paterson.
Hi, Jody.
BOARD VOICE SOCIETY OF B.C.
J. Paterson: Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to present. I’m the executive director of the Board Voice Society of B.C., which is a provincial umbrella organization whose members are community non-profits delivering social care services in B.C.
I last presented to this committee in October. It’s striking to be back before you again already with so many worrying changes that have come about since then, affecting issues around social care in our sector in B.C.
Board Voice’s request for Budget 2020 is that there be both the will and the funding to define, value and improve the relationship our sector has with government in the name of improving social care in B.C.
We have growing fears that social care could soon be the purview of large, multinational corporations who, by their nature, serve shareholders rather than the B.C. communities where they operate. This situation appears to be developing almost by accident, though it will be very difficult to reverse if it’s allowed to continue.
The term “social care” encompasses soup-to-nuts services, child care, immigration settlement, job training, mental health supports, family care, social housing, supports for people with developmental disabilities, therapies for children with developmental delays, poverty reduction, counselling, crisis intervention — on and on. In fact, I’ve sat through four presentations just now. All of them were related to social care and social health in B.C.
Governments in Canada once provided very little social care but, in the 1960s, began contracting with community non-profits trying to address social needs in their regions. As later research around the social determinants of health would reveal, these kinds of social supports are the most important factor in determining a person’s health, in determining a province’s productivity and in many other things.
Today the provincial government holds 10,000 contracts with 2,000 social care organizations. Most are still non-profits, but with shifts in procurement processes, large multinationals are entering into the work. Procurement aimed at reducing the number of contracts and shaping more of a one-size-fits-all model creates fertile ground for the entry of multinationals into social care.
We can argue the impact of that later, but what we ask for more immediately is a provincial commitment to engage in and fund a formal conversation with our sector that will get our long-standing partnership back on track and explore what it would mean to be giving up non-profit leaders for social care. Social health will not be achieved by giving up the vital community knowledge, connection, history, passion and reinvestment in community that exists uniquely in the non-profit sector.
Some of that work is underway. Social Development Minister Shane Simpson is presiding over a round table on social services, with many of us at the table, including Board Voice. This is a very positive development, but it will need long-term support from government to keep it going and bring it to resolution. I can’t stress how important this conversation is to social health in B.C., and it can’t be done off the side of a very busy minister’s desk, most especially when the issues on the table far exceed that minister’s portfolio or his power.
Procurement is not a sexy issue, but it lays the foundation for how work gets done. Procurement for iron to build a new bridge or a new IT system is one thing; procurement for complex, highly individual and ultimately intimate human services is quite another. Board Voice does understand that managing 10,000 contracts must be a wearying and expensive commitment for government, but there are many ways to reduce that load while continuing to value community-based organizations that are truly government’s best bet for achieving social goals.
Our sector is often dubbed the charitable sector, which gives the impression that it would be charitable to support us in our work. In fact, it’s essential. Community non-profits were created for this work. We’re low cost, relentlessly passionate, innovative and remarkably good at the work. We know how to do this work.
As I noted to you last year, social care in B.C. ought to have the same level of planning and prioritizing as the health and education systems. Again, the four presentations that have just gone before me kind of underlined that. But instead of a social care system, we have a blizzard of small and tenuous contracts creating a staggering amount of unnecessary work both for government and for us. We have an uneven patchwork of services whose accessibility varies wildly depending on the community in question and the political support for one issue or another. Even the most excellent of services could be gone tomorrow.
Not surprisingly, B.C. continues to face persistent social issues that rarely show improvement. That’s not a coincidence. We need a plan for social care. We need connected, supported, community-based services that fit into that plan. Community non-profits have always been government’s partners in this work, and we urge you to ensure that Budget 2020 provides the ability to work with us to give British Columbians the best social care system we can.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.
N. Simons: Thank you very much, Jody. So what has happened that has created this issue? What is the fundamental issue that we need to be at the table working towards strengthening and really getting back on track, as I think you said?
J. Paterson: There have been a number of hits. The low-wage redress was an obvious one around wage inequity that’s existed for 30 years. So that was not new.
The procurement contracting piece emerged first with the WorkBC contracts, in which Maximus and West Coast, also known as Ingeus, have both gained significant ground. But what’s happening now, behind that, is that MCFD is talking about its contracting methods. Many other of the funding ministries are looking at their contracting and procurement in the same way that the WorkBC contract unfolded. What the big concern is, is that….
You can procure. It’s not about, “No, we don’t want you to use procurement,” although I do think you could examine whether it’s the best fit for social care. But when you procure, you must put in the process the things, the values, that you want to achieve, right? You can’t just put in the services. You need to think about how those services should be achieved when they’re social care.
N. Simons: Are you including in that choosing service providers who pay a living wage or are community-based? Is that the issue? Is it that we’re getting larger, not-community-specific organizations starting to manage larger numbers of contracts?
J. Paterson: Well, if we look at WorkBC as an example, what happened there was that there was no…. Previous contracts required community flow-through — in other words, money had to come and go out to community agencies. That was removed. Community knowledge was defined as just, “Do you know how to work in a community,” not: “Do you know how to work in this community, in this issue.” So that piece was removed as well.
There were no points, if you will, for past success, for past history, right? So you could be just…. How you’d done for the past 30 years with your organization didn’t count for anything when it came to procurement, and there was also no requirement to reinvest your money. That’s what non-profits do, right? That’s why they call them non-profit. Profit goes back to community every single time because it’s required by law. If you remove that, then what you have is for-profits taking the work.
N. Simons: So is the issue really the reduction in the non-profit side and the increase in the privatized side of service delivery?
J. Paterson: That’s a piece of the issue. I’d say the bigger issue is that all of these kinds of things…. That one — that’s just one little piece, right? But all of these kinds of things are happening without any conversation about where they’re going and what’s being lost. To me, the bigger issue is that conversation. We’re giving up things. We’re changing things. We’re shifting the ground without understanding why we’re doing it. Is it actually better? Will it be more effective? What’s going to be lost?
B. D’Eith (Chair): Interesting. So it’s not procurement per se. It’s how, let’s say within the procurement process, factors or points are built in to ensure that there’s local knowledge — not just knowledge but local knowledge or, like you said, history of working. Those things get baked into the procurement process so that those are taken into account. Is that sort of what you’re asking?
J. Paterson: Yes, and they have been baked in, in previous times. Also, we haven’t used procurement for social care very extensively until now. It’s starting to be seen as a mechanism for procuring for social care for the first time. If you’re going to do that, you really need to think about it, because it’s not widgets and bricks. It’s about humans.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Got it. Any other questions?
Thank you very much, Jody. Really appreciate that.
Okay. Next up we have Camosun College Faculty Association — Chris Ayles.
Just a reminder, Chris, if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we have five minutes for questions.
CAMOSUN COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOCIATION
C. Ayles: Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Chris Ayles. I’m a geography and environmental science instructor at Camosun College. I’m also the president of the Camosun College Faculty Association at present. It’s a pleasure to be here. I want to thank you all for taking the time to receive some of our input on the upcoming budget.
I guess the context for my remarks today is that, over the past 20 years or so that I’ve been working at Camosun, we have seen a sort of steady erosion of base budgets to post-secondary institutions. This plays out in many different ways which I won’t go into today, but one of the most egregious issues that we see on the provincial landscape is that dealing with non-regular faculty at our post-secondary institutions.
Just to be clear on what that means, we have continuing faculty who have got, basically, steady, ongoing employment. Then we have sort of an underclass of faculty, which are non-regulars. At Camosun, we refer to them as term faculty. Basically, they’re working on contracts from one semester to the next. They may be hired to teach one course, two courses, maybe even a fraction of a course. It really varies.
I’m fortunate enough to work at a college where the situation for term faculty is reasonably equitable, in the sense that at Camosun, we actually have term faculty paid on the provincial salary scale, which is common to the majority of our institutions, certainly, that are part of our federation — the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, which represents 19 faculty associations from around the province.
At Camosun, we have got some collectively bargained limits on how many term faculty can be employed. That provides us with a little bit of protection. But at Camosun, even having said that, we see that our term instructors have got a tough row to hoe. Those guys have got fewer benefits. They’ve got no professional development time. They’ve got probably, most importantly, no job security, which means that they have no idea from one semester to the next how much work they’ll get, whether they’ll be brought back. It’s a tough place to be for them.
As I say, this is an example of where things are relatively good. When we start to broaden the view across the province to some of our other associations that are in our federation, there are places where non-regular, academic staff can make up well over 50 percent of teaching faculty. That’s already not great because of how unstable that work is for them. But then, in addition, probably the issue that I’m most interested in you guys hearing about today is the fact that at many places across the province, these people are paid on what we refer to as secondary salary scales.
There are workarounds — I don’t know how they’ve come into being — at many institutions that allow them to pay non-regular faculty significantly less than their continuing colleagues. When I say significantly less, I mean in some cases, you may be making a quarter of what your colleague down the hall makes for the very same work — right? — teaching the same course. You might be a better instructor than the person down the hall who was fortunate enough to get hired 20 years ago into a regular job, and you’ll be making a quarter of the money.
Now, we all know what the cost of living has been doing in B.C., particularly in the Lower Mainland and on the Island. These people are living, in some cases, barely above subsistence level.
We feel that it’s important that our institutions be able to model some of the values that we preach. We’re always trying to talk to our students about equity, about fairness, about social justice. Yet, we find ourselves working in this system where there are basically two classes of citizens that are employed and being paid quite differently for the same amount of work.
There are a lot of different issues that I could go on about that I feel are, I guess, outcomes of decades-long erosion of base funding. In many ways, we feel this is just the most flagrant example of what needs to be fixed. It just seems wrong, basically, to have these second-class citizens that are teaching your sons and daughters in the colleges and which would appear to have prestigious jobs and, in fact, they can barely make ends meet.
I guess I’ll stop there, since my five minutes are about up.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Chris. Appreciate that.
We have heard, in past iterations of this committee, issues around base funding. One part of that discussion, I remember last year, was in regards to the reliance on foreign students and foreign tuition and to sort of balance that.
My own experience as a faculty member at a college…. I was fine. I was a term faculty. That was okay for me, but there was one fellow who’d been there 17 years. My understanding, from talking to him, was they never quite gave him enough to qualify for full-time faculty because once you do become qualified, you have to get the work. So the next year, as long as he was not considered full-time faculty, they could always just cut the courses, and there were no ramifications for that.
It’s not just not getting as much money. It’s also a disincentive to the college to actually move those full-time faculty into full time because there’s that risk they have financially. So they’re mitigating their risk by not having those people get in. I guess that’s part of the pressure that the colleges and the universities have been feeling on this. It’s a symptom of what you’re talking about. I guess funding….
C. Ayles: Yes, I appreciate your comments. You’re absolutely right. That’s a very common story in our sector. You know, essentially, the colleges are under budget pressure, which we understand.
Non-regular faculty are a way they can save money. They don’t have to pay them as many benefits. They don’t have to pay for them to have professional development time. They can more easily cut them loose if the wind shifts direction and there’s less work available, in their opinions, in the areas. Yeah, it’s a problem, and I think the disparity in wages is sort of the most flagrant example of what needs to change. There are other aspects of it, as well, that you’ve alluded to.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Thanks, Chris.
N. Simons: Thank you for your presentation. Does this impact any particular part of the college, any particular academic stream or what have you, or is it campus-wide?
C. Ayles: I appreciate your question. I think that it’s patchy. I think the details of how many non-regulars there are…. It really depends on the institution. It depends on the area of the institution. So it’s a complicated question as to why you might find more in one area versus another.
I’m blanking out. There was another aspect of what….
N. Simons: I’m just trying to figure out…. It’s obviously something to do with savings for the college, but is it because there’s a lack of guaranteed enrolment, or is it the simple fact that every year there’ll be a different number of students enrolled? I’m not trying to justify it or not. I’m just wondering what it is that the colleges are addressing.
C. Ayles: I think, to a degree, there is a level of managerial control that they have over term faculty, which they do not have over continuing faculty. So having more people in that category is convenient.
That’s one of the things that I guess…. As faculty associations, we try to, you know, bargain good rules around getting people regularized as, hopefully, the pathway that everybody could be on. But the disparity between the wages and the working conditions between the non-regulars and the regulars creates a really strong incentive in addition to that — right? It’s just a cost savings.
Again, a little less so at some of our institutions. I’m privileged to work at one of those. But you know, it’s honestly outrageous — the difference at some places. And, you know, the thing that needs to be understood, I think, is that this all trickles down to the students — right? — and I think that this is not a well-understood problem.
I mean, what does a student on the ground care? These are people who don’t have any job stability, so where is their incentive to invest in the institution — right? If they’re working at three different jobs because they can’t get a steady gig teaching at the college, where’s the time or the incentive for them to develop their expertise, to put the time necessary into their courses, when they don’t know if they’ll ever get to teach them again, when they know that they may have their workload yanked? Where’s their service to committees which exist to make the institutions better?
You know, it all trickles down to the students, and it honestly….
B. D’Eith (Chair): There’s nothing worse than that. Developing a whole program and then: “Ah, we don’t have enough students, sorry.”
C. Ayles: You know what I’ve seen? This is getting off of the wage thing a little bit. But I mean, at Camosun, term faculty members…. If your class is not full — right? — because maybe…. I don’t know why. Maybe you’ve only got 15 people enrolled. Well, they’ll just cancel it, because you’re only a term faculty member, and you don’t have, really, any standing, so they can do that without repercussions.
Now the students are all out looking for something else. If you were looking to major in geography, which is what I teach, well, too bad. I mean, that’s not the best example. It’s not really what I’m here to present on.
B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re actually out of time, but….
N. Simons: I think it helps give us a broader picture, and I really appreciate how you’ve painted a pretty clear picture.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, thanks so much, Chris. I really appreciate your time.
Next up we have Destination Greater Victoria — Paul Nursey.
Hello, Paul. How are you? Good to see you.
P. Nursey: Good to see you, as well. How are you?
B. D’Eith (Chair): Very well. We brought you back earlier this time, didn’t we?
The floor is yours.
DESTINATION GREATER VICTORIA
P. Nursey: Great. I’ll be brief. I’ll leave time for questions and answers.
Thank you very much for having us today. Welcome to greater Victoria. It’s a beautiful sunny day. It’s a bit regrettable that you have to spend your whole day in here. But you’re doing great work for the province, so we appreciate it.
We’re the official not-for-profit destination management organization that works in partnership with over 1,000 businesses and municipalities in greater Victoria. We are governed by a blend of industry and government. Our responsibilities have recently grown over the last two years to include sales and marketing management of the Victoria Conference Centre, which has experienced a major turnaround, and sports tourism.
We advocate on major public policy files which affect our members and our business. We really do take our job very seriously: to grow the visitor economy in a responsible way, which is a foundation in terms of supporting $2.3 billion in economic activity in the greater Victoria region. We do like to talk about how we work together to put 22,000 people to work.
I’d like to talk very quickly, as a CEO, on behalf of five quick topics with a lot of thanks and a couple of issues and opportunities. The first one is the broad idea of how organizations like ours are resourced. In the industry, we call them visitor-based assessments. Around the world, they can be a hotel room tax or a fee or a voluntary levy. There’s a variety of different ways.
In British Columbia, it’s the MRDT system, which for many years has provided a competitive, sustainable advantage. It is a surtax linked to the PST, on top of the PST, which is an 8 percent PST, which is larger than what the rest of consumers pay. There are very good regulations around it, and it has provided predictable, success-based revenues for all of us to wake up in the morning and to do extra hard work to try and grow the model in an ongoing fashion.
We do know that MRDT is now collected on Airbnb through a kind of negotiated deal, for affordable housing in some cases, and we’re working in good faith towards an affordable housing plan in Victoria. I think the industry and the lodging sector is just concerned about the drift into other uses beyond tourism. We just wanted to raise that issue. While the Airbnb deal may be virtuous, where does it stop, and where does it end? There already is PST on accommodation. We just want to raise that for consideration.
Secondly, I want to raise to your attention the Belleville terminal. It’s been a 30-year file. I know that Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure staff are working very hard on it. The kind of key strategic issue was — it does need to be resolved; there are good-faith efforts to do it — that we need to keep those U.S. customs and border patrol agents in the Victoria Inner Harbour. There are opportunities for home-port cruise ship terminals — small, boutique cruise ships nearby. There could be some sharing of resources with Ogden Point and that type of opportunity.
If we don’t get this resolved fairly soon, it’s been made very clear to us by our American colleagues that those officers could move back down into the United States, where they do have pressures and other opportunities in them. It would be hard for them to come back. Currently it’s grandfathered, so the costs are absorbed by the U.S. government. It is a key strategic opportunity and also a bit of a risk in terms of our bilateral trade and tourism opportunities.
The third piece is just to raise the opportunity around sports tourism. We see that as a growing opportunity. We don’t necessarily need more business in July and August, but this does help bring the year-round business around. It also provides great sports legacies and all the other ancillary effects. We have an active bid on the 2022 Invictus Games, which has received good attention from the provincial government.
The other thing we really want to raise is that there is a tourism event program, the MTEP program, which takes 0.2 percent of the 3 percent MRDT. We don’t find that there is necessarily an equitable split between some of the communities that pay into it versus those that don’t. I understand that program may be reviewed, and we just want to lobby for a fair share.
As I intimated earlier, our colleagues at the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority are working on a very ambitious plan to modernize the Victoria cruise terminal. Currently we see 700,000 visitors as a port of call, and there is demand for small-ship home-porting. That would be a tremendous opportunity for the whole region, not only from a direct tourism perspective but from agricultural producers and others in terms of provisioning. In fact, some of our local microbrews are being piloted on big international brands because of the idea or the allure of home-porting. We need to see local producers get on board.
As this idea takes shape, we’re hoping that it will receive due consideration from the provincial government. Of course, it would need federal support and municipal as well.
Finally, in terms of the broad economic conditions and taxation, we do expect 2019 to be a solid year for the industry, but it’s not going to be as good as 2018. We have had eight or nine years of growth. We are nearing, likely, the end of an economic cycle in the next year or two.
While there were some changes…. I’m not here to lobby for or against any changes in taxation, other than to say that it takes small business time to adjust. We would hope that maybe there’s a year or two of stability so that the goalposts aren’t always moving and there’s an opportunity for our businesses to focus on what they do best, which is deliver service to the customer.
With that, those are my remarks. I’d be happy to take any questions.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Paul. There’s a lot there.
I did notice that you mentioned Minister Fleming was involved. Is that his thing? I didn’t know that.
P. Nursey: Yeah. How he’s involved…. Minister Trevena is obviously handling transportation. But in terms of rallying the local stakeholders and….
B. D’Eith (Chair): So more as an MLA, because it’s in his….
P. Nursey: MLA, yeah. But it’s also in Carole James’s riding, which would be viewed as a conflict.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, I see.
P. Nursey: I understand that they’re working in partnership. Mr. Fleming is really taking an active role on that file.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I was just curious.
P. Nursey: It’s a bit of an oddity, but yeah, absolutely.
B. D’Eith (Chair): No, no, that’s fine. I was just curious.
Any questions?
R. Leonard: Just a quick question. The MRDT — does that not require the community’s buy-in before it’s ever applied?
P. Nursey: It requires both accommodation and community and regional district — a very broad, five-year plan. In our case, we’re in year 3 of a five-year plan, and we’ll be working on the next one in the next year and a half.
N. Simons: So the issue really was that the change occurred after the five-year agreements, mostly?
P. Nursey: Well, there are 57 communities collecting MRDT. I’m also the chair of the policy committee of the Tourism Industry Association. It just creates uncertainty through those periods. It’s hard to argue against affordable housing, particularly if it goes towards workforce- or tourism-related matters. We’re just concerned about a broader drift into other areas.
B. D’Eith (Chair): A question for you in regards to the Ogden Point and the cruise ship issues, because we did meet with Cruise Lines International, with Donna Spalding, today. Do you know Donna?
P. Nursey: Yeah, I know Donna.
B. D’Eith (Chair): There were issues around the Vancouver harbour and competition from Seattle. Just so we know, how does that impact Victoria?
P. Nursey: That’s absolutely a fair question. I’ll back it up by providing context in that the cruise segment is a very rapidly growing segment. The issue that Vancouver is facing, as I understand it, is that Canada Place terminal is a bit awkward. They have air traffic issues with regards to the Lions Gate Bridge.
Victoria is related to the Seattle terminal. The Seattle terminal is the one that’s growing very quickly and, in fact, taking market share from Vancouver. But Vancouver is still growing as well, so it’s a growing pie.
What we’re looking at in terms of Victoria is that it’s becoming a third home port in the Alaska theatre. We’d be focused exclusively on small, boutique cruise ships that would not compete with Vancouver or Seattle. It’d be a different segment of the market.
As Seattle grows and nears capacity, there are essentially two routes. Some prefer to go up the Inside Passage, which requires a departure from Vancouver. Some view the Alaska cruise ship experience as an entirely American one. They depart from Seattle. They return to Seattle. So we do not view it as competition to Vancouver. We’re all members of CLIA and work constructively with them on many different files.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Excellent.
Any other questions?
Great. Well, thank you very much, Paul. We appreciate seeing you again, as always. Thanks for all your hard work.
Next up we have Lana LeBlanc.
Hi, Lana. Just a reminder that if we can keep the initial comments to five minutes, and then we have five minutes for questions, that’d be great.
LANA LeBLANC
L. LeBlanc: Hi. My name is Lana LeBlanc. I’m here to tell you why you need to invest in the improved health care support for myalgic encephalomyelitis patients in B.C. I’d like to tell you about this illness, my husband and why I’m here.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, is a complex chronic inflammatory illness. Myalgia means muscle pain; encephalo means brain; myelo means your spinal cord; –itis means inflammation. Sometimes it’s called chronic fatigue syndrome, or MECFS.
Two years ago my husband fell ill. Josh was a vibrant, robust person, yet over the course of weeks, he began to feel very unwell and very unusual to what he’s experienced before. But our health story has a fortunate start. We had a family GP. We had workplace benefits. We had social support. We are both educated in health-related careers. We were able to navigate the health care system, and it felt straightforward to us.
All the while, my husband’s health deteriorated. About four months in, we were sitting in a specialist’s office, and he said: “Josh, you have chronic fatigue syndrome. This is very real. People have this. Unfortunately, I don’t follow these patients in my practice. I also don’t have anyone to refer you to. There’s one clinic in Vancouver, but the wait-list is about two years. I’m very sorry.” We’re still on the wait-list.
My husband continues to worsen. Of these two years, he has spent most of it in our home in bed. He cannot drive. He cannot make his own meals. He rarely can have visitors, including our seven-year-old daughter or me. Our family physician continues to be compassionate and attentive, but he has no clinical guidelines nor support available to him to help us. There’s not even a billing code. My husband is 43, and it feels like we have reached the end of health care. This cannot be and is not acceptable.
During our two years, we have also learned that ME isn’t as rare as we thought. It is estimated that 70,000 British Columbians have it, half a million Canadians and 17 million people worldwide. The estimated number of Canadians with MS, Parkinson’s, ALS and Huntington’s combined is one-third of those Canadian numbers. Think about how much awareness you have of those other diseases. As of today, the CIHR has allocated zero biological research to ME in Canada.
The major symptoms of ME include a severe onset of disabling fatigue that is persistent and not alleviated by rest; changes in sleep patterns; and cognitive impairments, such as difficulty with concentration, word recall and reading. Widespread pain is also typical. The hallmark feature of the illness is called post-exertional malaise, which means upon exertion, all those other symptoms are increased or exacerbated and can take hours or days to settle. My husband experiences this every day.
Prior to this, Josh was an intensive care nurse. He was trained as a search and rescue team member. He was an amateur sprint triathlete, and he was a fly fisherman. He’s a great dad, he’s a great husband, and he misses his life.
You may be asking: why does this illness deserve your attention for coming to the 2020 budget? It’s because it needs provincial awareness. It needs leadership. It needs support. You have a choice to help or ignore the other 70,000 British Columbians, their families, their caregivers and their doctors.
While my husband is the one ill, I can attest that this has also greatly changed my life and my family’s. Last December, a patient group met with the B.C. Ministry of Health, and the Ministry’s response was non-committal. We also hosted a public awareness event on the steps of the Legislature building in May. Not a single MLA came out, despite invitations — not one.
This is my personal chance to ask for help, but many people are behind me. Specifically, I am asking for a provincial task force to review the ME crisis in B.C. This task force could consider and should consider bridging the gap between patients, caregivers and health care providers with the government, conducting a provincial ME needs-assessment study, supporting ME education in medical schools and continuing education credits for community health care providers, as well as updating the information and evidence available on the HealthLink webpage on ME.
I know that health care and getting it right is deeply challenging, because there is no perfect solution. But I also know that there are lots of illnesses that came before me and ME, like HIV and MS. I’m asking you to give us our turn. British Columbians need it, Canadians need it, and the world is watching. Thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks Lana. I appreciate that. I just have a quick question around the statistics. You said there’s 70,000 in British Columbia. I’m just curious where that number came from.
L. LeBlanc: Nationally what gets used in patient advocacy groups is a Stats Canada product, which is the Canadian community health survey that was done in 2016. It’s a cross-sectional survey, so there are limitations to that, because it was voluntary. I can attest that my husband wouldn’t be well enough to even fill it out or answer the phone.
That’s where the data comes from. It specifically asked about diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome. Then it gets extrapolated based on the response, and then to the population.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Thank you.
R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. The question…. You had made a reference to a two-year wait-list. But if there’s no billing code for it, it sounds like our medical system is not recognizing it. I’m just wondering what this two-year wait-list is for. What is it for? What do you get when you reach the pinnacle of it?
L. LeBlanc: In Vancouver at the B.C. Women’s Hospital, there’s a small clinic that’s called the complex chronic disease program. They see patients that either are suspected cases of chronic fatigue syndrome, and their community providers don’t know quite what to do, or like us. We had an internal medicine specialist go through the criteria and indicate that this is what Josh has, and then you get on a wait-list for there.
It’s an interprofessional clinic that has been without a medical director for a number of months and has recently hired one from the U.K. because there isn’t a person in Canada to bring. The clinic itself focuses…. Unfortunately, at this point, not a lot of deep clinical care is my understanding. It’s a lot of self-management strategies. Josh and I have downloaded all of that and are doing all of that already.
I don’t really know exactly what we’re waiting for. A lot of patients I’ve heard, anecdotally, are waiting to get to that clinic to finally get a diagnosis so that they can go back to their long-term disability claimants, Canada Pension disability, etc., because physicians seem to be uneducated to be able to diagnose it themselves.
R. Leonard: So they’re not able to get long-term disability?
L. LeBlanc: Some patients aren’t, without a diagnosis, which is why I highlighted why our story has positive starts. Imagine if you didn’t have a GP that knew you for five years, or nine or ten.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Lana, I’m just trying to get my head around things. If it takes two years to get a diagnosis, how could there be, like, 70,000 people? I mean….
L. LeBlanc: It’s because it’s not a new disease. This isn’t new at all.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, okay. This is an accumulation over numbers of years. I was just curious.
L. LeBlanc: I don’t think that it’s a new phenomenon. I think it just has a lot of low awareness.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, got it.
Nicholas, the Chair recognizes you.
N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your indulgence.
The question I have is around not so much the lack of awareness but what you referred to as the stigma. I think that might play a role, partly. You were lucky to have a doctor that not only recognized and was clearly in agreement that the symptoms were such. What happens when there is skepticism and stigma? Is there skepticism and stigma?
L. LeBlanc: I think there are. I can’t speak to it, because I feel we have fortune in not experiencing that.
I will share with you that while we were four months in and didn’t experience stigma, we sat in a specialist office last week, who told my husband that his only option of care was psychiatric.
N. Simons: That’s obviously…. Yeah.
L. LeBlanc: So we can handle that, because we can. I then relayed that story to my friend who’s 65. She was going through an MS diagnosis 30 years ago, and the same thing happened to her. She was told to go home and take a bath.
I think what I’m looking for here is the willingness to be progressive and the willingness to save a lot of harm in the process.
N. Simons: Sorry, I didn’t hear about the invitation to the front steps. Sometimes we don’t get notified. I don’t remember getting an invitation.
L. LeBlanc: Perhaps it was the local area, Victoria, MLAs.
N. Simons: Well, either way, I think you’ve done a good job in letting us know.
I was going to ask: what are some of the self-management systems that you can employ? I can’t….
L. LeBlanc: It’s not celery juice. I’ll share that.
N. Simons: Is it mindfulness? Is it…?
L. LeBlanc: Because it’s an exertional-related illness, you have to manage your exertion. So what Josh is very careful about doing is measuring his heart rate upon doing any activity — physical, cognitive, mental, all of it. Josh is a fly-tyer. He wears a heart rate monitor. He times himself. When his heart rate goes up, he stops. If you go over, then you have this onset of extreme symptoms, and then you lose it. Some days he decides whether or not he’s going to shave or play a card game with our seven-year-old later that day. Sometimes it’s one or the other. You have to pace yourself throughout the course of the day.
I’ve navigated quite hard through this, and our doctor is quite willing to look at the evidence that I bring from outside of B.C. There are very good chances that there are existing drugs that may help, right? Why psychiatry was a quite dismissive option…. It is brain science. They do know how those drugs exist and operate on the chemicals of your brain. This is just falling through the gaps all over the place. It’s unfortunate that I’m in the gap.
I have not done this before. Other people have said that they’ve been in the room and that they saw you last month. That’s not my gig, but here I am.
N. Simons: That’s rare. If I just may follow up. Is there an organization of physicians or other health care providers that does some of this work to complement the citizen activism?
L. LeBlanc: No.
N. Simons: So that’s a part of the problem too. Well, let me just say that you’re doing…. I hope that you gather allies as you go. You’ve done a good job here, telling us about the situation.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Lana. I really appreciate it.
Next up we have South Island Wellness Society — Lila Underwood.
Hi, Lila. If we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we have time for questions.
SOUTH ISLAND WELLNESS SOCIETY
L. Underwood: Thank you for having me here. My name is Lila Underwood, and I’m local First Nations, from the Pauquachin First Nation. I’m here representing the nine nations leadership. My board consists of nine chiefs plus the urban. We represent the First Nations from Tseycum, which is located near the airport, all the way out to Pacheedaht in Port Renfrew. So we have a large geographical area. What we do is we provide collaborative planning for all of our children and families in our area that are dealing with child welfare or justice.
Our goal. We see that our people have solutions to their own problems, and our office provides circles. We’re there to fill the service gaps and to complement and support the existing services that are here. We bring people together to create unity, to create strength for our families and our communities. Our staff are committed, passionate. The majority of them are First Nations people. So they provide the cultural awareness to our probation officers, our RCMP, our social workers.
Right now the majority…. The challenge that I have within our organization, in particular, relates to our restorative justice program. I have one staff person who provides service to all of those people, right from the airport all the way out to Port Renfrew. It’s such a large geographical area, and it’s hard to provide good service to first-time offenders, to people who are being released from jail, trying to teach all of the service providers about the cultural ways of our people.
It’s hard to try to build trust because of the colonial past that we’ve had. We have a lot of requests to provide cultural awareness to all of those people. It’s just really hard to provide a good service to our people when we have one person in the restorative justice program. In the child welfare piece, I have seven staff who provide services to that same area and only one person for the justice side.
I’m here to ask for more resources, more funding, for our restorative justice program in particular, so that we can provide more positions and not have just one person, who, I would say, is going to burn out soon with providing such a large service to a large area. We want to involve more elders in our program. We want to have more community members come forward. We want to train our people around the circles.
Also, I’d like to ask that a memorandum of understanding…. That there be follow-through. That was signed in 2017 to create an Indigenous justice strategy, and we need that to be properly resourced and, like I said, to follow through with our MOU. Our chiefs signed on with the understanding that we would get more service down the road, and there has not been any increase since we started in 2009.
I forgot to mention that we are a not-for-profit society. I think we’ve really done a good job with creating relationships in this area with our social workers and with our probation officers. We are a reputable organization who are very high level with our statistics, with where we’re getting our referrals from, how many families we’re helping. Our vision is to empower families, individuals and communities to create their own plans for growth, for wellness and for safety.
That is my ask.
N. Simons: First of all, thank you very much for doing the work that you do. Having worked in this sector for a long time, I recognize that your role is partly to minimize the negative impact of some of the authorities of the justice system and the child welfare system and, at the same time, take over that — help the communities regain the responsibility, or reassert it, I guess, is the way.
Do you work with delegated agencies? Are there any delegated agencies within your area as well?
L. Underwood: Yes. Surrounded by Cedar is a delegated agency off reserve, and NIȽ TU,O is a delegated agency on reserve, so we work with those two agencies. Our biggest referral source, and the biggest relationship we have right now, is with the Aboriginal team — the ministry office in Esquimalt. We work with a lot of agencies, and, like I said, I think we’ve developed a good reputation.
We get a lot of referrals. Our biggest referral source right now is for the urban population. So those people that are not living…. That’s both in restorative justice and our child welfare piece. Those families who are really struggling to find their way home, to find the culture, to find family who believe in them and can support them — that is our biggest area right now.
N. Simons: I can’t remember my second question.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just to be clear, what you’re asking for are more resources for the restorative justice side of what you’re doing, in particular?
L. Underwood: In particular, the restorative justice side. I mean, there is some part….
B. D’Eith (Chair): Is that another person, or more…?
L. Underwood: It is more people.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Could you maybe expand on, specifically, what you feel the needs are?
L. Underwood: Currently I only have one staff person for the restorative justice piece, so she’s providing service for alternative measures, community conflict resolution, reintegration support and court-ordered healing circles. She’s doing respectful relationships and substance abuse. She’s doing a lot.
She’s doing a great job. It’s just that I am worried about burnout. There is just absolutely…. To me, it’s crazy to think that one person can provide a service from Port Renfrew all the way out to the airport. I have my other program. I have seven staff who do that, and we are busy, busy, busy.
Right now in particular, I would say that we need…. At the very minimum, right now, we need at least three more people in that restorative justice program — at the very least.
I’d love to bring in our elders, because that’s what our urban community is thriving for — to have people to teach them songs, to teach them values, to teach their beliefs. As you know, those people who are incarcerated or involved with the child welfare piece are missing that. I think the research has shown that the more people are involved with their culture and their language, the more successful they are.
I would really love to have elders in residence in my program, which I don’t have right now. I try to plead with people I know to come forward and help. You know, if I could give them little honorariums when they’re travelling to our agency, it would be very helpful.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just to follow up on that….
L. Underwood: And, like, the techie person. I don’t have an office for my restorative justice, which I’m looking for. It’s just…. I’m in a very difficult situation.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Where does the funding for the one staff person you have right now come from?
L. Underwood: Well, half of it comes from the province, and half of it comes from the federal government. Like I said, when we signed on to do this…. I just want to say that I know, through history, that other agencies wouldn’t take this program because it was so underfunded. But our leaders agreed to take this with the understanding that more funding would come forward in the coming years, and that has not happened.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Got it. Thank you.
N. Simons: I was going to ask about the funding. I also think it’s important to point out that the individual who would work in the restorative justice would also likely be able to help in the family cases as well, in the protection and what have you. So I think that what you’re asking for is obviously something that’s definitely needed. Thank you for making it clear.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much your presentation, Lila.
Are there any other questions?
Next up we have AccessBC campaign for free prescription contraception — Dr. Teale Phelps Bondaroff.
T. Phelps Bondaroff: How’s it going?
B. D’Eith (Chair): All right, good. You have five minutes, please.
ACCESSBC CAMPAIGN FOR
FREE PRESCRIPTION
CONTRACEPTION
T. Phelps Bondaroff: Well, thank you very much. I’m Dr. Teale Phelps Bondaroff. I’m the chair and co-founder of the AccessBC campaign for free prescription contraception in British Columbia. We’re a group of young people from across the province committed to universal access to no-cost prescription contraception. Currently B.C. has a patchwork of coverage and lots of gaps. So I’m here to ask you today to include in the 2020 budget a policy that provides free no-cost prescription contraception to all British Columbians.
Access to contraception is a basic human right, and the reality is that too many people in British Columbia face barriers to accessing contraception. This results in lots of unintended pregnancies.
A 2016 study from the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that of Canadian women who have been pregnant, 61 percent of them have had an unintended pregnancy. Across Canada in 2014, 59,000 young people under the age of 24 had unintended pregnancies. An unintended pregnancy can derail life plans, comes at significant personal costs, has high negative risk factors for the mother and child and has significant costs on our health and social service systems.
Consistent contraceptive use significantly reduces the chances of unintended pregnancy, but there are barriers that are preventing people from accessing prescription contraception. Canadian contraception providers identify cost as the single most important barrier to access. Oral contraceptive pills cost about $20 a month. Injections can cost $180 a year. Copper IUDs may be $75, and hormonal IUDs may be as much as $350.
These costs fall disproportionately on women and people with uteruses — in particular, marginalized people, people in vulnerable situations and youth. For example, a very recent study from the Paediatrics and Child Health report found that for 10 percent of young people in Quebec, cost was a preventative factor for them accessing contraception or abandoning the contraception they were currently using.
Cost isn’t the only barrier. There are compounding barriers. For example, there are complicated programs. There’s travel. There’s taking time off work. People live in remote communities far away from clinics. And there’s also a host of unfortunate taboos around sex and sexual health and reproduction. These barriers compound. But we can do something immediately about cost, and that would be delivering free prescriptive contraception in British Columbia.
The most reliable methods of contraception, long-acting reversible contraceptives like IUDs, also have the highest upfront costs. As a result, a lot of people in vulnerable situations are less likely to use these methods. However, when cost is removed, these people are likely to use them. So cost is a significant barrier.
Under the current system, we have a hodgepodge of programs and sporadic coverage. There are application processes and means tests. Quite frankly, reproductive rights should not be subjected to a means test. There are also some people having to pay up front and then get reimbursed, which creates both a cost and a confidentiality barrier. You have some young people, as well, who are covered under their parents’ current plans, but the problem, of course, is that they have to give up their privacy. You should never have to give up your privacy to exercise your rights and access reproductive services.
Also, a lot of plans don’t cover all prescription contraception. For example, an IUD is often considered a device and not medicine, so it’s not covered under some pharma plans. Another one that’s brought up a lot is that a lot of times people are dependent on their partner’s money or their employment benefits. This makes them very vulnerable to reproductive coercion and domestic abuse. So money is a significant problem.
It doesn’t have to be this complicated, however. What we’re asking you to include in the 2020 budget is free prescription contraception for all people in British Columbia, a similar delivery method to what the government did in January 2018 with Mifegymiso, the abortion pill, which has been very successful, I understand. This is a similar policy that has been done in the UK, France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, and so on. There was a news story a couple of weeks ago about Colorado. They had a program that offered IUDs to young people under 24. This program reduced teen pregnancies by 54 percent and teen abortion rates by 64 percent over its eight years.
These programs work, and they have a host of benefits. First of all, they empower people. Money should never be a barrier to someone exercising their reproductive rights. They promote equality. For example, condoms are freely available in clinics and campuses and other locations around the province. Yet again, the costs of prescription contraception fall disproportionately on women and people with uteruses.
They also promote health outcomes. As I mentioned, unintended pregnancies can have the most risk for mothers and babies. It’s good education policy. As a sex educator in the past, these kinds of policies help normalize the conversation about sex and sexual health and reproductive health. And particularly because you’re the budget committee, this policy is revenue positive, which is rare in many policies. If someone can’t afford contraception, they probably also can’t afford the costs associated with unintended pregnancy. Those costs then fall on the province.
A 2010 study by Options for Sexual Health found that a program of universal access to prescription contraception in B.C. would save our government $95 million a year. A more recent study from 2015 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that the cost of a program across Canada would be $157 million but would save the government $320 million, for a total savings of $163 million. These are only the direct medical costs. They’re not including all the indirect costs further down the line in social services that often arise.
These benefits are the reason why the Canadian Medical Association, the Society for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and, very recently, the Canadian Paediatric Society have all called for universal access to contraceptives. That’s what we’re here to ask you to do today: to include in the budget for 2020 universal, no-cost prescription contraception. I thank you very much for inviting us here, and to hear any questions you have.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you.
Any questions?
N. Simons: Very good presentation. Very succinct and very to the point. I’m wondering about how we measure the impact of cost versus other potential influencers like culture or what have you.
T. Phelps Bondaroff: There are lots of different barriers, as I said. One of the members of our group comes from northern British Columbia and was describing that if you want to go to a clinic there…. In their small town, there isn’t a clinic, so they have to travel to the clinic. That takes a couple of hours, so they have to get a day off work to travel there. Then you pick up your prescription for your IUD. You don’t get it inserted the same day; you go another day. That’s two days off work. One of the more worrisome factors is that if you’re in some remote communities where there isn’t proper transportation, you may actually be hitchhiking to that clinic, which is thoroughly imperilling your safety.
These are other compounding factors. We recognize that asking for more clinics and other factors is kind of outside our scope, so we’re focusing exclusively on cost because we can do it right away and it saves money. A lot of the other benefits, a lot of the ways of reducing other barriers, can be included down the road or are, probably, part of some of the other policies that you’ve heard people talk about. We’re focusing up front on cost, but again, we recognize that there are lots of barriers as well.
N. Simons: Well, the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity is on this committee and will be reading your testimony.
T. Phelps Bondaroff: We’ll also include, if you’re interested, the full Options for Sexual Health report from 2010, which has all the numbers crunched as well as exploring all the different barriers as well.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Sorry. Did you say that those are being submitted?
T. Phelps Bondaroff: We’re going to send it to you afterwards.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Perfect. Okay, thank you.
T. Phelps Bondaroff: It’s a slightly older report, but my understanding is that there’s some new, updated information. The numbers work.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Excellent.
Any other questions?
Great. Well, thank you very much for your presentation.
T. Phelps Bondaroff: Thank you very much for hearing us.
B. D’Eith (Chair): You bet.
Next up we have school district 62, which is Sooke. We have Scott Stinson and Margot Swinburnson.
Just a quick reminder that we try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so there’s time for questions.
SCHOOL DISTRICT 62, SOOKE
M. Swinburnson: Thank you. I want to begin by acknowledging the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations, whose land we’re on today, and the three nations our school district works with: T’Sou-ke Nation and Scia’new, who are Coast Salish, and Pacheedaht to the west and the Nuu-chah-nulth people.
I am Margot Swinburnson, not Ravi Parmar, and Scott Stinson is our superintendent. I’ve been a trustee since 1999.
We’re here today to talk with you about mental health and mental wellness. Mental health and illness has come to the forefront in recent years, and this has affected schools greatly. Student anxiety is rampant. Districts have had to have a crash course on how to help teachers, students and families with what are near epidemic numbers. It’s affecting graduation, and it’s affecting life successes.
We have two health care professionals on our board, and our district has, for many years and off the sides of administrative desks, come up with creative partnerships and ways in which to combat this issue without sustained funding. Last year, as a board, we made a hard decision to dedicate line funding in our budget to support comprehensive health and mental wellness.
S. Stinson: While we’re here representing Sooke school district, we’re also here advocating on behalf of the other 59 school districts across the province. The Sooke school district has been able to bring community partners together in support of students’ physical and mental health needs, and on the handout that’s provided to you, the reverse side of that shows the partners that are involved in our healthy schools, healthy people table that meet regularly throughout the school year.
Some of the highlights in our school district that we’ve been able to do…. At Belmont Secondary School, we have a health clinic that allows students to access medical support — doctors, nurses and mental health clinicians — and in each of our other neighbourhood secondary schools, we have outreach versions of that program as well. We have, in our school district, which I believe is unique to us, a seconded mental health clinician through CYMH that works in partnership with our schools and supports the students and the needs that they have in the schools.
Our healthy schools, healthy people table, as I indicated, brings together a variety of agencies and resources to work in partnership and to step outside of the silos that they work within. All of this happens as a result of the board’s recognition of student need and allocating a portion of our district budget towards comprehensive school health. This is above and beyond the mandate of public schools, but it is a recognized need in terms of contribution to student success in the school district. Not all school districts are able to do this. The mission of our healthy schools table is to embed health and well-being into district and school cultures, priorities and structures.
M. Swinburnson: I would like to bring your attention to the motion on your handout, which was passed unanimously by the B.C. School Trustees Association at the 2019 AGM. The board of education’s business is education, and any wellness funding is vulnerable to educational pressures and to the tyranny of the acute.
We request that you allocate targeted and sustained funding for some years in order for us to create the action plans and build the relationships needed to effect systemic change in culture, support and awareness. I’m confident that the upstream moneys — and this is truly upstream money, which is not available very easily in mental health — will help our graduation rates, but most importantly, it will increase the life successes for countless numbers of youth who otherwise may have diminished life chances.
Just preventing one suicide, one overdose, one hospitalization, to me, is a success, and targeted funding will enable boards to put many preventative measures in place.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.
Nicholas, any questions?
N. Simons: Thank you for advocating for students. Having sat on the Children and Youth Committee, we’ve heard about some of the demands. I just want to say that it’s good to hear you speaking on behalf of other school districts. So thank you for that.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for that. There have been some measures in regards to mental health issues, through the Ministry of Education. I’m just wondering how this dovetails with the programs that are already being launched or announced.
M. Swinburnson: Last year I know that there was…. Was it $30 million given by the federal government? That actually transpired down to $30,000 a school district by the time the money trickled down, on a one-time funding. That was nice, but in many districts, it was very difficult to just sort of suddenly…. That also came at the end of the funding year and had to be allocated very quickly and stuff. Many districts were not prepared to do anything with that money. And $30,000 does not go far in this day and age. It doesn’t even hire half a person to actually do this.
S. Stinson: I think one of the issues for us is that within the funding envelope that comes to school districts, there is no money specifically targeted to health. Through a variety of resources…. We do surveys through the ministry. We do the McCreary survey. We do our early childhood indicator as a partnership with the University of British Columbia. We recognize all of these indicators that are potential challenges for students down the road. While we try to intervene early, those issues continue to coalesce for students over their lifespan.
Without targeting funding, you rely on school districts to individually make the decisions around whether or not to put funding towards this important aspect. Fortunately, that’s what our board has chosen to do, but not all school districts are in a position where they’re able to do that. That becomes problematic in terms of equity across the province.
We’re seeing, in the results for students, that the increased stress that they’re feeling — and their ability to deal with that when stigma is factored into this, as well as access to resources and their ability to get to these resources — becomes problematic. We see academic results decline. And when we see academic results decline — similar to the previous speaker — we see the costs of that translated to the province when we are not graduating students. So there isn’t an informed electorate as well.
Those are all challenges for us within the context of public education.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Do you feel confident — I mean, I know this resolution is from the B.C. School Trustees Association — that school boards across the province would welcome targeted money? I know, obviously, that any time you put strings on money, you often get push-back for that, because a lot of school districts would prefer to have the discretion to spend the money on what they feel are their priorities. So you’re confident that targeted money for this is universally accepted by all school boards in the province?
M. Swinburnson: I can only say that I presented this at the annual general meeting, and it was passed unanimously and with applause.
You know, thinking about it, the comprehensive school health that…. We’ve put this person in place for a year. This was the first year she did it. What she said was she had the luxury of time to build relationships with outside agencies and bring them into our table to talk. Then the next piece is to start building relationships with staff, because it doesn’t happen over a year.
We need to make sure that that resource is being accessed with the information — the one-stop shop. Teachers are looking for resources. They have children who are anxious, parents who are anxious and worried about their children. There are resources there.
We sit as the board. We also sit, and have chosen to sit, at the B.C. School Centred Mental Health Coalition, which again, is an ad hoc group, similar at the larger level. That has helped effect change as well, but there needs to be lots of dialogue to help break down these silos. Boards of education may not necessarily know how to do that.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Great. Thanks for your presentation.
Okay, next up we have Deloitte — Jamie Sawchuk.
Just a reminder that if we can keep the comments to five minutes, then we can have five minutes for questions.
J. Sawchuk: Perfect. Thank you.
B. D’Eith (Chair): The floor is yours.
DELOITTE
J. Sawchuk: My name is Jamie Sawchuk, and I’m here today representing Deloitte. I think some of you may know that brand.
Right now in Deloitte…. We’re a Canadian-owned firm. We’re owned by partners across Canada. We invest in communities like Victoria, and I’m very proud to sit here today. We just opened our new office in Victoria last week and put $20 million into this community. And we’re putting $200 million into Vancouver over the next couple of years.
As a Canadian partnership, we’re finding it important to find our voice on the future of Canada and the future of British Columbia. It’s important for our staff. It’s important for our clients, from ocean to ocean to ocean, and I think it’s important, as leaders, like you are, to take advantage of perspectives like us.
Within Deloitte right now, we’re shifting. So 150 years ago, over 100 years ago, we were an audit firm. Now we’re a digital agency. When you asked students across Canada last week in Maclean’s, you found that we were one of the top four organizations that students wanted to join. So it’s us, Apple, Google and Amazon. We’re very proud of that, and we’re listening to the millennial generation, to say: “Okay, what are you looking for in terms of the future of the work?”
What we wanted to share — and there are a couple of pages in front of you — is a little bit of economic outlook. I am sure you guys get lots of information on economic outlook.
In Canada, we’re kind of in the middle now. We’re going to have some marginal growth. We are growing as a nation, but it’s not sufficient to secure our future for our citizens and for our children and make that future more prosperous than the one we’ve lived in. Within B.C, right now we’re forecasting B.C. to lead Canada in economic growth. But we’re leading a group that’s all growing by a little bit, so we should just be a little bit cautious in pounding our chests on that growth.
I am excited that we’re leading Canada in economic growth, and I think the people around the table have been important in driving that.
B.C., from our perspective, also has the lowest unemployment in Canada. So we’re doing a good job of keeping people employed. Our challenge is to make sure that when they’re employed, they’re making more money.
When you look at affordability from a Deloitte perspective, we actually say there are three fundamental dimensions to that equation. Right now we’re having a conversation on two of them — supply and demand. These are two important dimensions, but the third is: how much do I make that enables me to pay a little bit more?
In Seattle or other world cities, they literally make a lot more than us. That’s why more of their population can afford housing than is currently the situation in our economy.
I wanted to leave that with you in terms of economic material. If you need any more economic material, Deloitte would be happy to provide it. But I know I have just a couple of minutes here.
When you start to look at our recent growth, real GDP growth is close to zero, per person. So it’s flat. It’s hard to create a growing economy. Once you strip our population growth out of our GDP growth, it’s very low. Once you strip large projects like LNG Canada out of our future economic growth…. So I’d encourage this group to look at: what does it look like with and without?
From a Deloitte perspective, we think B.C. is amazingly well-positioned in the global economy. If you look at the last 100 years, we had a Eurocentric worldview, and the great cities and great economies like New York and Ontario and Quebec faced Europe. In the next 100 years, it’s going to be Asia, and B.C. is incredibly well positioned for that.
When we look at the investment on the industry side, you see the companies of decades ago on the east coast and the companies of the future on the west coast, and we’re on the west coast of Canada. However, just because we’re well positioned doesn’t mean we get the brass ring or the gold ring.
That’s where I think it’s really important that, from a British Columbia perspective, we take a look at…. There are some economies that are getting to the concept of “and.” Norway, for example, I think is an economy. It’s eight million people. It’s nothing on the global stage, but it’s figured out how to tap its energy reserves and how to create a sovereign wealth fund that is the envy of many of the people around the world and to become a global leader in clean tech economy.
You literally have start-ups in British Columbia that are looking at electric motors and electric batteries for marine environments being acquired by the Norwegians. So that would be one.
The Australians are another example. In Australia, mining is 7 percent of their GDP. Today mining technology is 8 percent. The Australian economy makes more money off of selling the technology that goes into a mine and the software that goes into a mine than getting the stuff out of the ground that comes from a mine.
The third, for me, is Finland. Finland, like B.C., has a strong forestry perspective and is now a global leader in biofuels and biodiversity.
I think we can probably learn lessons from those people, apply them in the context of our economy and make sure that we’re driving economic growth that works for everybody.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Just so you know, we’re at six minutes and 20 seconds, so we’re over time. If you could wrap it up, that would be wonderful.
J. Sawchuk: Okay, I’m going to wrap up.
I think, from a Deloitte perspective, the people around this table have a clear opportunity and the power to set a vision, policy and innovation and economic framework to drive this type of shared and sustainable prosperity for our province. We’re here to go with you every step of that journey and help you in any way we can.
That’s it in terms of my remarks. If you have any questions for me, I’d be pleased to answer.
B. D’Eith (Chair): I’ll let you go. I thought that was pretty interesting. Actually, it was an interesting bookend to the day because we started with Carole James. She gave us a sort of overview of the economy — the numbers and things. A lot of what you were saying echoed what she was saying, which is good. That’s positive.
J. Sawchuk: Good.
B. D’Eith (Chair): But also the fact that globally things…. She was mentioning today things are slowing down globally, so it’s not just Canada, but as trends, in terms of global economic growth, which is sort of the normal cycle.
Are there specific areas that you see B.C…? I know, like in the mining industry, because of how we’ve set things up, we are innovators in mining, for example. I mean, as the video game technology that’s being used in conjunction with mining to present mines and future mines and things. There are a whole bunch of really amazing things that are going on. But are there specific areas that you see? Or is it like you said — “and” all of the above, just trying to take advantage of the diversity that we have?
J. Sawchuk: I think diversity is a strength for us, for sure. Our challenge in British Columbia, in particular, is we struggle to scale companies. If you look at our companies, we have a couple big guys and then quickly zoom down into the small. We have thousands of small companies, which is great at one level. But it would be great if those companies became bigger. The scaling of companies drives new jobs in almost any economy.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Is that a capital issue? Is that an investment issue?
J. Sawchuk: And opportunity. Right now the reality…. We looked at, with the Business Council of Canada…. In Canada, we get an A for talent, economic stability.
We don’t get a good grade for regulatory framework. Right now in Canada, we’ve gone from fourth in the OECD to 23rd. The same is true in British Columbia. It’s getting harder to be innovative and do business. That marine electric battery that we’d love to put into our B.C. Ferries — the company actually left. It’s easier to do business in Norway. So how do we make it easy for those guys to do business and to scale?
N. Simons: You’re suggesting we bring B.C. Ferries back under the Crown?
J. Sawchuk: If Mark Collins is in the room, I don’t recall mentioning that.
N. Simons: I’m just wondering. I have him on my speed dial.
B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. On that humorous note, thank you very much, Jamie. We appreciate the overview.
J. Sawchuk: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. I really appreciate it.
B. D’Eith (Chair): Excellent.
A motion to adjourn.
Motion approved.
The committee adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada