The committee met at 9:01 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Welcome, everyone. Good morning.

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’re very happy to be here in Vancouver.

I’d like to acknowledge that our public hearing is taking place on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples and specifically the Musqueam people.

I did want to mention that since Monday, we’ve been in Colwood, Kimberley, Castlegar, Kelowna, Kamloops, Courtenay and Qualicum Beach. A very busy week. It was a great week, and now we’re in Vancouver.

The committee is a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from the government and opposition parties. Normally, we travel in the fall to hold public consultations and visit different regions of the province to hear directly from British Columbians about their priorities and ideas for the next provincial budget. This year we’ve moved our consultation to June to enable the committee to deliver a final report to the Legislative Assembly earlier in the budget process. We’ll be reviewing this new timeline and welcome feedback on the change.

Our consultation is based on the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance. There are copies of this paper available today for anyone who’s interested in reading it.

In addition to the public hearings we are holding, British Columbians can share their ideas by sending a written submission or by filling out an 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 the input we receive is carefully considered 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. I’d like to thank everyone here today and everyone who took the time to participate in the past week. Your input and ideas are critical to our work.

As far as the format of the meetings, I’d like to kindly ask everyone to respect the following time limits. Each presenter has five minutes to share their input, followed by five minutes for questions from the committee. You’re welcome to provide any additional information in writing.

If there’s anyone who hasn’t registered in advance but would like to speak to the committee, please see Stephanie at the information table, and we will do our very 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.

Before I start, I did want to wish our member, Ronna-Rae Leonard, a very, very happy birthday. Are we going to sing?

[The members sang Happy Birthday.]

R. Leonard: Thank you very much, everyone.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Hansard will be paying the copyright on that song. Actually, it’s public domain now, isn’t it? Yeah, I think that case just happened.

[9:05 a.m.]

Moving on, next up we’d like to introduce the members of our committee.

D. Clovechok: Hi. I’m Doug Clovechok. I’m the MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I live about six mountain ranges away from here.

N. Simons: Nicholas Simons from the Sunshine Coast. Just go out to the water and turn right.

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

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

R. Coleman: Rich Coleman, Langley East.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton to Peachland.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Once again, my name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission.

Assisting us today is the Parliamentary Committees Office, which does amazing work for us. It takes care of us on these trips, and we’re very appreciative. We have Susan Sourial and Stephanie Raymond. Thank you so much for everything you do.

Of course, we have Hansard here, Simon DeLaat and Amanda Heffelfinger. They set up and set down every day. They’re here before we’re here; they’re here after we’re here. We really appreciate all the work they do. Of course, an acknowledgment to the team back at the Legislature right now, who are not seen but are very well appreciated.

First up we have the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture — Brenda Leadlay.

Welcome.

Budget Consultation Presentations

B.C. ALLIANCE FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

B. Leadlay: Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the B.C. alliance, which represents over 480 arts organizations and artists in the province.

My name is Brenda Leadlay, obviously. I’m a seventh-generation Canadian settler.

I would like to take a moment, also, to express my gratitude for the privilege of working on the unceded ancestral territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. I’d like to acknowledge their role and the role their ancestors have played in protecting this land over thousands of years. At the B.C. alliance, we take our responsibility very seriously to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s ten principles, particularly the need for joint leadership.

First off, I want to thank you very much for the additional investment of $10 million in the B.C. Arts Council over the past two years. The fact that this government recognizes the important role that arts, culture and creativity play in the everyday lives of British Columbians sends a hopeful message to our sector, a sector that has been labouring for decades to be sustainable, despite the fact that most artists do not earn a living wage. We are so very grateful that the contribution we make to society is being acknowledged by this government.

The social and intrinsic benefits of arts, culture and heritage are hard to measure, but they are not hard to experience. You’ve likely heard the stories about how the beauty of ballet or the power of music can make people feel less alone and also about the benefits of creativity when it’s practised by youth at risk or people living with dementia, mental illness or health issues. All the studies and research that is coming out of the United Kingdom presently clearly acknowledges the impact of the arts on well-being and points to the healing power of everyday creativity.

The additional $10 million you’ve invested in the B.C. Arts Council is already making a big difference, but there’s still a long way to go to implement the goals of the new strategic plan of the B.C. Arts Council, which is focused on equity, diversity and access — goals that are strongly aligned with the priorities of the B.C. government.

Today I want to speak to you about B.C. gaming’s community grants program and the urgent need for clarity about the purpose of this grant program. In a nutshell, there is no statement of purpose, nor has there ever been one. Gaming grants were established in 1998 to include the operation of casinos. The 2008 world financial crisis resulted in the reallocation of the gaming grant revenue, reducing the size of the pot from $152.7 million to $112.6 million, something that led to the elimination or reduction of vital community services and to staff layoffs.

In 2011, the Premier hired Leslie “Skip” Triplett to review B.C. gaming grants. His investigation convinced him that “not-for-profit groups fill gaps” in government services effectively and “provide significantly more value than cost.” What I found most compelling about the Triplett report is that his primary recommendation, which was repeated over seven times in his report, says that the gaming grant program must create a formally defined statement of purpose.

Every not-for-profit or for-profit organization needs a purpose, and so does every government that puts values at the heart of their mission. Without a clear statement of purpose, decisions are now being made by gaming staff who are interpreting the current criteria, which are fair and equitable access and direct delivery.

[9:10 a.m.]

There is a lot of inconsistency. In fact, the biggest controversy associated with B.C. gaming grants is sector eligibility. Many cultural workers in British Columbia feel that B.C. gaming is biased against the cultural sector, which clearly states: “Programs that primarily support artists or artistic development are not eligible.” Take the B.C. alliance, which has been receiving gaming money since 1997. In 2018, we saw a $65,000 decrease to our grant of $75,000, mostly because our programs were suddenly considered ineligible. Or the example of Playwrights Theatre Centre. Prior to 2009, they received $55,000; in 2019, $17,000 — many of their programs also deemed ineligible.

Gaming staff decided that we are not eligible because our programs were only serving our members. While other not-for-profits can support activities that only benefit their members, like sports clubs, benefits to the arts community are disqualified. In fact, most arts service organizations that serve the 98,000 cultural workers in British Columbia are now ineligible for gaming grants. This sends a clear message that artists are not valued or deserving in the eyes of B.C. gaming, even though we take the lead when it comes to inclusion, equity and reconciliation, which are valued by this government. This kind of inconsistency has plagued the gaming grant program because it does not have a statement of purpose.

It’s not just the Triplett report that has identified this problem. In the Auditor General’s report in 2016, Carol Bellringer clearly states that improvements are needed in key areas of the program: “Government needs to improve processes to better ensure funding decisions are consistent and well documented. Program staff assess…applicants against the program guidelines, but better documentation of internal policies is needed…and the program guidelines need clarification and updating.”

Enough said about B.C. gaming. I just really wanted to make my point that without a statement of purpose, how can an organization effectively operate and be clear? Later, if you’re interested, I can give you some samples of other statements of purpose of other organizations.

I just want to summarize. Here are our budget requests from the B.C. alliance on behalf of our sector: (1) continue to increase your investment in the B.C. Arts Council, to $48 million; (2) restore the gaming grant pool to a minimum of $156 million as soon as possible; (3) restore multi-year funding; (4) create a statement of purpose for the community gaming grant program; (5) consider a new model that is at arm’s length from the ministry to assess these award grants, just like they do in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, the other three provinces that are involved in gaming grant allocation.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to tell you about this today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you. Before I go to questions, I just wanted to clarify. When you say there’s a need for an arm’s-length adjudication, can you give examples of why it’s not working as well when it’s dealt with internally or within gaming?

B. Leadlay: Well, there are a couple of reasons. One of them is that with the senior staff at gaming, it’s a revolving door, so it’s constantly changing. Every year or two years, there’s a new person running the program. The recommendations of the Auditor General’s report — which was authorized or accepted, whatever the word is — have not been implemented.

The other thing is that I do not believe that gaming staff are qualified to know about the impact of arts and culture on the well-being of society. I don’t see how they can possibly be qualified, across all the sectors, to know everything that needs to be known so that these applications are being judged on merit, as opposed to facts and figures, which is what they’re currently being judged upon. They’re being judged on measurements that are, I think, quite colonial.

N. Simons: I’m just curious. What are the measurements that you believe they’re using?

B. Leadlay: As I said, they are using two criteria: fair and equitable access for everybody and direct delivery of their programs to people — those are the only real guidelines they have — and also the needs that they are serving in the community.

[9:15 a.m.]

They have determined, for many arts organizations, that unless they are doing a performance, they’re not serving the public. For example, the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture has been around for 32 years. One of the most important services we have is on line. We have a weekly newsletter that reaches over 4,400 people — not just arts and cultural workers, but people who are interested. We have the largest job board in Canada for cultural jobs, which gets over nine million hits a year.

Those services are deemed not eligible and not serving the general public. Even the minister, Minister Beare, was shocked when she found out that we lost our gaming money. But we were one of the last of the arts service organizations to lose our money.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Interesting.

Any other questions?

N. Simons: When did you lose your money?

B. Leadlay: Last year. We didn’t lose all of it. We still have $10,000. That’s what they deem the value of our services are.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Brenda, I thought there was multi-year funding through gaming. Is that not the case, or is that…?

B. Leadlay: Well, I haven’t heard anything formally announced. I know I heard that it was coming back, and I know that there is a process whereby you don’t have to fill in a whole application every year, but I don’t think that the funding is ever guaranteed.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Right. So it’s more a question of an expedited annual as opposed to a preapproved.

B. Leadlay: Yes, it is.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I guess that’s one of the challenges of being a non-profit: spending all of your time applying for funding and not doing the work that you need to do. I think that’s the same with sciences too. You hear that from scientists, who spend 90 percent of their time applying for grants. It’s similar within non-profits.

B. Leadlay: It is. I mean, that’s just part of our thing.

I think it’s also interesting to note that B.C. is the only one of seven other jurisdictions that were studied that does not have an arm’s-length process to award grants. We’re the only ones.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, but thank you so much, Brenda. I appreciate it. Very nice seeing you again.

Next up we have the Pacific Legal Education and Outreach Society — Martha Rans.

Hello, Martha.

PACIFIC LEGAL EDUCATION
AND OUTREACH SOCIETY

M. Rans: Good morning.

I’ve provided to the Clerk a pamphlet which discusses a particular project that we are involved in. Just to explain, it is not…. I’ll refer to it in my remarks, but it’s not the sum of my remarks.

First, let me thank all the members of the committee for listening to me this morning. For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Martha Rans. I’m the legal director of the Pacific Legal Education and Outreach Society. We have a legal clinic for artists and arts organizations run out of the Alliance for Arts, as well as a project known as Law for Non-profits.

It’s interesting to follow Brenda Leadlay this morning and to talk about gaming, because gaming pays for administrative services of the vast majority of all volunteer-run non-profits in this province. They’re integral to supporting the ability, the capacity, of non-profits to actually remain compliant with the law.

For those of you sitting around this table — and I believe that Member Coleman has some experience with non-profits that go completely sideways — the cost of PHS’s debacle, I’m sure, was in the millions, both to the government as well as paying legal fees to the multiple number of layered parties that were involved in that matter.

In 2019, I’d suggest that the provincial government make the budget an access-to-justice budget. Access to justice…. I want to take a quote from the Maclaren report: “We need a supported, collaborative, integrated legal service sector. We need a system that responds to legal needs, health and empowerment more broadly by supporting legal literacy and capabilities and providing legal information assistance, dispute resolution and representation services.”

Having listened to Brenda this morning, reading the transcripts of the hearings thus far, we know the role that non-profits play in this province. Each of the actions government can take to build a diverse and sustainable economy and support business and industry touch every single non-profit in the province. In fact, the sector is larger than forestry in terms of its impact on GDP.

[9:20 a.m.]

It does come to mind, in listening again to the discussion about gaming, why non-profits as a sector are not included as a separate sector identifiable when we calculate GDP. There are 5,000 gaming grantees — 800 funded by B.C. Housing, thousands more by the B.C. Arts Council.

Supporting the work of non-profit societies is supporting access to justice by ensuring that the critical work of all those groups is not sidelined by a legal crisis. In the past six months, I’ve seen three child care centres that are dissolving due to the lack of space in the Lower Mainland. I spoke last year about the impact the increased demand for child care services is having on the sector and the need that the sector has to access legal advice, information and support.

Also, this last few weeks, I’ve seen several societies that transitioned incorrectly. A relatively simple process, we were told by Citizens’ Services, turned out to be more problematic than it actually was — seniors mired in a dispute over access to records and a recreational society that affects many sports across the entire province refusing to respond to an access-to-records request. All of these organizations have less than $150,000 budgets. They don’t have the capacity to respond to disputes under the civil resolution tribunal that is opening for business this summer. The sector doesn’t even know that the CRT is opening for business this summer.

I think you know how expensive disputes can be. We have an opportunity to change that calculation. We received a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts to bring our legal self-assessment tool into the 21st century. That’s what that pamphlet discusses. This tool will enable PLEO to create a well-designed, on-line client portal that could handle application intake, issue triage, problem-solving by guided pathways and an active case management system of legal issues facing the non-profit sector, a sector that deserves attention.

A community multidisciplinary legal clinic would be a logical home for the tool. With a modest allocation from the Ministries of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, and Justice, we could avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources that is currently spent on lawyers stickhandling issues that could have been addressed through a supportive clinic that is dedicated to preventing legal crisis.

I want to say here that the reason I’m referencing the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction — apart from the fact that most of the societies probably fall under that umbrella, from a rhetorical point of view — is that the previous government in Ontario provided $250,000 to the Ontario NonProfit Network to create a legal help centre to support non-profits. It’s my understanding the Quebec government has done the same. Last year I think I mentioned the idea of a Small Business B.C. for non-profits. That would be an opportunity to create something that’s innovative, that supports the economy of this province and supports a sector that actually makes an enormous difference in everybody’s life. Brenda mentioned the Triplett report. These are societies without which we wouldn’t be here.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Martha, we’re at about six minutes.

M. Rans: That’s it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, perfect. Excellent. You pre-empted me. Well done.

Martha, thank you so much. Having donated some legal time to your organization, I want to say it was a real privilege to do that, and the service that you provide the community is very important. Thank you for all the work that you do.

Any questions for Martha?

Could you elaborate little bit more? When I saw LSAT I had a little bit of a …. It brought back nightmares for me as a lawyer.

M. Rans: Yes, I know. It’s an unfortunate acronym. The legal self-assessment tool was initially developed with a grant from the city of Vancouver and Vancity. With those funds, we created what is, in effect, a SurveyMonkey, in a SurveyMonkey format, on seven areas of law. The Societies Act, employment, human rights, contracts, leasing, CRA compliance and privacy. I’ve given over 300 workshops in the last 12 months related to those topics.

[9:25 a.m.]

Initially, we developed the tool with an idea that you would create…. People would go to the survey. They would identify gaps. We would then be able to help them fill those gaps. Funding was no longer available under social innovation, so it’s a static tool.

We’ve been funded by the digital strategy fund of the Canada Council for the Arts to create an interactive tool that will change that, will make it more interactive, so that, for example, if you needed a privacy policy, up would pop an example of a privacy policy or, conceivably, a document-builder that would have helped groups to build their own privacy policy.

It might come as a bit of a surprise to some of you to know that many societies don’t even know that they’re covered by PIPPA and are supposed to have a privacy policy. We are talking about the vast majority of the 27,000 societies that really don’t know what they don’t know.

What we’ve found, particularly…. The member from Revelstoke may know this. The Columbia Basin Trust funded a transition support project in the Columbia Basin, and we trained 12 mentors to deliver services to get people aware. To my knowledge, I haven’t seen a single mistake in transition come out of the region.

It was a very successful project because of the leadership shown by the Columbia Basin Trust to support this work, and the city of Revelstoke, incidentally, that actually funded the mentor that we trained to support non-profits in Revelstoke.

I think I said this a couple of years ago. What is the adage? An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. Do you really want to be paying lawyers? Do we really want to spend money on more lawyers? I’m a lawyer, you know, and I do this because I think that we can do better to support the sector.

I have to tell you, really seriously…. I’ve spoken to the Attorney General about this and Carole James, our Minister of Finance. I’m worried about the impact of the civil resolution tribunal, because once you have access to the state’s dispute resolution mechanism, tensions mount. I don’t know if any of you have been through a legal matter, but you know that it tends to escalate when lawyers get involved.

I am very concerned about those small societies, mired in a dispute, that are going to find themselves before a tribunal with very few resources to support them through that. We are designing a process to do that, to help them, but we’re doing it in a complete vacuum.

My concern is that we could actually, with a modest allocation and a commitment by this government to access to justice, change people’s experience not just of the legal system, the justice system, but also all of the myriad ways that the legislative environment effects people’s lives.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Martha, we’re a bit over time, but how much are we talking about here? What’s the ask, in terms of the needs for this?

M. Rans: We estimate that running a virtual legal clinic with support from students across the province would be about $100,000 a year.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So it’s not a big bill.

M. Rans: It’s not a lot, though I think we would need additional funds to put it together. I think we are talking about closer to $250,000 in year 1, just to make sure that we do it properly, and then we would have a home for the tool. We could make it available. It’s scalable.

Right now we’re going to be developing materials for the arts, but we’re hoping that other funders will step in so we can make those materials available to the entire non-profit sector — whether it’s housing, whether it’s the folks in the basin that are collecting agricultural farm machinery in a small society, or the Penticton Flyfishers, who are one of my favourite groups of folks that I’ve ever interacted with.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you so much, Martha. We really appreciate your presentation and your passion to this.

Okay. Next up we have First Call: B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition — Adrienne Montani.

[9:30 a.m.]

If we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes to allow for questions, we’d appreciate it.

FIRST CALL: B.C. CHILD AND YOUTH
ADVOCACY COALITION

A. Montani: I’ll do my very best. I’ll get started right away. Thank you. I realize it’s shorter this year.

As many of you know, First Call is a non-partisan coalition of over 100 provincial and regional organizations committed to child rights and well-being. I’m going to preface the recommendations I’ll be highlighting by acknowledging the significant investments that the 2019 budget made in supports for children, youth and families, particularly the creation of the B.C. child opportunity benefit. We really want to say thank you for that. The announcement of B.C.’s first poverty reduction strategy with a legislated child poverty reduction target of 50 percent over five years was also a very positive step.

We commend government for additional funding for social housing, for more support for youth in and from care, greater investment in mental health and addiction services for youth and the upcoming elimination of the MSP premiums. We note the increased support for kinship caregivers but note also that the increases will only benefit a small group of families enrolled in those programs, so we have work to do there. We applaud the continued investments in child care but have concerns about the extent to which public funding is flowing to the capital costs of private, for-profit operators.

Those are our thank-yous and a little signalling there.

In this short presentation, I’m going to highlight five areas that we believe are particularly important at this time. We will submit a more fulsome submission afterwards, because our big coalition has lots of issues.

First, families in deep poverty. Many poor families live far below the poverty line. For instance, a single parent working full-time, full-year right now at our current minimum wage would have employment income that would still leave them $4,000 below the 2016 poverty line. I don’t have the 2019 poverty line yet. We know that is too low.

For a couple with two children who are on income assistance, for instance — at the new rates, with the increases that have been given — their total income, including government transfers and credits, is still about 60 percent of the poverty line. That would be the 2017 poverty line. That was the one I could find there. That’s a gap of about $18,000 a year. That’s the poverty gap for income assistance rates. While the child opportunity benefit is a very welcome initiative, it will not be enough to lift families living in very deep poverty over the poverty line.

Our two recommendations in this area are: accelerate the scheduled increases to the minimum wage to reach $15 per hour by June of next year, rather than the following year; make sure all workers in B.C. are covered by the minimum wage by the end of this year, and index it annually to the cost of living; and significantly increase — we’ve called for this regularly — income and disability assistance rates to bring them in line with actual living expenses and index them to inflation.

Our second area of priority or of focus in this presentation is early childhood supports and services. We echo the concerns raised by the provincial health officer’s recent annual report that troubling gaps in supports for infants, young children and their families are leading to an increase in vulnerability of B.C. children. That’s the EDI, the early development instrument, that measures that at kindergarten entry.

Investments in early childhood are one of the most important prevention measures government can take to ensure that children thrive and are able to reach their full potential as adults. We need universal early childhood public service entitlements that all parents and families are informed about and can access regardless of income level, with full inclusion of young children who are at risk of developmental delay and children with disabilities. As I mentioned, we recognize the significant investments government has made in child care, but at this point in time, I have to say again that most families still do not have access to affordable, quality child care. So a big job to do there.

Our two recommendations in this area include: increase and sustain funding to non-barriered, free, community-based programs and services for all families with young children throughout the province, including rural and remote areas — some work to do there. Continue to work toward the $10-a-day child care plan that does call for the Ministry of Education to develop and manage the child care system modelled on universal local access in the same way that our public school system is run, so every community has their planning and their services.

The third area is K-to-12 public education, where many children spend their days. Inequities in the public school system show up in a variety of ways. Increasingly, children with special needs are being sent home because schools lack the necessary staff, on both a particular day or on a regular basis, to meet their education and development needs.

[9:35 a.m.]

Some children had access to speech, language, physio and other therapies in their preschool years, but parents report that they drop away when they get into the school system. Others enter school without having ever received the therapeutic services or inclusive child care experiences that would have benefited them because they were on wait-lists before they got there. Then they wait for years for a publicly funded assessment through the school system, only to be told that there are few services for them in the system. So we know that that’s the inequity. It’s that those who can afford to pay go pay for private assessments, put their kids in private schools if they have a learning disability, etc.

Public school system — our recommendation there is to ensure that the K-to-12 public education funding is sufficient to mitigate current inequities and to ensure appropriate inclusion of students with diverse learning needs.

The fourth area I wanted to highlight is youth in and from care and kinship caregivers. You’re going to hear from Dylan out here, shortly, who works with us on the Fostering Change campaign. Indigenous children and youth are still overrepresented in the foster care system. Numerous reports point to poverty as a key factor in why many children are apprehended.

We know that most children in care will need special help to overcome the trauma of their life experiences. We know that thousands of children in B.C. are being raised by their grandparents or other relatives, but they lack the necessary financial supports and services. Supports for some youth who are transitioning out of care at 19 have improved. So thank you for those improvements.

However, too many youth are still experiencing homelessness. The Metro Vancouver youth homeless count last year identified that, of those surveyed, 50 percent of them had been in care at some point in their life.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re at about 6½ minutes. We just want to have time to have questions, so if you could….

A. Montani: Yes, okay. So death rates are very high for youth aging out of care.

Two recommendations. Eligibility for agreements with young adults through the Ministry of Children and Family Development must be amended so that all young people transitioning from care or youth agreements are universally eligible for the program by this fall, as recommended in the B.C. Coroner’s death review panel report of May last year. Government must review and enhance services to kinship care providers.

The last one I’ll just say quickly. Public transit access comes up a lot. So we’d like government to work with local governments and transit authorities to develop a plan that will provide free public transit for minors and free or reduced-fee transit access for low-income families. So I’ll close there. We’ll send in a more fulsome report later. We welcome your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much. I just had a quick clarification on the…. Right at the beginning, you mentioned there was a concern around the spend on capital cost for child care. My understanding is that in order to create more child care spaces, there’s a need for the space. I’m curious what your concern is, just so I understand what your concern is.

A. Montani: It’s particularly…. Rather than building out a public system and/or a non-profit system, it’s still…. We are the only province that gives large capital dollars, like a quarter of a million dollars, to for-profit commercial chains, operators. So it’s that concern that we’re building private assets that we then have no control over, no accountability for in the long term.

We’d rather see the capital money…. In the same way that the public school system has a capital budget, Ministry of Children and Family Development doesn’t have a child care capital budget. So they put out RFPs and people have to apply. Non-profits are disadvantaged in that process because they don’t have the additional money they need to build child care. For-profit, large-chain operators are very well positioned and get there first and, of course, can build spaces. I know we’re desperate for spaces. So there’s this problem to build a capital budget for the non-profit or for the public sector.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you. I just wanted to flesh that out.

M. Dean: Hi, Adrienne. Thank you for all your work and for coming in and presenting today. Just a couple of questions. You talked about single parents, but really, when we’re talking about single parents, I think we’re talking about single women and single….

A. Montani: Yeah, 82 percent of them.

M. Dean: Thank you. That was what I was thinking. With the national inquiry report coming out last week, and what you were saying about Indigenous youth and homelessness and tragedies, I was wondering whether you had any recommendations, particularly around young Indigenous women who are aging out or who are homeless — whether there was anything from your perspective around how we can make sure that we prioritize and respond to that vulnerable group.

A. Montani: Probably lots of things, going back early on to the early childhood supports and family supports. At the other end, you’ve got, up north…. We really need to pay attention to the luring of and the sexual exploitation of young girls in the north who work near man camps, as they get called — industrial camps, basically — and then become sex trafficked. I’m sort of going to extremes, but early childhood, in the foster care system, we still are working on, I would say, catching up to understand trauma-informed care.

[9:40 a.m.]

School systems. One of the ways we can save the lives of many young people is keep them connected to the school system through alternative programs. A lot of kids in care, Indigenous young girls and boys have disabilities. They’ve had trauma in their lives. If we don’t have the services to keep them connected to school and deal with their trauma and mental health concerns, then they age out without the supports.

All along the way, we keep dropping the ball. There’s a lot of work to do.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation. We look forward to your written submission. Thanks so much for all your work.

Next up we have Andrea Nicki.

Hi. How are you? If we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

A. Nicki: Okay. Yeah. I’ve prepared a precise and concise speech. I’ll just be reading it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s fine. No problem.

A. Nicki: Because of the time limit, I thought: “Oh, I don’t want to go over. I don’t want to be cut off.” Sure. I understand you’re on a tight time schedule.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s fine. I mean, if it’s half a minute over, I’d rather you read…. Don’t feel you need to read super fast. Go ahead.

A. Nicki: Okay, thanks.

ANDREA NICKI

A. Nicki: Hon. committee members, I’m a senior faculty lecturer in leadership and business ethics in the MBA program at Farleigh Dickinson University in Vancouver, and I’m a published essayist and poet. My writing has explored social issues, such as child welfare issues. I recently gave a talk for the Canadian Sociological Association for the Learning Conference at UBC in which I argued, in part, that there needs to be greater support for students in post-secondary education who lack stable adult support, especially foster youths.

As you know, in B.C., foster youths must age out of the system at age 19. This treatment sets them at a great disadvantage in relation to their peers as based on a survey done by Statistics Canada. In 2016, 42 percent of adults between 20 and 29 were still living with a parent or parents because of the high cost of living.

According to a report by First Call, youth aging out of the system are at a great risk of becoming homeless at the rate of seven times more likely. According to a report by the B.C. provincial chief coroner’s office for the period of January 2011 to December 2016, they are five times more likely to die than their peers do to accident, suicide, homicide or health complications.

While since 2017 in B.C., youth formerly in care have been able to access a post-secondary tuition waiver, over half of 19-year-old foster youths have not graduated from high school and are not ready for a higher education because of a variety of factors related to the heavy disadvantages of being in short-term housing situations and lacking uninterrupted adult support.

The situation of foster children in B.C. contrasts with that in other provinces like Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, which have for years financially supported foster youths to the age of 21 with monthly living allowances. In 2014, Alberta extended supports for foster youth to the age of 24 from 22.

B.C. residents are very open to extending supports to foster youths. As according to a report by First Call, 71 percent of residents surveyed in 2016 said that the cut-off point for youths aging out of foster care should be changed to 25, and 17,500 signed a petition advocating for this change including Vancouver city council.

Sometimes there can be negative stereotypes of foster youths as unmotivated, lazy, drug-using and dependent on welfare out of free choice rather than because of severe disadvantage. As a professor, I have, at times, encountered foster system survivors and have been very impressed by their work ethic, resilience and commitment to improving their lives without any adult support, typically working two part-time jobs while attending university full-time.

I’ve been particularly impressed with Dylan Cohen — I actually haven’t met him, but there he sits, the foster youth organizer at First Call. I got more interested in this social issue after reading a number of news articles in local and national newspapers that featured interviews with him on his life experiences in the foster care system. He is a fine writer himself and wrote an article for the Province.

I read in the Budget 2020 Consultation PDF file that the government will be addressing the housing crisis and that more benefits will be given to seniors. However, I saw no mention of extending benefits to foster youths beyond the age of 19 so that they are able to afford housing without needing to turn with a sense of shame to the welfare system to survive.

[9:45 a.m.]

Further, I read that the government is committed to working for true, lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and that Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations to help keep Indigenous children with their families will be implemented. Here, also, I saw no reference to extending support to foster youths when, according to a report by First Call, Indigenous youths are seven times more likely to be in care than non-Indigenous youths for reasons related to the ongoing legacy of colonialism.

I implore you, committee members, to make good on your promises to provide affordable housing for all and real reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Let our province not be seen as lagging tragically behind other provinces, where turning 19 is not a step further towards independence but the grave.

I end with my poem “Homeless Neighbour.” As I mentioned, I’m a poet. I have three poetry books published.

nineteen-year-old foster youth

sitting on the pavement

her cardboard sign

heavy with snow

fallen on her lap

like a collapsed roof

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s interesting that you should bring this up. Thank you for your art as well as your words. We really appreciate that.

A. Nicki: It’s an emotional issue for me as well — hearing these stories in the newspaper and on TV.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s interesting. I think back to when I graduated from university. I was able to come and article as a young law student, live in the West End, make $1,200 a month and be able to afford rent and enough for food. Even at that time, it wasn’t a lot of money. Now that’s an impossibility. Times have changed.

A. Nicki: That’s right. A very high cost of living.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I hear what you’re saying. The fact that if someone ages out, all of a sudden….

A. Nicki: It’s almost like your parent has just died, and you have no one to turn to. You’re, basically, set to the pavement.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I appreciate what you’re saying.

Any questions from the members at all?

Interjection.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. Very, very good points. Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Next up we have Helen Proskow.

Helen, just a reminder. We’re trying to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions. That would be wonderful. Thank you.

HELEN PROSKOW

H. Proskow: Hello. I’m Helen. I am one of the lucky ones. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here, if I wasn’t one of the lucky ones. I would be out looking for my next hit of heroin or sleeping on the sidewalks or even dead.

I’m Helen Proskow, and I’m 25 years old. I was still a kid when I was 19. I wasn’t ready to go to school at 19, and I wasted my time in academic programs that were not for me in order to get housing.

Many youth have a similar situation — going to school in order to get housing through the agreements with young adults, the AYA, program. At the time, they are barely finished school, and they don’t have support to know what path is best for them.

I was not prepared for what I wanted to do. Luckily, I received support from the AYA in the first place.

I’ve seen my foster siblings and foster children in other homes…. You turn 19. You move in with a bunch of vulnerable people in small apartments and revert to drug use. You find yourself…. Selling drugs and your body are easier ways to get money to survive. We reveal traumas that we were supposed to be protected from as a child. You feel like you are a rent-a-child. Old enough to buy beer; all of a sudden you’re homeless.

My cousin is now a troubled meth head and a full-time sex worker in Penticton. She was dropped from the system, and nobody asked if she was okay. No mom, no dad, no aunt, no uncle to push her into rehab.

Even the lucky ones struggle. Those of us who go to university often only can afford crammed and loaded…. For example, we live in a room of five people, and there are two bedrooms. It’s ridiculous.

[9:50 a.m.]

Our traumas push us to suicide at high rates. The housing crisis makes it more difficult for us to afford rent, even with the support of social services. The cards are already stacked against us, as foster kids, from the day we were born. We need support with classes, in budgeting, doing our taxes and finding jobs — all these things that young adults need to know in order to stand on their own two feet. Please remember that we need support as we age out of the system, especially because we have rocky grounds to begin with.

I am asking that the AYA program is there for all youth in care, not just continuing custody and kids who are going to school. It is ridiculous that we have to apply for this funding. You wouldn’t go up to your mom and dad and be like: “Hey, Mom and Dad, can I apply for funding so that I can go to school?” Some kids are born into families that are fortunate, and some kids aren’t. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

I went to school, to Blanche Macdonald, and I hated it. I had to deal with racism and homophobia and transphobia. I wanted to go to school to do environmental sciences to begin with, but I was scared that I was going to end up being homeless. I’ve even gone to the BYRC for funding for housing. I do look like I’m put together, but I’m also troubled and such.

These kids need more help. I’m tired of seeing my friends die of drug overdoses in the streets. I’m tired of seeing kids sell their bodies. I even have to revert to sex work, even when I had the AYA program. I didn’t fully have sex with people, but I still had to do the act.

It’s really expensive to live here. It’s ridiculous. People are selling themselves.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Firstly, I wanted to say thank you for having the courage to come and tell your story and to share your lived experience and what you are feeling. I can say that these kinds of stories have a big impact on us, and we need to hear that as members of this committee and the government. It’s very, very important, and I really, really appreciate you coming up.

I also want to encourage you to continue to speak — continue to speak your truth, continue to advocate — because that’s how change will happen. Thank you for that.

M. Dean: Thank you. That was really powerful, and I agree with everything that Bob said. What strength you’ve shown coming here today, and we really, really appreciate it.

I just wanted to ask you, because you said here…. If you’re from Vancouver, have you heard of Justice for Girls?

H. Proskow: I possibly have heard of it. I try not to go into too many resources and such, because I know there are people out there that need it more than me. But can you explain what Justice for Girls is?

M. Dean: Well, they create leadership opportunities and support for young women, mostly who have been chucked out of the system at 19 or who have had to leave home or, for whatever reason, have ended up pretty much in the Downtown Eastside — many of the experiences that you’ve talked about today. I think that you would be an asset with them, and you would find very similar young women in the organization as well.

H. Proskow: Do they have something for queer and trans-identifying individuals? Because sometimes it’s way hard to get a job. I’m black, and I’m gay and non-binary, kind of like on the trans spectrum. So people are very judgmental on how you look. Today I look quite femme.

M. Dean: I would expect them to be super inclusive. I would absolutely expect that of them. If there’s anything else that anybody could help you with, I’m sure that anybody would offer that to you as well.

Thank you for coming today.

R. Coleman: Helen, thank you. We get a number of academic presentations as we come through this process — people saying this stat, that stat. You put the human side to the decision side, and I really appreciate that.

R. Leonard: I just want to say, too, thank you for sharing your lived experience. We’ve heard presentations around AYA and the barriers, and you’ve made it very real.

H. Proskow: I could have made more pages, but I definitely didn’t put everything in there.

R. Leonard: It’s been very brave of you to come. I also want to say thank you for your sense of hope that there’s something that can be done.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much again, and best of luck with everything.

H. Proskow: Have a lovely day.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Dylan Cohen.

[9:55 a.m.]

FOSTERING CHANGE

D. Cohen: Good morning, folks. I’m coming today representing Fostering Change, a campaign to support youth aging out of care through policy change and advocacy.

Some of you are familiar to me through Policy Solutions Day, which I’ve organized every year for the last couple of years, where we bring dozens of young people to meet with our government officials and our elected representatives to learn about what policy options are available to us in this current political moment and then to further the voices of youth from care in the policy cycle. I’m also a former youth in care.

As the committee is aware, youth aging out of the child welfare system face spectacularly inadequate outcomes. Today I come to ask this committee to change the agreements with young adults program, as many speakers before me have said, to ensure universal access to all youth who age out of care.

At the start of 2018, I was interviewed for an article by the CBC about the B.C. Coroners Service’s recent findings that my siblings from the system are five times more likely to die than our out-of-care peers. This harrowing statistic is a failure of many systems and is shameful when we imagine a child welfare system that is designed to seek out our best interests, protecting us from the potential harms of our natural families.

This system has resulted in a unique outcome for youth in B.C. We age out at 19, an age arbitrarily defined in legislation that defines that our supports must end. The AYA program, agreements with young adults, is the primary way that youth get supports after aging out of care in B.C. It’s woefully inadequate. While it looks great on paper — a dedicated AYA worker, if you live in the Lower Mainland; up to $1,250 per month; funding for school; 48 months of non-consecutive funding — the program needs major changes to meet people’s needs.

In practice, most youth don’t get that support for very long. We know that almost half of youth leaving care go on to PWD or income assistance within a few months of aging out of care. The AYA program provides additional funding, but is designed to incentivize good behaviour. It rewards you for continuous school attendance and punishes you if you need a break in a difficult world.

The program is plagued by inconsistent delivery across the province: workers with dozens of cases, unable to do real social work, effective social work, on these files, and too many youth falling though the cracks. It’s dangling a carrot from a stick in front of the most vulnerable children in B.C., some of our most deserving community members.

We must design services that meet people’s needs where they’re at, that acknowledge our moral and ethical responsibilities and that listen to evidence that shows the economic return on our investments. The AYA program fails these three. It supports youth that are already in post-secondary, leaving behind an incredibly large number without any support. The ministry finds that only 27 percent of youth leaving care go on to the AYA program within one year. This is unacceptable. We know that the Canadian economy is changing, and we know that parents are keeping their children in their families for longer. But youth from care in B.C. do not have the luxury. This is unacceptable.

Additionally, our ethical responsibility is not being met under the status quo. Youth fall through the cracks, and it’s intolerable, in an age of reconciliation, that so many Indigenous youth are being failed by these systems. Even so, ignoring this change is fiscally irresponsible. Our cost-benefit analysis, the report in your hands, shows that the cost of adverse outcomes for youth from care are enormous: about $222 million to $268 million for every 1,000 youth that age out at 19.

Conversely, when we invest in a guaranteed AYA program for all youth leaving care, the program will likely pay for itself in the same budget year and won’t require any additional taxes, as economists estimate savings within the same budget cycle. It’s a convincing argument.

Research on youth from care in B.C. is clear. When we age out, we are more likely to experience homelessness. We are less likely to end up with good jobs, contributing to the economy. We are less likely to complete school. We are overrepresented in the justice system and substance use statistics. We are more likely to face early pregnancy. What is perhaps most unacceptable is this premature loss of life, the reality that my siblings from the system are more likely to lose their lives than other children. The fact that I narrowly avoided being a statistic is a scary and harrowing reality for all my siblings from care.

[10:00 a.m.]

After the Coroners Service found such dismal outcomes for us youth, they asked an expert panel what to do about it. The government’s own report in this panel echoes our call for a universal system. You’ll find that they’ve successfully issued a timeline. By October 2019, the AYA program will be made universally accessible to youth who have aged out. We still have work to do to get there. If MCFD is our parent, then you folks are our aunties and uncles.

Today I ask for our family to give the supports that you’d give your own children. Youth will thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. We really appreciate, obviously, the very articulate presentation and, as you said, very compelling argument. It is true, I think — what you said in regard to how things have changed.

I think of when I was young, and I mentioned this on the last one, where I left home at a relatively early age, and I was able to survive without too many issues. But my own children…. I have five of them, and four out of five are still at home, and they’re in their early 20s. I have an expectation that they’re going to be with us, and many families do — that they’re going to be with their families until 28. I think that’s the average now. So I’m recognizing what you’re saying, that times have changed and that policies should catch up with that. I’m personally seeing that, and I really appreciate your making those comments.

R. Coleman: Dylan, we’ve come through this discussion on AYA and young people aging out of care, as we refer to it, or foster care. Has any of your work and research considered continuing to actually pay for foster care while people age with a family that they’re doing well with?

D. Cohen: We haven’t conducted that research ourselves. But I grew up in care, in Manitoba, and when I aged out at 18, I had the option of staying with my caregivers. That was huge. My foster sibling, somebody who lived with FASD, really just needed a lot of support every day but will eventually transition to independence. They had really caring and loving foster parents in their lives for just a few more years. It’s obvious that extended foster care would be helpful, and right now, our ask is trying to be more pragmatic, given the political situation.

The agreements with young adults program is MCFD’s baby, trying to support youth after 19. We know that if you look at MCFD’s own reports, it says that staff think the program is good but that we need to do better. They say that workers are invested in the program’s success so far. Keeping that in mind — this is a huge institution to shift, and we’ll have to deal with a lot of consultations — we’re saying: “Let’s go with the research that we already know.”

If we extend the AYA program to make it universal, it will have really substantial outcomes, and the income level that youth will get will be significantly more helpful than trying to spend years of policy advocacy, hopefully, eventually extending foster care. Certainly that’s a goal, but at the moment, I’m looking at a pragmatic solution that is under the guise of what our programs are supposed to be doing and what they ought to be doing now.

I also had my social worker, and that was huge. We don’t have that option. The AYA worker model is a different approach, and it’s my position that it’s completely failing.

M. Dean: Thank you so much for all of your work and for your strength and your leadership on behalf of all of these youth, who we need to be taking better care of. I’m interested. You talk about youth and this program. Are there dimensions within the population, according to whether you’re a young man, a young woman or gender-diverse, where using that approach still might not catch the most vulnerable? Are there more nuanced ways that we should also be thinking about?

D. Cohen: To understand your question, you’re asking whether or not the proposal that I’m making will catch all youth?

M. Dean: Uh-huh.

D. Cohen: What we’re looking for is the eligibility criteria of the program to be removed so that all youth access it. That universal program design is what’s supported by the economists’ research, what’s supported by the ministry’s own findings, the death review panel and recommendations that have been made by the RCY and other organizations for over a decade. Certainly, a universal program will go toward that.

M. Dean: I guess what I’m worried about is whether there are any inherent barriers that exist within that system still — for some people to, then, feel that it’s still not for them.

D. Cohen: Certainly. So many of my brothers and sisters and the sibling want nothing to do with it at 19 and walk away.

[10:05 a.m.]

If the program looked a lot more like a guaranteed support, I think that that would happen less, but there are always going to be outliers. We don’t design policy for the really small minority of a population. We design policy to support the most people that we can, as effectively as possible.

M. Dean: Thank you so much for all of your work in bringing forward some proposals.

N. Simons: I’m wondering if you think — first of all, it’s good to see you again — the model would be better if the guardianship social worker just stayed as that young person’s social worker through the transition. Is that what you’re suggesting?

D. Cohen: That’s what I know worked for me. That’s not what I’m suggesting today, because we haven’t figured out the requirements for that. MCFD will have to cost out the caseload increases and negotiate with a lot more stakeholders than just former youth in care on that. What I’m here today to do is to represent the agreements with young adults program change.

Certainly, if it were administered by our guardian social workers, then we could maintain that one stable, caring adult, which is tied to the research, by the Harvard Center for the Developing Child, on resilience. If we have that one stable adult for longer, we’re more likely to overcome barriers. That’s one step towards that, and I would applaud that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Dylan. You’re, as I said, very articulate. You make a very compelling case, and we appreciate all the work you’re doing in this area.

Next up we have Innergex Renewable Energy — Julia Balabanowicz.

Julia, if we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d really appreciate that.

J. Balabanowicz: Yes, that’s what I’ve planned for, so it should be not a problem.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Perfect. Excellent.

INNERGEX RENEWABLE ENERGY

J. Balabanowicz: What I’ve come to talk about is very different than the last two witnesses, and I want to just acknowledge that what they had to say was so incredibly valuable. Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Innergex Renewable Energy has been speaking to this committee for six years now, but the core of our message has remained the same each year: Innergex is a committed partner in the transition to a modern, robust, resilient, clean economy that will benefit Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across British Columbia.

We’re a leading Canadian renewable energy producer. We’ve been active since 1990 in Canada, and we develop, own and operate wind, solar and run-of-river hydro facilities. We carry out our operations with more than 350 employees globally, with over 100 based here in British Columbia. Innergex has been part of B.C.’s electricity sector since 2004, and we plan to continue to be here indefinitely. To date, we’ve invested over $2 billion in British Columbia.

We stand here today, as I said, ready to support British Columbia in climate leadership, including implementation of CleanBC. As recognized by the plan, deep electrification is key to meeting B.C.’s greenhouse gas emission targets. Over 60 percent of our total energy use is from fossil fuels, whereas nearly 100 percent of our electricity is renewable. On that note, we commend the government for funding CleanBC in their 2019 budget.

Last month a report entitled Missing the Bigger Picture: Tracking the Energy Revolution, by Navius Research, quantified Canada’s clean energy economy. This was novel, because usually we see these numbers coming out of the U.S. and we just try to relate them to the Canadian economy, but this is truly Canadian research. The report concludes a few telling indicators of the health and the size of Canada’s clean energy economy. In total, we contributed $53.6 billion of Canada’s GDP and employed 298,000 people in 2017. We grew 4.5 percent annually from 2010 to 2017, representing an annual $30.8 billion investment in Canada.

[10:10 a.m.]

As recognized by CleanBC, supporting and growing the clean energy economy will build a stronger and more resilient B.C. that will grow existing businesses and attract new high-growth industries while providing increased economic opportunity to British Columbians. This new research supports that.

Before I move on to my budget ask, I also wanted to inform the committee that last month, the Clean Energy Ministerial happened in Vancouver. It was an inspirational week, and Innergex was proud to be there representing the clean energy industry in British Columbia. We participated in several dialogues throughout the Clean Energy Ministerial along with 24 other countries plus the European Commission, and we hosted our own event. On the back of my submission, there is information on the outcomes and the themes that were discussed and an illustration that we did throughout the panel.

On to my budget ask for this year. I want to talk about fairer and safer resource road management. There are currently 620,000 kilometres of resource roads in B.C., and this number is increasing by approximately 10,000 kilometres a year. Currently, Innergex is either the primary or secondary designated user on approximately 2,300 kilometres of these provincial assets. We estimate, on average, that it costs us $1.4 million a year to maintain these resource roads. While the planning for and cost of maintenance of these roads is the responsibility of the designated users, these roads are provincial assets.

In 2010, the Union of B.C. Municipalities estimated that resource roads support 3,000 nature-based businesses in B.C. and provide revenues in the range of $850 million for freshwater fisheries, $250 million in sales for the ranching industry and $48 million for the guide and outfitting industry. Those are just among some examples I wanted to bring to you today. The conclusion of that research was that the resource roads that the renewable energy industry, mining industry and forestry industry support by maintaining and upgrading annually provide $1.2 billion in annual benefit to B.C.’s economy, outside of the benefit to those designated users.

Public safety is also a key issue that makes maintenance and management of these roads paramount. In many instances, resource roads are the only means of access for private residents. Recreational usership is also very high and increasing annually, with people wanting to access increasingly remote areas of the province to hike, camp and find hot springs.

In 2016, Innergex measured how many private vehicles passed our Upper Lillooet hydro facility over the May long weekend, and we counted 700 people, or 350 vehicles, that weekend alone. Innergex’s facility operators clean up from these recreational users on a regular basis, and we’ve had to help people who have injured themselves or have come unprepared, driving unequipped vehicles into B.C.’s remote areas. To that point, resource roads are a provincial resource.

Among other non-budget-related asks related to safer management of these roads in British Columbia, Innergex requests that the 2020 budget include provincial funding of B.C.’s resource roads in alignment with the economic benefit that they contribute to the province. We recognize that the primary and secondary designated users have a role to play in the maintenance and upgrade of these roads, but we also want to see the province contributing, in recognition of the other benefits they do bring to the whole province.

In conclusion, I want to impress upon the committee that Innergex is a partner in growing B.C.’s clean economy. We’ve already invested $2 billion in the province, and we’re poised to continue investing capital as we grow the load through electrification.

I’d be happy to answer any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you. It’s fascinating, as we go on the road, that certain themes start coming up, and roads, this year, seems to be one of those themes. I wasn’t actually expecting, when you were making your presentation, that roads would be so prominent. It’s just fascinating how that’s come up.

Any questions?

[10:15 a.m.]

R. Coleman: Yup.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yup — it’s just very interesting.

Thank you very much….

R. Coleman: No, no. I have a question.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, sorry. I thought you were just agreeing with what I was saying. I thought Rich was agreeing with what I was saying. I was like: “Wow. This is a miracle.”

Sorry, Rich. Go ahead, please.

R. Coleman: I have a couple of questions on that, because I’ve dealt with this resource discussion before.

First of all, can you tell me what your distribution in the four countries — Canada, the United States, France and Chile — of your investment is? What’s the percentage by country?

J. Balabanowicz: I just want to make sure I get it right. Actually, I don’t have the exact numbers of our distribution across each country, but we do…. In B.C., we have 21 run-of-river facilities and one wind facility. Across our global operations, we have 66 facilities, and it adds up to 2,888 megawatts of installed capacity. In B.C., it’s just under 700 megawatts.

R. Coleman: When you talk about the resource road that 350 vehicles accessed because you have a project up that road and the road is there as a result of you building a project, what revenues do you make off that particular project to make your argument that somebody else should be subsidizing a road that gave you access to the actual asset you’re making money on?

J. Balabanowicz: That’s a good question. I don’t have the exact revenue numbers here to share with you today, but I can tell you that we invest an incredible amount of money on operation and maintenance of these roads, and the numbers go up increasingly every year.

R. Coleman: How many megawatts would that project be producing for you?

J. Balabanowicz: That project is a 49 megawatt project.

R. Coleman: Okay. I’ll do the math, but you can maybe send me those numbers. Thank you.

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

We’re just going to take a short, two-minute break. Stretch your legs, get a coffee, and that would be great.

The committee recessed from 10:17 a.m. to 10:25 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, we’re back with the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I’d like to invite everyone to please get their voices down so that we can get going. Thank you very much.

Next up we have Take A Hike Foundation — Deb Abma-Sluggett and Gordon Matchett.

If we could try to keep the initial comments down to about five minutes, we’d appreciate it so we have time for questions. Thank you.

TAKE A HIKE FOUNDATION

G. Matchett: Good morning, hon. Members. My name is Gordon Matchett. I’m the CEO of the Take a Hike Foundation. And this is Deb Abma-Sluggett. She is our director of government relations.

Take a Hike is a full-time alternate high school program. We work with youth facing challenges with mental health issues, substance-use issues, behavioural challenges and past trauma. We use the outdoors and adventure to re-engage these students in school, in community and mental health supports. For many of the youth that we see, our program is their first encounter ever with mental health supports and services.

Last year Deb and I appeared before the committee, and we recommended that the government increase funding for public education programs that integrate early intervention and early prevention mental health supports — programs like Take a Hike. Thank you for recognizing this recommendation and mentioning Take a Hike in that report.

Since we last met, Take a Hike is on track to increase the number of vulnerable youth we serve by 50 percent — 50 percent in just one year. In February, we opened up a classroom in Delta. In September, we’re opening a classroom in Nanaimo, and we’ll increase our reach in the West Kootenays. We’re targeting 2020 to open a program in Surrey, and we’re working with two other school districts on Vancouver Island.

This year we were recognized several times for our work. We were recognized as an honour roll nominee for the Cmolik Prize for the Enhancement of Public Education in B.C., and the OECD’s Education 2030 Working Group visited Take a Hike as an example of an innovative education program right here in B.C.

We’ve been working with PwC and the Ministry of Education’s analytics branch to measure the long-term value Take a Hike is contributing to society, and we’ll have those results early this fall. And we received our largest single donation from a single donor — $765,000 over three years in support of our vision to scale provincewide.

D. Abma-Sluggett: Can you think of a child in your constituency who’s struggling in high school? Maybe it’s a friend’s child. Maybe it’s your child. Or maybe it was even you. If these struggles stopped you from getting a high school diploma, you wouldn’t have access to most of the jobs in the market. You’d be amongst the lowest-income earners and would most likely be on social assistance.

Now add in untreated mental health, substance use or past trauma. All of these are a recipe for a life of hardship.

Unfortunately, this reality is all too true for too many British Columbians. One in eight students in the province have one or more mental health disorders, and a full third of students with diverse abilities will not graduate from high school. This number only increases for youth in care and Indigenous learners.

Mannat came to Take a Hike in grade 10 after missing around 200 of her 300 classes at her school. She felt disconnected from learning and from the people in her school community, and she felt that no one cared about her success. At Take a Hike, Mannat overcame these struggles and graduated in February of 2018. She is now just two semesters away from receiving her post-secondary diploma from BCIT in marketing.

Mannat says it’s the connection that she experienced at Take a Hike that not only stopped her from dropping out but helped her to understand her goals and her true potential in life.

Over the past 19 years, we have developed a unique and impactful program that is supported by academic research and practice-based evidence. We are one of the few programs in the province with full-time mental health clinicians embedded in our classroom.

Since 2000, Take a Hike has helped meet the needs of hundreds of vulnerable youth and their families across B.C. Over the last five years, 88 percent of our grade 12 students graduated, and over 80 percent of our graduating class of 2017 were enrolled in post-secondary within one year of graduation.

Preliminary results from our program evaluation show our alumni have the social and emotional skills, resiliency and mental health and well-being required to navigate the challenges of early adulthood.

While Take a Hike is designed to impact students’ education and mental health and wellness outcomes, our program has also seen noted success in such areas as Indigenous youth and Aboriginal education, youth in care, crime and gang prevention, substance use and harm reduction, sport, physical activity, healthy living, preparing students for a higher education and post-secondary transitions, preparing them for the modern workforce and decreasing the downstream effects on social services by helping youth to become more productive members of our community.

G. Matchett: Wow, Deb. That sounds like a lot of government mandates.

[10:30 a.m.]

Our vision is to meet this demand and make the life-changing program provincewide. We know there’s a huge demand for our program. We’ve been approached by over half of the school districts in B.C., and 53 members of the House, from both sides, have told us they want Take a Hike in their constituency.

We have met with senior executives from five different ministries, and all of them want to help us scale across the province. The Ministers of Education, and Mental Health and Addictions — they’re huge fans of our program.

Last year we set out to understand what our limiting factor was, and it’s money. We commissioned a study to determine how much we can raise annually. That number is about $2.5 million. With that, we can grow to about ten classrooms and serve about 200 students. And then we need to stop growing. Those other 50 school districts, those other 1,000 students annually that need our program — they just don’t get it. Without your help, we can’t reach them.

Over the past 20 years, the community has contributed close to $10 million in support of the vulnerable youth we serve — $10 million. The provincial government, $150,000. Imagine the impact that, together, we can have on the vulnerable youth in our province.

A provincial investment of $6 million over five years would help 320 students a year in 16 school districts provincewide. That $6 million investment by the government would be matched by $12 million raised in the community and $18 million supported from school districts. For every dollar the government invests, the community invests two and the school districts, three.

Committee members, our recommendation to you, once again, is to increase funding for public education programs that integrate early intervention and early prevention mental health supports for vulnerable youth, programs like Take a Hike.

M. Dean: Thanks for all your work and for your presentation as well. You’re very experienced at presenting to this committee now.

I have a couple of questions. I don’t know whether you’ve had the time yet to have a look at the national inquiry report into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls. I’m interested in how you think your program might be able to help us move the dial, if you think that there’s a role there for you. I’m also interested in visible minorities. Are you able to respond to visible minority cultures and communities and, if so, how do you know? How do you do that?

G. Matchett: Absolutely. About anywhere from a third to a half of the students that we serve, depending on the community that we’re in and the year that we are, are First Nations or identify as Indigenous learners. We know that we have success with those learners.

As we grow into Nanaimo, we’re working with them to target, specifically, Indigenous learners. They’ve got a very strong program there. So what we’re going to do is work to marry the Take a Hike outdoor activities with the principles of First Peoples’ learnings. As we do that in Nanaimo, then we’ll look for ways to roll that out into the other school districts so that we have that stronger presence there.

In terms of your second question around visible minorities, about two-thirds of our students are not of Canadian descent. A lot of them are new folks in Canada. As we go into other communities like Surrey, we are anticipating that it will be mostly visible minorities. We will work with them the same way we’ve worked with all of our other students. We do see that success because we tailor our approach to each student based on what they need. It’s not a one-size-fits-all program.

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

R. Leonard: Thanks. I was just talking with the member next to me about our study with the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth on neurodiverse special needs kids and looking at the gaps and assessment processes, etc. You mention that you work with special needs kids. I was just wondering if you’ve made a submission to our committee and, if not, maybe you could just talk a little bit about that now so it’s on the record.

G. Matchett: Yeah. The students that we work with in the education system, they are designated R or H. Those are students requiring moderate to intense intervention for mental health or behavioural issues. Those are the types of students that we work with on a regular basis.

The way we work with them is through our therapist. Rather than providing therapy where you sit across from each other in a chair and it doesn’t really make sense, our therapy happens out in the field. It happens up on a mountaintop. It happens while they’re playing basketball or walking on the court.

[10:35 a.m.]

Quite often with our students, at the end of the year, we’ll say, “How was therapy for you?” and they’ll say: “I don’t know; I didn’t get any therapy.” We say: “Well, did you hang out with Virginia?” They’ll say: “Yeah, she was really cool.” Virginia’s one of our therapists.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned new Canadians. Do you get any federal funding?

G. Matchett: We don’t.

D. Clovechok: Any reason for that, especially around the new Canadian piece?

D. Abma-Sluggett: To be honest, we haven’t gone and asked in support of that. We’ve been very hard at work just building our classrooms, working with our students. But it certainly is one of those things that we’re looking towards in the future to be applying for as well.

G. Matchett: We would also appreciate any connections that you’re able to make for us, if there are any. We would definitely follow those up.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation and all the work you do with youth. If you could leave your tailor’s name for me, I’d really appreciate that. Thanks so much.

Next up we have Langara College — Lisa Fisher and Vik­tor Sokha.

Welcome. Thank you very much. I’ll just remind the presenters — if we can try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so that we have time for questions.

LANGARA COLLEGE

L. Fisher: Good morning, hon. Members. My name is Lisa Fisher. I’m the interim vice-president of external development at Langara College — snəw̓eyəɬ leləm̓. I’m pleased to be here and thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation along with my colleague Mr. Viktor Sokha, who’s our vice-president of administration and finance.

Located in Vancouver, Langara serves over 23,000 students a year, providing transfer, career and continuing education programs. The college is also known as snəw̓eyəɬ leləm̓, a name given to us by the Musqueam people on whose unceded traditional territory the college is located, and 2019 marks our 49th year of operations on West 49th Avenue in Vancouver.

As you will see in the materials provided, Langara’s programming is well aligned to support the economic and social prosperity of the Lower Mainland communities we serve and its local industries, including business, health, technology and creative sectors. We appreciate the funding we receive from government to offer additional seats in our technology and early childhood education programs and for the opportunity for our on-campus daycare to be part of the $10-a-day pilot program.

However, as with many other public post-secondary institutions in the province, Langara has faced challenges in maintaining financial sustainability while modernizing our facilities and operations to meet the expectations of today’s students. Through entrepreneurial efforts and fiscal discipline, we’ve managed those challenges, growing our international student and continuing studies enrolments and increasing our revenues from those sources in order to maintain balanced budgets. Through the introduction of a student capital legacy fee some years ago and with accumulated operational surpluses over many years, we were able to self-fund a stunning LEED gold–certified science and technology building, which opened in 2016.

We have demonstrated our ability to be sound financial stewards and innovative entrepreneurs, but we need the province’s support in three key areas. First, we need assistance in continuing the important work of modernizing our campus facilities and IT infrastructure. Our main classroom building, building A, was the first built on campus in 1970 and is now long past its useful life. Engineering reports have indicated that it will sustain catastrophic damage in the event of an earthquake. This concern has been brought to the attention of this committee in prior years.

Through self-funding our new science and technology building, we were able to vacate parts of A building, but we need to move the remaining programs and instructional activities to safer and more modern spaces. Our current five-year capital plan with the ministry has as its one and only priority a new facility that would replace building A and address our current 144,000-square-foot space deficit. Once that is built, we will be able to retire and demolish the A building.

Previously, Langara had expressed interest in acquiring the vacated Emily Carr South Building on Granville Island, which would have allowed us to move our creative arts and industries programming out of building A into that purpose-built creative arts space. However, a decision was made to relinquish it to another organization.

[10:40 a.m.]

Similarly, our IT infrastructure, as with many institutions, requires significant upgrades. The college continues to need access to accumulated surpluses in order to complete that work. This year, we began the process to replace our aging ERP system, a multi-year project essential to our operational effectiveness. Complex IT challenges, such as growing cybersecurity risks, also put additional financial pressures on institutions.

We have worked collaboratively with our host First Nation, the Musqueam, on whose unceded territories the college sits — as evidenced by them bestowing the name upon us. We are committed to expanding Indigenous recruitment and services for Indigenous students, meeting a important recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the commitment to UNDRIP. However, despite serving the province’s largest urban Indigenous population, Langara does not receive Aboriginal service plan funding. All Indigenous students in B.C. deserve equal programs and supports. In order to deliver those, all B.C. institutions must be funded equally under this program. We would like to see the institutions currently not part of the ASP, including Langara, be added to it.

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

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

Thank you for your time. We’re happy to answer any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. One thing I just wanted to bring up is that we have been hearing from faculty. I appreciate that there’s collective bargaining this year, so we don’t want to tread on that, but I’m just wondering if you could at least tell us what the policy right now is for contract faculty at Langara, in terms of pay scales and also a pathway to permanent faculty. If you could just discuss that, we’d really appreciate it.

V. Sokha: It’s something that is really complicated, and right now, it is an issue for bargaining that we’re going to have to…. We are not ready to talk about it in detail right now.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s fine. That’s why I caveated that. Obviously, we don’t need to get into the collective bargaining piece. I was more just asking what the policy is right now in terms of contracting and in terms of scale.

L. Fisher: In general, though, the majority of our faculty members are permanent, ongoing tenured. It’s not as significant an issue at Langara as it may be at other institutions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s great. We’re getting this from all over, so I just wanted to get that.

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation. Could you say a little bit more about the ASP, who gets it and who doesn’t, and what the criteria are?

L. Fisher: I believe there are about 15 institutions in the province that receive that, and the others do not. I’m not aware of the specific reasons for why the original group of institutions receives it and why others don’t.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Could we define for our listeners and for Hansard what ASP is, please?

L. Fisher: It’s the Aboriginal service plan program.

V. Sokha: The decision was made sometime in 2007 or 2008 for that program. Since then, it’s been renewed in the same way without significant change.

L. Fisher: From the budget estimates conversation, I understand that a review of that program has been ongoing. We look forward to hearing what might come of that conversation, but at this point, we’re still not funded under that program.

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

[10:45 a.m.]

R. Leonard: In your presentation here, you make a reference, just before the conclusion, saying: “Bring Langara’s annual operating grant per FTE into closer alignment with the system average.” Can you explain that? Are you saying that the operating grants that the college is receiving are based on your FTEs, as opposed to a per-student…?

V. Sokha: It’s a little bit of a complicated system. What we mean…. The past year — we just got our financial statements done — the government funding was less than 29 percent. We are one of the lowest — I believe the second lowest, after VCC — institutions that receive the grant. We calculated per FTE. It’s a little bit…. It’s a full-time-equivalent. It’s not per head. It’s a formula that we use to calculate it. That’s how it’s been calculated. The reason we do it is to bring all institutions to a common denominator so we can compare one to another.

R. Leonard: Okay, so it’s basically a paper comparison.

V. Sokha: Yes, it’s a paper comparison, so we can compare others to us. Our head count is close to 20,000 per year.

R. Leonard: Twenty thousand?

V. Sokha: Yes.

R. Leonard: Okay. Thank you very much.

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

Next up we have the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union — Robert Duffy, Simon Kelly and Stephanie Smith.

Good morning. Just a reminder. If we could keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

BCGEU

S. Smith: I’ll do my very best.

Good morning. I’m Stephanie Smith. I’m the president of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union.

I’d like to start in a good way by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples and by expressing my deep respect and gratitude for their historical and current stewardship of the lands and waters that surround us. And, of course, I’d like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear in person and to provide a written submission.

The BCGEU is one of the largest and fastest-growing unions in the province. We currently represent almost 80,000 members in just about every economic sector, in every community in B.C.

But we’re more than a union. We’re part of a larger movement to make B.C. a more compassionate, inclusive and diverse society that reflects and protects the progressive values of our membership — values like opportunity, dignity, respect, equity, security, hope and social justice. It’s those values that inform our submission to this committee.

Since being sworn in, in 2017, the current government has pursued an ambitious and progressive agenda that largely aligns with our union’s values. Because of that, the BCGEU has supported key planks in the government’s policy platform. We’ve worked directly with government on initiatives like Childcare B.C. and TogetherBC, the province’s first poverty reduction strategy, which I worked on as a member of the Minster’s Advisory Forum, and which I will continue to be involved in going forward as a member of the minister’s council.

We’ve launched advocacy campaigns on behalf of our members to influence government decisions on issues such as affordable housing and the need for public inquiry into the money laundering in B.C., and we’ve publically supported the government’s decisions in many other areas, such as transferring home support services to health authorities and allocating low-wage redress to unionized workers in community social services.

At the same time, we don’t hesitate to speak up when we believe that government’s agenda could and should go further, faster or in a different direction. In fact, I spent Monday night participating in a dialogue between the Minister of State for Child Care, Katrina Chen, and a group of BCGEU early childhood educators about how Childcare B.C. is impacting child care professionals. Everyone in that room appreciated the minister’s willingness to listen and to learn from front-line workers.

[10:50 a.m.]

This afternoon I will be making a submission on behalf of our membership to the Workers Compensation Board’s compensation system review, a submission that recommends radical changes to make the system more worker-centric. It’s in that spirit of speaking up that I’m here today on behalf of BCGEU members and working people in B.C. to urge the government to support four key policy areas in this next budget.

We must resource TogetherBC and give it the support it needs to succeed by building capacity in key public service areas. For instance, as mentioned, great progress has been made thanks to Childcare B.C., but affordable, accessible child care is still a distant dream for many families, and child care professionals continue to struggle with low wages and inadequate working conditions. It’s vitally important to invest in the workforce and in public facilities to build the system.

Further, compliance and enforcement capacity in the residential tenancy branch, employment standards branch and other agencies remain well below what would be required to serve the needs of British Columbians. B.C.’s income assistance system boasts more barriers than bridges, including rates well below the poverty line, inadequate staffing levels and ineffective service delivery models. I look forward to being part of this work as a member of the minister’s council, and I urge the government to support that work with significant, strategic and comprehensive investments.

Secondly, take the next critical step in addressing housing affordability by investing in public supply. Our province is in a housing affordability and availability crisis. We’ve learned a lot in the last year about the cause of the crisis. Government has taken some bold action on policy that appears to be having the desired impact, and yet the crisis persists. A major public sector investment is the only way to guarantee that affordable housing is available when and where British Columbians need it. We urge government to make that investment.

Third, protect B.C.’s environment, natural resources and climate goals by investing in B.C. parks. B.C.’s parks and protected areas are an economic, social, cultural and health boon for British Columbians, and they are key to protecting biodiversity. But the parks system has been seriously under-resourced for years, and it shows. Outdated plans, dilapidated infrastructure and overflowing facilities are the norm. We’re urging the government to invest in all aspects of the parks system, from conservation and protection to infrastructure, staff, recreational services and regulatory oversight.

Finally, ensure that working people of B.C. have the safe, healthy workplaces they deserve by putting a priority on occupational health and safety. The BCGEU represents tens of thousands of workers in community social services, community living, long-term care and corrections. These are workers who care for some of our province’s most vulnerable citizens and who protect our public and community safety. These same workers also bear a disproportionate risk of physical and mental injury on the job, a risk that is exacerbated by factors like chronic understaffing, recruitment and retention issues, outdated facilities and inadequate training. We urge the government to invest in the safety and security of the workers who keep our families and communities safe.

Much of the content and structure of our submission will probably be familiar, not just because our values haven’t changed but because our last submission was barely more than six months ago. But we have once again included revenue generation ideas in our written submission because, as an organization that is funded by our members’ dues, we understand the importance of financial stewardship. Our focus on the importance of investing in all aspects of public service has not changed. But the membership of this committee has, and so, for some, this may be new.

In closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to submitting our written analysis in the coming weeks. We’ll be happy to take any questions from the committee at this time.

M. Dean: Thanks for your submission and your presentation, and thank you to all of your members for all of the work that they do across the province.

I’m interested in the environmental proposal. Maybe the details are going to be more in your written submission. You said about investing in all aspects in relation to B.C. parks…. Have you done a cost analysis there, and is that one of the areas where you kind of have looked at some revenue generation as well?

S. Smith: I’m going to turn to my colleagues here.

[10:55 a.m.]

R. Duffy: Essentially, what we’re advocating is bringing funding up to $100 million a year from its current $41 million plus the $8 million in the park enhancement fund. We haven’t done a detailed breakdown, but there is lots of stuff that needs investment, essentially, right now. We’re also proposing to bring park operations back into direct government operations. With that, we’ve actually done some more analysis. We’ve actually looked at some RFPs and compared the cost of doing it in-house versus contracting out. From our analysis, it looks like there could be some cost savings by bringing park operations back in-house.

M. Dean: Interesting. Okay, thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just wanted to talk a little bit about child care. You did start the conversation…. I mean, I know we have limited time, but I’m just wondering…. Could you explain the benefit of, let’s say, investing in public spaces as opposed to other spaces? We’ve had other presentations on this.

S. Smith: The true benefit is that those public spaces then become the property and ownership of British Columbians. Whether you have a not-for-profit agency who has the running of the day-to-day operations, the physical spaces remain in the communities.

Certainly, in privately owned child care centres…. Family child care is a really good example of this. If somebody chooses to leave the field, chooses to leave the sector, those spaces are lost to the community. So by investing in public spaces, similarly to schools…. We don’t close schools unless there’s a very, very strong argument for doing so. They belong to the public, and those spaces remain open regardless of who may or may not be in the operational side of things.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation and for all the work you do on behalf of the workers of British Columbia. We appreciate it.

Next up we have the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia — Alycia Coulter.

Alycia, just a reminder. If you could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

A. Coulter: I’ll put my trusty timer on, just to be sure.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Sounds good. Take your time to get settled.

CANADIAN HOME BUILDERS
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

A. Coulter: Thanks for the opportunity to present today. I’m here on behalf of our CEO, Neil Moody, our president, Brian Charlton, and our 2,100 member companies across the province.

Our members are homebuilders, renovators, suppliers, tradespeople and other industry professionals. They’re all small and medium-sized businesses creating jobs all across the province. There are approximately 200,000 on- and off-site jobs, $11.9 billion in wages and $25 billion in investment value. So a significant contributor to our economy.

We know that housing is the top issue across B.C. and across Canada. It comes as no surprise. We’re still committed. It deserves our utmost attention and collaboration towards solutions from all aspects — this being right from homelessness to market ownership — across the housing continuum.

In the context of Budget 2020, there are options for the provincial government to support market housing affordability in B.C., which is the primary area of focus for our membership, whether that be rental or market ownership. I’ll cover just two ideas from us today, and we’ll be submitting our full report in the coming days.

The first idea that we wanted to discuss is a tax credit or incentive for proper material disposal. This is on behalf of our renovator membership. A recurring problem across B.C. that we’re seeing is the dumping of construction materials. Several ministries have looked at this. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture has increased penalties for debris left in the ALR, and the Ministry of Labour and an associated working group have consulted with stakeholders on an incentive for the safe removal and disposal of asbestos. We submitted to that conversation.

We also raised this idea with Dr. German and the expert panel on money laundering. While not directly connected to money laundering, construction dumping is a symptom of the underground economy in renovations at work in an area where cash transactions can thrive. In most cases, this is, of course, tax evasion by not declaring the work that’s being performed.

We note that Dr. German specifically acknowledged the merits of our submission in his report. He put it in the appendix in full, and he noted that CHBABC provided some very helpful ideas with respect to dealing with the underground economy and other matters. Thus, we thought Budget 2020 was a good opportunity to raise this.

[11:00 a.m.]

From our perspective, there are a few key factors that contribute to illegal dumping: the cost as well as the inconvenience of proper disposal, especially when these facilities are located outside urban areas, and the lack of education. Proper contractors are taking the time to do it the right way and properly dispose of these materials, but we’re seeing, across the province, that penalties alone are not stopping these activities.

We think a grant or tax credit is a great way to target these issues. It mitigates the cost. We know there’s a cost involved to doing things the right way, and affordability is a key concern. But it’s also an education opportunity. It allows homeowners to realize the requirements they have to follow in order to get the grant. You need to work with a contractor that will provide you a GST number. You need to have proof of the work that’s being performed. This is taking place for other renovation incentives like better homes B.C. already.

This could be expanded, given we’re dealing with hazardous materials, to include things like a WorkSafe notice of project as part of the project requirements. This could also benefit renovations or areas where construction materials need to be disposed of that aren’t necessarily cosmetic. For example, if a landlord or homeowner has to make emergency repairs and now they have to do a renovation they weren’t planning on, this could apply in all situations.

Finally, we’re seeing the uptake on programs like better homes B.C., where people are responding to these energy efficiency incentives or the previous federal home renovation tax credit. It’s not to say that the entire cost recovery is taking place, but enough of an incentive that people are noticing that a grant is out there and thus following the process.

We hope this can bring together many identified problem areas under one solution and try to bring more renovations away from the underground economy. It’s is something that our renovators tell us every day does happen: you’ve got two different prices, and sometimes the homeowner will take the lower price not realizing the impact and the steps that aren’t being followed. We think, also, for municipalities that are spending millions, in some cases, to deal with illegal dumping, that this is a solution worth exploring.

I know I have a minute left, so the second idea that we wanted to cover is to exempt projects under development from the additional school tax.

We worked with the Ministry of Finance in 2018 to develop exemptions for the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act, where properties were clearly going through the construction and development process — where they were either applying for financing, under construction, excavating the site, constructing a residence, etc.

The merits of this for housing affordability is that these processes are sometimes out of the homebuilder’s control. They can’t speed it up if they’re waiting for permits, and these annual taxes are applied on their projects. So we think it would be wise to look at, in the exact same framework, where properties are undergoing specific development and there’s a clear process taking place, whether there may be an opportunity to look at exempting the additional school tax.

The reason for this is that when we look at a number like $3 million, our minds go to, potentially, a luxury property, but for developers, this could be a site where they’re constructing many units, and this could be across the province. It’s not a significant amount of money when it comes to land that you’re using to construct projects on.

I’m right on time. We hope you’ll consider our ideas today. We commend the government for working with us on some other projects, like the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act, for development approvals. We think there’s a lot more we can do together, and we hope you’ll look at our ideas.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Alycia. I really appreciate it.

Just a question in regards to the tax credit for dumping — materials that are being dumped. Have you costed that out? How big would that be in terms of a tax credit? Have you got any numbers on that?

A. Coulter: We’ve been looking at existing programs that were already in place. For example, if you look at the federal home renovation tax credit — different model, but each claimant was taking an average of about $700.

We haven’t costed it yet in terms of the number of people that can benefit, but we think the uptake of better homes B.C. is probably a good indicator of that, because those are people that are going through a renovation.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So how much is that?

A. Coulter: I don’t have the number off the top of my head.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s fine. Are you putting in a formal…?

A. Coulter: Exactly. Yeah.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It would be really nice, I’m sure, if the minister had to ever look at this, if the committee decides to look at this….

A. Coulter: What the specifics are — for sure.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. That would be nice.

A. Coulter: You know, those frameworks are already some of the things that we’re looking at. They’re indicators of the renovation market out there and the amount of British Columbians that are responding to the incentive.

M. Dean: I just want to say thank you for your presentation. We really need to be finding ways to tackle the underground economy, so I really appreciate you coming forward with some suggestions.

Dumping is a really big issue in my constituency, and I know it is across the province. I don’t think there’s going to be one solution. I think it’s going to be a range of tools and levers that we’re going to need to use. But I really appreciate your approach of working in partnership and coming up with some proposals. Thank you.

A. Coulter: Yeah, no worries. As you’ve said, specifically, this isn’t one example, but what we’re seeing from our renovator market, this is something that their clients do respond to. So we thought there’s a natural avenue there to use that as the basis for our idea.

[11:05 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): I guess there are environmental implications, especially in parks, for example, people dumping in parks. Also, I know in the cities and municipalities, they’re having to deal with dumping within the municipalities, and then having to deal with that in the municipalities.

I’m from Maple Ridge, and sometimes you’ll go out to a more remote area, and you’ll see old couches and just materials being dumped out there and stuff. Any kind of incentive — I totally get what you’re saying. So thank you for very much. I appreciate that.

Okay. Next up we have the city of Port Coquitlam — Laura Dupont.

Hi, Laura. How are you? Just a reminder — if we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM

L. Dupont: No problem. Thank you.

My name is Laura Dupont. I would like to also respectfully acknowledge that we are on the territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.

I am first vice-president of the Lower Mainland LGA. I am a member of the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable. I am also a councillor with the city of Port Coquitlam, and I’d like to thank you for the opportunity today to speak about an issue that affects every Lower Mainland Fraser River municipality. This conversation is being led by Watershed Watch Salmon Society, but it’s something that affects local governments deeply as we manage the very expensive flood infrastructure in our communities.

Twenty-three years ago I moved here from southern Alberta to the beautiful, natural city of Port Coquitlam. I never knew salmon, except that which came in a can. Our city is bordered by three beautiful rivers, the Pitt, Coquitlam and Fraser, and the numerous trails along those rivers are where I first learned about salmon.

They quite literally helped me build a sense of community in my city. They were fascinating to watch as they worked so hard to spawn in the fall and used the numerous side channels and sloughs to over-winter or rear in before heading out to the ocean. Salmon led me to join a watershed society, which taught me to be a streamkeeper and inspired me to run for city council, which brought me here today.

Wild salmon are an incredibly resilient species. I am sure we can all agree that when they have the right conditions, they will thrive. The issue is that salmon and other species at risk, such as cutthroat trout, Nooksack dace, brassy minnow, red-legged frogs, great blue herons, Pacific water shrews and western toads are all affected by the waterways behind dikes in the lower Fraser Valley.

Essentially, floodgates and pumps that control water flowing into the Fraser River are harming salmon habitat in the region. Fish-friendly upgrades are needed to help rebuild Fraser River salmon runs, but the upgrades cannot take place without provincial support. Our city budgets are stretched to the breaking points.

By building dikes without consideration for other species in the past, we have created a situation of disconnected waters. Currently, Lower Mainland flood control infrastructure blocks 1,500 kilometres of vital habitat that’s longer than the entire length of the Fraser River. Now is our opportunity to upgrade this infrastructure so it is fish friendly. First Nations, farmers, neighbouring communities, ecosystem services and our endangered southern resident killer whales all will benefit by ensuring that we have wild salmon for future generations.

I respectfully request $5 million a year for ten years as a specific fund to help ensure municipalities can upgrade this flood infrastructure. The B.C. Wild Salmon Advisory Council’s Recommendations for a Made-in-B.C. Wild Salmon Policy, strategy 1.4, identified reconnecting waterways impacted by flood infrastructure as an immediate action to improve salmon populations.

The province would truly be walking the talk by supporting this important work that will also capture climate change adaptation, First Nations reconciliation, infrastructure jobs, improved recreation, rebuilding at-risk and wildlife populations and, of course, flood hazard mitigation for communities and farmland.

Thank you for the opportunity.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much. I represent Maple Ridge–Mission. We also have the Pitt River, and the Fraser is actually the entire length of my riding. I’ve heard the issues around the pumps and the needs to upgrade those for salmon and others, so thank you very much for your presentation.

[11:10 a.m.]

M. Dean: Thank you for your presentation. I’m interested in whether you’ve spoken to your neighbouring municipalities and UBCM. Is this a collaborative approach, or is it early days and just kind of starting out from the city of Port Coquitlam?

L. Dupont: There’s been a resolution brought forward through the Lower Mainland Local Government Association, which was supported and then was fully supported at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. So both of those bodies have supported this work in a resolution.

R. Leonard: I just wanted to say thank you very much for bringing this forward. It’s one of those things that, as the future unfolds and we’re dealing more and more with floods, we have to do right and recognize what we’ve done wrong in the past and start to mitigate it. So thank you for coming forward and raising this.

L. Dupont: Thank you for the consideration.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Laura. We really appreciate it.

Okay. Next up we have the National Elevator and Escalator Association — Hilary Cole and Christian von Donat.

My wife’s family are all elevator people.

C. von Donat: Are they? Well, you picked a great location, because I see the lookout elevator is going up and down.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, it’s going up and down. It just reminded me — seeing if my brother-in-law is working on there.

C. von Donat: Everyone should keep that in the back of your mind as you’re sort of listening to things today, I guess.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Something we all use.

If we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions.

NATIONAL ELEVATOR
AND ESCALATOR ASSOCIATION

C. von Donat: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to members of the committee, thank you for having us. It’s a pleasure to speak before you today. My name is Christian von Donat, and I’m joined by my colleague Hilary Cole. Together we’re here as representatives for the National Elevator and Escalator Association, also known as NEEA.

NEEA represents the four major manufacturers globally of elevating and escalating devices. Those four are Kone, Otis, Schindler and Thyssenkrupp. NEEA has been an association in Canada since the early 1970s. Over the past five decades, the industry has undergone tremendous advances in innovation and modernization. Our members continue to drive innovation and technological advances within the elevating industry aimed at delivering the best possible experience to the riding public.

Safety remains the number one principle in the industry — safety for the riding public and those who install and service elevators and escalators. Each member upholds the highest safety standards in order to ensure that safety for all is maintained, and we are proud of the safety record in British Columbia.

NEEA and its members have been an integral part of British Columbia over the last number of decades. The growth and continued success of the province is tied to the innovative and reliable products that our members offer as well as the high level of professionalism and expertise that’s demonstrated across the workforce to meet the needs of buildings across the province. As the province grows more vertical, our members and their teams have been meeting those needs for builders, residents, building owners, businesses and the general riding public. We look forward to being a key part of the province’s future growth.

Budget 2019 outlined how the province is leading and will continue to lead the country in economic growth. Thanks to the efforts by this and previous governments, the economic conditions to operate a business and serve the public continue to make B.C. a great place to live and work. By fostering a sustainable economy, the success and evolution of our communities will lead to continued success in the industry. Our members are proud of the services they offer across the province and advocate for policies that incentivize new sustainable development, attract business to the region and continue to strengthen the conditions that make B.C. a supportive environment for business.

Like this government, we support policies that tackle the need for housing in the province — new housing that will address the ongoing affordability and accessibility challenge for British Columbians. We believe that as buildings are built taller in order to accommodate more housing, appropriate consideration must be given to ensure that an adequate number of elevators are installed to service the public in these buildings.

The needs of the residents and riding public must be anticipated, from those with accessibility concerns to moving in or out to recurring preventative maintenance and normal maintenance and the continued safe operation of units. Bringing forward legislation to establish a traffic analysis framework would align B.C. with other global jurisdictions and make a meaningful impact in this regard.

It’s also important, as I mentioned, to note that as more individuals and families move into highrise living, that we consider the needs of individuals with accessibility concerns. Many individuals and families are excluded from housing access due to limited access to proper and safe transportation devices.

[11:15 a.m.]

All manner of residential buildings are being developed with an inadequate number of elevators to service the residents, and this prevents those with mobility issues from living in the communities that they may desire to live in.

With this in mind, we recommend the government ensure it has ongoing plans in place to ensure that transportation systems of public buildings are modernized and meet the needs of those that they serve. This includes hospitals, schools, universities and public offices that deliver services.

As an association, we ask the government to ensure that, as it develops policies and programs targeted towards B.C.’s vertical communities, NEEA and its members are consulted in those developments. We have strong working relationships with regulators in British Columbia.

The association looks forward to continuing its work with British Columbians to bring innovative transportation solutions to the province and to create infrastructure and systems for residents that are safe and comfortable and ensure that businesses have the tools that they need to succeed. There is no limit to what we can accomplish together, and we look forward to those possibilities.

Thank you for your time. We’d be happy to answer any questions.

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. The question I have is in terms of the number of elevators required in a development. Is that not covered off under the building code?

C. von Donat: No. That’s what we kind of talk about here, which is the idea of bringing in a framework for traffic analysis legislation. This exists in most of Europe and a lot of countries in Asia, in the Middle East, in Oceania and other places, but there is no such legislation in any jurisdiction in Canada right now.

What elevator companies will typically do, in consultation with a consultant, is if there is a new building that’s being proposed, they will develop a comprehensive plan that says: “You should have X number of elevators that need to handle these capabilities based on….” You know, most of the companies will have their own way of calculating these metrics, but they’re more or less similarly aligned. Then you give those to the builder, and ultimately, the builder can make major decisions on “Well, the price per square foot is so expensive” and “Do I really want to put another elevator shaft through every single floor of this new building?” — which would definitely remove extra space that they could otherwise then see revenue on.

Ultimately, the building owner still has a lot of the control over deciding how many units to have. We are still seeing 30-floor buildings being built with two elevators, and it’s a huge problem. If people are moving — and more people are moving these days — that means there’s always one elevator that’s being reserved for something, so the 30 storeys is being used for one elevator then.

If you want to do any preventative maintenance, the eventual replacement of the cab, you’re going to run into an issue where you have, for weeks on end, potentially, only one elevator in service. There still are buildings that might only have seven to ten storeys, and they will only have one elevator installed. You know that if you are a senior living on the seventh storey and for some reason the elevator is taken out of service, for whatever reason, there is going to be a problem. There is nothing to say that you need to have some sort of framework in place to say: “We should look at what we’re doing here to make sure that you have enough elevators.”

It’s a huge problem.

R. Leonard: If I may follow up. I can see that there’s a place for better regulation in terms of how you assess what the need is, because asking an elevator company…. Say I owned a company. I would benefit from having five elevators rather than two, just because it’s more business.

C. von Donat: Right.

R. Leonard: If there was some metric to discern what is the number of people being served, the kind of delivery services that might be involved — that sort of thing. That’s why I asked about the building code — if there’s a place for us to see regulation.

C. von Donat: That’s a fantastic question. There was a guide developed by ISO two years ago that was published that establishes all the calculations for different application types on how to calculate how many elevators or transportation systems you should have in a building.

B. D’Eith (Chair): For the record, could you say what ISO is?

C. von Donat: International Standards Organization.

This one I might not know the entire acronym. It’s called CIBSE. It’s the civil engineering group in England. They also have a very similar guide, of which we could provide a copy, which is 300 pages long, just to calculate how many elevators you should have in an airport, in a 30-storey residential building, how many people you want to move in how many minutes. It’s all done, and the great thing is, for those of us that work in the industry, which is very much a global industry, they’re following this standard in so many other countries already.

For a jurisdiction like British Columbia to say, “We want to do this,” it would not be burdensome for the companies to say: “Okay. We’re going to continue this now in another jurisdiction.”

The standard exists. We’d be happy to provide a copy of them. There have been Canadians that worked on the ISO advisory group that led to the development of those drafts, and we don’t have it in Canada, which is comical.

[11:20 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): It would be very, perhaps, helpful for the committee if you presented that with the written materials.

C. von Donat: Sure, wonderful. Yes, I can do that.

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

Well, thank you very much for presentation. We really appreciate it.

Next up, we have Standing Water Nation — Robin Tavender.

R. Tavender: The elevator people — they reminded me of one my favourite bands, the 13th Floor Elevators. Do you know that one? A really good band from Texas. Easter Everywhere is a good album to listen to.

B. D’Eith (Chair): If we could, Robin, we try to keep it to five minutes, if we can.

R. Tavender: I’ll try to remember what five minutes is.

N. Simons: We’ll remind you.

STANDING WATER NATION

R. Tavender: Bonjour. Je m’appelle Robin. Je viens de la Nation de l’eau permanente. Good morning. My name is Robin. I come from the Standing Water Nation. Then if you need another language marker, there’s also Latin. [Latin was spoken.]

Where are we today? I begin by acknowledging our presence in space. I do not think that I need to go necessarily further than that, because it’s very confusing growing up in a compulsory school, another issue that needs to be settled — the use of compulsory education to indoctrinate children with an ideological understanding of time and place.

Our oral tradition is that we live in space. It is also our tradition that the space is full of light. Even at night, we know the light is there, because we have anciently understood that during the day, the sun puts light into the earth and that during the night, that light remains in the earth, providing warmth. This is confirmed by modern science, which states that if the sun did not exist, the earth would eventually cool to a chilly 3 degrees kelvin. As the old saying goes, even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, because he can feel it.

Thus, today I acknowledge our presence in the same lit space in which my ancestors lived. I think it is wrong to force people to be in British Columbia or in Canada or in any other ideological subdivision. It is a mistake to think British Columbia or Canada are land. Nations are composed of individual men, women and non-binary people, but not merely land. My nation, for example, never had any permanent land base.

According to our oral law, we have never made any treaty with the Crown, nor have we disposed of our Aboriginal right to hunt, to fish and to camp as we like, including the building of fires and the taking of wood for fuel and temporary dwellings as well as the use of waters, flora and minerals. We have, time out of mind, been free of all tax, toll and custom. “Tax” comes from the Latin “tango,” which means “I touch.” Thus, we have forever been free from being touched without cause. Time out of mind, we have considered being touched an act of war, unless there is free, active and informed consent to the touching.

More generally, our oral law says that we are free. We have no history of holding serfs nor of being serfs. But what is freedom, and what is servitude? The English judge Bracton wrote a book called On the Laws and Customs of England. While much of it is merely applicable to England — perhaps even applicable only to a misty past which has almost fallen into oblivion — the definition of freedom and servitude contained therein is very important, to my mind, for my nation, because we have always had what Bracton calls freedom. Freedom is the natural power of everyone to do as he or she wishes, except as forbidden by right or by force.

[11:25 a.m.]

Bracton also gives a definition of “serfitude.” Serfitude is when, contrary to freedom, one is bound by an assembly to do something or not do something. Freedom is a natural power, and servitude is being bound by an assembly, such as the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, House of Commons, United Nations or, in the olden days, a church synod. Servitudes are created by treaty, and as I have said, we never made any treaty with the Crown.

We hear about unceded lands, but what about unceded men and women? What about unceded freedom? What about unceded space and unceded light? We have never ceded our bodies to the Crown. The idea that we cede our bodies to the Crown by being in British Columbia or in Canada is an ideology imposed by compulsory medical treatment, either residential or otherwise.

Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, says, at 1104b.15, that correction is a form of medical treatment, but what is being corrected? Obviously, when a teacher corrects a student, the correction is not being applied to a statement or to a math test. The correction is applied to the soul of the student. Aristotle says that our souls are composed of two powers: the power of discrimination, which is the work of thought and sense, and the power of originating local movement. The medical treatment, therefore, is a sort of psychotherapy, because the target of the correction is the soul. It is designed to modify the soul’s power of discrimination and power of originating local movement.

I’m not going to get into the ghastly details of the residential school system, but part of our oral tradition is that my father, who went to a government-run day school, once dared to unbutton his shirt collar. The principal grabbed him by the neck and administered correction by stapling his collar shut. A view prevails, with respect, amongst people who believe in this sort of compulsory medical treatment: “We all had to take our medicine, so you have to take it too.” I do not believe that is ethical. A physician who treats a patient improperly because the physician was treated improperly as a child is not any less guilty. He might not be malicious, but he is still behaving in a way that lacks virtue, a way that is unethical.

My budget request last year was money to attend law school, and I see difficulty in attending law school now for my nation. I can’t speak for other Aboriginal people, but I think this is a systemic issue. A member of my nation, if we wanted to attend law school, would need to be bound by a covenant binding us to all sorts of servitudes concerning speech and action. If you will not give up your freedom, you do not become a doctor of laws. How can this be a tenable situation? A doctor of laws, if anything, is someone who is free to defend freedom. If he does not have freedom, how is he to defend it for others?

I repeat my request from last year. I cannot afford to go to law school. I simply could not afford the expenses for food, shelter and tuition. My budget ask this year is for $70,000 in the Supply Act over three years, which is approximately the cost of going to UBC Law, so that I could dedicate myself full-time to the studies. But I’m going to add another part this year: that Aboriginal people should not be subject to servitudes in order to learn or to practise law. By right, we are not prohibited to practise law and to do anything that lawyers do. However, the government has, by force, given a monopoly to a private corporation called the Law Society.

In closing, you will hear from A.J. Brown later today. Please listen carefully to what A.J. Brown has to say to you. I surmise that she is going to say to you that the clawing back of her Canada Pension Plan is unethical, and I agree. It is unethical to impose that sort of servitude, to require that she deed over her CPP to you to collect what is due to her, I would say, of right.

In my nation, one of our oral laws is that we are forbidden to refuse support to disabled or sick people. Your nation, with great respect, appears to be different. I draw to your minds that as of April 1, 2019, the annual basic compensation each MLA receives is $111,204.19. I am not saying you should be paid less. I think you deserve every penny of that money for your service.

An unexplored argument, as to why the assistance rate for your nation is too low, is that all members of your nation are in what you call, I believe, the jury pool. A judge is paid a fixed salary so that he is able to discharge his independent judicial office. How are people on your disability assistance program to perform their sacred office as jurors if they are not adequately supported? Can someone who has not enough money for food be expected to adequately perform as a juror?

I thank you, and I’ll entertain any questions you may have.

[11:30 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Robin. I did allow an extra 3½ minutes so that you could finish your report — which is fine; it’s absolutely fine. But just so you know, that doesn’t leave a lot of time for questions.

R. Tavender: I apologize. I had no idea. I was not aware of the time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): No, no. I didn’t want to stop you in mid-thought.

Yes, Rich.

R. Coleman: I’m not familiar with the Standing Water Nation. Normally you would say…. It may not even be appropriate to question, but where is your traditional territory?

R. Tavender: Traditionally we’ve lived in the world and on the land. We don’t have any tradition of ever living on boats. I think we, you know…. We’ve always lived in lit space. That’s where we’ve lived, so that’s where we’ve always lived. I mean, we’ve lived in the light and in space.

These ideological or political…. This is not necessarily the appropriate venue to get into something that I would say is a question, perhaps, more for a philosophy class at university, but I’ve mentioned some of this stuff. I think it’s important that we respect people’s notions of time and place and we not impose notions of time and place upon people.

R. Coleman: I was just trying to understand, because right now we would normally say Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish traditional territories, where we are today. I just wondered if there was a traditional territory for Standing Water.

R. Tavender: As I said, I believe we’ve never had a permanent land base, as many people did. They moved.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. We’re out of time, Robin. But thank you so much for your presentation. Nice to see you again. Best of luck with everything.

We’re going to just take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 11:31 a.m. to 11:39 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. We are back for the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Next up we have the B.C. Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres — Sandra Bryce, Brooke McLardy and Leah Zille.

If we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we have time for questions. Thank you.

B.C. NETWORK OF CHILD AND YOUTH
ADVOCACY CENTRES

B. McLardy: I’m Brooke McLardy. This is Sandra Bryce and Leah Zille. We’re here representing the B.C. Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres. Thank you for having us today.

[11:40 a.m.]

Crimes occur against children in our province every day. It happens regardless of age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, culture. It can happen, really, to any child. I might make you a little bit uncomfortable here, but I am going to ask that you imagine a child in your life. Could be your own child. Could be a grandchild, a niece or a nephew. Imagine that something horrible has happened to them, whether they have been physically assaulted or sexually assaulted.

The first thing you’re going to do is call the police. They’re going to invite you down to the detachment for your child to give a statement. It’s going to be really uncomfortable. They’re going to be taken into a room by themselves. It might be a uniformed officer. It might be someone that has no training in the area of talking to children.

After that, you’re going to leave. You’re going to have lots of questions. They probably won’t be answered. You’re going to get a call from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. You’re going to have to go down to their office, and you’re going to have to talk to them about your ability to be a safe caregiver. Your child is going to be interviewed again and have to tell their story again.

If you’re lucky, along the way, somebody has handed you a pamphlet for victim services, but it’s going to be up to you to chase down that referral and make that connection. If you don’t, you’re not going to have updates on what that investigation looks like. You’re not going to have a sense of what the court process is going to look like. You’re going to be quite unsupported. You’re also going to have to assess and try to figure out what needs your child has. Do you need to take them for counselling? What would be the most appropriate type of counselling? You have to get on those wait-lists and figure that out yourself. This is the reality for thousands of children in our province every year.

Now imagine that same horrible thing has happened, but you have a child and youth advocacy centre in your community. That first phone call that you make is going to have a team of professionals ready to respond. You’re going to enter the child and youth advocacy centre and be met by specially trained police and social workers. They’re going to work together to take a disclosure from your child. You’re going to be in a warm, welcoming, inviting space, and your child is going to feel really comfortable.

You’re going to be connected with a child and youth advocate at that time, a victims service worker, and that person is going to stay with you through this whole journey, whether it means a child protection investigation or a criminal investigation. You’re going to get connected to all the services you need. There’s going to be some assessment. They’re going to figure out exactly what you need and help facilitate that.

We know that children are a priority of this government. We see that across the ministry mandates. Child and youth advocacy centres share this vision and are part of the equation to have healthy and thriving children in this province. When you consider the budget for 2020, we ask that you commit to investing in the operational costs for child and youth advocacy centres, that you commit to the best-quality response to crimes against children.

Child and youth advocacy centres are a provincial asset. We have formalized, intentional partnerships at the local level, with policing, with MCFD, with First Nations, school districts, counselling, victims services and many other services. They all collaborate and integrate in order to respond to these heinous crimes against children. This model really increases the capacity of government services. When we have two investigative bodies like policing and social work running parallel and joint interviews, working together, sharing information, they’re able to get through their investigations quite a bit quicker, and they’re getting deeper and more information. If they’re working on their own, that’s just not the case.

It also increases the capacity of the family. We’re dealing with the trauma right at the time of disclosure. We’re making sure they’re blanketed with lots of supports, everything that they need to move forward. What this does over time is decrease the amount of child protection reports that are going to come out of that family, because we know that we’re dealing with that trauma, and it’s not leading to mental health and substance use issues and other things in the long term.

It also decreases the repeated incidence of pedophiles and sexual predators. We’re identifying them early. We’re getting really good disclosures from kids because they’re comfortable. They come into our facility, and it’s child friendly. They’re relaxed. They’re talking to non-uniformed police. The whole family has got that support behind them. By getting those really strong disclosures, we’re moving into really strong investigations, which then lead to Crown saying, “Yes, we are going to press charges against these offenders.” In a lot of cases, we’re seeing those offenders plead guilty. That’s a huge savings for the court services as well.

[11:45 a.m.]

Specifically, the investment needed for child and youth advocacy centres is operational. The FTEs are already provided by each service partner, so they’re sending police, social workers, victim service workers to work right in the centre. But it’s a complex process, and we really need the leadership to ensure that full integration of services. Ourselves as leaders, each of a centre in the province…. The work that we’re doing is coordinating that response, making sure that there’s case management, legislation is being followed, information is being shared — appropriately, legally, ethically — and that all those folks working in the centre have the training and knowledge they need to respond to crimes against children. We’re keeping those kids at the centre of the case. We’re not worried about what each of the systems needs.

We also secure and maintain child-friendly facilities so that those professionals have somewhere to do this work. It’s really for this coordination and facility costs that we require provincial investment. The province currently supports other integrated services with core funding to secure a space, keep the lights on and coordinate services. Our centres require this same provincial investment, enough to provide coordination, operational capacity and facilities.

Lastly, we’ll share with you that B.C.’s child and youth advocacy centres are seeing some tremendous successes. Of our six operational centres, last year, we saw over 700 children and their families. Each of them was met with that gold-standard response for the disclosure that they were putting forward. Imagine what we could do if we had core funding. Imagine that great news story for this province. Now that we have this best standard model in B.C. we are asking the province to invest in this asset for our children. Together we can be the province that makes the safety of our children a priority.

Thank you for your time. We have provided some questions and answers starting on page 8. We’re happy to go into detail on those or answer any other questions that you have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you so much, and for your work. We are very blessed in Maple Ridge to have Alisa’s Wish. I’ve been there to see the amazing work that place does for children in our community.

Like you said, it’s one thing…. I remember one of the RCMP officers saying: “Bringing your families into the station is so intimidating, so tough.” Having that officer meet them at Alisa’s Wish is a totally different experience. It’s so much less traumatic and getting to the healing quicker and all those things. So thank you for your work. I really appreciate it. I know, in my own community, that it’s having a profound effect.

M. Dean: Thank you for coming and presenting. Thank you for all of your work and the work that your staff does every single day. It really helps and supports vulnerable kids across the whole of the province. Really appreciate that.

Coming from that sector, having worked in child protection for many, many years, and in a different jurisdiction, we know — we have the evidence — that this approach is much better and leads to much better outcomes for children, for families — to protect children in general and also in terms of creating better success in the justice system as well. So thank you again.

What I’m interested in is how this model might contribute to our response to the national inquiry into the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Do you see that there’s a role there? Could you give me some details on how you might see that this could actually support our response?

S. Bryce: First of all, I believe that all of us have some component, whether it’s urban or out in reserves, that we are reaching out to our Indigenous brothers and sisters to ensure that there’s…. It’s about building trust. When they come to our centre, it’s a different feeling. At one point, in our Victoria child and youth advocacy centre, we had 16 people from their community supporting their child. We had grandmas. We had a member of chief and council coming in. They walked out saying: “This is different than if we had had to go to the police. Maybe we wouldn’t have encouraged her to speak her truth.”

I think that’s the other part. It’s a different feeling, when you go in there, that gives people that sense of confidence. I very much…. As you might know, my heart is right there. We know the very tragic things that happen with our Indigenous brothers and sisters. We do need to work together. Preventing at this end, with the children, could really save lives in the future.

R. Coleman: I’m always interested in how the integration on these things works really well. How do you integrate with a service like VictimLink? Do you get referrals from VictimLink directly to your centres?

B. McLardy: Yeah, we go through our victim service program. All the victim service programs are linked right into the child and youth advocacy centres, whether they’re working there, co-located or coming in and out. So yeah. There’s a strong link there.

[11:50 a.m.]

D. Clovechok: A question on the law enforcement side. In reality, a lot of these families will have to go into a detachment or into a police station to have these initial interviews. Is there a lack of training from the members’ perspective? Do they need more police training around this? Is that something that should be…?

B. McLardy: If there’s a child and youth advocacy centre, they won’t have to go to the detachment. If there isn’t one, you’re right.

D. Clovechok: I’m from rural British Columbia.

B. McLardy: Yeah, exactly. If there isn’t one, then yes they will have to go in.

I can speak for…. Well, I can’t speak for policing — absolutely not. I know that there’s a lot of training and a lot of focus on child interviewing skills, but it’s very difficult to get folks trained to the point where they’re experts in that work. They don’t do enough of them, especially when you’re talking about rural detachment areas. They might see one a year. That’s not enough to hone that skill to the point that they’re going to be able to be adequate at that, ongoing.

N. Simons: From that answer, are you suggesting that….

B. D’Eith (Chair): Nicholas, the Chair acknowledges you to speak.

N. Simons: Thank you, hon. Chair.

The issue I have relates to my friend on my right’s question around rural and urban services. Having participated in interviews in police stations and not in police stations, I do know the difference that comfort and security can add to an interview.

You’re talking about sexual assaults, and you’re talking about physical assaults. There are also a number of…. Most caseloads for child protection social workers have to do with neglect or with emotional abuse as well. What’s the role of the child and youth advocacy centres for other child protection issues?

B. McLardy: It depends on the model in the community. They’re all a bit different. For some of us, MCFD or the delegated Aboriginal agencies are using the centres a lot for those other interviews that are non-criminal or starting that interview and then bringing in police if it is a criminal matter. But it really depends on where you are. I think the more rural we are, the more opportunity there is to have that broader approach and bring those investigations in as well.

N. Simons: Just to follow up. The challenge, I think, is in the rural areas — to have the expert personnel to provide that wraparound kind of thing. I can see this as a really good model in larger urban centres, and I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be a good model. But I just would say the major challenge is to find and adequately resource an advocacy centre in rural….

B. McLardy: We do have a couple of models in the province. We have the SKY response in the West Kootenay–Boundary area. Instead of a centre, they actually have seven different communities that have this partnership in place. They might use an office in an existing partner agency, but they go in and do this teamwork together and still provide the response without the physical centre.

It is happening in rural areas. I would say they have a tremendous amount of success with that, because they’re smaller communities and they work together so closely anyway. There’s a lot of opportunity in smaller areas for really great work like this.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, Members.

D. Clovechok: Just really quickly. Thank you, Chair.

Who coordinates that in the West Kootenays?

B. McLardy: It’s out of the Kootenay Co-op, out of Nelson.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation and all the work that you do. We really appreciate it.

All right. Next up we have Vancouver board of education — Estrellita Gonzalez and Janet Fraser.

If we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION

J. Fraser: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today. I’m Janet Fraser. I’m chair of the Vancouver school board. With me today is Trustee Estrellita Gonzalez, who is the chair of our needs budget working group. She will give the presentation.

We do not have written materials to hand in today, but we will do by the deadline of the end of June. If you have any questions that need more detailed information, we’d be happy to provide that in that submission.

E. Gonzalez: Thank you for having us. Just a quick update on the Vancouver School District. We have an annual enrollment of 49,000 students from K to 12, with 300 adult learners and 1,800 international students.

[11:55 a.m.]

We’re one of the most diverse public school systems in Canada. We are home to some of the poorest as well as richest postal codes in the country, and this creates a very significant challenge for us in providing equitable service to those students. To create equity for all students, we offer a broad range of programs to support these learners in a variety of ways to address the range of needs.

The challenges that do exist in our district include the increased numbers of students entering school with special needs, the increased awareness of mental health concerns and the impact that mental health issues have in the classroom, and the student transitory trends caused by housing prices and poverty levels. It’s essential that adequate funding be provided to the system in order to deal with these challenges and others. As Janet mentioned, we’ll be submitting a more fulsome written document at the end of June. We have eight recommendations that come out of that:

(1) Ensure that the Ministry of Education’s funding formula review for school districts results in stable, predictable and adequate funding to enable districts to fulfil their responsibility and to assist all students to achieve their full potential.

(2) Provide the necessary funding to fully implement the memorandum of agreement resulting from the Supreme Court. The current use of a special purpose fund to account for the allocation of provincial costs associated with the implementation of the MOA does not ensure that individual districts’ costs are fully funded. We’re pleased to see recommendation 8 in that report, which calls for the elimination of the classroom enhancement fund.

(3) Provide funding to ensure that the new curriculum implementation is complete and successful. There are challenges with resources, given that we have the new curriculum and that we have changes to the graduation program. The learning commons is playing a more and more important role in personalized learning, so a special fund to upgrade technology and things like that would be welcome.

(4) Fully fund cost pressures to sustain current services to students, including past and new unfunded cost pressures. BCASBO estimates that in 2019-2020, there’s a $441 million unfunded cost pressure in the system. We hope that recommendation 18 in that review to the ministry would identify net cost pressures and new program expenditures.

(5) Review and increase supplemental funding grants for students with special needs and students struggling with mental health issues. We spend more in supporting students with special needs than is provided by the province. This excess spending is estimated to be about $29 million in this current school year. Provincially there needs to be a recognition of the full cost of providing an inclusive education for all students.

(6) Provide funding for increased maintenance and upgrades to address the needs of aging school facilities. We have a lot of old schools in Vancouver — right now, on the books, about $800 million in deferred maintenance. This year, we had $11 million in grants to cover some of that, which obviously is inadequate, considering how much there is.

(7) Provide sufficient capital funding to honour the provincial government’s commitments to upgrade and replace high-seismic-risk schools. In Vancouver, we have over 60 that still require seismic upgrades. This is obviously a lot to do still, and it’s going to cost a lot of money. But we have, also, a concern with construction escalation costs. So we’re looking for a commitment from the ministry that the verified cost of the project be fully funded. We’re dealing with a situation now with Eric Hamber, which is almost $15 million over budget.

(8) Increase funding to school districts to support Indigenous learners. The six-year completion rate for Indigenous students in Vancouver is significantly lower than the provincial rate. This is something that our district is really key to improve on.

I was chair of the working group for the needs budget. We met six times between December and May with all of our stakeholders. We will include some of this information in our submission as well. We really centred on equity and advocacy with our group, and we looked at the financial asks from the group. They amounted to about $26 million, and just over a 300-FTE increase in that as well. We’ll include some of this when we do submit. It was a very good process, and it just showed the need of the district beyond what we think as the VSB.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. It’s quite impressive; you were able to get all eight in within the five minutes. Thank you for that. We really appreciate that.

Any question from members at all?

We do have a little bit more time, so if you did want to…. I know you had to rush through that. If there were any other priorities or anything that you felt you wanted to elaborate on, please take the time now. You have a few more minutes if you’d like to do that.

[12:00 p.m.]

E. Gonzalez: Well, there are issues with what we see with area standards, because schools are being built smaller than they were, when they’re being replaced. That is causing a lot of issues with having it in alignment with the curriculum. I know that’s an issue that’s being reviewed. It always comes down to enough funding.

We have a unique problem in Vancouver in that we have a declining enrolment situation. Even though many people move to Vancouver, I think it’s because of the affordability factor that we do lose families. So there’s a need to make our district attractive. That means great programming, great buildings — and we obviously lack with many of our buildings. We have over 60 that are still seismically unsafe. That’s a concern for a lot of parents as well as for the district, of course — safety.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I had one question just in regards to…. With the 4,000 new teachers that have been hired and other support, I gather it’s been tougher for Vancouver — and perhaps you could correct me if I’m wrong — in terms of retention and finding new teachers, primarily because of affordability. Or let’s say somebody was able to now work where they live, which…. You live in Coquitlam or Surrey, and you’re commuting in. So Vancouver is having…. Could you just speak to that retention and being able to find teachers in Vancouver?

E. Gonzalez: It’s definitely the case. We had to hire a number of teachers last year. Our recruitment team goes across Canada and now into France to actually recruit. French immersion teachers are a continuous struggle. The first thing people will say is: “Well, I love Vancouver, but you’ve got this reputation for being so unaffordable.” So we are looking at creative ways to entice teachers here.

We did lose teachers, too, when they had their opportunity to go to their home bases at that time last year. This year is a different story. We’re actually more in need of TTOCs. That has been a constant need as well, hiring more teachers on call. It’s the reality of living in an expensive city.

As a district, we are doing some creative things. We passed a workforce housing motion last year to look at ways that maybe we could subsidize some young teachers who are moving, French immersion teachers, to try and entice them to come to Vancouver, to live here and spend maybe a year in subsidized housing until they get the lay of the land and have a sense of community and can learn things. But it’s an ongoing challenge here for sure, and it’s not just the VSB.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Of course.

J. Fraser: Maybe I could just add that it’s not just teachers that are challenged; it’s our support workers as well as other people in the system, like cafeteria workers and engineers. Just the affordability of Vancouver is a challenge. And although the population of Vancouver is going up and continues to increase, the number of school-aged children here is decreasing. Again, we think that’s because of the affordability for families.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much for your presentation and all the work you do for our children. We really appreciate it.

J. Fraser: Thank you for our time here.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the UBC AMS — Patrick Meehan and Cristina Ilnitchi.

Just a reminder — if we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

ALMA MATER SOCIETY OF UBC

C. Ilnitchi: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. My name is Cristina Ilnitchi, and I serve as the vice-president of external affairs, responsible for government relations. I’m presenting on behalf of the 56,000 undergraduate and graduate students that comprise the Alma Mater Society of UBC.

I’d like to start this morning by thanking the government for being responsive to student needs last year. Eliminating interest on student loans, investing in open educational resources and beginning initial investments into sexual violence initiatives on post-secondary campuses were all issues that the AMS and students across the province have been asking for. These were incredibly important investments to address affordability and accessibility to education and keeping students safe.

This year the AMS brings back to the committee one funding opportunity that we recognize as crucial to the success of post-secondary students in B.C. The AMS is proposing the creation of a comprehensive tuition grant, which would allow students from low- to middle-income backgrounds to be able to access a non-repayable grant that would cover the cost of tuition. This would rebalance the debt-to-loan ratio, maintaining the same disbursement level but reducing the loan burden. Secondly, this results in lower loan payments per month, allowing people to actually be able to move forward in life.

Members of the committee know that the cost of living in the province is high. The ever-increasing price tag on post-secondary education means that many students experience financial hardship during their studies but are also burdened with debt upon graduation and for years after.

[12:05 p.m.]

A 2018 B.C. graduates survey found that 1 in 2 students graduate with debt. But surveying UBC students, we found that 62 percent of students expect to owe more than $25,000 and 35 percent expect a debt of more than $50,000. Overall, almost half of UBC students report financial hardship related to tuition and other expenses. It is urgent that the province continues to take seriously the growing affordability and accessibility crisis in B.C.’s post-secondary education system.

The current system sees one-third of a university graduate’s after-basic-necessities income clawed back in loan repayments for an entire decade after graduation. All the while, a student that did not need the loan retains all of their income through that period. The AMS believes this is fundamentally unfair.

What does the current situation look like? A middle-income student taking out loans can anticipate a loan of $12,600 each year and a total loan at the end of study of around $50,500 that needs to be repaid. In comparison, a low-income student will receive a much higher grant, but will still result in a loan at graduation of $43,000. Repaying that loan is expensive. StudentAid B.C. will expect payments of $500 each month for ten years for that $50,000 loan.

The median bachelor’s degree–holder in B.C., two years after graduation, earns $50,000 annually if they’ve found full-time employment. After taxes, groceries, rent and a transit pass, this leaves the graduate with $1,600 per month for everything else. One-third of their after-basic-necessities income will be spent on repaying their loan.

What could a fair, supportive system look like under a comprehensive tuition grant system? A middle-income student with $50,500 in financial aid during their four-year degree would be able to receive an additional $15,600 in grant funding, reducing their debt load to $35,000. On this reduced loan amount, their monthly payment would be $350, putting over $150 back into the pockets of British Columbians. This now only becomes one-fifth of their after-necessities income.

British Columbia remains the only province in Canada that does not have a needs-based grants program to complement the Canadian student grants program. This program would provide financial assistance to over 40,000 British Columbians annually, and the AMS has estimated the cost to government at $143.7 million. We believe that the cost of this program can be partially offset by redirecting less effective funding mechanisms within the ministry’s portfolio, such as the annual completion grant, which costs the government $31 million to implement each year.

I’m a student halfway through my degree, with a loan of $15,000. I know that even though I’m not fully dependent on loans, I will be paying off this debt long after I have finished my degree. Especially as I look into going into my master’s degree, I’m worrying about the burden of taking out two more years of loans and whether I’ll find a job that can properly support me afterwards.

A comprehensive tuition grant system for low- to middle-income students not only secures a student’s financial future but decreases barriers to education and provides an equal playing field for all B.C. residents in their educational journey.

We are also asking the government to commission a study of a possible grant system that would be targeted to people with traditional barriers to education. This would include Indigenous people, people of colour and those from rural backgrounds far from post-secondary institutions. We understand that this would be a complex program, and so would ask the government to investigate the feasibility and value of such a program.

Thank you so much for your time.

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

Questions, comments?

R. Coleman: Hi. Do you know how many loans are done a year, how many students take out student loans a year?

P. Meehan: Yeah. Students that take out student loans per year is just over 50,000 in British Columbia. And those that receive the grant, the low- and middle-income grant, is just about 43,000. It’s been dropping for the last couple of years, but right now it’s about 43,000 students taking out needs-based grants from the federal government every year.

R. Coleman: So that’s federal, but it’s provincial students here.

P. Meehan: So 43,000 students in British Columbia.

R. Coleman: Your grant in lieu, or your loans to reduce that debt, would be to 50,000 students per year?

P. Meehan: Yes.

R. Coleman: Is that a multiple? So in this year it’s 50,000. Next year it’s 100,000 because it’s the second year, third year, fourth year. So do you get up to 200,000, or is it 50,000?

P. Meehan: It’s 43,000 students access grants from the federal government every year in British Columbia. That’s the amount. Whether they’re in first year, second year or third year, or BCIT in a trade program or what have you, that’s the amount that are accessing that needs-based grant.

R. Coleman: So presumably that quantum goes up each year. So 43,000 new students would access next year, or would it be…? What’s the intake each year — a quarter of that?

P. Meehan: Approximately.

R. Coleman: Okay. All right.

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

[12:10 p.m.]

Next up we have DTES Literacy Roundtable — William Booth. My apologies. There’s also Lucy Alderson.

If we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d really appreciate that. Please go ahead.

DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE
LITERACY ROUNDTABLE

W. Booth: Good morning. As you heard, I’m William Booth, and this is my colleague Lucy Alderson. We are members of the Downtown Eastside Literacy Roundtable, a coalition of educators who work on the Downtown Eastside, either in secondary or post-secondary institutions or in community-based organizations. This coalition has been meeting on a regular basis since 2005. We understand literacy as having expanded from a binary — reading and writing, which a lot of people understand — into a broader base of life skills that will enable people to live their life more fully. Most recently we’re addressing the e-governance issue and the digital divide.

The Downtown Eastside is a dynamic neighbourhood, a vibrant, low-income neighbourhood, and it has historically been a hub of rich cultural life. In the eyes and words of people living there, this is a community of enormous strength, cohesion and activity. The round table has put together an app, in collaboration with the community, which provides information on basic services in the Downtown Eastside for people, such as housing, shelter, food, medical, etc. In collaboration with that, we’re also doing a drop-in tech café where people with digital equipment can drop by to get help.

There are two misunderstandings about the Downtown Eastside having access to technology. One is that people on the Downtown Eastside simply don’t have it. That’s simply not true. They don’t have the latest. They don’t have contracts, but they have equipment. The other criticism that the Globe and Mail highlighted was: if they have access to technology, why are we giving them welfare?

L. Alderson: Thanks for your time and attention. It’s obvious that you have a tough job here in making sense of everything.

I’ve been working in community education for about 25 years, and I’m as passionate about it today as I was when I first began. William and I are here because we really want to keep literacy and upgrading issues on the financial agenda. We appreciate the government’s commitment to tuition-free adult basic education. That has made a big difference, but we’re here to advocate for other kinds of literacy programs that are being delivered in communities all across B.C. Here’s the ask: we would like to see a minimum of $3 million for literacy outreach coordination across the province, and we’d like to see at least $4 million for the community adult literacy program delivery.

I work, actually, for Capilano University, for the community development and outreach department, and I work mainly in the Downtown Eastside and East Vancouver. I coordinate the Carnegie learning centre. I work at the WISH learning centre with women in the sex trade. I have a weekly learning program at Oppenheimer Park, which is now full of tents. I also work in the Backstretch of the Hastings racetrack, working in a workplace literacy situation.

At Carnegie, we run a volunteer tutoring program, and we operate a learning centre. Our volunteer tutors donate over 8,000 hours a year to keep things going. We have about 30 to 40 visits per day by registered students and drop-in participants. We offer zero-to-high-school levels in English, math, ESL and, of course, computer literacy and digital literacy. It’s a 20-year partnership between Capilano and Carnegie. It’s a long-term agreement.

[12:15 p.m.]

In all of the outreach literacy programming that we do in our extra partnerships at Oppenheimer, at WISH, we apply for these annually or biannually. Five years ago we were receiving $40,000 annually, but each year since then, this amount has dropped. This year we’re working with $24,800, which is 62 percent of what we used to have. We haven’t heard back this year about our current grant, but we know that even the ceiling for what we can apply for has been dropped by $10,000.

The problem, I think, for the ministry is that the fund is staying the same, but there are almost twice as many good applicants that are receiving funds, so we’re all just losing it. We can’t pass that on to our students. We can’t say: “Okay. You’ve got 34 minutes for ESL help today because we’ve been reduced.”

It’s not a workable solution for us. We also believe that it’s a very good investment — not only, for instance, from our volunteers. When we look at all of the LOCs in the province, we see that for almost $2.2 million of government funds in the literacy outreach network, they are actually leveraging over $8 million in community funds. We think this is a good way to go, but we really need more support.

Also, I just don’t know if everybody feels up to date with what literacy and upgrading learners look like these days. I’ll just think about this week, who I was working with. For instance, Ahmed is someone who showed up at Carnegie last year. He’d just arrived in Canada, and he was living in a shelter. He was applying for refugee status. So he was in that limbo between being able to access any English language services and…. Also, he could not work. As you know, many people settling in Canada have been through traumatic experiences. Sitting in a shelter with no way to move forward is a recipe for despair.

Because we don’t have, in our community learning centre, any formal requirements, Ahmed was able to start improving his English right away. It turned out that he was skilled in computers. So after a couple of months, he started volunteering with us. As soon as his status was confirmed and he was confident enough with his English speaking and writing, he also started applying for jobs. We kept up our support with him: how do you do that in the Canadian context, etc.? You can imagine.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just so you know, we’re at about seven minutes. If you could wrap it up, we’d really appreciate that.

L. Alderson: Okay. I’m happy to talk about other students or provide any follow-up. I’ll just stop it there.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Lucy. We really appreciate it.

Can I ask one question before we go to Mitzi and then Nick? When you say you were getting funding, which ministry are you getting funding from?

L. Alderson: The Ministry of Advanced Education…

B. D’Eith (Chair): It is Advanced Education.

L. Alderson: …provides the community adult literacy program. Then, also, the LOCs come out of the Ministry of Education.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So both. Okay.

M. Dean: That was pretty much my question. Do you get Decoda funding?

W. Booth: We’re a member of Decoda.

L. Alderson: William, as our LOC…. We access the funding from Decoda for William’s work.

M. Dean: That’s where I understood…. You mentioned LOC, and I thought: okay, that is Decoda funding. In addition to that, you get the other funding, which is the ESL services.

L. Alderson: Literacy and upgrading, which we can use for ESL students too. We apply for that annually, yeah.

N. Simons: I was hoping you’d give us a few more examples of some of the people you work with. We hear, in rural communities and other communities, about the importance of literacy, the connection and everything. As much as we don’t fully appreciate everything that libraries offer, we don’t always appreciate everything that literacy programs do. So thank you for what you’re doing. Maybe just another snapshot of the kind of people you work with.

L. Alderson: Okay, sure. A couple of people I also was going to mention. We have a student who was also a…. We assisted her to get a Downtown Eastside small arts grant. She’s an Indigenous woman. She has been writing poetry for much of her later life. We assisted her with the digital support and a little bit of know-how. She’s actually doing a book launch on Monday.

[12:20 p.m.]

But out of that comes the history — right? — and the residential schools and the Sixties Scoop and a lot of what we need to hear in order to actually make reconciliation work.

At WISH, for instance, one of our former students…. She was in and out. We did a goal-setting exercise together, and she wanted to work for the safety patrol, which is a supportive employment program at WISH. It took her two years to work — doing an application, then falling back and everything. Now she’s working…. She just chaired our women’s advisory group meeting. She was working in the sex trade, and she was also pretty heavy into her addiction. She’s just moved that along, and she is taking control of her life. It’s just those kinds of things that we really need to support.

We also have a lot of working people who cannot access their pay stubs. They’re up against this payroll software. So tax time comes around, and nobody knows how to get their T4. Other people…. I just actually spoke to someone on the street, coming here. He isn’t sure that his restaurant is paying him accurately, but he doesn’t know how to access it. So businesses and governments are all creating these efficiencies, but we have become the explainers. It’s in the community, and we are running out of funds in order to just take on that work.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re over time, but Doug, one last question.

D. Clovechok: Just a very, very quick editorial comment. I just wanted to thank you for the work that you do in this area. I know that where I come from, the Columbia Basin Alliance for Literacy just does an amazing job and did a presentation to this committee in Kimberley. I just wanted to say thank you, and certainly I support the work that you do.

L. Alderson: Thank you very much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your time and all the effort you put in.

Next up we have Fostering Change — Jody Kennett.

Hi, Jody. How are you? Just if we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes. Thank you.

JODY KENNETT

J. Kennett: Sure. Yes, absolutely.

I want to first say that I do not work for Fostering Change. I am just a supporter of them, so I will not have all the details, but I am a concerned citizen.

About 3½ years ago, I saw a story on the news, and it was of a youth, Alex Gervais. He had committed suicide, and he had been in the foster care system. He had committed suicide at a hotel. I don’t know if you guys remember this story. It just stopped me in my tracks. I was shocked.

When the news came out, he had been through over 20 social workers, been through over 11 homes. I just got really concerned, so I started doing some research, and I realized that there were actually multiple youth that had committed suicide close to their 19th birthday. At 19, they age out of care, and it brings on a lot of stress for them. They have no social support and no consistency in their life with mentors or anyone, especially if someone has had 20 social workers. The social workers are already taxed.

A few stats behind this: 40 percent of homeless youth have been in care, and two-thirds of youth in care are not graduating from high school. So only one-third of youth in care graduate from high school. Half of youth in care, when they hit 19, go on income assistance. Two-thirds of that is disability insurance. The other part is that they’re going on welfare as soon as they hit 19.

There have been some awesome strides. Through the agreements with young adults, they do get the $1,250 a month now, and it has been extended to the four years, but there are regulations and qualifications around those supports. University is waived now, which is fantastic, but if we have kids who are not graduating from high school, this is a problem. They have to be registered full-time at school and/or be in a life skills program to have eligibility for this money.

[12:25 p.m.]

With the agreements for young adults, what they have found is that only 21 percent of youth outside of the Vancouver and Richmond area, so 1/5 of youth in care, are accessing it. In 2017, it’s not much higher for youth in the Vancouver-Richmond area. It’s about 27 percent. So a little over a quarter are accessing those. Some of the blocks are the eligibility requirements.

Some of the suggestions and ideas around helping these youth. One is to lower or change the eligibility requirements, because they’re finding a lot of restrictions. I know when I went to university, I was working part-time and taking…. If you take four courses, it’s considered part-time.

The youth are experiencing a lot of: “You must prove this. You must prove you’re not making this much money.” It’s really knocking them out of getting supports. On top of that, they don’t even have family supports or any mentor in their life.

Because of them not graduating high school, more supports are needed ahead of time to prepare them for this turning 19 and being so afraid and being left on their own. A lot of them experience mental health concerns, so mental health support. A lot of them have learning disabilities — learning disability support throughout high school. Even the life skills. It needs to be a preventative measure ahead of time.

Lastly, what came out of a lot of the research was that they need consistent adult support, whether it be a mentor, whether it be…. A lot of them said they would have loved access to stay in touch with their social workers. The social worker’s already…. That’s their one consistent. And not even. They’ve seen multiple. There need to be some structures put in place for support around that as well.

A lot of them have even said…. You know how kids sometimes go home if they fail? They’re in university, and they don’t have a job yet. They need a fallback of: “What does coming home mean? I need a little bit of support for six months or a year.”

Those are some of the ideas we are putting forward. Just a note. We’re so grateful for everything you’ve already done for these youth, but a really interesting note is that extending care actually generates more profit long term than the expenses you’re putting into it. I think it’s $1.11 return on the investment for that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Jody. We have heard from a number of people in regard to this issue. We really appreciate your contribution. Actually, it’s interesting to discuss the pressures that youth aging out of foster care must feel as they get to that point.

That was a very interesting point that you brought up. I don’t know what the correlation is between suicide or other trauma and leading up to that point. It’s a point I hadn’t heard yet, but one that I think is well taken. So thank you for that.

M. Dean: I just wanted to say thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for coming today and doing such a great presentation.

R. Coleman: One of your statistics you read out was that two-thirds end up on persons with disabilities. You said that. I’m wondering. Is that the total cohort — two-thirds of aging out of care are ending up on PWD?

J. Kennett: Two-thirds aging out of care are not graduating from high school. I think that was that stat.

You’re wondering how many are ending up on assistance?

R. Coleman: You said PWD. “On disability,” you said.

J. Kennett: Right. There are two parts to that. There are two percentages. So 50 percent of youth, when they hit 19, are going on some sort of income assistance, and two-thirds of that 50 percent is disability.

R. Coleman: Okay. These stats are obviously different than you’d find in the regular population, and I think we pretty well know — I was the minister at one time — that there are more kids at risk. Kids at risk that are in care have a lot of issues in some cases.

Do we have a sense of what the percentage of those that are aging out who go onto social assistance, two-thirds of which become persons with disabilities, were coming into care as persons with disabilities? Is it just a continuation of the disability they had when they arrived, whether it be any form…? There are different syndromes and whatever.

Is that pretty much a consistent…? Nicholas actually might be able to answer the question for me.

[12:30 p.m.]

N. Simons: I think, Rich, if I could just…. I think what Rich might be trying to figure out is what percentage of children who go into care have a disability. I suppose that’s the question. Is the same percentage entering care with a disability as…?

R. Coleman: When it’s said the way you said it, it’s that the system failed these persons with disabilities. But did they already have disabilities and we didn’t have a plan to help them live with their disabilities as they came out of care? That would be more my question.

J. Kennett: I don’t have the stats on that, but we can look into it if you’d like.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That would be helpful.

N. Simons: I think at issue here is the level of support that children with disabilities get when they’re young. Sometimes improved services and access to services can influence the level of support that young person needs upon their reaching the age of 19.

You’ve made very good points. We’ve been hearing this a lot, and it’s very compelling. As a former child protection social worker, I’m in regular contact with young people who are either in the criminal justice system or not or on disability or not. We thank you for your presentation.

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

Next up we have Nathan Davidowicz.

Thanks for your patience, Nathan. I saw you come in earlier. Just a reminder. If we could keep your comments to about five minutes. I’m sure you’ve heard this all morning.

NATHAN DAVIDOWICZ

N. Davidowicz: My name is Nathan Davidowicz, and I have been involved in transit for over 45 years. I started when I was attending UBC in the 1970s, and I was the student society transit liaison officer.

I’ve been involved with many other planning advisory committees. Now I’m a senior, and I’m involved in various seniors committees. I distributed a copy of the seniors magazine and the article about seniors transportation and the recommendation from Ms. Mackenzie, the B.C. seniors advocate. She has 15 recommendations. She provided a report last year in May 2018. She told me she sent 2,000 copies all over B.C. but very little reply for I’m not sure why.

According to Ms. Mackenzie, improvements to senior transportation are very important as the percentage of seniors is going up. It’s about 20 percent now of the total population, but she estimates it’s going to go up to about 25 percent in the next ten years.

Now, B.C. is behind other provinces — especially Alberta, Ontario and Quebec — in providing senior transportation, especially the handyDART program. I think you heard about it last year — about the lack of handyDART. Nothing much has really changed in the past year, and 75 percent of the handyDART users are seniors, so it’s a large number.

For example, in Metro Vancouver, there’s approximately 5,000 trips a day on handyDART. But the same number is in Calgary. Well, metro Calgary is only half the size of Metro Vancouver. So you can see the disparity in services between Alberta and B.C.

The split responsibility between the province and B.C. Transit and TransLink is not working, as the various mayors and councillors are trying to load the transit costs onto the provincial and federal governments and have very little of it paid by individual cities. The city tax bill in Ontario or Quebec for transit is about double what the city tax bill is in B.C.

[12:35 p.m.]

We need to have an independent consultant to tell us the truth about transit — what’s really happening. The government and regional staff don’t want to tell the truth to the politicians and to the decision-makers. We are so far behind that it’s just…. They have a capital plan for the next ten years of $7 billion. We need at least $14 billion.

It’s been documented. Various Premiers have spoken about the need for transit — the ones that knew about it. Unfortunately, not the last two. If I start with Dave Barrett, he doubled the transit services in three years of government. Then we had a bit of a lowdown and problems. Then Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark came in, and they were supportive of transit. Gordon Campbell is the ex-mayor of Vancouver. I knew him too. He was supportive of transit, but the last two Premiers are not supporting. They don’t understand, unfortunately, transit services — what the needs are. That’s why I recommend having an independent consultant to actually come and tell you what exactly is needed, because we are so far behind.

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

Any questions for Nathan at all?

R. Leonard: Thank you very much. You’ve waited all morning to come and present to us. You can see the range of issues that people bring forward.

One of the things that I learned along the way is that people need to start taking transit earlier in life if they’re going to be users when they are no longer eligible to drive a car. I was wondering if you could comment on that.

N. Davidowicz: I’m a member of the AllOnBoard coalition, and they have a similar thing in Victoria. Our Earth, Our Future, I think it’s called. We advocate for free transit for all children and youth under 18 and sliding scale bus passes, based on income, for adults. Many other provinces and many other cities in Canada and the U.S. have that system in place. B.C., again, is behind the times.

Now, the city of Victoria, just on Tuesday, did vote for that. But the transit commission actually is just getting money from the parking revenue of the city to pay for it. It’s not for the whole capital region. It’s just for the city of Victoria. But it’s a step in the right direction anyhow. It’s just a matter of doing more of that.

You heard about children in care and how much of the fines they have to pay all that time that they go on transit. They get a $173 fine when they don’t have the right fare or no fare at all. That’s because they don’t have a bus pass to help them out. That’s what they need.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for your advocacy, Nathan — really appreciate it — and your patience today, for waiting.

Next up we have Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter — Karla Gjini.

If you could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be helpful for us.

VANCOUVER RAPE RELIEF
AND WOMEN’S SHELTER

K. Gjini: My name’s Karla. I’m a collective member at Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter. We’re an independent women’s collective, and we’re made up of a diverse group of women. We have working-class women, lesbian women, women of colour, Indigenous women. All of us are women who have experienced male violence of some sort, like wife battering, incest, rape, sexual assault, prostitution.

[12:40 p.m.]

We have a 24-hour crisis line and transition house for women and their children. Since 1973, we’ve responded to close to 46,000 women. Since we opened our transition house in 1981, more than 3,000 women and 2,600 children have lived with us, using our transition house as a tool in their resistance against abusive men.

The women who call us to support them in their search for safety are often poor. They’re low-income. They’re immigrant women. They’re Indigenous women. They’re women of colour. Some are struggling with substance use or mental health. Our recommendations today are directly derived from what the women who call us and live with us have told us.

We appreciate that the B.C. government has already committed to providing housing for women and their children escaping violence, but it’s not enough, as 0.02 percent of women living with us last year received subsidized housing when they left us. Most of the women that I’ve talked to are waiting more than two years. The reality is that women can’t find affordable, available and suitable housing. So they’re forced to compromise by getting a place that’s too small or maybe too far from work and school and may be going to a homeless shelter or going back to an abusive man.

For this, we recommend that the B.C. provincial government not only continue to fund the creation of more social housing designated for single women and women with children but to ensure that every person living in British Columbia has a guaranteed livable income in combination with some sort of rent control.

The basic principles of guaranteed livable income are that it’s set high enough to provide all basic necessities; it’s given unconditionally, without tests or requirements or limitations; and it’s given to all adults regardless of marital status, immigration status, job status. This will ensure that poverty doesn’t prevent a woman from leaving an abuser, an exploitative job or factor in to her resorting to prostitution.

Some women who call us are struggling with substance use and mental health, which increases their vulnerability to men’s violence. They face an impossible situation. Just this week I called, and it was a ten-day wait for a detox bed. Women deserve the ability to access mental health teams, detox and women-centred recovery programs on demand.

We also provide assistance to women and girls in prostitution who have been assaulted by pimps and johns. Around 50 percent of the women who lived with us last year were currently in or had been in prostitution. B.C. must provide concrete options to leave prostitution, including a guaranteed livable income; safe, affordable housing; and addiction and mental health services. But women are waiting six months to get into a residential program. So we call on the provincial government to fund the creation of more women-centred exiting services.

Women working in low-paid jobs can travel long distances on public transit because they can’t afford housing in Vancouver. We work with single mothers who have to buy three-zone passes, and that’s spending 10 percent of their already-meagre income. What that translates to is spending the first 12 hours of their work month just working to pay for a transit pass. We support also the #AllOnBoard campaign that Nathan was talking about for free public transit for anyone up to age 18 and then on a sliding scale afterwards.

We appreciate the recent investments into child care too. But many women are still left out, because wait times are so long to get into child care. Women who work evening and weekend hours are often unable to access this child care at all. If she chooses a non-licensed child care, either because she wants to or because the waits are so long for a licensed one, she only receives a fraction of what she would if she was accessing that licensed child care.

When women are leaving an abusive man, qualifying for and then getting enough legal aid hours is difficult, but it’s a basic necessity. Men use custody and access in court to exhaust their hours. So we demand that a woman escaping violence has a higher financial threshold to qualify for legal aid, because right now, a woman with a child who’s leaving an abusive man making $40,000 a year could fail to qualify. She’s also completely unable to pay out of pocket.

We also have a serious problem with cases of violence against women in the criminal justice system. Few report it to the police at all, and only one in five sexual assaults reported by police results in a trial. We have examples of judges who aren’t fully informed of the sexual assault laws and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of these laws.

Public oversight over the judiciary is crucial. We call for a genuine, open-court principle and that a fund be created so that all judgments and cases of violence against women are transcribed and accessible to the public on line for full accountability.

[12:45 p.m.]

The recommendations we have today are what we’ve heard from the women we work with everyday. We are happy to hear John Horgan’s commitment to listen to women’s voices.

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

N. Simons: Thank you for your presentation and for what you do. Did the city of Vancouver withdraw their funding?

K. Gjini: They granted us termination funding.

N. Simons: Which is what?

K. Gjini: It means that this is the last year that they will fund us unless we change our practice of offering some of our core services only to women who were born female.

N. Simons: So the non-trans community.

K. Gjini: We ensure the safety of anyone who calls our line. We give everyone who calls our line emotional support, and we find the best resources for them. That might be with us, or it might be with a different organization.

M. Dean: I want to say thank you for your presentation and for all of your work and for your advocacy as well. The question I’ve asked of some other agencies in Vancouver is: given that the national inquiry report has come out, how do you see your organization positioned in helping all of us with our duties to respond to the calls to action from that report?

K. Gjini: Well, I don’t know if you know, but we did take part in the inquiry. We did a final submission that’s available that’s really great to read. It goes through some of our recommendations in terms of the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls inquiry. A lot of the things that we are recommending in that submission are similar to what we’ve talked about today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Karla, for all the work that you do in a very difficult environment. We really appreciate you spending the time and your very thoughtful words.

Next up we have A.J. Brown. Cindy Haner is going to be interpreting.

Hi, A.J. How are you? Nice to see you again.

A.J. BROWN

A. Brown: Hi, everyone. Thanks for having me here today. My mom had found out that the budget was already written for this year, and it really broke her heart, so that’s why she’s not here to present today, this time.

N. Simons: It hasn’t been written yet.

A. Brown: Oh, I thought it had already been written. That’s what I had found out.

N. Simons: No.

R. Leonard: Mr. Chair, could you explain the process?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Perhaps, A.J., I could explain. The budget consultation that you did last year, in September, was for the 2019-2020 budget. What we did this year is we are meeting earlier, in June, for the 2020 budget so that we can get our report in earlier. Today what you’re meeting for is for consultation for next year’s budget, 2020. Does that make sense?

[12:50 p.m.]

A. Brown: Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you for letting me know that.

I’m just out of ideas of what to do at this present time considering the clawbacks that have been happening with some of the budgeting issues and the earnings exemptions. It’s kind of like stealing the money from us. We needed to get that exemption raised.

The amount of the earnings exemption, I feel, is detrimental to us, as able-bodied people don’t have that. If we want to get off social assistance, those of us that are using it right now, we need to raise the earnings exemptions above the poverty line. We’d like to have the opportunity to work more, but we feel that the limitations of the earning exemptions don’t allow us to have more opportunities for work. It’s a barrier because it’s $12,000 in one year. It means that we don’t have that incentive to go and get work.

The stress and the worry and the fear about budgeting and trying to save and balance is overwhelming. Sometimes it’s literally a choice of paying for food or paying for electricity. We just don’t have enough to pay for both. The standard for rent right now is about $1,200. Food is about $400 a month. Other expenses…. I don’t bother with entertainment anymore, as I can’t afford it.

I have been talking with someone in my community. We were talking about how they’re going to reach the $12,000 earnings exemption this summer. They’d asked their PWD contact what to do. Their worker said that they should save the money for the second half of the year, but that’s impossible for her. She has expenses — her rent, family expenses. She needs to pay for her car. So we need to raise the earnings exemptions and remove this barrier.

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

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for coming and presenting again, A.J. I remember your presentation last year. When you were asked what kind of amount would be required as an annual income to be able to meet the needs, I seem to recall you saying somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000. Could you remind us a little bit more about that? I certainly appreciate wanting to go above the poverty line and also dealing with the notion of a living wage.

A. Brown: Right now I’m thinking that that limit of $50,000 or $49,000 would be the amount that would be really beneficial, I guess. I’m not quite sure of the exact amount. Maybe even lower the amount of tax. Just anything to help us reach over the poverty line.

[12:55 p.m.]

I’m not quite sure of the exact amount that would be. It would just be something to raise the exemption so that we can actually go out there and get off social assistance.

B. D’Eith (Chair): One last question. Okay.

R. Leonard: We had an earlier presentation yesterday where there was the suggestion of tying the exemptions to inflation, so that you can maintain….

A. Brown: Yes. That would be very helpful and beneficial so that we wouldn’t be looking at the same amount year upon year when inflation is going up, because it’s actually a decline in the amount of money that we would be able to make. So having it tied together means that we wouldn’t be having a drop in income when inflation goes up.

N. Simons: First of all, thank you for your presentation. I’m presuming that’s tying it to inflation after it’s been raised.

A. Brown: Yes.

N. Simons: I just wanted to ask: did we not increase the earning exemption recently? Recognizing that it may not have been enough, but I believe it went from $200 a month to $400 a month.

M. Dean: It was $9,600 a year and went to $12,000. So the presentation is based on that new amount of $12,000.

A. Brown: Yes, that’s correct.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, hearing no more questions, was there anything else, A.J.?

A. Brown: I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, A.J., and thank you very much for coming again. Please say hi to your mother for us, okay? And wish her the best.

A. Brown: I will. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, so we’re going to recess until two o’clock.

The committee recessed from 12:57 p.m. to 1:59 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re back with the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Welcome, everybody.

Next up we have Jessie Smith.

J. Smith: I really appreciate this. This is democracy in action.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. That’s what we like to say.

J. Smith: I teach Latin American studies, and it’s not like that everywhere in the world, right?

[2:00 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. That’s a really good point. We shouldn’t take for granted what we have, the systems.

J. Smith: Absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Jessie, if we could keep the comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions, that’d be great.

JESSIE SMITH

J. Smith: Perfect. All right. In these deliberations, you will hear from different voices from post-secondary education, but I’m here today to bring you the perspective from the trenches. I’ve been teaching at Langara College for 19 years, and I can tell you that the difference between summer 2000 and summer today is just so stark, in my working conditions.

One of the main changes is that under the previous government there was a 20 percent drop in funding to our sector. I’m really grateful to the current government for the increase in money to ABE, ESL, kids in care and the interest-free loans, but from the trenches, it’s not enough to make up the difference in that loss.

The main cause for this really untenable situation that we have at Langara and other post-secondary institutions is that far too many students simply lack the basic English and basic core academic skills that they need in order to confront the rigours of post-secondary education.

Too many have never done any research. They’ve never given an oral presentation. They’ve never done pair work or group work. They’re simply unable to provide the kind of critical analysis that’s the core of academic discourse. I try to teach the political economy of Latin America to people who don’t know how to write a basic sentence, let alone a proper essay.

Just this week…. Right now I’m grading. This week alone, I graded some research assignments, and 30 percent of them had zero citations. This is the extent of it.

It’s totally unfair to these students — often international, but not only; they’re also domestic students — who struggle, and they’re not getting the support that they need. It’s unfair to the stronger students, as we have to change and reduce the content of our courses in order to help the struggling ones. And it’s unfair to faculty, because we really struggle to try and meet the needs of these very diverse students. We fail in that regard many times. This slow erosion in the academic standards is definitely not serving the economy of British Columbia.

The lack of skills and overall increased anxiety that we see on campus has led to a 500 percent increase in academic misconduct since 2013. That’s plagiarism and cheating.

We see more students in our offices complaining, pleading for grades, in distress and crisis. A colleague of mine received 41 emails in one day from one student pleading for an improved grade. It’s just…. More than ever, we’re forced to determine what a real crisis is. When is a student having an actual mental health disturbance, or when are they lying? We have to make that call, and we’re not mental health professionals, and it’s very, very stressful.

It also feels unethical that, essentially, we’ve privatized post-secondary education. We say we’re public sector workers. But actually, we have less than…. What did Viktor say today? Less than 40 percent is paid from the public purse. Faculty feel such anguish about this — the fact that we’re actively recruiting students that we know don’t have the skills.

We know, before they even come on campus, that they do not have the skills to actually complete and pass our courses, and yet we charge them six times more than domestic students, and we don’t provide them the skills-building that they want.

So we’re frustrated with Langara College for not doing enough to support faculty and to support students. We’ve really given the college a lot of concrete ideas of what could happen, things that could be done to support students. But again, it comes back to this lack, this drop in government funding.

I hope that you will consider, when you are making your budget choices — that you might consider increasing the grant per student. Langara College, as I’m sure Viktor said this morning, has the lowest grant in the province. I don’t really understand why, and it seems completely unfair. The difference between tuition and the grant means that the college is forced to get money elsewhere.

Also, I’m hoping that you might consider properly funding capital projects. We were open 49 years ago, on 49th. At that time, the government paid for the building.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now we’re having to seek an expansion, and Langara College has been taking money every year that should go to support the students and not spending it so that they can squirrel away money to pay for an expanded building. This is very, very concerning to us.

Lastly, we hope that you will properly help fund mental health supports, both for faculty and students. The student who set fire to the T building on April 1, targeting his teacher, is just one extreme example of the need for mental health support on campus. That’s kind of the extreme version, but every day we have students that have such stress, so much more stress than they did 19 years ago. So I hope that you might consider putting health care dollars into supporting the students on campus, rather than forcing the college to use post-secondary dollars to deal with those mental health issues.

In all of this, I think it’s imperative that we look at the tax structure. I’m sure you’ve had many excellent ideas all week, and you will next week. We have less tax dollars today for you guys to use to fund all of the important public sector needs that we have. I hope that you will continue to have progressive taxes. We know that around the world, the best standard of living, the highest standard of living, is when we have progressive taxation in place.

That’s it for me. Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Jessie. I just have a quick…. You said the basic language and research skills aren’t there and that there’s an erosion of academic standards. I’m not sure how, let’s say, increasing the base funding to universities, for example, addresses students entering in, without the…. Are you talking about K to 12? Are you talking about foreign students coming in? I just feel like…. I just want you to connect the dots for me, because I didn’t feel that the ask at the end matched what you said at the beginning. I’m just wondering if you could do that.

J. Smith: Okay, sure. We’ve always had students that have struggled some, but basically, it’s mostly been because they haven’t put in the effort, right? But what we have now are a large number of students, when they enter our classroom, with the skills that they have — which they’ve either got at their institution where they studied in another country or whatever they’ve managed to get from K to 12. It’s mostly the ESL students. They may be domestic, but they haven’t completed K to 12 here. They’ve done only some of the K to 12.

So they come. Because we’re open-access, they can come. All they have to have done is to come to our campus, and the skills that they have are so shockingly lower than they used to be. We used to maybe get one or two like that. Now, as I said, I had 30 percent. I have students who say to me: “What do you mean, summarize?” The skills that I’m talking about, my daughter could have done in grade 7.

The gap is so great. So we’re saying…. The college says to us: “We can’t fund things like more ESL support to these students before they take it.” I have a whole list, which I can share with you, of things that we’ve told the college: “Here’s what the students need to get their skills up to speed before they take our courses.” The college turns around to us and says: “We can’t afford it, because we’re paying all this money on the ERP, because we need a new building, and because blah, blah, blah.” That’s it.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Jessie. I appreciate the conversation that we’ve had so far. I can look at Hansard, and I can wait, but…. So colleges are known to solicit students that they know will not be able to complete or fulfil their terms because they lack the skills?

J. Smith: When the government reduced government funding by 20 percent, Langara College was really proactive at seeking students elsewhere to make up the difference in funding. A lot of them came from overseas. We didn’t have to fire people, but we have recruiters. This isn’t just an issue of Langara College. This is across the sector.

The recruiters overseas try and promote our college, but there’s a disconnect between what the families are told and what those students are told of what they need to actually succeed. They arrive, and they don’t realize: “Oh, I’m going to have to do academic research, the basic numeracy skills, literacy skills.” There’s just a disconnect between our recruitment process and then their coming to campus and not being able to succeed.

[2:10 p.m.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): This didn’t happen yesterday. The colleges have seen it, and they’re not correcting it with their recruiters?

J. Smith: There have been some changes. There have been some positive investments at the college, I would say. But the faculty union did a survey of 400 faculty, and it’s page after page after page of all the problems that have resulted from the lack of support to these students. So it’s not just the college’s fault. It’s also related to the fact that they have multiple expenditures to make.

I mean, we can give you 20 things that they’ve made foolish decisions on and that they’ve spent money on. But in the end, the domestic student fee plus the government grant does not add up to the cost of a domestic student, so they have to get money elsewhere. And where have they done it? They’ve done it by getting students from other countries to come in and pay high fees.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Some of whom don’t have an opportunity to even complete the studies that they’re led to believe that they can get a degree in.

J. Smith: Far too many. The gap is so dramatic. It’s really shocking.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Jessie.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.

Next up we have the IBD Centre of British Columbia — Dr. Greg Rosenfeld.

Hello. How are you?

G. Rosenfeld: Thank you for having me. Does everybody have copies of the presentation? I was told it was sent electronically.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Then we do have it, yes.

IBD CENTRE OF B.C.

G. Rosenfeld: Thank you for inviting me to speak. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’m a gastroenterologist at St. Paul’s Hospital and one of the founders of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre of B.C.

We formed the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre of B.C. because this is a very underserviced disease. I want to describe to you a picture of a centre that we wish to establish which is not only for the treatment of this disease but, we really believe, is a new model of care for complex disease in British Columbia. Not just in British Columbia — we really believe that this will be a world centre and a world-leading centre. I’ll describe to you why I think that is.

For those of you who are not very familiar with inflammatory bowel disease, I’ll just describe it to you briefly. Crohn’s and colitis are the two main conditions. This is an illness that is very common, very prevalent in Canada. About one out of every 150 Canadians has it. Canada has some of the highest incidence in the world, and the incidence is dramatically increasing. In the package, you’ll see a paper that I and some colleagues recently published which shows that the incidence is dramatically rising globally, but particularly in Canada. By 2030, the estimates are that at least 1 percent of Canadians will have IBD, and the highest incidence will be in the elderly.

Imagine this disease. I’ll you the story about a 22-year-old patient of mine who is from Prince George and who came to see me after suffering from this disease for about five years, not knowing what he had and passing blood on a daily basis. Of course, his GP didn’t recognize it because it’s not that common and not the first thing a GP thinks of. He told him: “Well, you just have hemorrhoids.”

By the time he came to see me, he’d been suffering with intractable pain for five years and didn’t want to tell anybody about it because, as you can imagine, when you’re having 12 bowel movements a day and passing blood, that’s not the first thing you want to tell people about. So he suffered with this disease in silence before he finally came to me.

We were fortunately able to successfully treat his disease. It required many specialists. It involved myself, the nutrition specialist at St. Paul’s and also some of our surgeons. That highlights the need for an Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre. This is a very complex, chronic disease, and we wish to establish a multidisciplinary centre.

Just to sort of describe to you what that is. We have taken steps to establish the centre already and, in fact, are operating out of our office. But I and my two physician colleagues are really funding this ourselves because many of the allied health care professionals, such as nurses, dietitians, psychologists, do not have funding under the current Medical Services Plan.

That really raises what the unmet needs in inflammatory bowel disease care are. The current wait times for specialized care and specialists are extremely long, as I’m sure you’re all aware. The access to diagnostic testing, laboratory testing and endoscopy procedures are excessively long and, in many areas of the province, are unavailable.

[2:15 p.m.]

What the centre wishes to do is to establish the multidisciplinary care that we need in terms of nurses, a psychologist, a dietitian who can assist us in providing complex care to the patients. But it’s more than just clinical care. We also wish to be an educational centre — not only an educational centre for parents and for patients but also to train new doctors, residents, fellows. We’ve established a fellowship at UBC also to train nurses, dieticians, pharmacists and surgeons.

The centre will also run various clinics. We are one of the only centres in the world that has an obstetrician and gynecologist to look after IBD patients who are pregnant, and their partners. We have a transition clinic, so we’re transitioning teenagers from the pediatric care into adult care so that they can learn to look after themselves and manage the disease themselves. We have a psychiatrist, and we’ve recently hired a psychologist to look after the mental health of patients and to provide comprehensive care.

We believe that all of these things will keep patients out of emergency rooms. They’ll reduce hospital waiting times. They’ll reduce surgical procedures. One of the papers in your package shows Saskatchewan data that shows that this type of comprehensive care does, in fact, do that.

What we’re asking the government for is financial support to help us establish a centre to be able to do this. We recently were involved with the government, and we congratulate the government on their decision to introduce biosimilars to try to reduce the cost of medications provided. But medications are only one aspect of it.

We don’t believe that appropriate care for patients is simply prescribing medication. It’s looking after their mental health. It’s providing them the social supports that they need. We’re hoping that some of the savings generated from the new biosimilar program could in fact be directed back into patient care, and we believe that this is one of the ways that that could be done.

The last tenet, which I didn’t really touch on, is the research component. We would like to bring researchers in a bench-to-bedside so that we can have much more interaction with our basic science research colleagues. We have world-leading basic science research in inflammatory bowel disease that’s happening right now. Unfortunately, it’s happening at Children’s Hospital, and although we work closely with our colleagues, we are not able to be in the same centre and in close proximity.

Bringing all of these services together in one centre is not something that’s done anywhere else in the world. Vancouver and British Columbia are very unique in that we have surgeons and gastroenterologists and nurses and all of these other practitioners already working on this and developing this expertise, and we really think that we can, for sure, be a Canadian leader but also be a global leader in this area. So we’re really looking for the government to help us support this and get it going.

I think that it is truly a model for other types of complex disease, which answers the question: why should the government put their money into only inflammatory bowel disease? I think, as I said, it’s because it’s an illness that is increasing in incidence and because I do think that this is a model that can be applied to other illnesses.

N. Simons: Very interesting. It sounds, on the face of it, obviously potentially really helpful, and I’m glad you introduced the idea of research as well. Would B.C. or Vancouver be a centre right now? Would it be known for this area of practice as a centre?

G. Rosenfeld: Yeah. One of my colleagues, Dr. Bressler, is actually a global leader in inflammatory bowel disease. We do publish a lot of clinical research, as well as the basic science research. Some of our colleagues at Children’s are world leaders in the basic science.

We’ve actually established many of these services already. We’re just, in our private practice office, bursting at the seams, and it’s not really sustainable for us to continue to fund those services out of our own dollar.

N. Simons: Would it be the operations as well as a physical place for this, or does that already exist?

G. Rosenfeld: We have achieved some financial support for operations from Vancouver Coastal. What we’re requesting of the government is capital cost to establish a physical facility.

R. Coleman: Thank you, Doctor. MLA Simons covered most of it. How is the supply of your particular medical expertise globally — specialists here and globally? Are we short? Do we need more? If you built a centre, can you get the doctors?

G. Rosenfeld: Sorry. I got a little nervous, and I skipped over some things I meant to discuss. Right now there are approximately six IBD subspecialty-trained physicians. Myself, I was a GP for many years, and then I went back and retrained in gastroenterology. Then I did an additional fellowship in inflammatory bowel disease.

[2:20 p.m.]

There are about six physicians in all of the province who have that expertise. There are probably 30 or 40 across the country. There is a huge shortage. I mean, the patient I described to you from Prince George couldn’t see a specialist who had this expertise.

One of the big things we wish to establish is telemedicine to be able to service patients in other communities, but a big need of the community that we wish to supply is having that connection to physicians. So be it a family physician or a gastroenterologist in Prince George, we want them to come, spend a week with us, do some training, get some expertise. Then they know us; we know them. If six months, a year or five years goes by, they can call the IBD Centre and say: “Hey Greg, remember you saw this patient with me? I’ve got this patient in Prince George. Can you do that?”

Again, we’re pushing ahead in doing these things. Already, I’m personally seeing about five to ten patients a week by telemedicine, and I have patients from all over the province.

By having allied professionals with us, we can increase the volume that we can see. So that’s how we’ll increase the access. Because the reality is that it takes so long to train a physician, and there are so few with that much expertise. If the day-to-day management can be done by other professionals — by GPs or by nurses — then that gives me more time to see those complex patients.

R. Coleman: What are your barriers to being able to do that? In your preamble or your description, you said it’s going to get more and more because we’re getting older and older. We’ve got to figure out how we can just stop me from getting older and older. You guys just scared me. What is it you need to get there?

Obviously you’ve got six, but there’s a shortage, so there are going to be more needing training — your outreach with doctors and stuff. What gets you to have that global plan so that you can actually have them understand when they’re on the phone with you, or on telemedicine with you, that relationship?

G. Rosenfeld: That’s the plan. What I vividly remember is…. I was a GP, and if you do the math, most GPs will have ten or 20 patients with inflammatory bowel disease. At any given time, 80 percent of them are probably well. So when they do see somebody who’s flaring or who’s sick, they think of what’s common. They don’t think: “Oh, maybe this patient’s having a problem with their inflammatory bowel disease.” So when they see the patients, they don’t know what to do.

The centre does a couple of things. One, we train people in the local community so they know who to reach out to. They have a better idea of what to do. Two, it’s automatic. Where do I call? There’s the IBD Centre of B.C. They call us, and they know what to do.

The patients who are generally well, who only need to be seen once in a while, are the patients that should be looked after by somebody in their own community. We need to provide them the education and training to do that. That’s one of the main goals of the centre. If we can teach doctors and nurses and nurse practitioners in their own communities to handle most of the things and just see us when the problem is really complicated or complex, that’s how we provide more services and better services.

R. Coleman: Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Doctor. We really appreciate it.

Okay, next up we have the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — Iglika Ivanova.

CANADIAN CENTRE FOR
POLICY ALTERNATIVES

I. Ivanova: My name is Iglika Ivanova, and I am a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Thank you for this opportunity to present some of our recommendations to the committee.

Since I presented to this committee last fall, we were very pleased to see continued action to reduce affordability pressures for families and to improve quality of life across the province, including the funding commitments for the CleanBC climate action plan and the release of B.C.’s first-ever poverty reduction strategy.

Budget 2020 should maintain the momentum and fund the next phase of progressive policy reforms. Our priority areas for new investments continue to be poverty reduction, housing affordability and climate action — the three most significant challenges faced by British Columbians today.

The good news is that B.C. is in a great fiscal position to make new strategic investments in public services and infrastructure. Substantial surpluses are projected over the next two years. That’s based, as you know, on pessimistic assumptions about economic growth — on assumptions that are lower than the average private sector forecast — and it’s after very generous contingency allocations and forecast allowances.

What this represents is $1 billion a year of additional fiscal room that could be deployed to tackle the backlog accumulated after 16 years of underfunding and neglect of key public programs. And that is without introducing any new revenue measures, which in themselves represent additional potential fiscal capacity.

[2:25 p.m.]

Ultimately, what matters for the provincial fiscal health is not whether the year ends with a small budget surplus or a small budget deficit. It’s the debt-to-GDP ratio. This is not a controversial issue. A debt-to-GPD ratio of 20 percent or below is widely recognized by economists, including economists at the B.C. Business Council, to represent good fiscal health. For reference, B.C.’s debt-to-GDP ratio currently is projected to be about 16 percent, less than 16 percent, in 2021.

That means the province has room to borrow. If you want to know, in dollar terms…. Our B.C. GDP is about $322 billion. So 4 percent of GDP is $13 billion. That’s kind of the fiscal room we’re talking about for additional borrowing, before we start getting into questions of fiscal health.

Considering that debt service costs right now are at historic lows, it is an excellent time to increase borrowing and fund new public infrastructure that will benefit generations to come.

With that, I will move on to some of the recommendations of what this investment should be, now that we know that there’s fiscal room for them. As is reflected in the new poverty reduction strategy, reducing poverty is a major undertaking and will require sustained efforts. It’s not a one-year thing.

The provincial strategy document itself points to key areas that have not yet been addressed. Those include “better access to good food for families, enhanced investments in affordable transportation and improved income security, including assistance rates.”

Another notable gap is the extremely limited access to dental, optical and other extended health services for low-income people. Budget 2020 should include initiatives to fill these gaps and should prepare the province for participation in what we hope will become a new national pharmacare plan.

We also strongly recommend prioritizing policy measures aimed directly at eliminating the most extreme and severe forms of poverty, such as homelessness and hunger, and policy measures to end deep poverty, defined as income below 75 percent of the official poverty line. This would include immediate and significant increases to social assistance and disability rates. Even after the $50 increase announced in Budget 2019, welfare rates and disability rates remain far below the poverty line and are completely inadequate to meet even the most minimal costs of food, shelter and other basic necessities.

By keeping welfare incomes too low, the system actually makes it extremely difficult for people to transition to work. Inadequate rates mean people sometimes are forced out of their housing and must spend time looking after their basic needs, such as lining up for free food or going to the food bank.

It’s virtually impossible to connect with potential employers when you are unable to afford transit, work clothes, Internet or a phone. The CCPA and the Poverty Reduction Coalition in B.C. have long recommended welfare increases to levels that reach 75 percent of the official poverty line.

In the medium term, we think income assistance rates should be set at a level that actually meets cost of living and, minimally, the poverty line — but actually looking at what the costs of living are in the community. Welfare rates must be indexed to inflation to ensure that they don’t erode over time. In addition, Budget 2020 should continue to fund improvements to social assistance delivery and the proactive enforcement of workplace rights.

Other priority investments to reduce poverty include making public transit more affordable. As you know, B.C. currently provides a $50-a-month bus pass for persons on disability assistance and a virtually free — $45 a year — bus pass for some low-income seniors, including those who are welfare recipients age 60 or older. But there are no subsidized transit passes to younger social assistance recipients or the working poor. We recommend free transit for children and youth, as Victoria announced yesterday, and lower cost transit passes for low-income British Columbians, as proposed by the All on Board campaign.

On housing affordability, there have been a number of positive steps to cool the overheated housing market, and we are seeing some effect. But prices remain out of reach for too many British Columbians. The reality is that skyrocketing rent costs represent the greatest threat, not only to the poverty reduction plan but to the government’s overall policy affordability agenda.

[2:30 p.m.]

If the pace of rent increases continues, it won’t be long before all affordability improvements and gains from things like increases to the minimum wage, reductions in child care fees and so on…. Those will be wiped out by increasing rents, and families will not feel any better off.

What we recommend for Budget 2020 is a major new capital investment in low-income housing stock, on top of what has already been announced, and additional measures to moderate rent costs and restore affordability. Then we also will have recommendations on climate action to essentially accelerate and build on the CleanBC strategy that was announced last year. We’ll have a written submission later in the month that you can read in more detail, but those are generally the key items. What we want to emphasize with that is just to remember that a strong, well-resourced public sector goes hand in hand with a healthy economy.

M. Dean: Thanks for all your work and the detail in your presentation. You made a recommendation around investing more in low-income housing. We have quite an ambitious infrastructure agenda — building schools, hospitals, roads and housing — and there’s a skills shortage already in the province, in British Columbia. We’re finding that costs are going up as well, because there’s so much development too.

How would your recommendation fit with that balance of the skills shortage and there not being the capacity in the province to actually do much more building than we’re already doing? Or is it a notion that you would say that we should be buying up existing stock and using that as affordable housing?

I. Ivanova: I think there’s a combination. Buying up existing stock is part of the solution, but I think we should be thinking about the longer-term plans. As you know, building these housing projects takes a long time. If we announce the funding in this budget, it will be a few years before the actual building is able to start. I think there should be a sustained investment over a period of time, and there should be more investment in training and apprenticeships so that we do have more skilled workers who are able to do that work.

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

Next up we have Genome B.C. — Dr. Pascal Spothelfer.

GENOME B.C.

P. Spothelfer: Good afternoon, members of the committee and committee Clerks. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about how research and innovation help grow the economy and strengthen our society and how Genome B.C. can contribute to British Columbia’s future.

Genome B.C. is a non-profit research organization supporting world-class genomic research projects, technology platforms and innovation with the aim of growing a globally competitive life sciences sector and delivering sustainable benefits for B.C., Canada and beyond. The results of our projects and initiatives are having profound impacts and are helping to improve the lives of people every day, including through advances in health care, forestry, agrifoods and environmental stewardship.

Our role is to connect academic researchers, industry partners and public sector interests to manage research and innovation collaborations that drive B.C.’s bioeconomy. Genome B.C. manages a cumulative portfolio of over $1 billion in more than 390 research projects, science and technology platforms and innovation initiatives. This portfolio contains close to 1,000 research collaborations with international partners in 42 countries.

This is an exciting time for British Columbia, as the field of genomic innovations is increasingly making practical differences in daily life, socially and economically. Genomics enables preventative health care that allows British Columbians to live healthier lives, longer; drives higher productivity in the natural resources sector; and is an effective tool for mitigating and fighting climate change.

Nationally British Columbia is at the forefront of this transition and is well placed to harness opportunities now and well into the future. We’re actively demonstrating the utility and application of genomics, encouraging the adoption of technology through knowledge mobilization and commercialization, and supporting entrepreneurship for the benefit of society.

[2:35 p.m.]

As a result, we are fast becoming a trusted leader and champion of the application of transformational science and its translation into social and economic benefits. In B.C., we have an amazing genomic research and innovation ecosystem. Since the inception of Genome B.C., our team of researchers and innovators, assisted and supported by us, have garnered 28 percent of all available funds in federal competitions launched by Genome Canada. This is the highest per-capita federal investment in genomic research in the country. More recently, our five-year, rolling, cumulative success rate in Genome Canada competition has now reached 32 percent.

Such results are the consequence of the systematic strengthening of B.C.’s genomic research ecosystem over consecutive strategic plans by successive B.C. governments. This report also enables us to give B.C. researchers access to Genome B.C.’s own portfolio of funding programs. We use these to build capacity, to invest in areas of provincial interest and to advance new researchers. Our current programs are smaller than the Genome Canada programs, but by selecting strategic topics, like climate change and the microbiome, these programs allow us to align research and innovation activities with provincial priorities and build our national competitiveness.

These are just some highlights of the initiatives that were made possible through the continued support of the government of British Columbia. We were very grateful that this past March we received $29 million as part of the province’s supplementary budget estimates and that $14 million of this funding will allow us to complete our current strategic plan and to deliver on our commitments to leverage the five-year overall provincial funding of $85 million into well over $300 million of investments in genomic research and innovation in B.C.

I’m pleased to report that we’re on track to achieve and exceed all the targets we’re accountable for under the current plan. The additional $15 million will enable us to launch our next three-year plan in 2020, building on our capability to keep pace with the rate of genomics progress, and align with the priorities of our stakeholders, including the B.C. government. The plan will support Genome B.C.’s expansion into new areas of innovation to proactively and deliberately drive the responsible adoption of genomics in day-to-day life.

This ongoing support allows Genome B.C. to capitalize on the critical first investor dollar that drives funding partnerships. Our model since inception has been to use a provincial contribution towards each plan and leverage it to attract external funds at the ratio of 1 to 4, to the benefit of all British Columbians. This benefit to B.C.’s economy is in addition to the direct, positive impacts that the research has to our health system, our environment and our society.

This committee has, in the past, been very supportive of Genome B.C., and we thank you for that. Your continued support is critical — not only to maintain and expand our globally significant genomic cluster but also to fully benefit from this sustained investment by realizing long-term social and economic benefits. Let’s continue to ensure that B.C. benefits in all ways from the investment in research, intellectual capital and world-class genomics capabilities.

Thank you for your time. I’m happy to take any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Doctor. When recommendations get funded, it’s always nice to see that. It was nice to see the funding in the supplementary budget.

Any questions?

Well, thank you very much for all the work that you do in the province in leveraging all the money, especially being able to get access to the federal funding. That’s brilliant. Being able to leverage that money is fantastic. Keep doing what you’re doing. We’re really proud of you. Keep going.

P. Spothelfer: Thank you very much. We appreciate the support, and we’ll do our best.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of British Columbia — Lisa McGuire.

If we could try and keep the comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that, and then we’ll have time for questions.

MANUFACTURING SAFETY
ALLIANCE OF B.C.

L. McGuire: I’m Lisa McGuire, CEO of the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C. I’d like to start by providing a Canadian perspective on health, safety and mental well-being.

[2:40 p.m.]

We had the opportunity to include a couple of questions in an Angus Reid survey, asking employed Canadians their perspectives on whether workplace health, safety and mental well-being were important in where they worked, in terms of where they selected where they work. And 94 percent said yes, indeed it was. We then asked where they worked and whether decisions made in their workplace consider employee health, safety and well-being all or some of the time. Only 77 percent said yes.

Our goal and job as an organization is to provide health and safety support to the B.C. manufacturing sector. We are a provincewide, industry-led, industry-funded organization. Our vision is to achieve cultural change that ensures safe workplaces for all B.C. manufacturing workers.

We serve approximately 2,400 companies, representing almost 55,000 workers in B.C. in 2018. The results we’re seeing in reducing injuries are impactful. The manufacturing sector is leading injury-rate reduction in B.C., looking at WorkSafeBC statistics from 2015 to 2017, at 9.5 percent.

Companies that work closely with us, using our programs, have experienced the greatest injury-rate reduction at almost 24 percent. Companies that work with us over time have shown a consistent declining trend in the injury rate of those working with us up to five years, at over 51 percent injury-rate reduction.

The financial impact for alliance members is significant, with over 26 percent average premium rate decrease since 2012, translating to over $36 million in premiums avoided. The human impact is most significant, with 3,624 time-loss injuries avoided by alliance member workers and their families, bringing more workers home safely.

Looking at the alignment to provincial priorities, the results are working towards a B.C. provincial goal of being the safest province to live and work in Canada. When you look at the strategy and government program alignment, we are working to bring all manufacturers to implement a health and safety certification management system to high standards, which is OSSE, the occupational safety standard of excellence certification program in B.C.

Why? It’s because academic research has shown that companies that implement OSSE or CORESafety, a health and safety management system, have seen a 29 percent reduction in short-term disability, long-term disability and fatalities in the manufacturing sector.

Through research at the University of Regina in comparing pre-audit and post-audit organizations using the OSSE certification standard, they’ve seen a 50 percent time-loss injury-rate reduction, of which the specific element in that tool has shown a positive correlation to safety performance.

Recognizing that that education and training element in occupational health and safety systems is positively linked to safety performance, the employer training grant has enabled employers to train more workers on health and safety, especially small business, where they have less resources.

We help the industry by providing health and safety advisory support and training resources. We deliver publications and examples in the package I have before you, as well as host events and forums for increasing health and safety awareness and education.

The work that we’re doing is increasing the demand of qualified health and safety professionals to support the industry, which has an impact to manufacturing — of a shortage of qualified health and safety professionals to support them.

The current health and safety qualification standards are inadequate and inconsistent across educational institutions. We’ve had the opportunity, through provincial support and through the sector labour market funding, to enable research to be compiled to identify the specific challenges, including the lack of qualified health and safety professionals that were identified, and have the opportunity to develop a clear strategy to define a certifying program for the health and safety profession in manufacturing.

The key recommendations we have for you to consider are to provide more funds to the employers training grant program to allow more employers across the province to invest more money in their people, because skilled workers are safe workers. Funds allow companies to make a valuable investment on the health and safety training that we and other training institutions are providing.

We also would like to invite a recommendation to continue to fund the sector labour market partnerships program. This program has helped to address the lack of effective standards for health and safety in the manufacturing sector.

[2:45 p.m.]

Through the sector labour market partnership initiative, we are working to implement the strategy that will benefit many, both within and outside the manufacturing industry, and provide a good career for all demographics seeking a career with a rewarding impact.

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation.

One of the causes of the pay gap between men and women is sexual harassment at work. It has a big impact and a long-term impact, as well, on the earnings of men and women — and on pensions too, obviously. So I’m just wondering: where is that in the work that you do and your strategy? What are your targets, and what are your plans in those areas, in terms of that being a health and safety issue?

L. McGuire: Certainly, developing training programs to help educate employers on how they build programs to protect people within their organizations…. It includes bullying and harassment. It also includes developing a certification profession for the manufacturing professional. To give them the skills to do a good job at being an effective resource for employers and to ensure that not only do they train their staff to be effective in their role and ensure that they have a comprehensive program to protect all people, and diversity, and, of course, gender challenges that exist between…. This particular risk is prevalent in all sectors.

M. Dean: How do you measure the effectiveness of that?

L. McGuire: Like every health and safety element within an organization…. You have to have things like perception surveys, which are included within that, to really understand, from an independent perspective, whether or not it’s effective and to ensure you have a program that…. The health and safety resource often becomes the individual that is on the floor a lot of the time — to not only visually look at what is happening, and the behaviour and culture in the organization, but also to have the joint health and safety committee and to have an opportunity to have an open discussion on whether or not the programs that have been implemented are effective.

B. D’Eith (Chair): A question for you. In regards to more funds, do you have a quantum? Do you have an idea of what…? Is there a specific ask for funding for employer training grants?

L. McGuire: I don’t have a specific number in mind. It certainly had been a very beneficial program.

B. D’Eith (Chair): What’s it at right now? Do you know? How much is available now for that?

L. McGuire: I don’t have a number. I just know that at times, it runs out. There’s a start point, and then there’s a…. That has happened. I know last year it was quite…. It was open for a very short period of time and then closed.

B. D’Eith (Chair): You’re just saying more resources for that. Yeah, okay.

L. McGuire: Just more resources to this particular program. I can certainly provide more information on that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, if you wouldn’t mind. It’s something…. After, if you could supplement that.

L. McGuire: Yeah, I can certainly do that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s always helpful for us to have a quantum so we know what we’re talking about.

L. McGuire: Okay. I will do that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great.

R. Leonard: I may have missed it as you were asking this question. I’m struggling to understand the recommendations that you have, the request for the ask.

The employer training grant. You’re asking for provincial funds to train employers or to provide employers with some funds to help them train their health and safety…?

L. McGuire: There’s an employer training grant program available currently. Quite often it opens…. Employers can access it and are able to get some additional funding for training programs. I’m just looking for…. It has been such a valuable opportunity for our members to be able to access. It includes health and safety training. So they’ve been able to access that for some of the health and safety programs out there — and other programs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I think Lisa was saying it’s already available, but there are not enough funds in it.

L. McGuire: Yeah, it’s already available.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s already available, the program, but there are not enough funds in it. That is what I think Lisa was saying.

R. Leonard: Okay.

L. McGuire: Yeah, there’s a program available right now. It’s very well used within our membership.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Does that make sense?

M. Dean: Is it that you’re not sure what the program is?

R. Leonard: Maybe I don’t know what the program is.

L. McGuire: Oh, okay.

R. Leonard: I think of health and safety workers. I think of employees who are on the ground, on the floor.

[2:50 p.m.]

L. McGuire: It includes that. For example, if a particular employer wanted to train a group of workers within their organization on accident investigation, perhaps, they would potentially be able to access this grant, based on the availability or how many funds were left in it for them to be able to do that.

It’s a training grant for a number of things. It’s not just health and safety. It certainly has a broad scope, but I know that they also use that for some of the health and safety training programs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time. But thank you very much, Lisa. Fantastic. Very nice seeing you.

Next up we have International Mountain Bicycling Association, Canada — AJ Strawson.

Hi, AJ. How are you?

A. Strawson: I am well. How are you?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good. Nice to see you. Come on up.

AJ, if you could, we’re trying to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions. That’d be great.

INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN
BICYCLING ASSOCIATION, CANADA

A. Strawson: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for having me here. I’m the executive director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, Canada. We’re a non-profit dedicated to mountain bikers across Canada. We do a lot of work in B.C.

I want to first acknowledge that we are meeting here today on the traditional unceded territories of the Squamish, the Musqueam and the Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. I also further want to acknowledge the importance of reconciliation as a key ethos for trail recreation in British Columbia, as British Columbians recreate on lands and trails that have been cared for by First Nations from time immemorial.

IMBA Canada is a membership-based, grassroots, non-profit, and our mission is to ensure Canada is home to a strong and vibrant mountain-biking community, riding a world-class network of mountain bike trails. We represent riders of all types, from beginners to experts, the casual and the committed riders.

In B.C., there are almost 6,400 kilometres of non-motorized, single-track trails across the province. These trails are largely built and maintained by volunteer non-profit associations who are funded by individual membership fees, grants, and revenues from events that they host. They serve as important community assets with immense economic, health and recreational benefits, both to residents and visitors alike.

One of the common challenges facing trail associations is access to secure and steady funding. With limited time to dedicate to grant writing and reporting, project-based resources are out of reach for some trail associations. On top of this, trail recreation is becoming ever-more popular, placing demands on already limited resources. Our survey from last year — we surveyed our member trail associations — found the two most common challenges that they faced were funding and capacity, which is a subset of funding.

In addition to the funding challenge, trail usage is climbing dramatically as a result of successful marketing by Destination B.C. to international visitors and the arrival of the newly sanctioned mountain-bike user subtype, e–mountain bikes. Neither the success of Destination B.C. nor the arrival of a new user type is going to help solve the funding challenges that we have in front of us for trail associations.

I would like to thank the staff of recreation sites and trails B.C. for the incredible amount of work that they do, given an entirely too large remit and insufficient resources. They are tasked with managing multiple complex uses and a changing landscape. Recreation sites and trails are an essential component in ensuring safe and sustainable access to recreation facilities.

Due to insufficient resources, many trail associations have been waiting years to gain the legal authorization to build or maintain trails, often in communities that are already aligned around the benefits for trails, including the economic health and wellness benefits.

Trails, in general, and mountain biking, in particular, have been recognized by communities across the province as an opportunity to diversify their economy away from traditional resource extraction industries. The Sea to Sky Mountain Biking Economic Impact Study shows us that overnight ridership in Squamish has increased fivefold from 2006 to 2016. During that same period, the average length of stay has almost doubled, up to six days.

Many small and large towns across the province are seeing similar increases in visitation and economic growth. When you drive into Penticton now, one of the first things you’re greeted with is a large sign and a mountain biker on the billboard.

[2:55 p.m.]

This activity, which many businesses rely on, is placed at risk without core funding that supports the sole reason people are coming to visit our communities, which is world-class trails. We have them currently.

We recommend that the province allocate $16 million of dedicated funding for non-profit, non-motorized trail associations, specifically for maintaining single-track trails and trail-related infrastructure. Core funding will allow for associations to make long-term plans for their trail networks, allowing them to hire and invest in staff and trail maintenance and equipment.

These funds could be distributed through the B.C. gaming grant process and should be based on the amount of trail that each association has to maintain. This funding will help ensure the long-term sustainability of associations that build and protect the trails that many communities have come to rely on for their important health, economic and recreational benefits.

Second, we ask the province to deal with the significant understaffing at recreation sites and trails B.C. An additional six to ten full-time staff dedicated to alleviating the workload of recreation officers and recreation technicians will not only help to ensure that trail projects are reviewed in a timely manner but will also assist the government in its mandate for consultation with a rapidly growing and complex user base.

Third, we join the growing chorus of voices that ask for an increase to the annual budget of B.C. Parks by $50 million. As one of the most chronically underfunded land management agencies in North America, B.C. Parks is seeing the same rapid growth that non-profit trail associations are dealing with. An increase in funding for the protection of our wild spaces is a key concern among trail users that we represent provincewide.

On behalf of all mountain bikers, I would like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for your time and consideration.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, AJ. I appreciate that.

I have a quick clarification. You’d asked for $16 million from gaming. Is there already money being accessed through gaming, or you just happened to think maybe gaming would be a good pot of money to go after?

A. Strawson: Our trail associations are already familiar with the gaming grant process for events. There is also a capital grant available underneath the project. What we are seeking is a specific stream that’s dedicated towards trail maintenance.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Might be difficult.

Go ahead, Nick.

N. Simons: Hailing from the Sunshine Coast…. You’ve probably visited. We are well known for our single tracks, especially Powell River — the B.C. Bike Race.

Where is funding for trail maintenance coming from now? Is it just volunteers and such?

A. Strawson: It’s a lot of volunteers. There are some businesses that are contributing significant amounts. We are seeing events start to give back. The Squamish 50 trail run race gives, I think, maybe $20,000 to SORCA. So we are seeing reinvestment from people who are already in the community.

N. Simons: I know you mentioned Penticton. The MLA for Penticton is right there. He was happy to have it mentioned.

Do you anticipate that funding would also help in the advocacy when discussing trail use and the conflicts — I don’t want to just refer to it as conflicts — and the multi-use pressures on the trail?

A. Strawson: I think significantly. A core funding stream would allow the trail associations to move funds to other aspects of programming around rider education, around a signage program and find other matching funds through other grant processes. We’ll be able to expand in other ways as well.

D. Clovechok: Just more of an editorial than anything. I represent Revelstoke. You know it’s a mecca for biking. No question about that.

From heli-biking now…. I really enjoyed hearing from you. It’s not only an economic driver because it’s growing, especially with e-bikes, but it’s a health issue as well. You’re getting more and more older people, senior people, out on the e-bikes, on the mountain trails as well.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: There’s one right over there.

And the volunteers — I think we need to recognize the volunteers. I know the hundreds of volunteers in Revelstoke who are cutting trails and working on trails.

Good for you for what you doing. It’s a growing industry. It’s a viable industry. It’s going to be a driver in our economy. Well done.

A. Strawson: Thank you, Doug.

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

Next up we have B.C. LNG Alliance — Bryan Cox.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hey, Bryan. We’re a little bit ahead. We had a couple of cancellations, so we got a little bit ahead.

Bryan, if we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great.

B.C. LNG ALLIANCE

B. Cox: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the standing committee for allowing me to come here and talk today about the LNG industry. My name is Bryan Cox. I’m the president and CEO of the B.C. LNG Alliance. Before I start, I really want to say that we’re on the cusp of something, I think, truly transformative here in the province in the development of this industry, a made-in-B.C. opportunity to provide transformative change to this province.

First, let me share a little bit about the B.C. LNG Alliance. I know many of you around the table know quite a bit about the industry, but it’s important for yourselves as the committee to know and for British Columbians to know who we are. We represent the seven leading liquefied natural gas proponents here in B.C., with projects located across the province — Delta, Squamish, north coast including Kitimat.

We have a very simple mandate, and that’s to foster the growth of a safe, inclusive and environmentally responsible LNG industry here in B.C., an industry that will be world-leading in the development of the clean energy landscape while providing thousands of career opportunities to British Columbians and Canadians for literally decades to come. Our members include Kitimat LNG; FortisBC; Triton LNG; Woodfibre LNG; ExxonMobil; and, of course, LNG Canada. These industry leaders bring decades of international experience, insight and best practices to their projects here in B.C.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today. Our members acknowledge the considerable efforts made by the government of B.C. to consult with the LNG sector on issues important to climate action and competitiveness. We must continue to have those discussions. The introduction of the natural gas framework in March 2018 was an encouraging step. We believe B.C.’s position as a global climate leader is directly linked with the competitiveness of B.C.’s fiscal regime.

Opportunities and benefits for local people in resource development and in clean and emerging technology industries in B.C. are really operationalized through this industry. The efforts of LNG Canada, Coastal GasLink, the Haisla Nation, neighbouring Indigenous communities, Kitimat and municipalities across the northwest and the province of B.C. are taking advantage of literally what will be tens of thousands of job opportunities.

It’s a true opportunity for Indigenous reconciliation and partnerships. Industry and First Nations are working together. Partnerships and relationships have been built, and our members are committed to continuing to grow and build these relationships through meaningful dialogue.

We’re getting a fair return for our resource. We’re creating a brand-new industry in this province for the first time in our generation, a brand-new industry that’s taking a foundational industry — our natural gas industry — adding value to it and getting it to parts of the world that need it and want it. We’re doing so under the world’s highest and most stringent environmental standards. We are meeting them and exceeding them.

We’re embracing this global opportunity to generate local benefits. Well-paying jobs are across the province. The opportunity is there for provincial revenues moving forward. It’s important to know that in the government’s own recent provincial budget, an increase was forecasted in real GDP from 1.8 percent to 2.4 percent in 2019 and from 2 percent to 2.3 percent in 2020 compared to the first quarterly report of 2018. The Ministry of Finance’s own documents attributed this growth in part to LNG Canada’s final investment decision.

When you talk about provincial opportunities, one recent example is a Kelowna company that won a contract for 210,000 square feet of concrete for the LNG Canada project. These opportunities are across the province. We are creating local benefits for this resource, because the world wants it.

The International Energy Agency report says that natural gas will increase by over 40 percent, demand for it, by 2040. China will drive nearly 30 percent of this growth. Why? Because air pollution is a global health imperative. The World Health Organization has declared air pollution as being one of the top two threats facing the world.

[3:05 p.m.]

If we need one reason to provide the world with natural gas, it’s this. More than seven million people die every year from outdoor and indoor air pollution from burning coal for electricity and using coal stoves and cooking with biofuels like dung and wood. And 91 percent of the world’s population lives in a place where air quality regularly exceeds WHO health standards.

We have the opportunity to make a difference. Responsibly produced LNG from B.C. will help provide the world with cleaner air. That’s because B.C.’s LNG industry will operate under the world’s only GHG emissions intensity performance standard and will produce roughly 30 percent fewer emissions than new facilities being built on the Gulf Coast and 50 percent fewer emissions than the LNG facilities recently constructed in Australia.

We have the opportunity to become a global centre for excellence in LNG, and that’s because we have an opportunity for electrification. We have the Kitimat LNG project that has said that it’s looking to build an all-electric facility. The wood fibre project is looking to be all electric. FortisBC’s project is all electric. This means that B.C. would have three all-electric facilities, but only if we have the competitiveness and fiscal measures in place to ensure we have an electrification strategy that allows for these investments.

We cannot take these investments for granted. If B.C. is not the LNG jurisdiction selected for new LNG investment, this will result in carbon leakage, where LNG is produced to meet global demand with much higher emissions than what we could produce with LNG here in B.C.

The market is varied and intensely competitive. The world does want gas, and it’s going to be delivered, if not from B.C., then from other places. So we definitely do have this huge opportunity in front of us. We can generate benefits for British Columbians, supply the world with the lowest emission source of the product it clearly is demanding and show the world how to be a climate leader in innovation and clean energy through LNG.

We will be following up with a written submission outlining specific policy positions. Happy to have a conversation now. And thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Bryan.

M. Dean: Bob, I have two questions. Can I ask one and then ask the second one?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sure.

M. Dean: Okay, thank you.

My first question. LNG Canada have publicly stated that they are going to make their camp the most girl- and woman-friendly, and they’re going to set the standard for the industry and for the sector. What’s your role in making sure that the industrial camp with this LNG and any LNG project is actually safe for women and girls in the nearby communities and in the camps as well?

B. Cox: As I said earlier, this is our opportunity as a generation to build a brand-new industry, and we are doing it in partnership — Indigenous communities, local communities, provincial government, federal government and industry. I think you’re seeing through the commitment of LNG Canada that they are walking the walk. They’re making commitments, and they’re following through on those. I think that’s a really strong statement to the province that we are very serious about building this industry in the right way, supporting our communities, leaving lasting legacies, leaving lasting partnerships.

My role at the alliance is ensuring that we have the public space for dialogue amongst different stakeholder groups and Indigenous communities to ensure that we are actually following through on those commitments and that the proponents are able to do what they can do with the support of government. So I think what you’re seeing is this real opportunity and real commitment from our proponents to do the right thing.

M. Dean: And I can hold you accountable to making sure that they will be meeting those high standards as well in partnership?

B. Cox: Well, the project itself has made those commitments, so that’s what they’re following through on. My job, as the industry, is to ensure that we have a responsible, growing industry here in the province of British Columbia, one that all British Columbians can be proud of, one that we can look back on with the legacy that says that we did the right thing in this province, providing local benefits and this global opportunity to provide our resource to the world.

M. Dean: My second question is…. You talked a lot about the environment, because obviously there are concerns about the environmental impact of LNG projects. You didn’t mention fracking at all. Could you talk us through how the beautiful environment of the province of British Columbia is going to be protected now and into the future, given the concerns that there are globally around fracking?

B. Cox: I think what I will say is that our members, our proponents, are committed to this province for the long term. They want to be invested here for decades to come. I think we have an opportunity as an industry to engage the public of British Columbia about what hydraulic fracturing is, how we’ve been doing it for decades in this province, how we’ve been doing it responsibly in this province, and how we continue to innovate in this province to be a leader in what we do.

[3:10 p.m.]

We are noted as having some of the lowest methane emissions in natural gas production in the world. In fact, an LNG project in Washington mandated that their natural gas must come from British Columbia, because we have the lowest-emission natural gas in North America.

So we have an opportunity as an industry to get out there in the public and engage regarding what hydraulic fracturing is, the process that it entails and the innovation that occurs every single day to ensure that we are extracting this resource responsibly, and in fact, we are.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Bryan, thanks for your presentation. This committee, over the last five days and the next five days plus everything that’s being sent in to it, has requests for multi-multimillions of dollars. And your industry, as long as it’s done right and done correctly, will make a huge difference to all the people here that have come and asked for those requests. So thank you.

R. Coleman: Good job, Bryan. I couldn’t answer the questions better myself, though I could have gone into more detail, Mitzi. But it’s nice to sit and listen to somebody else talk. Really, we’re all pleased that LNG Canada is going ahead. Woodfibre will go ahead. The cleanliness and all the stuff everybody’s done the work on for over a decade to get here is important. And you guys have been good educators, which I appreciate.

B. Cox: Thank you.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much, Bryan. You couldn’t get a better industry. It is a generational thing, and I’m excited as heck that this is happening. It’s been in the hopper for a long, long time, so thank you for your continued efforts.

My granddaddy once told me: “If it’s the truth, it’s not bragging.” So I just want to recognize Rich Coleman in this room today, the member for Langley East, for the amazing work that he did with your industry to get it to where it is today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s great. We are actually going up to Kitimat, as a committee, which we’re really excited about, and part of the reason for that is LNG Canada.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Bryan.

B. Cox: Wonderful. Thank you for the opportunity.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re going to just take a short break.

The committee recessed from 3:12 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. We’re back with the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

A couple of our members may have to leave a little bit early to catch planes and things, so I wanted to take the opportunity now to thank everybody on the committee, all the members. It’s been a very long week, and I appreciate not only the hard work but the good humour and the camaraderie and the fact that we are all working hard together. I really appreciate the good spirit everybody’s working with.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): On that, I just want to say thanks to the Chair for keeping us on time and keeping it going through. It is difficult. I know it is difficult.

D. Clovechok: And his ability to say names.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Yeah.

B. D’Eith (Chair): At least 50 percent of the time — right, Doug? That’s pretty good. I’m batting like .500.

D. Clovechok: It’s getting better.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Any major league would hire you at that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Hi, Fiona. How are you?

F. Walsh: It’s hot. It’s hot for cyclists.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, no doubt.

So next up we have Fiona Walsh.

The floor is yours. If you could, Fiona, try to keep the comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions, that’d be great.

F. Walsh: Oh, yeah. I think mine will be shorter than that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay, fine.

F. Walsh: I’ll get to the point. Don’t mind me.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we didn’t even give you a chance to get settled, did we?

FIONA WALSH

F. Walsh: You don’t have showers and facilities here — what? Anyway. Okay, I’ll try and be calm here.

I have been a cyclist for almost ten years, since I was 60 years old. When I first had the idea that I could start cycling, I was not fit, nor was I experienced with cycling as a mode of transportation. It took a few years and two accidents, neither of which involved a motor vehicle — thank God — for me to feel comfortable riding on city streets.

I needed an electric-assist bike. No question about it. Living on the North Shore should be reason enough. I enjoyed that very heavy bike for three years until the bike computer failed me. Then I bought another e-bike and, at the same time, feeling more fit, transitioned to a regular bike.

In 2013, I retired from teaching and took my time to ween myself off the e-bike — not entirely, but mostly — for daily transportation. I cycled during the day, outside of peak traffic times. I learned about the West Vancouver seniors centre, which has at least three cycling groups, each consisting of more than 50 people on their own bikes, some of whom cycle year-round. Seniors helping seniors.

[3:25 p.m.]

Anyway, I’m here to tell you that last December I bought my third e-bike, my first cargo e-bike. It’s called a long tail, which means that the back wheel is six inches from the pedal crank — six inches further back — so that it can handle more weight on the back and oversized paniers. It cost me $4,298, and I paid $485.76 in provincial tax. That’s more than 11 percent. That’s outrageous for a senior who will save the provincial government in health care costs by being healthier and more active. It’s off-putting for seniors on a fixed income who just want to reduce their cost of living.

For your information, in 2003, B.C. had 10.3 percent low-income seniors, and many of them live in West Van. That’s the highest percentage, along with Quebec, according to Stats Canada. It’s not fair, considering how much unpaid work seniors do for their community in so many ways, from child care of their grandchildren so that both parents can work to care for the elderly in their homes or in residential care homes. I’m already making plans to be able to buy a three-wheeled e-bike if and when I don’t feel safe on a two-wheeled bike.

Seniors who are already physically disabled can, in some cases, still cycle. I, for one, have arthritis in one of my feet, which limits the amount of walking and hiking I can do in a day. But put me on a regular bike, and I’m good for about 30 kilometres. That’s from my home in North Van to downtown Vancouver and back. Imagine what I can do if I’m riding an e-bike. E-bikes allow us to go longer distances and to get to places faster, and not to forget, they do allow us to get up those ugly hills that come now and then.

While I’m here to represent all seniors who want to be physically active, economically wise and environmentally conscientious — I’m one of those — I also recognize the need to create policy around the use of e-bikes in public and provincial parks and on mountain biking trails. Trails B.C. and Trans Canada Trail need to disallow the use of motorized four-wheeled ATVs on cycling and hiking trails, but that’s another fight for cycling advocates.

I’m basically here, and I’ve come in years past, to say that I hope that you will consider the fact that finances are important for people who want to get away from driving their car. I know that seniors downsize from two cars to one car in many cases. In many cases, they don’t drive the car but once or twice a week. In terms of seniors, getting out and walking, getting out and doing things physically, is very important and, of course, life-changing. You extend your longevity.

That’s basically all I’m here to say. Thank you very much.

Any questions?

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just have a question for you. I wasn’t clear about the ask. Are you suggesting that there shouldn’t be tax on e-bikes? What specifically…? So no PST?

F. Walsh: On e-bikes, like you give an incentive to EVs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s why I was just curious. So that’s your ask — no PST.

F. Walsh: It was $485 in tax for it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s probably GST and PST, right?

F. Walsh: No, just PST.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, okay.

R. Leonard: I’m glad you were able to get your wind back. I appreciate all that you had to say, because I’ve been where I can’t take another step but I can get on a bike and go for miles. It’s a life-saver, actually.

I was waiting for the first presentation where there would be requests, because I get requests regularly, and you have in the past. I think we’ve supported the initiative of getting rid of PST on e-bikes.

F. Walsh: You’d be surprised at the people who are riding e-bikes now. I mean, teachers who are very physically fine have got to get work, and there’s no shower. So they’ve got to plan to get there looking better.

N. Simons: There are MLAs who have to bike to work, too, and don’t have showers there. So they like to e-bike too.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, we know all about that.

F. Walsh: I used to carry a separate set of clothing. I’d walk into this room and say, “Where’s the washroom?” and go and change my clothes, get out of the sweaty things. It’s a big add, a big plus.

[3:30 p.m.]

R. Leonard: We recently had a Sunday where Emotive B.C. came out with a bunch of EVs and electric bikes from different retail outlets. It made me wonder, because we do have a rebate program for electric vehicles. If it isn’t PST, is there another avenue of helping reduce the costs that would be…?

F. Walsh: You know, bike shops don’t have a very good profit on bikes. It’s really hard on them. Bike shops are, I want to say, like restaurants used to be. They open; they close. They open; they close. You don’t have, long term, very many. It’s very hard for them. We need to consider them — the industry itself — and give them some kind of break, which might then transfer to someone like myself. That might be another answer to allow them….

You know, bikes coming from the States or whatever — maybe they’d pay extra for those. I don’t know all the details about that, but I know that they have a hard time making a profit.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Your point is some kind of investment in e-bikes — or incentive.

F. Walsh: Incentive or saving the stores, the industry in some way.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Fiona. I really appreciate it. Your energy is wonderful, especially at this time of the day.

Okay. Next we have Dr. Michael Zlotnik. If I can get the members’ attention, we’ll start.

If you wouldn’t mind, try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions. That would be wonderful.

M. Zlotnik: Can I ask you a question? Do you all have the information that I sent out? Have you had a chance to read it?

N. Simons: Do you want us to have it in front of us?

M. Zlotnik: It would help. What I’d like to do is get a robust discussion on the recommendations and not have to go through repeating the arguments and evidence.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sounds good. We’ve got it right here.

MICHAEL ZLOTNIK

M. Zlotnik: Okay. The first big message is that our democracy is being insidiously undermined, not through anyone’s campaign to do so but simply through rising social inequality. If socioeconomic classes become rigid, then the democracy becomes lost.

That’s one concern. On the positive side, there has been a reduction in the number of children and the proportion of children who are living in poverty, but it’s very slight. It needs to be reduced more quickly.

Of course on the other thing, on the climate change, what I think we need to see is that what we’re doing now, overall and in total, is not working. We need to do a whole lot more. I don’t know how many of you have seen this book Drawdown. Paul Hawken focuses on solutions. It’s not a whole bunch of bad news; it’s a whole lot of solutions that work. Many of them save money — for example, wind-generated electricity. So there are a number of these that are beneficial financially, but they need some leadership, politically, to get it underway.

I’d just like to focus with you on the recommendations. I spent my working life working on public education. It’s critically important that we keep improving public education and that we develop not only the capacity to work in a job but also to take responsibility for improving the society as a whole. So the first recommendation is to fund an excellent system…. I’m not giving you any numbers, but we can do better.

I’ve touched on the question of the…. We’ve got 170,000 kids, roughly, that are living below the poverty line. We need to get that down and eliminate it.

[3:35 p.m.]

The last time I spoke, back in the fall, I recommended that we get these kinds of discussions on a broader question of: how do we get an economy that is working for us and that is also going to be green? I know there are green initiatives underway. I think we need to take more, and this guy has got a lot recommendations for some of those others. And interestingly, this research that has come from a whole lot of researchers indicates the kinds of payoffs that you can get from these various investments.

I really think we need to fire up young people. Young people are way ahead of us older ones when it comes to understanding the need to act on the climate. They want to live in their world, so they’re very concerned about this — and to mobilize that energy with possibly, and these are just brainstorming ideas, a Peace Corps initiative, a green energy initiative utilizing young people who are studying these issues. They could have apprenticeships and so on. So we could get youth mobilized to make that change in our economy.

The big message that Hawken puts forward is the carbon economy is done. It’s going to be gone. So the future is green. If we’re going to survive and flourish in the future, we’re not going to be trying to fiddle around with the rate of increase in global temperatures. We’re going to make a nice, stable world. And we can do it. The tools are there.

I’m recommending that government, including the provincial government, take some initiatives in funding re­search, businesses and so on. I’ll leave it there. You can see the rest of it, and if you have questions, I can hear them.

B. D’Eith (Chair): There’s a lot in here, a lot to think about. We appreciate the recommendations and things that you’ve brought forward to the Finance Committee. I mean, to have a robust conversation about this would take a lot more than five minutes.

M. Zlotnik: That’s for sure.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Any questions?

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. I particularly was interested in the notion of mobilizing youth in something that’s like the Peace Corps. Can you put a little flesh on that? What do you see that looking like?

M. Zlotnik: Well, I think one thing is to show value in service. There’s a lot of anxiety among young people. I have a 20-year-old granddaughter living with me. There’s anxiety about their future. But I think we want to shift from anxiety to enthusiasm and a positive attitude that there’s all sorts of opportunities to make a difference. So I think that’s part of the thing.

I’m not saying that’s the whole solution, but I think when you mobilize young people with the sense that “I’m here to do something that’s important and valuable to me, but I also want to serve the community….” When you’ve got that youth, they’re ready for that.

R. Coleman: I found your presentation interesting when I read it. I thought there were lots of debate points on there. I could probably spend quite some time debating it.

It also struck me…. My oldest brother said this to me one time. In the Second World War, my father went into the navy when he was 18 years old. Part of it was economic. He had three sisters at home and no father. It was how he was going to help support his family.

I was thinking as you went through a bit of the history there and I realized that, thinking to myself: “The generation before me was way more environmentally friendly than I am.” My milk was delivered in glass bottles. We didn’t have plastic bags. We didn’t have bottled water. So in actual fact, if we had followed the pattern of our parents, in many ways we’d be more environmentally friendly than we are today, because we have a different lifestyle now, right?

I found it really interesting. Some of the points you made would be interesting fodder for discussion, which we don’t, like Bob said, have time for today. But it was a good presentation to get you thinking about past and present.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Zlotnik: My objective there was to show that when we had a basket case of an economy, we lifted ourselves up, and we did it through just ourselves.

R. Coleman: I think the other part about it is…. I mean, your comments on democracy, in the beginning, saying it’s in trouble and then you said it’s still good, reminded me…. I can’t do the exact quote of Churchill, where he said that democracy may not be the best form of government, but we haven’t found a better one yet.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s the best one we have, yeah. That’s very true.

M. Zlotnik: Thank you for that. It’s nice to see the tone here. It really is encouraging. I think with that cooperation, I hope we’ll see real results.

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

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks again, Doctor.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have a new addition, Living in Community — Alison Clancey.

Hi, Alison. How are you?

A. Clancey: Good, thanks.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Alison, just a reminder that if we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great.

LIVING IN COMMUNITY

A. Clancey: Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and to share Living in Community’s perspective on the importance of including a lens on sex work for the upcoming provincial budget.

I’m speaking on behalf of Living in Community, a multi-stakeholder initiative that works to create greater safety and health around sex work issues through training and education, policy change and sharing our community development model of creating change in communities in regard to sex work for the past 15 years. From our work, we know that there are many misunderstandings and misinformation about sex work which can have dangerous impacts on how policy and funding priorities are identified.

We shared our concerns with past budgets to include sex work, not only human trafficking and exiting, specifically within the budget. These recommendations come from our experience over the past decade and a half as well as from the first ever sex work provincial conference that Living in Community hosted two weeks ago. I unfortunately only have two agendas from that provincial conference, which I think are over on this side, but it’ll speak to the complexity of the issues regarding sex work which we hope that you will cover in funding initiatives moving forward.

Recommendations in both the 2018 and 2019 budget consultation processes make mention of gender-based violence, sexual assault and trafficking. However, there is no mention of sex work and the need to support individuals who engage in sex work. While these other priorities are important, there continues to be little to no support for individuals engaged in sex work who have not been trafficked but who experience violence.

Trafficking and sex work are different and need to be recognized as different. In addition, everyone is not in a place or wants to exit sex work, yet they have a fundamental right to safety and security.

Many of the missing and murdered women from the Downtown Eastside and across Canada were not trafficked but trade sex in a variety of circumstances. Simply focusing on trafficking erases the complexity of these women’s experiences and dangerously reduces the focus of intervention to those who meet the trafficking definition. Focusing on trafficking also erases the experiences of male, transgender, non-binary, LGBTQ2S+ sex workers, whose experiences the largely non-evidence-based, sensationalized trafficking narrative fails to capture.

This is demonstrated through the civil forfeiture granting stream. For years the granting stream had no mention of sex work or sex trade, and it was limited to sexual exploitation and human trafficking. More recently, the funding stream has changed to human trafficking, sexual exploitation and vulnerable women engaged in the sex trade.

[3:45 p.m.]

However, this focus erases the need to support others, as I just mentioned — men, transgender, non-binary individuals — engaged in sex work who have very complex and diverse reasons for doing sex work which are often very different from the reasons that women engage in sex work.

Moreover, by naming women as vulnerable, it infers that it is the women that are at fault for being vulnerable, rather than the perpetrators. Also, by naming women as vulnerable, it ignores the systemic or state-created vulnerabilities — for example, our current federal prostitution laws, which make it extremely difficult for sex workers to work safely and, actually, are counterproductive in that they create environments where violence and exploitation flourish.

We know, and we heard time and time again at the provincial conference two weeks ago that many individuals engaged in sex work experience extremely high levels of violence, particularly those who face other intersectional forms of discrimination. What creates this vulnerability and the targeting of sex workers…. It’s because of stigma, racism, the history of colonization, gender equity, discriminatory immigration laws, transphobia, homophobia and more.

When discussing domestic violence, we do not talk about women who are married as being vulnerable to violence simply because they are married. In the same way, we need to move away from placing the vulnerability on women or any others engaged in sex work as the vulnerability being sex in exchange for money.

We need to change our language and demand that, as a society, everyone has a right to safety, regardless of the kind of work that they are engaged in. As a provincial government, you also need to ensure you are not inadvertently perpetuating the victim-blaming narrative through problematic framing in funding streams.

The 2020 budget must include support programs and services that promote the safety and security of all individuals who engage in sex work, regardless of gender, circumstance or type of sex work, without the sole focus being on exiting or human-trafficking services. These issues affect only a very small percentage of people working in the sex industry. Sex work organizations should be funded before organizations that want to eradicate the sex industry. In no other area of social services would this practice be acceptable. It comes down to misunderstandings about the sex industry.

We look forward to the provincial government taking important leadership around this critical human rights issue and being more inclusive of the day-to-day realities of the majority of sex workers in B.C.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Alison. I appreciate that.

M. Dean: Thanks, Alison. Thanks to you and all the team for all the work that you do.

What are you actually recommending in terms of the budget? Are you recommending not just a shift in terminology but also an increase in investments in programming across the province?

A. Clancey: That would be great, but I’m sure everyone comes here with that ask.

M. Dean: They do, yeah.

A. Clancey: I think what we’re asking for, more specifically, is a broadened and extended understanding of what constitutes sex work, and not the focus being solely on getting people out of the sex industry or focusing on human trafficking funding.

We agree. There should be exiting programs. We agree. There are people who are trafficked. But over the past two years…. Or no, actually, really never. I haven’t seen much of the funding stream committed to those in the sex industry — to be able to increase their safety without the focus being on getting them out of the sex industry.

The thing is that exiting sex work is a process. It’s not an event. There has to be safe housing in place, another type of income being put in place. Some people just aren’t in the position to exit. While they’re still there — and some may want to be there because it suits their purposes — we want to see funding for those organizations that work to support them to work safely.

N. Simons: It’s a really interesting area of policy.

A. Clancey: It sure is.

N. Simons: I know. I studied at SFU, and John Lowman too, so I have some….

A. Clancey: Okay, great.

N. Simons: It’s really interesting. The terminology that we use is important.

I wonder if, with funding or with support to the organizations, there’s almost an invitation for government to be more involved in terms of regulation and oversight. I’m just wondering if that is, ultimately…. Some people say we need legalized, regulated, depathologized….

[3:50 p.m.]

A. Clancey: I think sex workers want decriminalization. I think some people misunderstand that decriminalization is a big free-for-all. That’s not what it is. It means, simply, removing criminal penalties for sex workers so that they have the same access to labour protections, employment standards that all other types of workers have — and, of course, increased access to justice.

I think when it comes to government regulation, sure, in those environments where it’s about increasing labour rights, not so much legislating the sex industry…. Like any industry, those who work in it are well placed to be able to speak to what types of regulations are needed.

Great question. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Alison, for coming. We appreciate your thoughts on all of this.

Next up, we have Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and the Yukon — Jenny Byford and Dr. Sandra Krueckl.

If we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY,
B.C. AND YUKON

S. Krueckl: On behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, thank you for the opportunity to provide the select standing committee with our recommendations for the 2020 provincial budget. As Canada’s largest national cancer charity, the Canadian Cancer Society reaches more people in more communities than any other charitable organization. Our reach means that we interact and engage with tens of thousands of British Columbians from all regions, and we can be a voice for British Columbians with cancer.

Our recommendations for Budget 2020 is for the government to support the travel treatment fund, a program operated by the Canadian Cancer Society to help vulnerable and low-income British Columbians access cancer treatment. Currently funded by donor dollars, the travel treatment fund provides limited subsidies to help British Columbians with their out-of-pocket expenses, such as mileage, parking, meals, accommodation, transit tickets, ferries and flights associated with travelling for their necessary cancer appointments.

The program is an established, audited and integrated part of the B.C. health care system. To maintain minimal operating costs, the society holds important relationships with health care providers and social workers, nurses and pharmacists who play an active role in program referrals and assisting patients as they need to fill out the applications.

The problem we face is that we know our current program scope is not enough to meet the needs of all of those who have to travel for treatment. We know from interviews with regional health authorities and social workers and discussions with the clients that we serve, there is a large population of people with cancer who are in desperate financial need. That mirrors the stories that have been told to you through recent poverty reduction consultations and is added to by the struggles that are compounded with services like Greyhound exiting from communities.

In some cases, the costs of accessing treatment can be so significant that clients will choose to reduce their recommended course of treatment or just not comply with their treatment altogether. An example of a client testimonial that we recently received was that the cost incurred for their trip was more than $6,000, and our grant was for only $720. “I have another medical procedure in about six weeks for a two-week stay, and my savings are depleted.” Sadly, this client is not alone. In our nationwide survey, 71 percent of patients and 57 percent of caregivers report that their cancer-specific medical appointments would have been missed if the program was unavailable to them.

I think we all know that cancer is a unique chronic disease because of its lengthy and repeated treatments that often render people with cancer physically unable to travel independently and to engage in work and other activities. The distance to travel and the need for assistance during their care puts financial and emotional pressures on people with cancer and their families. In an average year, the society provides about $170,000 to $175,000 in subsidies to assist 300 to 400 British Columbians, all of whom are low-income and most of whom are seniors.

[3:55 p.m.]

We estimate there is an estimated 3,500 low-income British Columbians with cancer who need this assistance. For those who we were able to help, 93 percent of the clients responded that the fund and the program reduced their anxieties about finances.

Just to demonstrate — from the people who we’ve helped with this program, a few of their responses. “It is difficult enough facing this cancer diagnosis. Then there are the financial worries that come along with it. Within 24 hours, my funding application was approved and deposited into my bank account. I can’t thank you enough for taking away at least one of my worries that came along with this life-threatening disease. Thank you for going above and beyond.”

A second testimonial. “It was difficult to find transportation. I had to postpone appointments. I was finally able to find someone to help me. Parking is horribly expensive. I had to take money out of my RRSPs.”

A third. “Your much-needed help with the finances has taken a large burden from myself and my family. It is very greatly appreciated. I don’t know how I would have been able to have this treated.”

With government support, this is a transformative opportunity to improve the lives of people living with cancer and to potentially save the lives of those who struggle to access their treatment. We are here to partner with government in administering this program and to close this gap in cancer care. Thank you for considering our request.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just had a quick question in regards to the presentation. Do you have an idea of the amount of…? You said that right now, on average, the society provides between $170,000 and $175,000. But is there a quantum for expanded service that you had in mind?

S. Krueckl: The nice thing is that this program is very scalable. We believe that there’s at least another 3,000 people that could be served in the province who have a diagnosed cancer need and who are low-income. To meet those demands, we would need a budget between $1 million and $2 million depending on the scalability of the subsidy and the reach that we’re able to achieve.

R. Coleman: What did we do in other jurisdictions?

S. Krueckl: It really depends, across the country. In some provinces, there’s no funding. Some provinces have…. For example, Quebec provides subsidies for people who have to travel over a certain distance. The government provides those subsidies. I can’t recall the distance, but I think it’s if you’re over 200 kilometres, it’s covered by the government. In other jurisdictions, it’s fully relying on charitable organizations. Some charitable organizations also offer driver programs. There’s a variety of different mechanisms.

R. Coleman: Does anybody offer a tax credit for travel to medical appointments in the country?

J. Byford: I don’t know. We could look into it, though, and add it in a written report afterwards.

I’m not sure. Good question.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. I’m just not sure how the tax credit would work with seniors.

J. Byford: On the tax credit, it’s hard because the people that we’re serving are so vulnerable and low-income that they actually need the money before even getting to their treatment. While I’m sure that that could help them afterwards, a lot of times they kind of need that immediate support.

R. Coleman: My question was more globally. I realize the low-income, but other people in middle class would still have expenses.

J. Byford: Yes. And that’s a group that’s falling through the cracks.

R. Coleman: Like the person who couldn’t afford the next treatment. They spent their savings.

S. Krueckl: But everybody in our program is already low-income. All of these individuals are already meeting the low-income cut-off criteria by the government of Canada. Certainly, it’s a financial burden for anyone, and a tax credit would work after the fact.

One of the things we prioritize through our program is a really immediate and fast response to the need, because these people are in such a vulnerable financial state.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Where’s the funding coming from right now? Is it all…?

S. Krueckl: Donor dollars.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Is there any provincial money for this?

S. Krueckl: We have a lodge that is operated, and the province of British Columbia, through PHSA, provides some of the funding for that program. Some people will stay at the lodge, and there’s a subsidy through the lodge programming as well.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Instead of travelling back and forth. Oh okay.

J. Byford: Although they will still need to travel to get to the lodge in the first place. Yeah. Because the lodges are just in four of our major cancer centres.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I was going to say this probably would hit rural residents more than urban, one would think.

S. Krueckl: Yeah. You know from your poverty reduction consultations, the most vulnerable are rural and remote and elderly.

[4:00 p.m.]

That’s the group that this program primarily serves, because their need is the greatest. It operates based on a sliding scale, related to how far people have to travel for their treatment.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Got it.

D. Clovechok: I just want to say thank you, and I agree with your assessment. I come from and represent a rural remote community. And not only is their transportation cost expensive; there is no transportation. So that even exacerbates it even worse for those people. It’s a huge, huge issue in rural B.C., especially in remote communities. It’s good to know you’re working on it.

J. Byford: We find that in our program as well for the southern Interior region, where your riding is, Doug, as well as MLA Ashton’s. We serve the most clients in that region, and we think about how far they have to go. As well, for household units, we primarily…. Fifty-nine percent of our beneficiaries are single-person-household units, so they don’t effectively have extra support to draw on to get to treatment.

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

Great. Well, thank you very much for your work and, of course, all the work that you do for cancer research and cancer treatment generally. I gather that if you’re unlucky enough to have cancer, the best place to have it is in British Columbia because we have such amazing services. So thank you for everything you do.

Next up we have the North Shore Restorative Justice Society — Dr. Brenda Morrison.

Hello. How are you?

B. Morrison: Good. Hello. Thanks for meeting with me today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): If you could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions, that would be great.

NORTH SHORE
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SOCIETY

B. Morrison: Well, first up, thank you so much for meeting with me today. It’s great to be here together on unceded territory of the Coast Salish people. I’m here presenting on behalf of North Shore Restorative Justice. It’s one of more than 50 community-based restorative justice groups here in British Columbia.

Interestingly, in 1999 I was working for the Centre for Restorative Justice at the Australian National University, where representatives from B.C. came down to seek the evidence from randomized control trials that we were holding for the Centre for Restorative Justice down there. The Attorney General at the time was there, and he and his entourage came back and developed these community-based restorative justice groups. And that put restorative justice in B.C. on the international map, because the way it was operationalized here was different than anywhere else in the world.

I had the great pleasure of coming back home to British Columbia in 2006, where I now serve as the director for the Centre for Restorative Justice at Simon Fraser University. So I’m sort of wearing two hats.

I wanted to read to you from the 1998 B.C. framework for restorative justice. It says:

“While we have a lot to be proud of here in B.C., the Attorney General acknowledges that the current system is sometimes unwieldy, expensive, takes too long to deal with cases and is too complex. It does not always allow people input into decisions that affect them. And it frequently fails to take into account the interests of families, victims and members of the community…. In addition, it relies too much on the justice system, and communities are less able to resolve their own problems. Social bonds are eroded, and human relationships are weakened.”

At that time, we were working on the randomized control trials, and those randomized control trials showed that for offenders, recidivism rates were reduced, keeping communities safer; for victims, the symptomology of post-traumatic stress disorder was greatly reduced; and for all participants — that’s victims, offenders and community members — confidence in the justice system increased. And for taxpayers, in a follow-up study that we did in England, one pound spent on restorative justice saved 8 pounds in the criminal justice system.

[4:05 p.m.]

Now we fast-forward to B.C. It’s 2015, and E division RCMP has supported the implementation of restorative justice in British Columbia to a great extent. Their 2015 report shows that despite all this great work and the knowledge that we have about the increased effectiveness of restorative justice in complement to our state-based system, programs only receive 1 percent of referrals. I believe that that can increase.

The changes are coming. Many of us are very grateful that restorative justice is on the mandate letter of your Solicitor General. It’s also in the mandate letter of our federal Minister of Justice. We’ve recently formed a Restorative Justice Association of British Columbia, RJABC.

But we have a lot more work to do, and I think that the practice of restorative justice can significantly increase the depth and complexity of cases that they can address.

One of the papers I forwarded to you was from John Braithwaite, world-renowned in the field of restorative justice, who I had the good opportunity to work with at the Australian National University. We have to move from these single-case diversion cases for restorative justice to way more complex issues that address the needs of families and communities. We have to do that with a central focus on addressing mental health issues.

I think Judah, who’s a Canadian, has a great framework spelled out in this book on being trauma-informed as a practice of justice, which is what restorative justice does. His framework suggests that we need to look at the values that uphold our justice system, and the work of Val Braithwaite on the balance between harmony and security values is really important.

We have to have Indigenous people more involved in what justice needs to mean, and they need to be in leadership roles, particularly women in the justice system. The restorative justice framework, unlike the state-based scenario, is central to well-being. It has to be trauma-informed.

Over the last few years…. What we need to do is move from providing funding and recognition for restorative justice to actually really delving into the research behind the practice. We need to fund the research to drive the process into further research and development.

I think the way forward, in moving forward, is not only to support diversion from a policing point of view but also support the work of restorative justice in schools. I had the good fortune, 20 years ago, to write the first evaluation of restorative justice in schools, and my reflections on that have just been published in this book just recently, Keeping Students Safe and Helping Them Thrive. That was based on my work that I wrote 20 years ago in this now outdated work.

Based on the framework that I developed then, we know from a clustered, randomized controlled trial in England that the practice of restorative justice in schools reduces bullying in schools and increases mental health well-being, so we need to be way up the river in terms of addressing mental health issues.

The idea of complexity comes alive when we partner restorative justice with responsive regulation. This is another book, hot off the press, that includes a lot of really important information.

My request for you today is to thank you for your support of restorative justice through the Solicitor General’s office, but I think there’s further relevance within the Ministry of Mental Health, given that restorative justice is about well-being, and there are different ways that we can think about it. Along with that, MCFD is an amazing place to increase the use of restorative justice, along with the Ministry of Education.

My request is to increase the funding, in partnership with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the federal government, to increase funding for community-based restorative justice practices and perhaps do a pilot case amongst a cluster about what I would call beacon restorative justice organizations, including North Shore Restorative Justice, to really fund some really significant study and research and development to look at: if we widen the lens beyond police diversion, how much good we can do for our communities.

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

Any questions?

[4:10 p.m.]

N. Simons: So what you’re hoping we do is expand the potential conflicts that can be resolved or…. I know we sometimes think it’s a solution to something, as opposed to a process that’s helpful. I like the idea of using…. When I worked for a First Nation, we used restorative justice, in different formats. I guess the Mennonites were the first to….

B. Morrison: Right. Well, I would say there are three tributary streams that fed the development in B.C.: Mennonites, the Indigenous people, and then there was another practice that came up through New Zealand into Australia and then this way.

N. Simons: I appreciate the efforts that are being made. I think it’s not just a benefit in terms of reducing costs, because we look at that as a budget, but it’s a better service. I think communities benefit from it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I don’t know if I want to put words in your mouth, but are you asking for increased funding for restorative justice and an expansion of the breadth of restorative justice to other ministries? Is it really two asks?

B. Morrison: Yes. The initial ask is…. Currently from a provincial point of view, each of the 50-odd restorative justice groups gets $2,500. Most of their funding comes from the local municipalities, which sort of makes sense because it’s a policing budget. But as we move into courts — I think we’re well posed to move into courts — and if we’re doing court-based work, we deserve more money. We’re diverting away from the courts, and the courts are funded provincially. If we move in that direction, I think you have to have other conversations here.

My main pitch today is to work into schools, to move way upstream. We could do a pilot study. We could pay one person in, say, five of what I would call beacon restorative justice groups and pay for one position that’s solely based on schools — that would, say, be $50,000 across those five organizations — and then pay for one person at the Centre for Restorative Justice, another $50,000, to be the research and development coordinator, to collect the real data to see if we’re making a difference downstream. Canada doesn’t have a very good track record of addressing bullying in schools and mental health. We’re in the bottom third, according to the Centre for Disease Control.

N. Simons: Just to follow up, if I may. Did you say you had literature specifically related to using restorative justice in the school system? I’m interested in that.

B. Morrison: Yes, I have my paper that reflects on 20 years, and all the best evidence is in this book, hot off the press. I also forwarded the findings from that clustered randomized control trial that showed that it reduced bullying in schools and increased mental health outcomes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Did you reference your book in here as a source?

B. Morrison: Yes, I did.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I didn’t see that. I just wanted to make sure.

B. Morrison: It’s a hyperlink.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Oh, it is. Okay.

N. Simons: The restorative justice in school….

You made me wait. You made me wait.

B. Morrison: It’s the end of the day.

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

B. Morrison: I’m happy to follow up in any way.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Doctor. We appreciate you coming.

N. Simons: Oh, I didn’t ask my question.

Yes, thank you for your pausing again.

The approaches used in school, are they generally of a similar nature throughout our school systems in B.C.? What would you say is sort of…? I don’t want you to necessarily be critical if you don’t want to be. Are there certain factors that we’re not…? Is there a certain approach that is not working?

B. Morrison: I could go on a lot about bullying in schools.

N. Simons: Oh, okay. Maybe I’ll just read your book.

B. Morrison: We could be doing a lot better. They’ve just closed down…. PREVNet is the clearinghouse for bullying prevention. Our best programs reduce bullying in schools by 15 percent, and I think we can do a lot better. In fact, I know we can.

N. Simons: All right.

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

Next up we have Chuck Zuckerman.

Chuck, if we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions, that’d be great.

[4:15 p.m.]

C. Zuckerman: I’m a little bit used to this — the last speaker on a Friday afternoon. With the last name of Zuckerman, I was always presenting at the end of the week anyway, so I’m kind of used to it. It worked well until that grade 7 teacher reversed the order, and I was first up Monday without a report.

B. D’Eith (Chair): It backfired on you there, didn’t it, Chuck?

B.C. WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
LOWER MAINLAND REGION

C. Zuckerman: It did so.

Hon. committee members, I’m Chuck Zuckerman, vice-president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. This organization represents 100,000 licensed hunters, 300,000 licensed anglers, an equal number of recreational shooters and twice as many outdoor enthusiasts, as well as all the things that walk, swim and fly in the province. It is my pleasure to explain how this budget affects all our lives.

I’m speaking to you today reflecting the concerns of the Lower Mainland branch of the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

Regarding the use of Crown lands, we believe that the proposed budget does not do enough for all the people and others who call British Columbia home and are dependent on the land, the fish and wildlife for their sustenance and enjoyment. The budget does not protect our resources in the way our provincial motto is emblematic of — the government’s ultimate responsibility to be committed to the ideal of “Splendour without diminishment”.

You have the unenviable task of spending our limited finances for a variety of important ministries. You must decide the ascension of priorities between homelessness, health, education, safety, forest fires and their remediation, just to mention a few. We believe that one of the problems that the budget committee faces is that when a ministry does not meet defined, measurable expectations, the committee may still be pressured to fully fund similar failing initiatives but under a different heading.

In B.C.’s 2020 budget, B.C.’s climate action plan over three years is $902 million. In 2016, the ministry received $1.38 billion. So there’s a shortfall of $483 million there. The 2019 changes to the B.C. environmental assessment project are $9 million. However, in 2016 the assessment office received $11.8 million, and the appeals board received $2 million.

If we’re spending $9 million now, how is $2 million with the appeal board going to be able to process all the assessment that is going through on new projects? The $9 million only represents 0.07 percent of the 2016 budget of the $13.9 million. The 2019 budget allocates $20 million to increase oversight of mining operations, yet in 2016, there was $5 million more given. But that wasn’t enough to prevent the Mount Polley disaster that is still going to reflect pollution in our province for at least the next five to ten years, if not forever.

The management plan for…. It’s a three-year spread from 2019. It breaks down to $37 million a year. In 2016, there was $21 million per year for fire management. It sounds like a lot of money. However, in 2016, the firefighting cost was $380 million, ten times as much as allocated. In 2017, the firefighting cost was $500 million. That’s almost 15 times as much. In 2018, firefighting cost was $350 million. Again, that’s ten times as much as is being budgeted.

The budget — properly, in our opinion — allocates 74 percent to health, education and social services. However, of the remaining 26 percent, only 1.4 percent is for FLNRORD, the ministry that’s supposed to provide land management throughout the province, and 0.4 percent for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, to improve the viability of landscapes and watersheds that directly impact our way of life, and the province’s motto.

Ignominiously, this results in the following: there is no specified funding for improving wildlife management, even though this is specifically identified as a priority in the business plan of the FLNRORD Ministry and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change for species at risk. There’s no additional funding for the conservation officer service, which protects our resources. The funding is the same as it was in the 1970s. There is no funding for fisheries or watershed initiatives, required to match the federal government funding of fish habitat restoration and the different clubs throughout the province that have salmonid enhancement programs.

We hope that the government can transfer funds to meet the needs outlined in this submission. I’ve added in appendices from the newspaper articles regarding the firefighting initiatives of 2017-18 and the convention resolutions we had.

[4:20 p.m.]

One problem is back-country tenures, whereby specifically they have helicopter access to migration patterns, to calving situations for goats on Mount Cheam and through­out the north. This resource use for recreational is impacting upon the outdoors and the habitats that are there.

Another one. We need a biologist’s oversight. We want to have provincial-registered professionals be reinstated and approve their recommendations and let the provincial resource managers implement biologist oversight.

The last one is glyphosates and other systemic herbicides used in the clearcuts throughout the province.

Additionally, I put in a pie chart, and I put in the budget for 2016, referencing a spreadsheet that you could have a look at.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Chuck — appreciate it.

N. Simons: You mentioned Mount Beecher.

C. Zuckerman: Mount Cheam.

N. Simons: Mount Cheam. Okay. I’m just thinking in my riding, we have a lot of area that’s ungulate range. You think that there needs to be a better oversight or an expansion or a re-evaluation of what we’ve set aside?

C. Zuckerman: In the appendices, these resource companies are coming in — this is for recreational activities — with 30-year leases on Crown land. They’re building lifts and restaurants on tops of the mountains, which is in the caribou migration route, as well as the calving for the goats and mountain sheep.

That’s a 30-year lease. There is no provincial oversight in giving out this. They go to the front-desk counter. They help fill out the application form. Right now throughout the Fraser Valley, they’re being given access to the tops of the mountain ranges and further up the province.

This is something…. In the Grand Canyon, they have similar types of helicopter skiing, helicopter viewing and that. Sometimes, they have 50 helicopters in the air at the same time. If you’re trying to give birth to an ungulate, you have to admit that that might interfere a little bit — as well as the migration routes. We would like to have a coordinated strategy throughout the province about this land tenure that’s being done.

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

Well, thank you very much, Chuck. I appreciate you…. You were the last one in the meeting of our week, but it was very well presented. Thank you very much for your time.

C. Zuckerman: Thank you, sir.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:22 p.m.