The committee met at 9:05 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

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

My name is Bob D’Eith. I’m the MLA for Maple Ridge–​Mission. On a beautiful day here in Abbotsford, I’m the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

We’re very happy to be here in Abbotsford and grateful to be on the traditional territory of the Stó:lō people, specifically the Matsqui and Sumas First Nations.

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

Our consultation is based on the budget consultation paper that was released by the Minister of Finance last week, and copies are available at the back if anyone is interested in reading that.

In addition to the in-person meetings, the committee also invites British Columbians to participate, provide their thoughts in writing or fill out the on-line survey. Details are available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/finance. The deadline for input is 5 p.m. on Friday, June 28, 2019.

All of the input we receive is carefully considered as the committee develops its 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. For those of you who are here today, thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with us.

As far as the format, I would kindly ask that we 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 further information that you have, if you are unable to share during your presentation.

If there is anyone who hasn’t registered in advance but would like to speak to the committee, please see Stephanie at the information table, and we’ll 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 also be posted.

I’d like to start now by asking our members to introduce themselves, starting with Rich Coleman.

R. Coleman: Good morning. I’m Rich Coleman. I’m the MLA for Langley East.

M. Dean: Good morning. I’m Mitzi Dean. I’m the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

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

N. Simons: Nicholas Simons, MLA for Powell River–​Sunshine Coast.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I’m Dan Ashton. I represent Penticton to Peachland.

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

Assisting us today are Susan Sourial, on my right, and Stephanie Raymond, who is in the front there, from the Parliamentary Committees Office. We greatly appreciate all the work they do for us. We have Steve Weisgerber and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services. They are recording the proceedings. Thank you very much to them and also to the crew back in Victoria. A very exciting, full day.

Next up we have Archway Community Services — Najib Raie and Leah Wynsouw. Good morning.

Just a reminder. If we can keep the initial comments to five minutes, that would be great. The floor is yours.

Budget Consultation Presentations

ARCHWAY COMMUNITY SERVICES

N. Raie: Good morning, everyone.

This presentation is made on the unceded territory of the Matsqui and Sumas First Nations of the Stó:lō people. The Stó:lō, the people of the river, have lived in the Fraser Valley for over 10,000 years, and we are grateful to live, work and play on their traditional ancestral territory.

We, Najib Raie and Leah Wynsouw, are presenting on behalf of Rod Santiago, the executive director of Archway, formerly known as Abbotsford Community Services. We would like to start by acknowledging the decisions of last year’s select standing committee, particularly those responding to social services, housing and economic development. The recommendations laid the groundwork for incredible impact on the most vulnerable people in our province.

[9:10 a.m.]

Archway is a non-profit, multiservice and community-based social service agency that has provided services for over 50 years in Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack, Langley and in Chandigarh, India. We work alongside our provincial government to achieve shared goals. Our mission is “fostering community well-being and social justice through positive action and leadership.” Each year thousands of indi­viduals and families receive help through one or more of our 90-plus programs.

We have identified three key areas that require attention to ensure equity for British Columbians and to continue sustainable service delivery to the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Area 1: sustainable service provider infrastructure and funding. There are significant cost pressures to maintain the high level of service provided by Archway and other agencies in our sector — in particular, to provide administrative infrastructure for programs. There are elevated needs in the areas of information technology, data security, privacy, human resources, training and risk management.

The lack of funding available for administrative infrastructure places community-based non-profit organizations at a significant disadvantage compared to our for-profit colleagues, who now compete for and deliver services that historically used to be delivered by non-profit agencies.

Area 2: procurement. We would like to discuss flaws in the procurement process of community service contracts over the past year. The most recent Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction WorkBC employment bid was weighted heavily towards the lowest bid, which nullified the value of other cumulative aspects of the bid. Moreover, this procurement process did not factor into the scoring numerous legitimate criteria, such as track record of services, community partnerships and, specifically, active involvement in Indigenous partnerships and reinvestment history.

We would be concerned if this procurement process — or the current ones for child care resource and referral — and the future ones are being directed towards privatization of the social service sector.

L. Wynsouw: Our third area is low-wage redress.

In July of 2018, the social services sector signed an unprecedented three-year collective agreement with the province of British Columbia that, by the end of the three years, would have addressed wage parity with the health sector — after 12 years of bargaining, that our workers doing comparable jobs should receive comparable pay.

Shortly before the 2019-20 fiscal year began, the government announced that only unionized staff would be receiving the low-wage redress increases. This decision results in significant wage inequity within the social services sector, impacting 17,000 non-union employees across the province who will now earn approximately $4 less per hour than a unionized employee doing the same job. Eighty percent of these non-unionized British Columbians in our sector are women, which reinforces gender pay gaps.

Recruitment and retention are an ongoing challenge for our sector, with wages presenting the major challenge — being headhunted, at times, for $20,000 per year more than our funding allows.

When we apply for further funding, the priority is on cost and efficiency rather than years of service and our existing community connections. There is a dangerous cycle in which we are not funded enough to provide low-cost services and efficiency and then lose out on applications for new funding.

The workforce that makes up the non-profit sector, to fulfil the government’s mandate in social service delivery, is highly skilled and undercompensated. Low-wage redress was a vital step toward recognizing and continuing to sustainably offer high-quality service through recruitment and retention. Now non-unionized social service providers face a continued struggle to attract and keep skilled employees.

Given the challenges we have outlined, we would recommend that the province increase its funding to 15 percent to match other government bodies’ funding standards; that the social services sector be involved in the development of procurement bids, thereby factoring in social impact to the scoring mechanisms; to reconsider the decision to offer low-wage redress to only unionized employees; and to consider funding adequate training, professional development, compensation and other forms of incentive to recruit and retain both unionized and non-unionized workers in the social services sector.

[9:15 a.m.]

Support for these objectives in the next provincial budget will be instrumental in protecting the needs of B.C.’s most vulnerable citizens. The work we do for people in need requires adequate funding, skilled labour and a high degree of collaboration with government to ensure a sustainable future for providers of social community services in our province.

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

Questions from members?

Well, thank you very much for your presentation. Really appreciate it.

Next up we have New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia — Blair Qualey.

If we could keep the comments to about five minutes, Blair, we’d really appreciate that so we can stay on time.

NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

B. Qualey: I’ll do my best. I’m going to set the timer, as well, just to keep me on track.

Thank you very much. It’s terrific to be here on this beautiful British Columbia morning in Abbotsford to share with you some thoughts as you deliberate and prepare your report. Just so you know who we are, I represent B.C.’s new car dealers, some 390 small businesses, mostly, in 55 communities across the province. They generate about $16 billion in economic activity, about $2.9 billion in net GDP straight into the economy and employ, directly and indirectly, more that 30,000 family-supporting jobs around the province.

We’re privileged to administer the clean energy vehicle program on behalf of the province of British Columbia. We also own and operate the Vancouver International Auto Show, and we have a foundation that helps not only Special Olympics B.C. but also provides education grants to a number of folks that are looking to come into our industry and improve their education. In the package, you’ll see just a smattering of some of the logos of some of our dealer members in communities that might be familiar to members of the community.

We’re here to talk about three, sort of, main areas today. One, of course…. Those of you who have been here before and heard our presentations…. We’ll talk about the layering of taxes. Every jurisdiction from municipal to federal and, of course, our provincial governments have all implemented taxes and tax measures. For our members, the layering of these taxes continues to be burdensome — in particular, a tax that I always like to talk to this committee about, the luxury tax, which begins at $55,000 on all vehicles, cars and trucks.

We continue to ask government to raise the base threshold and, ultimately, eliminate this tax over time. This has been a burden that our sector, the new car dealers of British Columbia, have borne since the 1990s, solely. Luxury vehicles, cars and trucks, are the only ones that attract this. In your package you’ll see an example of some other luxury goods that do not attract luxury tax — for example, a $750,000 RV, a $5.5 million boat, a $65,000 Rolex watch. All of those do not capture luxury tax, yet somebody’s work truck that they need for their job, their lives, attracts luxury tax.

Just as an example, we’ve shown, in here, Nelson, B.C. A dealer there pays more luxury tax than all of B.C.’s RV dealers, all of B.C.’s boat dealers and all of B.C.’s jewelry dealers combined. They’re forced to pay luxury tax on their vehicles whereas no other provider of luxury goods is burdened with that. So again, we’d ask you to consider taking it off trucks for sure and looking at raising the threshold, as technology has increased the cost of vehicles over time and the threshold hasn’t been adjusted.

Second area. We’ve seen some tremendous success and excitement around electric vehicles. The clean energy vehicle program has been very, very successful in encouraging people to put their toe in the water and look at adopting EVs. We lead the country in EV adoption. We’re second or third in North America behind California and, perhaps, Washington state. We’re continuing to see the uptake.

[9:20 a.m.]

Our concern is twofold. As we’ve mentioned to government in the past, we need to continue the incentives in the long run while there’s a differential between the cost of electric vehicles and gas-powered vehicles. The importance of investments in strategic charging infrastructure remains critical to this. People need to see that there’s charging infrastructure where they live, work and play. Education and investments in continuing to educate both consumers and car dealers around the opportunity of electric vehicles need to continue.

Finally, in industry challenges, labour attraction and job training continue to be a huge issue in our sector. A grey tsunami continues to roll through the automotive sector, as it is in many sectors. We’re encouraging government to continue its investments in jobs and apprenticeship training in automotive around British Columbia. I don’t know if you’ve checked under the hood of a car these days. It’s a pretty complex place, requiring pretty skilled labour.

I think that’s my five minutes. I just wanted to take a quick opportunity as we transition to questions. If you may recall, last year I showed up with a bunch of balloons to represent the portion of greenhouse gases that are created by the light-duty-vehicle sector in the province of British Columbia. The black ones were meant as — what GHGs are, the greenhouse gases. There was a big, huge bundle of balloons.

As I mentioned, electric vehicle adoption in this province is going gangbusters, and I thought it would be important to take an opportunity to celebrate that success with those in British Columbia. I invite you to join me in popping a balloon.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s great, Blair. Wonderful.

B. Qualey: I think it’s important to celebrate when there are successes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I have a question for you in terms of the move to electric vehicles. One of the things is maintenance. Now, I know Tesla, for example, doesn’t even have dealerships per se, so how is that…?

B. Qualey: Well, they don’t have franchised dealerships like our other members.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Franchised dealerships, yes. So how is that changing? I’m thinking about the workforce. We keep hearing about how the skilled workforce is being challenged, and I’m just wondering how, in the new-car dealership world, that transition will happen. I gather it’s a very different type of….

B. Qualey: Well, electric vehicles, despite what some people may think, do need maintenance.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Of course. But a different type of maintenance.

B. Qualey: It’s less, absolutely. There’s no question that over time, as there’s a transition to electric vehicles at whatever level we see, there will be an opportunity for more sophisticated training for people doing those vehicles. If there’s a real problem with an electric vehicle, it’s usually computer-related and software-related.

Ten or 20 years from now, folks who are working in the dealerships today will still be fixing gas-powered vehicles that are going to require maintenance. We all want to see the transition to electric vehicles, but that’s going to be a process over time. We don’t need just skilled tradespeople. We need everybody in our sector — salespeople, computer technicians and marketing people and all of those things.

Business continues to grow for the dealers as people age and more people continue to drive longer. As the population grows, we’re going to see more cars on the road, more dealerships required to sell and service those. The job need is going to grow and not go away.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. That’s what I thought.

Questions?

M. Dean: Good morning, Blair. Thank you for coming again. Thanks for your presentation — and the interaction, as always.

You talked about family-supporting jobs and about the issues around recruitment. What have you been doing to try and increase the representation of underrepresented groups, like Indigenous people and women, in the sector?

B. Qualey: We’ve always been challenged encouraging women to join our sector. I’m glad to see that that’s finally changing. You will have seen recently some articles in the Vancouver Sun and Province that have been talking about female technicians who are coming into the industry, which is not as quick as anybody would like.

[9:25 a.m.]

We’ve been doing some work with some Indigenous folks around how we can help them find their way into jobs, whether it’s in our sector or not. Lucy Sager is out there doing a driving school for First Nations folks. Most of us don’t realize that many First Nations people do not have a driver’s licence. It’s very difficult to get a job and live on a reservation if you can’t get to the job. We’re trying to work in a variety of ways to be creative around helping people in those underrepresented communities be part of the workforce, hopefully in our sector.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just quickly…. Blair, thanks for coming.

At the Legislature, you had the automobiles on display. Hydrogen. How is it fitting in — hydrogen vehicles?

B. Qualey: Well, hydrogen vehicles are in the early stages. We did have a couple of them there. The challenge is the infrastructure piece. At the moment, there are one or two places in all of British Columbia — and they are in the Lower Mainland — where you can actually fill up your hydrogen vehicle. Over time, we’re going to see a number of people invest in that infrastructure, but at the moment, it’s taking its time to come through. In Japan, hydrogen is a huge project, and we’re seeing it in China as well.

I think British Columbia needs to continue to invest in those kinds of infrastructure, and I think the private sector is looking at ways to do that. At the moment, it’s difficult to find a place to fuel your vehicle. That’s why, under the clean energy vehicle program, instead of getting $5,000 if you buy a hydrogen vehicle, you get an extra $1,000 to help out with the fact that you can’t find too many places to fill up your vehicle at the moment.

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

B. Qualey: Thank you very much for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the University of the Fraser Valley Faculty and Staff Association — Sean Parkinson.

Good morning, Sean. How are you?

S. Parkinson: Good morning. I’m fine. Thanks.

It’s the second-to-last day.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes, indeed, day 9, but who’s counting?

Sean, if we could keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great, so that we have time for questions.

UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
FACULTY AND STAFF ASSOCIATION

S. Parkinson: Okay, thanks.

It’s a pleasure to be here to provide input for the 2020 budget.

I acknowledge and respect the Halq’eméylem-speaking peoples on whose traditional territories we and the University of the Fraser Valley stand. It’s the unceded territory of the Stó:lō, including the territories of the Sumas, Matsqui, Kwantlen and the Nooksack.

My name is Sean Parkinson, and I’m here as past president of the University of the Fraser Valley Faculty and Staff Association. I’ll be using my time today to highlight the need to end using contract academic staff as short-term, underpaid and disposable labour. Contract academic staff should be paid using the existing mandated provincial salary scale on a pro rata basis. From the University of the Fraser Valley’s reporting in their 2017-2018 handbook, we have 690 teaching faculty — 325 permanent and 365 non-permanent faculty members. That’s 53 percent non-regular. Ten years ago, when we became a university, we had 339 regular and 250 non-regular, or 42 percent non-regular.

I also want to let you know that UFV does not have regularization, meaning that there’s no conversion of non-regulars to permanent positions, no matter how much they’ve worked or how long they’ve been there. Also, we have faculty ratio target levels that say we budget that no more than 30 percent of teaching is to be done by non-regular faculty. This ratio has deteriorated over time, and we use many more non-regular faculty now than in the past. At last report, we have over 700 classes per year budgeted to be taught by non-regulars.

At UFV, on a per-course basis, sessional faculty earn 50 percent of regular faculty. Why do we use so many non-regular faculty? The employer says that it’s not a problem and that they need flexibility for uncertainty in enrolments, the periodic ups and downs in demographics and student demand. But if enrolment varies by more than a percent or two, we view this with alarm. Do we need more than 30 percent contingent labour? We don’t. I think it’s about the money. Non-regular faculty are paid so much less for doing the same work. The fairness argument is clear: it’s not right.

[9:30 a.m.]

I want to point out some of the non-monetary costs of this substitution of non-regulars for permanent faculty. Our universities and colleges are not short-term operations. They are created as continuing enterprises, and its permanent faculty members are the continuing members of the institution. They play a special role, both in the breadth of their participation and in the length of time they participate, unlike students, administrators and board members, who turn over with some regularity. As such, the permanent faculty are the heart of the college or teaching university, and it’s they who will ultimately define the institution’s identity and character.

Because the permanent faculty make a lifetime commitment to their institution and are deeply invested in its quality and its future, this is the only group that truly takes a long-term view. Permanent faculty are the custodians of the values of the institution and the guarantors of its continuing excellence. It behooves the administrations, the boards and the government to provide the resources and the environment to sustain their dedicated work over a lifetime of effort. The erosion of the complement of permanent faculty and the increasing use of precarious faculty threaten institutional stability.

Ironically, many non-regular faculty wish to have perma­nent appointments, to make this long-term commitment and to participate fully in the academy. Unfortunately, they’re kept to the sidelines in what seems to be an absorbing state of non-regular status, primarily as a cost-cutting measure. Not only is their low pay unfair on its face, their contracts ensure that, by definition, they have marginal attachments to our institutions. This is not what they want. It’s not good for students either, and it undermines the long-term stability of our institutions.

By paying non-regulars pro rata on the provincial salary scale, we eliminate the employer’s substitution incentive. If there are no cost savings by using non-regulars, then we only use them when there are legitimate flexibility arguments.

We urge the committee to recommend that government support and fund a pro rata model for contract academic staff to be paid on the provincial salary scale. This is the right thing to do, certainly, from a fairness perspective and, I hope you can see, from an institutional stability perspective as well.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our recommendations for the 2020 provincial budget. I’m happy to take your questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Sean. Before I open it up to the members, I just wanted to mention that we have been hearing this from faculty associations from across the province. It’s a similar message. But one of the things that we’re hearing is that some colleges and universities actually already pay the same scale and some don’t pay anywhere near, and then everything in the middle.

That presents an issue in terms of this committee too, because it seems to me that that’s a collective bargaining issue. Some colleges are able to do it, and some aren’t. That’s something that we’re going to have to wrestle with. I’d appreciate if you could comment on that.

S. Parkinson: I appreciate the idea that it is a bargaining issue. We are bargaining in good faith. But the issue expands beyond bargaining into policy. Not only did I mention an issue of fairness, but it speaks to the long-term stability of our public post-secondary system. It’s only appropriate here to highlight these issues for your consideration in the budget.

If I can expand, I mentioned that at my institution, they budget that no more than 30 percent of the teaching will be done by non-regs. Of course, with massive operating surpluses and not filling vacancies, we know it’s probably in excess of 30 percent. But if we use their budgeted number of 30 percent, what that means is that 30 percent of the work is done by people getting about half pay, by my calculation, which means our faculty payroll is probably only 85 percent of what it ought to be if the extra 15 percent was tacked on.

Our faculty payroll is $40 million, almost to the penny. If that only covers 85 percent of the bill, the way I see it, that’s about $7 million short. It’s a big number that certainly can’t be solved within the existing mandate. I appreciate the idea of bargaining, but this is a systemwide problem. If it’s an approximately $7 million a year problem just at UFV, that certainly can’t be taken into account with one-quarter percent per year in benefits.

It’s a larger problem that we can’t necessarily solve. I agree that it’s contextualized. Vancouver Community College and Langara don’t have this issue. Most of the colleges and teaching universities do. I think it’s time to address it as a systemwide solution. It’s certainly a systemwide problem.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Sean.

Questions?

[9:35 a.m.]

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation.

You said you’re the past president. Are you still teaching?

S. Parkinson: I’m not. I’m secretary-treasurer-elect at the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators. I’ll be moving over there.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your commitment, then.

Question on…. We’ve had faculty associations make these representations, but there haven’t been any particular individuals coming forward. So through your organization, do you have any measure of the interest amongst the contracted workers in terms of their desire for full-time, for becoming regular employees? I know that everybody’s got different circumstances. It’s individual. It could be community-based. I’m just wondering if you track that.

S. Parkinson: We’ve done some research. We do see that the nature of the non-regulars has changed a fair amount over time. You know, there’s this story of a local accountant or lawyer coming in and teaching one section on the side to keep up some currency. It’s a fun job, I should say.

What we see quite a bit more of now is non-regulars that we use quite intensively. We have some that teach at least 100 percent of a full-time load and have done so for over ten years at my institution. They want to be part of that permanent faculty complement. They want to be involved, full participants in the academy.

I think there’s been quite a drift over to: “Hey, it’s not just a job on the side.” There are people making their living this way. They’re teaching at Fraser Valley. Then they drive over to Kwantlen, over to Douglas. It takes a lot for them to piece together a living, and they want a regular job.

The non-regular that’s backfilled my position while I was union president has been a non-regular at Fraser Valley, working full-time, for seven years with no prospect of becoming full-time. He just got a permanent position at Douglas College. We’re very happy for him, but he’s wanted that all along.

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

Next up we have Sarah Chown. She’s actually on a teleconference.

Are you there, Sarah?

Well, we’ll come back to Sarah.

Next up we have the B.C. Care Providers Association — Daniel Fontaine and Mike Klassen.

B.C. CARE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION

D. Fontaine: Good morning. Thanks to the select standing committee for allowing me to present today.

My name is Daniel Fontaine. I’m the CEO of the B.C. Care Providers Association. This is Mike Klassen. He’s our vice-president for public affairs. I’m also the president of the Canadian Association for Long Term Care. I also sit on the federal Minister of Health’s Advisory Board on Dementia and was involved in the development of the recently released national dementia strategy, which came out earlier this week.

The B.C. Care Providers is headquartered in Burnaby. We have over 350 members from across the province. We’re the leading voice for B.C.’s continuing-care sector, with members providing publicly funded long-term care, assisted living and home support services. Through our new operating arm, EngAge B.C., we also represent members who provide private-pay independent living, assisted living and home support services.

Notwithstanding what you may have read or heard, I’m here to advise you today that there will be no silver tsunami hitting the B.C. coast. Rather, our aging population is better described as a rising tide, a body of water that we’ve forecasted for decades would begin rising, and it is. In fact, our society will continue to rapidly age straight through to the year 2041 before that tide begins to recede.

[9:40 a.m.]

While I wish I could advise you that you have the luxury of time to conduct more studies, do more reviews, hold more public hearings, unfortunately, I can’t. That time was 20 years ago. Collectively, we’re now in the midst of a very serious situation when it comes to our aging population and being able to meet their diverse housing and care needs. This is due, in part, to B.C. being a very popular destination for Canadian and international retirees, and with good reason. Just take a look outside.

The statistics are startling. Since 2011, the number of people over the age of 80 has doubled. In a recent report we released, it was determined our province is going to need to construct at least 45,000 new care beds in the next 20 years to meet that growing demand. As it stands, there already are over 1,400 people waiting to access long-term care beds in the province. Incredibly, in the last two years, we’ve only had 150 new beds announced.

I’m here today to speak on behalf of the countless number of seniors who can no longer speak for themselves, a majority of whom have advanced dementia and are left to rely on our association and others like us to advocate on their behalf.

In our Budget 2020 submission we release today, we make a number of recommendations, including the need to construct 5,000 new long-term-care beds over the next three years, which would require a public investment of approximately $1.6 billion, and the construction of 1,000 new assisted-living suites, which translates into a public investment of $320 million over three years.

The BCCPA is also calling upon the government to immediately update a dated report which catalogues the physical condition of aging care homes that are in desperate need of repair and replacement. This will facilitate the replacement and renewal of older care homes that were never designed for a resident population with advanced dementia.

In addition, the BCCPA is requesting a three-year extension of the seniors safety and quality improvement program, which we operate on behalf of the Ministry of Health. This $10 million program has been pivotal in ensuring that care homes have access to the necessary equipment they need to keep seniors safe and to improve their quality of life.

The program is set to expire next March, and we’d like to see it expanded and also incorporate publicly funded assisted-living sites which will soon face increased operational challenges due to the implementation of Bill 16.

We’re also experiencing a documented shortage of care workers in B.C. and across the country. In fact, our association took the unprecedented move about a month ago of having to declare a health human resources emergency in the B.C. interior.

As a result, we think government should be investing in a number of new initiatives, including allocating $30 million over three years to significantly expand high school dual-credit programs. As it stands, the dual-credit programs focus too heavily on male-dominated occupations, such as welding and carpentry, and not enough on social sciences and health care. And it doesn’t do enough to support our First Nations youth.

We’re calling upon government to invest $4 million per year to open up 450 new training spots for health care assistants. We also want to facilitate the hiring of out-of-province-trained care aides. We’re asking that $500,000 in funding be set aside to eliminate the costly, and what we believe are unnecessary, testing fees, which are both a cash cow for government and a significant barrier for care aides.

Furthermore, we would like $1 million allocated to ensure that satellite health care testing centres can be opened, which would eliminate the need for out-of-province workers to travel to Vancouver as a condition of them being hired to work in places like the Okanagan and the north.

In closing, I want to leave you with this: the system we build today will be the system that you and your loved ones will be using tomorrow. Let’s build it to ensure that it provides dignity, respect and care for our seniors, many of whom are frail and elderly and are counting upon all of us to deliver this service on their behalf.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your recommendations to the Minister of Finance. I’m open to questions if you have them.

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation and all the work that you do.

I’m interested in the federal level, because we do see this move of people that are spending their working lives and paying their taxes in the rest of the country and then coming to British Columbia for retirement — and even, as you said, internationally as well.

Do you think that the current federal system recognizes that enough? Or can we be doing some more advocacy together to make sure that the federal system actually recognizes that pattern?

[9:45 a.m.]

D. Fontaine: That’s a really good question. Last week I was sitting in Ottawa at the Economic Club of Canada on a panel discussion, and with me was Dr. Gigi Osler, who heads up the Canadian Medical Association. Dr. Osler and the CMA are actually recommending that there be more of a reflection of the demography in our country in terms of where people are retiring and the composition of the population so that health care dollars don’t just go equally per resident but that they’re actually going in that way.

We 100 percent, as an organization, support that. Absolutely. I would say, though, with one caveat, and here is the caveat. Every single night in this province, we have an estimated 13 percent of every single bed night in acute care hospitals taken up by people who have been deemed to be ready for discharge. The vast majority of those people are seniors. It’s costing $1,800 a day.

When I’m having discussions with the federal government…. Although I’m 100 percent supportive of new dollars coming in and we recognize that demographic challenge, I think you, as a committee and as a government, should be challenging the health authorities to bring those numbers down from 13 percent to something more reasonable.

We’ve passed a motion at our association saying that 5 percent should be the target. Help get those acute care hospitals down to 5 percent. But it will mean, then, that we could get additional federal dollars in to be investing in home care in the community and in long-term care as well. So we absolutely support that.

R. Coleman: Daniel, one of the fastest forms of insurance growing in growth is long-term-care insurance. I have some. I bought it a number of years ago so that if I ended up with dementia like my sister did or whatever, my family would be able to cover the cost. I think it’s actually good planning for estates, good planning for young people who have parents and aging grandparents.

Have you ever made a presentation to government, at any level, saying you think that maybe those types of premiums that would actually insure out a cost to society could be tax deductible?

D. Fontaine: We haven’t taken a position on that per se, although I would agree with you that an increasing number of people are taking out long-term-care insurance, because they don’t see the government being there for everything. That is an issue for many people. I don’t think we are fundamentally opposed to that. I think that would probably be something we would support. We’re very much open to ideas and suggestions, etc.

I would argue that for the vast majority of British Columbians at the moment, their long-term-care insurance is their home. They are needing that equity in their home in order to be able to access that when they retire. We are just kind of on the cutting edge of trying to look and research how many seniors are actually beginning to contact organizations like capitaldirect.ca and other lending agencies to borrow against their home in order to pay for their long-term care.

We have wait-lists on long-term care now. We also know that we have an increasing demand for home care. People want to be able to stay at home longer. So I think a combination of long-term-care insurance and being able to better access and tap into your home equity is something that people are looking at doing, because we’re going to be faced, as you can see from the numbers — I could read off a raft of other scary numbers — with some challenging times in the next decade or two.

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation and for the numbers. It is interesting portraying it as a rising tide as opposed to a tsunami. It’s going to be ever increasing.

I just wanted to get some clarification. You said close to the beginning that 1,800 people were waiting for long-term-care beds, but there had been only 150 new beds announced last year. There were 151 new beds in my community alone, so where do you get the 150 beds?

D. Fontaine: That figure comes from the last two years. It would be the additional new beds that have been announced that’ll be funded. That’s the total that has been announced. Unless you are aware of something I’m not, and I follow this fairly closely….

R. Leonard: There were 151 in my community alone, in Comox Valley.

M. Klassen: That’s where the Golden Life Management RFP…. It’s the one RFP.

D. Fontaine: Sorry, I don’t know which community you’re from.

R. Leonard: It’s Golden Life. That’s correct, yes. Those are funded beds that I’m talking about.

D. Fontaine: You’re very lucky. You hit the jackpot.

R. Leonard: Well, it’s 151. So that’s one more than what you’re saying.

D. Fontaine: Sorry. My apologies, 151. I stand corrected.

R. Leonard: I’m pretty sure that there have been other beds announced throughout the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, so I’m going to have to cut it off. Thank you very much for your presentation.

[9:50 a.m.]

Next up we have Sarah Chown.

Sarah, are you on the line?

S. Chown: Yes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sorry. We got cut off there. I appreciate your patience. We had to go to another presentation and then come back.

Sarah, if you could please try to keep your initial comments to five minutes so we have time for questions, that would be great.

SARAH CHOWN

S. Chown: Perfect.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak today from the unceded lands of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

I’m speaking today as someone who has seen firsthand the impacts of policies and programs on young people in my life and in my work. I currently work with Indigenous youth, youth living with HIV and hep C, queer and trans youth, newcomer and refugee youth and the youth who share more than one of these experiences in my job at YouthCO. One of these groups… Indigenous youth and queer and trans youth are overrepresented among youth in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

My recommendations today focus on MCFD initiatives to support youth. Poverty and the way it puts youth at risk is often a factor in child apprehension. We need to provide families with funding to ensure poverty is never a reason for a child to be apprehended.

My first recommendation is that the government provide families with sufficient funding required to meet their family’s needs before children are apprehended. These payments could work on a similar model to the flat rates families receive when they’re parenting foster children.

I’m going to focus most of my recommendations today on the improvements to the agreements with young adults program for former youth in care. Turning 19 is often a moment youth in care dread rather than one they look forward to, because, in most cases, care systems, housing and financial supports come to an abrupt end, leaving youth without a place to call their own or clear next steps, and often facing quite significant poverty.

B.C.’s tuition waiver program is a step in the right direction. It covers the costs of tuition and mandatory school fees for former youth in care. However, former youth in care still need a way to cover their living expenses while in school, as the work available to them isn’t enough to make ends meet. That is where the AYA program comes in.

The AYA program currently requires youth to be attending school full-time or be enrolled in an accredited life skills program. Youth who meet these criteria are required to keep all their receipts to prove that their living expenses exceed their income. Yet AYA provides a maximum of $1,250 per month, and youth have little if any time to work while attending full-time school or a life skills program as required. Keeping receipts to show their living expenses is an unnecessary barrier for youth who may benefit from AYA, especially when we know it would be incredibly difficult for most youth to earn enough to live on as soon as they turn 19 with a high school education.

Right now less than 30 percent of eligible youth are accessing AYA in the year after they age out. That means thousands of youth are still abruptly cut off from supports when they turn 19. Without financial support at this crucial stage in life, former youth in care can become trapped in experiences of poverty, poor mental well-being and low educational attainment. It is estimated that these types of adverse outcomes, whether that be in the criminal justice system, health care system or income assistance, cost between $222,000 and $268,000 per youth per year. My recommendations today cost significantly less than that.

To get there, I recommend the removal of the requirement that youth attend full-time school or be enrolled in a life skills program. These requirements are significant barriers to many youth, whether because of the concentration of life skills programs in the Lower Mainland, the challenge of getting accepted into school programs, the fact that too many youth in care do not complete high school or the reality that full-time school is often too much to manage, especially for youth with learning needs that are not well-supported by schools.

It is also true that many youth need time and space to adjust to living more independently before starting school or life skills programs to learn more about the career options that are available to them and to figure out what they want to be when they grow up, as well as what school programs will help them get there. That was certainly the case for me and many of my peers. The AYA program could help cover living expenses during this period of time and give youth an opportunity to try out part-time work, school or volunteer positions that will help them figure out what is next. This is currently not an opportunity that they have.

[9:55 a.m.]

I also recommend an increase in AYA workers to ensure more manageable caseloads than the current 50 or more youth each worker is tasked with. These caseloads make it impossible for workers to offer non-financial support like figuring out how school may fit into youth’s next steps.

I urge the committee to take these recommendations into consideration in the development of our provincial budget. This is a particularly urgent issue given the commitments to truth and reconciliation and the disproportionate ways Indigenous youth are negatively impacted by the current system. Thank you so much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you so much, Sarah. We have heard these issues from other presenters over the last two weeks. We appreciate you adding to that.

Just wanted to open up the floor for questions.

M. Dean: Thanks so much for your presentation, Sarah, for sharing your insights with us and for all your work as well.

Did you have an estimated cost of the implication of what you’re proposing around changing the eligibility for the AYAs?

S. Chown: I do not, unfortunately. I apologize. But I know that the organization Fostering Change has a costed proposal, to my knowledge.

M. Dean: Okay. Thanks.

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

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

Okay. Next up we have Association for Mineral Exploration — Jonathan Buchanan and Dr. Rob Stevens.

Good morning. How are you?

Just a reminder, if we could keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we have time for questions. That would be great.

ASSOCIATION FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION

R. Stevens: Perfect. Thank you.

Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Rob Stevens, and I’m the vice-president, regulatory and technical policy, for the Association for Mineral Exploration, or AME for short.

On behalf of AME’s 350 corporate members and almost 5,000 individual members, we are pleased to have this opportunity to present our recommendations. I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the territories of the Stó:lō people, including the Sumas First Nation and Matsqui First Nation.

Mineral exploration is the necessary first step in the mining life cycle. Mines have a finite life, and new discoveries are needed to ensure the continuation of responsibly sourced minerals and metals from B.C., mining jobs and mining revenue, which exceeded $12 billion in 2018. Without mineral exploration, there would be no mining, and without mining, we would not produce the minerals and metals needed for a sustainable, low-carbon future.

AME was an active participant in the Mining Jobs Task Force convened by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in February 2017. Its final report, released in 2018, contained 24 actions that were reached through consensus of the multi-stakeholder and First Nations task force members and that were endorsed in their entirety by Minister Mungall and Premier Horgan.

The task force remains in place to implement the actions, and in fact, a number of key actions have already been acted upon, including some of the recommendations AME put forward to the standing committee for Budget 2019. For example, AME recommended and is encouraged by the increase of resources to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for compliance enforcement and permitting that was provided in Budget 2019.

We’re also pleased that government is developing a coordinated and adequately resourced geoscience strategy. Geoscience, which is the study of the earth leading to an understanding of the rocks, minerals and geology of British Columbia, is the foundation upon which mineral exploration and mining are built. A provincial strategy will support the growth of the mineral exploration industry, consider future market demands and complement a low-carbon future.

Finally, we are pleased to see that the mining exploration tax credit and mining flow-through share tax credit were made permanent after a period of year-by-year extensions. We believe that industry is already benefiting from the permanent flow-through share tax credit with recent financings that allow for multi-year exploration projects, which in turn generate economic activity throughout British Columbia.

There is, however, still room to improve and additional actions from the Mining and Jobs Task Force that need to be implemented. This leads us to our recommendation for Budget 2020.

We have one recommendation, which is to position B.C. as the most attractive jurisdiction in Canada for mineral exploration investment by increasing the tax credit rates for the mining exploration tax credit and mining flow-through share programs. Specifically, we are looking to see an increase in the existing B.C. mining exploration tax credit for companies from 20 percent to 30 percent over the entire province. It’s currently at 30 percent in the pine beetle-affected areas, which covers about 85 percent of the province.

[10:00 a.m.]

Second, to increase the existing B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit for B.C. investors from 20 percent to 35 percent. This will place B.C. at the top in Canada, ahead of Manitoba and Quebec.

Finally, AME recommends making the increases permanent in Budget 2020 in order to support multi-year investments in mineral exploration.

In terms of the benefits and costs to B.C., first looking at the benefits…. First, it would position B.C. as the most attractive jurisdiction in Canada for mineral exploration and mining by implementing all the actions from the Mining Jobs Task Force, including increasing the rates for investment programs.

Second, to increase investment in mineral exploration in B.C. As an example, when Quebec increased its investment tax rates in 2016, its share of Canadian mineral exploration increased from 14 percent in 2015 to 26 percent in 2017. Here’s a really key point. Every 1 percent increase in B.C.’s share of Canadian mineral exploration means approximately $23 million in additional expenditures annually.

Another benefit is to leverage investment. Finance Canada has estimated that every dollar of flow-through financing generates $2.60 of exploration expenditures in Canada. This means flow-through is very effective at leveraging additional investment in mineral exploration.

In terms of costs, it’s estimated that increasing the mining exploration tax credit to 30 percent over the entire province will cost an additional $4 million per year in lost tax revenue. Increasing the mining flow-through share tax credit program to 35 percent will cost an additional $6.5 million annually. However, these costs would be offset by the additional exploration expenditures that occur in communities across the province and the tax revenue generated by these expenditures, especially when we consider, again, that every 1 percent increase in B.C.’s share of Canadian mineral exploration generates $23 million in additional exploration.

I’d like to thank all committee members for your work in support of B.C. and for your work on the committee. Thanks very much.

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

M. Dean: Thank you for your presentation.

If mining did increase if tax measures were changed, how would that impact our CleanBC plan? Where does the mining industry fit in terms of our reduction of GHG emissions, etc.?

R. Stevens: I think a key part of the mining sector going forward is providing those minerals and metals that are needed for a low-carbon future, particularly for electrical-powered equipment, vehicles, etc. In British Columbia, copper is one of our biggest commodities that we produce. Copper is essential to electric vehicles, etc. So it’ll help us to meet some of those demands — for example, to have full electric vehicles by 2040.

We’re also looking at other metals. Vanadium is another one that’s been explored for in the province, which is a critical metal needed for battery storage for an electrical future. So there are a number of ways in which the sector is important to that low-carbon future and CleanBC.

M. Dean: I understand the importance of it. But what about if we’re increasing our mining of these materials? Does that increase our emissions as well? How do we mitigate that?

R. Stevens: I guess the first thing I would say is we’re the mineral exploration side, not the mining side. Our focus is not on production but on the exploration for those. What I would say is that there is a lot of work underway in innovation in terms of different ways of providing power to a minesite so that it’s not increasing greenhouse gases. That’s an important step that the industry is taking and will continue to take over the next few years.

R. Leonard: I have one of those ignorant questions. You talk about the 2009 enhanced 30 percent credit for when the mountain pine beetle was active. What does that have to do with mining exploration?

R. Stevens: The issue with the pine beetle was, of course, that it was having an impact on other sectors, particularly forestry. One of the opportunities was to diversify the economic activities, provide an enhanced credit for mineral exploration that would generate more activity in mineral exploration, which it was quite successful at doing in those areas that were impacted by the pine beetle — particularly the forest sector.

[10:05 a.m.]

R. Leonard: Can I just follow up? Sort of niggling in the back of my head is a conversation I had, probably, at one of the events that you hosted down in Victoria around how exploration is done and the high-level looking around at the terrain and the difficulties. The pine beetle logging activities — how is that impacting, positively or negatively, on how easy it is to do mining exploration in British Columbia?

R. Stevens: Good question. I don’t know that the actual pine beetle impacts, directly on the forests, have a lot of direct impact on mineral exploration. There are some techniques we can use that are remote, that are sensing the ground, and can’t always see through trees and that sort of thing. So less coverage will help with that. But that’s only one method of many that are used in British Columbia. So there would be some advantages to that, but I don’t think there’s a big impact, as a result of the pine beetle, on forests.

R. Leonard: And in comparing to different jurisdictions? Quebec is a very different province, geographically, than British Columbia. How easy is it to explore in B.C. versus Quebec, for instance?

R. Stevens: It can be more challenging in British Columbia. Obviously we have, you know, pretty extreme topography in places. Road access does make a big difference for mineral exploration, especially small programs that don’t have a lot of expenditures. Of course, in British Columbia, that can be more challenging with the mountainous terrain.

On the flip side, the underlying geology is really critical. British Columbia has some of the best geology in the world for mineral exploration, so that does attract people here. Quebec, from an infrastructure point of view, is a little bit easier to get around, given the nature of the topography.

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

Next up we have Douglas Wright.

Douglas, before you start, just a reminder that if we could keep the initial comments to five minutes, then we have time for questions.

D. Wright: That should not be a problem.

My name is Doug Wright. Whenever I see Douglas Wright, I shiver, because that’s what my mother used to call me.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s like me with Robert. Whenever I hear Robert, it’s the same.

D. Wright: Invariably, it meant I was in trouble.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, Doug, welcome.

DOUG WRIGHT

D. Wright: Good morning. As I say, my name is Doug Wright. I live in Harrison Mills. Harrison Mills is a community on the north side of the Fraser River. Rich Coleman is nodding; he knows it. It’s halfway between Mission and Agassiz.

On our eastern boundary, we are separated from the district of Kent by the Harrison River. In combination with our neighbour communities of Deroche, Lake Errock and Hemlock Valley, we comprise approximately 1,800 residents. Also located in our immediate area are the First Nation communities of Leq’á:mel, Skawahlook and Aitchelitz, who are about another 800 residents. So in total, the residential community in the immediate area is about 2,500.

There are plans for additional residential development. Additionally, there are also established businesses in the area. The most known one, probably, is Sandpiper golf resort. We’re all in that area. We also have the future development — the government-approved development — of the Sasquatch Mountain Resort. So we are a growing area.

All these communities have one thing in common. They have many things in common, but one particularly. We are all solely dependent on B.C. Hydro for our power needs. Unfortunately, our only power supply is a single feeder line from a substation in Mission that eventually finalizes at the Hemlock Valley. This single feeder line, according to B.C. Hydro and the provincial Ministry of Energy, is 168 kilometres long. This means that if anything happens on that feeder line, any incident happens — or, as somebody would jokingly say, two robins kiss on the feeder line — we are subjected to power outages.

Now, B.C. Hydro proudly state on their website that their mission statement is: “We will provide reliable, affordable, clean electricity throughout B.C.” I’ll repeat that: “Our mission is to safely provide reliable, affordable, clean electricity throughout B.C.”

[10:10 a.m.]

They support that mission statement with the following statement: “On average, our customers experience fewer than two outages per year.” However, our growing community has experienced 51 outages in 38 months, and those outages are of some substance. This is an average of over 16 outages per year, not fewer than two. Our average outage is over six hours, with many being over 12 hours and several being over 24. It is our contention that, in our case, B.C. Hydro is failing miserably in fulfilling its own mission statement to provide reliable power.

Over the last two years plus, we’ve had several meetings directly with B.C. Hydro, and we’ve had innumerable two-way communications with them. I will say amicably, okay? They have recognized our extreme situation. Hydro has even identified and shared with us remedial actions they could consider taking to minimize our problem. The one remedy that continually comes to the fore, in those discussions with B.C. Hydro, to help mitigate our situation is to provide us with a secondary power source to support our present power source. Hydro says — not us — that this remedy could be achieved by bringing in a secondary source across the narrow 250 metres of the Harrison River from Kent.

It appears that on several occasions they have investigated that potential but that Hydro’s guesstimated cost of $10 million to do that — I’m an engineer by profession; I obviously was in the wrong business, by the way — is beyond Hydro’s own internal cost-benefit parameters. Even though the solution is theirs, even though it would fulfil their mission statement to us, they are reluctant, from a cost-benefit perspective, to solve the problem for the thousands of British Columbians that have been affected — and the businesses in the area.

In conclusion, with B.C. Hydro being a provincial Crown corporation, answerable in the final analysis to the provincial government, we feel it is not unreasonable to expect the government and/or Hydro to make funds — potentially the $10 million they feel it would take — available to remedy this totally unacceptable but, according to Hydro, rectifiable situation.

Thank you. Any questions?

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

Any questions at all?

N. Simons: Thank you very much for your presentation and for choosing your words very precisely and carefully.

Are all of those 2,500 people affected by all of those power outages you mentioned?

D. Wright: A general comment would be yes. It does vary a bit, more or less, but in general, if you go into Hydro’s outage history, you’ll find that it invariably hits all of those 2,500. They actually do count it on a customer basis — residential or, in other words, a customer being in a location. Invariably, it shows 1,200 or 1,300 residences affected. So yes.

N. Simons: Just as a follow-up, did Hydro disclose any other communities with similar challenges?

D. Wright: We asked the question. Again, I’m going to say clearly — to be fair to Hydro — that our discussions have been very amicable. We asked them to give us any indication of other communities that have a similar feedline issue and what their outage problem was. They came back, and they told us very clearly that we were anywhere between three and four times an equivalent situation.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): One of those equivalent situations is the feed that comes into Peachland, and Hydro has been looking in there and has costed it out. The costs, again, were more than anticipated, and now they’re looking at alternative options.

My heart goes out to you. The Peachland area — an area I’m fortunate enough to be able to represent — doesn’t have the number of outages that you’ve said, but it is an area of concern because it affects not only Peachland but part of West Kelowna. Thank you. It’ll be a point of discussion.

D. Wright: As a point of interest, the two communities that Hydro used to compare us with, because these two com­munities have a “single line,” were actually Cultus Lake and Harrison Hot Springs.

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

We’re just going to take a short, two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 10:15 a.m. to 10:21 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

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

Next I’d like to invite Watershed Watch Salmon Society — Lina Azeez.

How are you? Nice to see you.

L. Azeez: Nice to see you too.

Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for this opportunity to be here today. I understand I have five minutes and you’ll let me know.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes.

WATERSHED WATCH SALMON SOCIETY

L. Azeez: Okay. My name is Lina. I work for Watershed Watch Salmon Society.

I’d like to acknowledge we’re having this meeting on the unceded territory of the Sumas First Nation.

Just last week we were in the room across from here hosting a conference called Resilient Waters: Managing Floods For All. It was a really eye-opening event. We invited MLAs from the lower Fraser, MPs as well, local academia and even some folks from across the border in Washington state to talk about how we could be managing floods in a way that does not impact or continue to impact our local ecology. Of course, Watershed Watch comes from a place of speaking about salmon, but this is an issue that really crosses boundaries.

Why we are here today is really to address the fact that flood infrastructure in the lower Fraser is currently…. There are discussions about improving the way we manage for floods and improving our diking infrastructure. We think this is a really great opportunity to look at impacts of dikes and do them in a way that will help to enhance salmon habitat rather than continue to hinder it.

In the pamphlets I gave you, the centrefold is a map. We actually decided to map the issue of fish passage in the Lower Fraser. What we realized is that 1,500 kilometres of waterways just in the Lower Mainland are impacted. So that’s side channels, sloughs and tributaries to the Fraser River that are impacted by various kinds of dike management structures. So floodgates, pump stations and of course just simply the dikes themselves.

These habitats are really integral for overwintering coho and also for rearing chinook. Chinook, as they make their way down the Fraser River…. As you know, the chinook have been highlighted as at risk through COSEWIC. These waterways are really integral as part of their life cycle. So they will duck into these slow-moving channels, get out of the freshet as much as possible, and then make their way down to the Fraser River — down to the estuary and out to the ocean.

These waterways are also really important for many provincially listed species at risk, such as the coastal cutthroat, the Nooksack dace, the brassy minnow, shrews, the red-legged frog and various other blue-listed species here on the coast.

[10:25 a.m.]

What came up at the meeting last week…. Two main things came out: the need to collaborate closer together and identifying that we do still continue to work in silos…. Emergency management B.C. is solely focused on the protection of homes and farms. Totally valid, of course. But we think that in order for us to build resiliency into our ecosystem, we need to also be considering the impacts of this type of infrastructure on all of these habitats. So collaboration came up as one really important issue.

The second thing was not having access to stable funding to do this kind of work. That came up especially from local governments. That’s where we heard it the most. For example, if a local government is looking to improve their flood infrastructure, they need to compete with other municipalities for that funding.

Often this funding tends to move around political lifespans. Every four years there seems to be more funding. Projects need to be shovel-ready in order to get funded, and there is just not a sufficient funnel of stable, long-term funding to allow for proper flood management to be considered.

Just last year, in 2018, UBCM put forward a resolution. It was resolution B119. It was titled: “Upgrade flood infrastructure to consider fish and access to fish habitat.” That was, of course, directed at FLNRO. One of the points that was identified in there was for the provincial government to initiate “infrastructure funding priorities and partnerships that support the installation of fish-friendly infrastructure in those locations where aging or inadequate infrastructure requires upgrading or replacement.”

That was just last year, in September. More recently — was it March of this year? — the B.C. Wild Salmon Advisory Council released their draft recommendations for a made-in-B.C. wild salmon strategy. Strategy 1.4 identified reconnecting waterways impacted by flood infrastructure as an immediate action that can be taken to improve salmon populations.

Supporting municipalities with long-term, stable funding to do this work would definitely be addressing some of the issues that I’ve just identified.

Ultimately, our ask is to include…. There are a couple of different things. One is less directly connected to this committee, but I’ll mention it. It’s to include fish-friendly criteria in infrastructure funding and provide direct funding for fish-friendly priorities. Those are the two things we’re looking at. Include these criteria into funds that are already in place. That’s one way to address it. Also, create a standalone fund that incentivizes municipalities to assess, plan and carry out comprehensive flood management planning for their communities.

What we’re suggesting is a $5 million fund per year over ten years, in collaboration with the federal government, to address this. The B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund, which is potentially one avenue — that’s a DFO fund — to address some of this, is super oversubscribed, and it doesn’t just focus on flood infrastructure. It looks at all kinds of restoration issues all over the province. So it’s not something that’s focused enough for this.

We have applied to the B.C. SRIF, hoping to bring some of this money to local government. Partnering that with provincial funds would also be really successful, I think. Dedicated funding is what we’re looking for.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re at about 6:40, so if you could wrap it up.

L. Azeez: Just to wrap up, we think the province supporting this work will bring numerous benefits. Climate change adaptation is one of them. First Nations reconciliation. We are working with First Nations communities to do this work. It would create infrastructure jobs, improve recreation and aesthetics.

Bob, I’m sure you know that in the riding next to yours, we do canoe tours of the Katzie Slough. It’s a great way to get people out on the water and improve habitat there.

It will rebuild at-risk fish and wildlife populations and, of course, improve flood hazard mitigation for communities and for farmland as well.

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

I have a quick question in regards to your picture, your diagram, which was very helpful. Are the black flood box and pump stations not…? Are any of them fish-friendly?

L. Azeez: Exactly.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. So the point is….

L. Azeez: We’ve identified 156, but our mapping consultant was saying that there might actually be more that we’re not aware of.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

L. Azeez: That’s just in the Lower Fraser. That’s not in this area or anywhere else.

[10:30 a.m.]

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation.

There are an awful lot of communities in British Columbia that live in valleys and are surrounded by…. I mean, we choose rivers to settle. This is just the Lower Fraser.

You’re suggesting that $5 million a year would be sufficient. Just to be clear about that, because this is opening the floodgates.

I guess the bigger question is: how can we implement a managed retreat, in essence? If we’re talking about dikes, we are talking about barriers. If we are looking at mitigating the impacts of flood protection, what is the solution that is affordable?

L. Azeez: Affordable? I guess it ends up being: how much do you value where you live? If it has a lot of value, we’re willing to put a lot of money into protecting it, I think.

R. Leonard: What do you expect to achieve with $5 million? I guess that’s the better….

L. Azeez: First of all, we have identified these waterways. What we’d like to do is work with the local municipalities. We’ve already started working with Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and the city of Chilliwack to help them find alternatives to simply just doing the status quo, engineered, build a wall. So looking at bioengineering solutions, things like that. Putting in floodgates that actually open longer so there is that connectivity to some of these waterways.

Some of these municipalities already have budgeted for the status quo solution. It’ll take an additional amount of money. For Pitt Meadows, I was hearing…. Each pump station would cost an additional $1 million to make it fish friendly. A fund like this could help top up their budgets to move towards those solutions.

What we’d like to do is, first, address some of this. This year we’re hoping to prioritize waterways so we could, then, be…. These are the top ten that we really think, if we work on them, will be the biggest bang for the buck. That’s where we hope this $5 million would help: to top up city budgets and to encourage them to go in a more fish-friendly direction.

R. Leonard: I really like your idea of having that fish-friendly criteria lens.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re out of time, unless there are any other questions.

Thank you so much, Lina. We appreciate everything you’re doing for salmon and fish passageways. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have Selina Huang from Emily Carr Students Union via teleconference.

Just a reminder. If you could keep your initial comments to five minutes so we have time for questions, that would be great. Go ahead.

EMILY CARR STUDENTS UNION

S. Huang: First of all, I’d like to thank you for this opportunity to present recommendations on behalf of the Emily Carr Students Union. To start, as the chairperson, I can say that we are pleased to be working with a government that has been so responsive to students. We appreciate the removal of interest rates on B.C. student loans, the removal of tuition fees for youth transitioning out of care and the support for on-line education resources.

My recommendations today align with the goals of the government: to deliver services that British Columbians can count on. I intend to go from recommendation No. 3, operational funding, in the advanced education section of the 2018 report of this committee. The report states: “Increase operational funding to post-secondary institutions and expand the number of seats available to students, including at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Simon Fraser University’s Surrey campus, to address the increased demand for post-secondary training and education in B.C.” I will focus on the first part of this recommendation: simply to increase operational funding to post-secondary institutions.

I am aware of the funding challenges at Emily Carr University. I am also aware that these are systemwide problems. In 2007, provincial base grants provided 50 percent of the institution’s revenue. In 2017 and 2018, it has been reduced to 48 percent of the revenue, with increasing tuition fees making up the gap.

Opportunities that alleviate budget challenges include funding graduate programs in special purpose teaching universities. Emily Carr University has a master’s of design and a master’s of fine arts. These programs produce leaders in their fields and are a great contribution to both the vibrancy of the province and to the development of skilled leaders in the technology sectors.

[10:35 a.m.]

As Emily Carr University is defined as a special purpose teaching university, these programs receive no per-student funding from the province. Funding the 63 domestic seats at an estimated cost of $20,000 per seat, or $1.26 million, will greatly mitigate the strain on the institutional budget. The existence of these graduate programs results in an active research culture at the university, and the campus community then has an opportunity to engage in various projects. For example, one project funded by the Vancouver Foundation is using participatory design methods to address Indigenous health issues in northern B.C.

Another aspect of the funding challenge that could be addressed is funding to reduce faculty workload. Declining operational funding is impacting students’ learning environments, and students are experiencing the pressures of underfunding in the classroom. Compared to the arts and design education sector, regular studio faculty at Emily Carr are required to teach a full-time course load of five classes, both in the fall semester and the spring semester.

With a limited budget for regular faculty positions, the university has an overreliance on low-paid, precarious labour in the form of sessional faculty. The result is that the majority of the faculty members are not available to assist students, have limited time to devote to the creation of new curriculum and have limited time to ensure that they continue to develop professionally as technology and software evolve.

The fatigue of these funding challenges permeates the campus community and has created a negative environment where the full potential and contributions of the university and its students are not able to be fully realized. Providing funding to assist the university in achieving a reduced teaching load for regular faculty and a shift to a more balanced composition and ratio of regular faculty and sessional faculty is estimated to have a cost of $5.8 million.

As a student in my second year of interaction design, I believe that this is a critical investment that will not only develop B.C.’s talents but will also enable Emily Carr University to continue to be a high-quality post-secondary institution in our province.

Thank you for your time. I welcome any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Selina. Appreciate that.

Any questions from the members?

M. Dean: Thank you for taking the time to present today as well. It’s interesting hearing the perspective and the impact on students. So thank you for that.

Do you have an understanding of the proportion of teaching time that now is being delivered by non-regular staff members?

S. Huang: As in how many courses they would teach per semester?

M. Dean: Yeah. And what percentage that is of the total number of courses taught.

S. Huang: Yes. For sessional faculty, they would be teaching a minimum of one or two classes per semester, and they don’t have to teach in both semesters. The current ratio of regular faculty to sessional faculty is 42 percent regular and 58 percent sessional. Our target ratio is 55 percent regular faculty and 45 percent sessional.

M. Dean: Thank you. That’s helpful.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Well, thank you very much, Selina, for your comments. We appreciate you presenting to the committee.

S. Huang: Thank you so much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have British Columbia Stone, Sand and Gravel Association — Tyson Craiggs.

B.C. STONE, SAND
AND GRAVEL ASSOCIATION

T. Craiggs: Hi, everybody. Committee Chair D’Eith, Vice-Chair Ashton and all members, thank you for the opportunity to present to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services on behalf of the British Columbia aggregate industry and our member companies.

It’s a privilege to speak to you this morning on our industry’s recommendation for the 2020 provincial budget. In addition to my comments to the committee, our association will be providing a formal submission which details our recommendations. I will speak to the high-level nature of that submission today.

The B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association is a non-profit organization that represents the aggregate industry in our province. Our diverse membership consists of both small operators as well as some of the most recognizable companies in the sector.

Our industry provides tens of millions of tonnes of stone, sand and gravel required for the construction of every road, hospital, school and other infrastructure projects throughout the province. Every community across B.C. relies on a local pit or a quarry to achieve their municipal infrastructure requirements. We are proud that our industry and our members’ companies provide direct and indirect community-supporting jobs across the province. Every aspect of British Columbia’s transportation and infrastructure system relies on our provincial stone, sand and gravel resources.

[10:40 a.m.]

We believe that our association, along with our members in the province of B.C., has many shared priorities. These include supporting economic growth throughout the province and making life more affordable for British Columbians.

B.C.’s natural resource and industrial development are the backbone of the province’s strong, sustainable economy. We’d like to support continued economic development throughout the province. It is crucial that B.C. has a strong transportation and logistical infrastructure network. Facilitating trade and delivering the goods and services that British Columbians rely on is a shared priority between the government and our members.

Therefore, one of the main messages I want to convey to the committee today is that British Columbia needs sustained investment in core transportation and infrastructure. We are pleased to see that the budget in 2019 did commit additional funding to many infrastructure projects throughout the province, and the BCSSGA applauds the government for taking that decision. We think it is critical that those investments continue.

BCSSGA shares in the province’s belief that British Columbians should have access to safe, reliable and affordable housing. Our members live in the same communities they work in, and we as an association are committed to working with our provincial, municipal and First Nations partners to help make life more affordable.

However, it is a fact that rising costs of construction are outpacing inflation and leading to increased prices of residential development and community infrastructure. All of these projects rely on local aggregate producers. It is essential that there is a cost-competitive and steady supply of materials to support our infrastructure needs and provincial affordability objectives. A challenge for our industry is the associated transportation costs of providing building materials. This often has the greatest effect on Lower Mainland construction and development, as these projects are farther away from local quarry and resources.

While our producers work every day to lower operating costs and provide reliable aggregate resources at competitive prices, related transportation costs mean they are forced to pass these on to the consumer in the form of increased building costs, which ultimately contribute to higher home prices. This further exacerbates the Lower Mainland’s affordability crisis. In an effort to address these rising costs and pressures, the association has, as a part of our submission to the committee, provided a number of recommendations related to various incentives that we believe would help reduce these pressures and positively contribute to the shared objective of making life more affordable for British Columbians.

Broadly speaking, these recommendations include a provincial new-home buyers rebate on the purchase of new homes throughout the province, infrastructure incentive programs designed to reduce public infrastructure costs for municipalities and a developer incentive program that encourages proactive affordable residential development, including rental housing development. The combined effect of these incentives, we believe, will not only support our industry and the people that work in it but will also have a positive impact on communities across the province, notably in the Lower Mainland, where growing development costs continue to make housing more expensive.

The aggregate industry in British Columbia is a vital component of our provincial economy. Transportation, housing, health care and other infrastructure projects all depend on the materials our industry provides. We believe that our association and our members can be partners with the provincial government as we work towards our many shared priorities, including helping to make life more affordable for British Columbians.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to present today. On behalf of our members, we are grateful for the opportunity to participate in this consultation, and we look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the provincial government and other stakeholders. I’d be pleased to answer questions you may have.

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

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation. You mentioned a couple of times about the increasing costs of development, especially in the Lower Mainland, and then that has a ripple effect. What suggestions would you have for moderating the escalating cost per square foot of physically building new houses?

T. Craiggs: I mentioned in the speech the distance that our quarries and pits are from the market. A lot of our pits are located out in this area, in Abbotsford, and these products are moving into Surrey and to Vancouver, Maple Ridge, that type of thing. Having these gravel pits and quarries in our communities would be a way we could reduce costs. So permitting projects that are currently in any of those areas would be something that we’d like, moving forward.

M. Dean: But if that had always been the system, how come the costs are escalating so much?

[10:45 a.m.]

T. Craiggs: Well, we have…. Rising fuel costs are very big in our industry, and distance production costs, costs for our equipment and things like that.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you, sir, for your presentation.

We just got back from the north, and it was interesting to hear that Fort St. John has these challenges for aggregate and availability and then to hear that the Kitimat-Terrace area has some of the world’s largest resources of aggregate. So it’s not distributed fairly amongst the province.

T. Craiggs: Yes.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation, and thanks for coming out. It’s much appreciated.

One of things we heard up in Fort St. John was on the state of the roads, and it had to do with the high-impact vehicles. I forget what they were called, but basically heavy vehicles.

I was wondering, in terms of when you’re transporting your aggregate, whether or not you’re classified as one of those heavy vehicles, and if you pay anything extra — I’m not sure what the word would be — in taxing or something to accommodate the impact of your travel on the provincial roads.

T. Craiggs: The amount of aggregate that we can carry on vehicles is restricted by the Ministry of Transportation — the weight. So if you’re talking about the effect on the roads, lowering the weight on those vehicles would increase your cost as the end-user. That is a fine line with how our product is priced — how we get it to market.

R. Leonard: So you are limited in the weight?

T. Craiggs: We are, yes. And if you compare us to other provinces, we are heavier than other provinces. In Alberta, for instance, I believe it’s a maximum of 36 tonnes per vehicle, and we’re up at 39.5. I believe that has a lot to do with the distance that our quarries and our pits are from the market. That’s why that is.

R. Coleman: Thanks, Tyson. The reality, also, is that in the Lower Mainland, because we don’t have rural and remote roads built a different way, you’re basically restricted to truck routes that have the load-carrying capacity on the roads and the highways.

It’s always ironic whenever I hear a presentation about sand and gravel and aggregate. All you have to do is look outside at the highway. That’s all aggregate. The suspended slab floor we’re sitting on right now, the parking lot, all of this stuff is products…. We can’t build virtually anything without your product. So thanks for coming today.

T. Craiggs: Yeah. A big, important part of our association is getting that message out to the public. We have that feeling provincewide — that “not in my backyard” — for these gravel pits. But you forget that everyone that works in our gravel pit has a good-paying job that allows you to afford a house. I think promoting that’ll just make things easier on your end as well as ours.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Tyson. We appreciate the presentation.

Next up we have Surrey Board of Trade — Anita Huberman.

SURREY BOARD OF TRADE

A. Huberman: Good morning, members of the committee.

I’m the CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade. The Surrey Board of Trade is a member-based business organization. We have 6,000 business contacts as members. Surrey is going to be the largest city in British Columbia by 2040. I’m just going to touch on some high-level concepts, given the time restrictions, and a detailed presentation to follow by email.

I wanted to, in your consideration of B.C. budget priorities, just indicate the importance of education to business, to ensuring that we’re preparing our students for today and for tomorrow, that we’re investing in early childhood educators for early childhood education, as point 1.

[10:50 a.m.]

Point 2. In Surrey, as you know, a third of our population is under the age of 19, and many of our students continue to go to school in portables. There needs to be a solution around quality childhood education in the K-to-12 sector. The Surrey Board of Trade…. We’re part of a unique grassroots consortium involving developers, homebuilders, parents and, of course, business — to speak to that same message.

The third item is around investment for Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Simon Fraser University. We know that the South Fraser region is a growing region. We need more student seats for both of those public university institutions so that we can continue to keep our brain trust in Surrey. The concept of housing affordability also ties into that. We have a thriving development and construction sector in Surrey, but the whole concept around affordable housing and our young people leaving is compromising our ability and our mandate to attract business and good-quality jobs and keep business in our city.

So education, housing. Of course, mixed in with that is transportation in Surrey. We all know what has happened in Surrey. But I continue to urge the B.C. government to continue investing in transportation infrastructure as it relates to Surrey. We need to make sure that Surrey is a destination, not just a thoroughfare from Langley to Vancouver.

On the concept of health care, we know that with a growing population, we need more health care infrastructure, and we are composing a policy perspective that is more focused on preventative health care and primary care, in addition to the need for a second hospital.

The other concept that I wanted to indicate to you is taxation. Business is burdened by taxation, the ongoing erosion of their bottom line, the employers health tax. There needs to be a threshold revisit to that employers health tax. Revenue streams — you need to continue focusing on that, to bring in that good money to reinvest in our cities.

Public safety infrastructure. We know what’s happening in Surrey, about the reconsideration of our public safety force. Our position at the Surrey Board of Trade is to harness our existing RCMP in these uncertain economic times, focus on judicial accountability. It will be a cost for the province to transform Surrey’s police force.

We need to invest in art investments in our K-to-12 sector. We have artificial intelligence, Industry 4.0, in our workplaces in a variety of pathways, and we need that art education to be reimplemented, to be revisited, so that we can focus on the creative minds that are needed for today’s and tomorrow’s workplaces.

We are working together with our city of Surrey to transform our Fraser River waterfront. The city of New West is doing amazing things, especially with the rebuild of the Pattullo Bridge happening shortly, and the Surrey side needs to be transformed from a short sea shipping corridor, a tourism destination, a walkable, livable community, to make it a destination and a cultural corridor.

I wanted to also indicate that the province must consider focusing more infrastructure, more funding, on youth, international trade, small and medium-sized enterprises south of the Fraser. There’s still too much of a focus north of the river.

I’m open to any questions, knowing that a more detailed presentation is to follow from the Surrey Board of Trade. Thank you for your time this morning.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you, Anita. That was very well timed. There was a lot in there. We really appreciate your passion for Surrey and your comments.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation.

The last point that you made. I was wondering if you can flesh that out a little bit, where you talked about investments in international trade. I’m assuming this is infrastructure.

[10:55 a.m.]

A. Huberman: Well, it’s more to the point of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology investing for businesses that have to go to Vancouver to receive international trade support. Businesses in Surrey, Langley, south of the Fraser don’t have time to spend in traffic to go to Vancouver. So there needs to be investment partnerships with chambers of commerce, boards of trade, on this side of the river to provide that support.

We just started a program with the Canadian trade commissioner office called ExportSpark to really hone in on a one-stop support program, global market integration toolkit for businesses to access the right market to sell their product or service. But we need some support from the province as well, on this side of the river.

R. Leonard: Thank you.

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

Great. Well, thank you so much for your presentation. We really appreciate everything you brought. We look forward to your written submission.

A. Huberman: Thank you very much.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have Canadian Mental Health Association, British Columbia division — Canon Fung, Jonny Morris and Kendra Milne.

If you could keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great. That allows us the time for questions. So please proceed.

CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, B.C. DIVISION

C. Fung: Hello. My name is Canon Fung, and I’m a director on the board of governors of the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. Division. I’m proud to be here today on behalf of CMHA.

Before beginning, I would like to first acknowledge that we are presenting today on traditional, unceded Stó:lō territory, and specifically the territory of Sumas and Matsqui First Nations.

CMHA is the most established mental health charity in Canada, with over 100 years of history. Our vision is mentally healthy people in a healthy society, and we believe that mental health for everyone begins with where we live, work and play. In B.C., CMHA operates through a provincial office, the B.C. division we represent, and 14 community-based branches, serving over 100 communities throughout the province. We provide service, advocacy and research to better support the mental health of all people in B.C.

I will now hand it over to our CEO, Jonny Morris.

J. Morris: Thanks so much, everyone. Good to see you, committee members. Thank you for allowing us some time on your agenda.

Canon is one of our volunteer governors, and Kendra here is our senior director of policy and government relations. You have a set of materials in front of you, and I’ll just call your attention to the third slide where it says, “B.C. context, historic underfunding,” just before I build some of the case before launching into two recommendations that we’re bringing forward to the committee this morning.

CMHA B.C. regularly hears from individuals and families that B.C.’s mental health and addictions system lacks coordination and capacity to support people when they need it. People with mental health and substance use–related illnesses and the people close to them report searching for services and support, but run into a fragmented system that is difficult to navigate and that presents lengthy wait-lists for, or an absence of, publically funded services.

As a result, if individuals cannot pay for private care, they are often unable to access effective health and social supports early on in their illness. And I think all of us know, at this table, the value of intervening early and preventing mental illness in the first place. Instead, their health may decline into a crisis that is serious enough to allow them to access care through the hospital or criminal justice systems, both of which often involve police.

That’s a bit of the context, and our role as an organization is to bring forward those voices and those experiences. We’re very cognizant of what the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is currently doing in leading change in this regard. We understand that there’s a strategy on the horizon that apportions funding from this past budget. But if committee members would look at the fourth slide here with two pie charts. What we’re trying to describe here is the disease burden versus spending.

[11:00 a.m.]

What we would like to see, and what leads into our first recommendation, is a world in which budget funding here — and we look at other jurisdictions like New Zealand, who’ve just launched a well-being budget in this regard — gets closer to where the disease burden of mental health and addictions is actually reflected in what gets spent on mental health and addictions care. In many ways, getting to a place where physical health is actually on a more equal footing with mental health and addictions spending moving forward.

Our first recommendation for the committee to hear in its considerations for next year’s budget is to increase funding for mental health and substance use services to 9 percent of total health care spending and to ring-fence those funds to ensure that they’re dedicated to mental health and substance use services within a matrix of common performance standards. The 9 percent is a value that has been put forward by a number of global organizations. It looks at the overall health spend.

Currently, in British Columbia, we fall short of that spend, depending on the health authority region that you’re in. So we’re asking government to consider that 9 percent spend, which would actually lift and create a base increase in health authorities across the province to meet the need moving forward.

The second recommendation for committee members’ consideration here is to not only increase the base level of spend in the formal mental health system — the services that are delivered by our regional health authority partners — but to increase funding for upstream community-based services that promote mental wellness before people experience illness or crisis. In that second recommendation, we’re talking about organizations — not just the Canadian Mental Health Association but community organizations — that exist in community.

I think of you, MLA Dean, in your previous life in community services in Victoria. Those services provide a vital level of care at the prevention and early intervention stage, and it would be great to see an increase in funding to help keep people out of hospital and help keep people out of the criminal justice system too.

One piece I’d emphasize here…. It’s a program we lead, so that’s something we’re very familiar with. We lead a program that’s actually received funding recently, and it’s a good example of smart spending. We’ve had an investment in Confident Parents, Thriving Kids, which is a behavioural program. It’s a program that helps parents with kids with early signs of behavioural difficulty.

For every kid that we support and actually help get better, it’s a quarter-million-dollar saving for that kid, who doesn’t end up either excluded from school or end up in the justice system because of behavioural problems. It’s that old adage of actually intervening early, up the river, and all of those metaphors around how we can actually spend early on to avoid paying a great deal amount of money later on when that young person is in crisis and, really, when there are very limited resources for that young person later on in life.

We’re a good example, and we’re not the only entity that does this work. Other agencies do beautiful and powerful and important work in this area. So we’re calling for a wholesale increase in funding for upstream community-based services.

Noting the time, Chair, I’m just at five minutes.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much for all your work.

I can say personally that most families are touched by mental health issues. Mine is like any other family. I have a brother who’s been schizophrenic for over 30 years, and I know how difficult it is to navigate the system. Part of the reason I ran in the first place was to fight for what you fight for every day.

Thank you so much for the work that you do. It’s very important, and I really appreciate it.

J. Morris: Thank you, Chair.

M. Dean: Thank you for your presentation and for all the work that you do as well.

I’m interested in your stat of the 54 percent increase. Do you have that broken down by children and youth and adults and also by gender?

J. Morris: Maybe I’ll have a first kick at the question and then turn to Kendra for some detail. We do know that government absolutely has that breakdown of data. Actually, I think it’s publicly available on their website. You can see groups of people across the lifespan — so people under 19 and younger who are detained under the act, and older. From my understanding of that data, we’re actually seeing increases across each of those age groups over the past series of years.

Hopefully, I’m answering your question, MLA Dean.

Kendra, would you add any detail to that?

K. Milne: All that data is available, and I would mirror Jonny’s comments that it’s not specific to any particular age group or gender, as far as we know. What we do know is that voluntary treatment under the Mental Health Act has declined and the increase in involuntary treatment has gone up over the same period. So folks are getting treated involuntarily as opposed to voluntarily.

M. Dean: From your expertise and your experience, can you provide any understanding of that to us?

[11:05 a.m.]

J. Morris: I think what it would point to is an inaccessibility of voluntary services early on enough in a person’s trajectory of illness to get them the care they need.

When we’re talking about involuntary care, you’re right at the end of the line, where all options have been exhausted. We would state the claim that if you’re seeing this kind of steady increase and the increase is continuing, arguably, there is a failure of services in the community to respond to the need early on.

N. Simons: Thank you for your presentation.

What can you point to, to demonstrate a decrease in the availability of voluntary services?

J. Morris: Well, I think it’s that correlation there. There would be some data to suggest that funding hasn’t increased in the health authority system for some time. But there have been a series of recent investments in the community sector, and we gratefully acknowledge that we are the recipient of a number of those funds, along with a number of our partners.

Definitively, to actually point to a statistic that points to a decline? I wouldn’t be able to do that today, MLA Simons. But we would say that there is something happening if we’re seeing greater rates of involuntary care.

I was in front of another committee a couple of weeks ago on the police complaint commissioner. The coroner had just released a report saying the police have become the de facto mental health system. I think if we’re at a point in time where the police service are the de facto mental health, that causes, I think, a reflection on government’s part and all of our parts of what we might need to do to change that — knowing that we’re heading in the right direction in a number of areas.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleagues, also, getting on this track.

When you say involuntary treatment, do you mean involuntary admissions? Because I want to talk a little bit about quality of what you’re saying when you say treatment.

J. Morris: It’s an excellent question. Under the act, you can be…. I turn to Kendra, who has lots of legal expertise in this area.

Involuntary admission means your legal status changes, and you’re actually being involuntarily held within a hospital. Involuntary treatment in B.C. The state has the ability to involuntarily treat someone without their consent, which means, actually, treatments administered. It might be an injection or another kind of treatment. That can also happen. There’s two components there.

Kendra, would you add any detail to that too?

K. Milne: No. Just that the statistic is based on unique discharges from folks that are treated under the involuntary category, which creates a separate administrative process around safeguards around when that’s happening.

It would be folks that are held under those provisions of the Mental Health Act or being treated in community under those provisions.

R. Leonard: If I can just complete that. Do you know the length of involuntary treatment?

J. Morris: It varies across age group, and it varies across conditions. For some conditions, the average length of stay is anywhere from four to six days in a hospital. We’ve seen reports that would indicate that length of stay can actually be a number of months. Kendra is describing involuntary care in community, so that’s a very restrictive kind of care in community that can actually go on for months and months and months.

Under the act, you can be treated indefinitely. You could actually be detained indefinitely under the act and be in community under care indefinitely.

R. Leonard: You mentioned police. I know that I’ve heard, when police report to city councils, around some difficult people in the community who they take in who are discharged, and they take them in multiple times a day. They’re not actually…. Your numbers represent only those who are admitted. I just wanted to….

J. Morris: Yes. That would be correct.

K. Milne: I think when we talk about increases to health authority and community-based funding, one of the things those can cover are things like…. We know there are massive wait-lists for things like assertive community treatment. So when folks are hospitalized and into that system, they then, when they’re discharged, enter into a very assertively supportive but also kind of very dignity- and rights-based system that can support them to live in the community to stop that.

We know that B.C. has very high rates of that continued cycle of repeat hospitalizations.

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

Next up we have United Way of the Lower Mainland — Kahir Lalji.

If we could try to keep the initial comments to five minutes, that would be great. Please go ahead.

[11:10 a.m.]

UNITED WAY OF THE LOWER MAINLAND

K. Lalji: Today I’m here to present on the Better at Home program, which is funded through the province of British Columbia and the Ministry of Health, which is managed by the United Way of the Lower Mainland and which is implemented by over 100 service delivery partners, which are municipalities and non-profit organizations across the province.

By 2036, one in four British Columbians will be over the age of 65. We also know that we are fortunate to have British Columbia be home to seven of Canada’s eldest communities. We also know that of the 900,000 older British Columbians in British Columbia, 93 percent live in community and are not living in an institution.

Six years ago, based on a pilot called Community Action for Seniors Independence, older British Columbians, their families, their friends, their caregivers and service providers were all consulted with regard to gaps in service delivery that would support older British Columbians to age at home for longer and to remain active, connected and engaged. Since the pilot six years ago, Better at Home now serves 12,000 older British Columbians, with an additional 4,000 older British Columbians on a wait-list, waiting for services.

The typical profile of a Better at Home participant is a female between the ages of 75 and 84 years old that lives alone, across the province. Better at Home operates across the province from the village of Granisle to the Robson Valley to Metro Vancouver down to the southern Gulf Islands and is a community-based program that’s responsive to the needs of older adults in their communities. It is a volunteer-based model, with over 4,500 volunteers across the province, run by a paid program coordinator.

Over the course of the last 2½ years, we’ve conducted four evaluations of the Better at Home program. The first one was done, intentionally, with the four largest First Nations communities: Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Cowichan Tribes, the Gitxsan Nation and Stó:lō territory. Through the development of OCAP principles and working with the chiefs and councils, we were able to understand some real, iterative learnings of the way Better at Home is supporting Aboriginal elders.

We then took an evaluation of the way Better at Home was working in rural B.C. with regional districts or communities with a population of less than 500 to understand the impact that the program has had on the lives of older people in communities where access to traditional health care services has not been traditionally as available.

We also did a summative evaluation — some of the findings are in the presentation that you have in front of you — where 90 percent of older people surveyed said they felt that they could stay at home longer, where a large number of caregivers saw this program as a form of respite, as well as…. So 4,500 volunteers participated in the program. Out of the 4,500, 2,500 responded to our survey, of whom 60 percent are over the age of 55. They found that volunteering through this program also enabled them to be connected and engaged in their local communities.

Today we present three asks. We are thankful to the province of British Columbia for the increase of $1 million in the 2018 fiscal year to expand into six new communities across the province. We currently have a list of 42 MLAs and mayors across the province continuously advocating for the expansion of Better at Home into their programs. We have done statistical analysis of the number of older adults that reside in the communities that have no other programs or services and have a population base of older adults that make up close to one-third of their aggregate population and are in need of this program — in fear of being forced to relocate out of their communities.

We are looking here for three asks. One is a 4 percent cost-of-living increase. This program has not received a cost-of-living increase since its inception six years ago, and we understand that the cost of living has increased. Some of the main services we provide are transportation, grocery shopping and housekeeping, and those cost-of-living rates have increased, but funding for our cost-of-living increases has not. So one is a 4 percent cost-of-living increase.

Currently the program is funded out of end-of-year funding. We are looking to receive multi-year contributions to give families, their caregivers and the staff stability in their job and security in their job but also confidence that the services will not be taken back at the end of each fiscal year.

[11:15 a.m.]

We are also looking for additional expansion. We have, like I said, close to 42 MLAs and communities who are advocating for the program, and we are looking to expand into six to ten more communities in the upcoming fiscal. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks so much. We did have a presentation just a little while ago in regards to long-term care beds.

I’m just wondering. How would the Better at Home program help to mitigate some of the need for long-term care beds? I’m just wondering if you could maybe tell us a little bit more on that.

K. Lalji: Better at Home provides non-medical supports, so it’s an upstream preventative program. The idea is to enable older people to stay at home for longer so as to delay the onset of age-related illnesses, which could require forced relocation. We are currently working with the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research to determine the impact of Better at Home and whether or not that has led to a decrease in health utilization. Preliminary results say that they have.

Now it is a longitudinal study, and in a longitudinal study, chronic illnesses do creep up over the course of time. But the research does indicate that they have been able to stay at home and avoid institutionalization.

M. Dean: Thanks for all of your work and for your presentation.

Just a couple of quick clarification questions. So the priority ask 1 is a 4 percent cost-of-living increase. How much in actual dollars would that be?

K. Lalji: It’s $370,000.

M. Dean: Okay. The extra $1 million that you did get…. You said you invested in six communities. But my understanding was that each community got $100,000. What was the range of money that each of those six communities got?

K. Lalji: Thank you for that clarifying question. As I had indicated, there were 4,000 older adults on the wait-list. A portion of funding went into six new communities, and the remainder of the portion went to alleviate, to bring down, the wait-list from 6,000 to 4,000 older adults across the province.

M. Dean: Thank you — helpful.

R. Leonard: One of my questions was around the wait-list, because I missed the number. But just to remind me, you said that the majority of people served are older women between the ages of 75 and 84. Is that correct?

K. Lalji: That’s a typical profile. So 74 percent of the participants are female, and 65 percent live alone. That’s the typical profile. And 40 percent are between the ages of 75 to 84.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Is that because men don’t live as long, or is that a different issue?

K. Lalji: In the community-based sector, 95 percent of those that receive services are women. There’s been a lot of research done as to why. Men tend to engage differently. Men are not always open to receiving those type of community services. There’s a whole field of research that’s looking at this idea of men sheds as a way to circumvent that. But across the sector, over 90 percent of participants across all community-based programs are female.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sorry to interrupt, Ronna-Rae. Go ahead.

R. Leonard: No, no. That’s okay.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Did you want to follow up?

R. Leonard: My comment was going to be that that confirms my experience that there’s a lot of older women who are living in poverty and don’t have access to the funds that might be able to support hiring people to do some of the things that these folks are doing.

K. Lalji: That’s correct.

R. Leonard: I just want to say that I’m really glad to hear that some funds went to communities to improve the wait-list, because I know the Better at Home project in my community didn’t advertise anymore, because they were trying to avoid the expectations of services that they could not provide because they didn’t have that capacity.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much for the program and for your time today.

Next up we have Alliance of B.C. Students — Gurvir Gill.

If we could try to keep the initial comments to five minutes — then we have time for questions — that would be good.

ALLIANCE OF B.C. STUDENTS

G. Gill: You got it.

First of all, hello, everyone.

Before I get started today, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered here today on the unceded territory of the Stó:lô people. We also recognize the Sumas, Matsqui and Kwantlen First Nations as our closest neighbours. It is important to remember and understand our history in order to build bridges towards a better and brighter future.

[11:20 a.m.]

My name is Gurvir Gill, and I am the newly elected chairperson of the Alliance of B.C. Students. Right away I’d like to thank the committee for your time, as I understand it’s valuable, and you folks have been in sessions for quite some time.

Today I will highlight two important areas for students in B.C. The alliance represents over 80,000 students in this province, ranging from undergraduate students to polytechnic students to graduate students. Today our two areas of focus are (1) mental health and (2) needs-based grants.

I’ll dive right into mental health. We are very grateful for all the investments that the government has made in prioritizing mental health over the last number of months. The proposed 24-7 mental health support service will address many of the concerns regarding lack of wait times and availability after regular working hours. As well, the $1 million investment in the development of on-campus peer support programs will also provide necessary social supports to many students.

These investments are welcomed and celebrated by the Alliance of B.C. Students. We thank the ministry, as well as all the supporters, for the tremendous amount of work you’re putting into mental health for students’ well-being.

However, while these investments are absolutely necessary, they don’t fully address many of the issues that students are facing when it comes to accessing necessary mental health support. Many students respond more positively to in-person counselling versus on-line services.

Therefore, one of our asks today is that we are calling on the provincial government to invest $2 million in annual funding to increase the number of full-time counsellors by one per institution. But with this funding, we want to ensure that students that need the most support and access have it. Many campuses and many institutions have regional campuses that don’t have any on-campus counselling services.

As well, students that live in rural areas have more of a hard time getting these on-campus services, as well as in marginalized communities. For example, Indigenous students face significant prejudice and discrimination, and most Indigenous students do not feel safe approaching a non-Indigenous person for personal support.

Similarly, the 2SLGBTQ+ students have difficulties accessing student supports, as well as supports due to the lack of understanding by counsellors with their personal needs, as well as queer issues in general. These students must be prioritized.

We, therefore, are calling on the government to mandate that counsellors hired with this funding will be specifically supporting traditionally marginalized students or to support regional campuses without campus counselling support.

Next I’ll dive into needs-based grants. B.C. is one of the only provinces that doesn’t have an upfront needs-based grants program. This is one of the largest priorities for the alliance but also for students across our country.

This program is essential to help students that can’t afford the upfront costs of post-secondary education. Therefore, their skills and passion will not be able to be fostered into the economic background.

While the elimination of the student loan interest on the provincial loans does elevate somewhat the interest rates compared to other loan sources, still keeping the cost high for these students…. Women loan holders make approximately 90 percent of what the average man makes, leaving even less disposable income at the end of the month to pay for things such as saving for a mortgage, raising a family or investing in personal capital.

Our goal is to ensure that students don’t have to make this difficult decision that puts their education and financial career on hold. While completion grants would be a positive step towards supporting students, we believe that getting the students the support they need to access post-secondary education in the first place should be a priority.

Therefore, we are calling on the provincial government to match the Canada student grants program in order to improve low- and middle-income students’ access to education and quality of life after graduation. This ask is projected to cost the government around $80 million per year.

In closing, I thank you for your time again, and I look forward to going into more depth with these asks and other student concerns later this year at our annual Lobby Days.

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

Any questions?

M. Dean: Just a little question of clarification. You represent 8,000 students.

G. Gill: It’s 80,000.

M. Dean: Oh, 80. Okay. So is it all students who are members of student unions, then?

G. Gill: Yep.

M. Dean: Okay. I misheard. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. We have been hearing this message from students. So I appreciate you coming in and your presentation. Seeing no more questions, thank you very much.

G. Gill: Thank you for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Members, we’re going to take a recess at this point. If we could please come back in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:25 a.m. to 11:35 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia — Walt Judas.

TOURISM INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

W. Judas: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity, and thank you for the work that you’re doing.

The Tourism Industry Association of B.C. represents the interests of 19,000-plus businesses and hundreds of thousands of employees that work in those businesses on issues that matter to our industry. Our vision is for tourism to be one of B.C.’s leading and sustainable industries. We are the third-largest industry in the province, but there is potential to grow to the next level.

If you see it on the handout that you have, a B.C. Chamber of Commerce survey noted that 90 percent of respondents think that B.C.’s visitor economy will become even more important over the next decade. Of course, tourism is known for generating jobs — we continue to do that on an annual basis — and for stimulating the economy. Particularly in rural parts of the province, tourism is at the forefront of sustainability initiatives, certainly on the reconciliation side. The tourism potential is there.

If you look at the next page on your handout, you can see some of the important stats in tourism over the course of the last number of years. In GDP, as measured by B.C. Stats, tourism is among the leaders, particularly when compared to other natural resource sectors. You can also see on the slide, from Statistics Canada, that every $100 million in spending on tourism generates $69 million in economic spinoff benefits and nearly 1,400 jobs. It compares to, again, a couple of other natural resource sectors.

When you look at tourism economic impact at a glance, in British Columbia we’ve had record-setting years in the past few years. We are now over an $18 billion industry, very significant to the health of our province. The federal government recently introduced its new federal tourism strategy and also made tourism one of the economic pillars. To that end, they have some pretty aggressive goals of boosting the sector by another 25 percent within the next few years and adding $128 billion to the federal economy, creating 54,000 new jobs and investing in rural communities. I see that — if you flip to the next page in your handout — as a tremendous opportunity for British Columbia as well.

Minister Beare, in the province, introduced the next evolution of the tourism framework, and we commend government for that. It had three specific pillars: supporting people and communities, respecting nature and the environment and sustainably growing the visitor economy. With that last one, I’d like to emphasize again, as I have in years past, the need to secure marketing funding on a permanent basis for Destination British Columbia, through formula funding — which is industry-driven and is based on industry results — through enabling legislation. That would be some funding security for Destination British Columbia going forward, rather than competing with other sectors through appropriated funding on an annual basis.

Next, if we look at the municipal and regional district tax — which was a tax put in place to fund tourism marketing initiatives at the local community level — in 2018, government added a provision that allows it to be used for affordable housing. I want to make two points here. Industry would prefer that this revert back to being used for marketing only, but importantly, the incremental funds being generated through the likes of Airbnb, HomeAway and FlipKey, etc., can also now be used for affordable housing.

[11:40 a.m.]

With that, there’s a provision, in appendix 1.8, that we would like to emphasize, along with our colleagues at the B.C. Hotel Association. If communities go forward and apply for that funding, there should be a couple of added points asking the questions: what bylaws have been implemented that deal with short-term vacation rentals, and have they been successful? As you know, short-term vacation rentals take away from the rental pool for workers in tourism and other sectors.

The RMI program is excellent. Again, we commend government for putting RMI funding as part of the core budget. It’s $13 million between 14 communities, but there’s a tremendous opportunity to expand that program by including other communities and outside of the current criteria that RMI funding applies to. It has allowed the existing communities that are part of that program to develop infrastructure and other programs to attract visitors, and, obviously, for the benefit of residents. But there are many others, like Parksville, Kaslo and so on, that could benefit.

I say that in the context of the destination development program that Destination B.C. has undertaken over the last year and a half to two years, looking at 20 areas around the province — planning areas — for development opportunities for tourism. If you go to the next set of slides, the Kicking Horse Canyon….

B. D’Eith (Chair): Walt, we’re at about six minutes. So if you could wrap it up, we’d appreciate it.

W. Judas: I’ll wrap that up, then.

On these slides, it identifies what has resulted as part of that destination development exercise throughout the province, where communities have a chance for highway improvements, washrooms, accessibility, recreational trails, etc. The one that I will focus on is on the last page: Bamfield, which needs a paved road to realize its tourism potential. It’s a wonderful place in the province, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, that has tourism potential for ecotourism and, in particular, to bolster the Indigenous nation in Bamfield and bring some of the people who have left that community back to work in tourism-related enterprises. But it’s difficult to get there.

That’s an example of infrastructure investment that the province could make to bolster the tourism economy. I have given those examples from throughout the province.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present today.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Walt.

D. Clovechok: Thanks, Walt. I just want to recognize the work that you guys do and how important that is — the advocacy and the policy and the support that you give for B.C.

When you look at an $18.4 billion industry, you’re already there. You’ve arrived. That has the potential to grow, I think, with international markets growing and so forth. From Indigenous tourism to adventure tourism to medical tourism to ecotourism, the potential of this province around tourism is massive. I agree with you and share your sentiments that looking down the road, it’s going to become one of the prime resource development and economy drivers in this province.

Congratulations. Continue what you do. It’s wonderful.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Walt, I’ve got a question for you just in regard to climate change and its effect on tourism and what thoughts you put that…. This is anecdotal, obviously, but we have some people that I know who experienced the smoke from wildfires, for example, and are choosing not to come back this year because of that.

I’m just wondering if your organization has some thoughts around climate change and what is going on with floods and wildfires and those sorts of things on our tourist industry, and what you might like to see.

W. Judas: Very much part of the conversation and has been for a long time. We have many people within the adventure tourism sector, for example, that serve on committees and are looking at this issue much more closely because it affects operations all over the province.

In fact, with the emergency management committee looking at the impacts of climate change and, to your point, what we’ve had to deal with the last couple of years…. I think that if you look at individual sectors, all of them have developed sustainability plans. They’ve also developed alternative products and services that they can offer to visitors. It’s quite extensive.

[11:45 a.m.]

It’s an extremely important topic for industry and, in fact, continues to be among the leading topics and areas that many sectors are addressing. I don’t think that will change for the foreseeable future. That’s for sure.

There’s the Impact conference every January that is dealing with climate change, sustainability and other things that are important to our industry now and into the future.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Finally, in regard to housing for people working in the tourist industry, I know that probably the more extreme examples are places like Whistler, where you have temporary workers that will be working, and then, in order to live and all that sort of thing…. Can you maybe just talk to the housing side of this in terms of availability, particularly for workers in the tourist industry?

W. Judas: Yeah, there are some innovative solutions that many communities are trying, including building their own housing, but that’s generally a more longer-term solution. Others are putting up temporary housing. Some communities, even within hotels, need to take up some hotel rooms to accommodate workers.

Specifically, the big focus for us is trying to compel local communities to implement regulations to deal with the proliferation of short-term vacation rentals. That’s really taken over in a lot of smaller communities, forcing workers out. You can attract a worker, but if they have no place to live, obviously you’re short of the employees that you need, and you can’t offer a successful tourism product.

For us, it’s about that local regulation. We’re not against short-term vacation rentals — we realize that the consumer might choose that as an option — but regulation is definitely something that can help. Either put some of that short-term vacation rental pool back for more longer-term housing needs or avoid that market growing. A very important issue. That and labour shortages are probably the two top issues that we face in the province.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you so much, Walt. We appreciate the….

W. Judas: Thank you. Very much appreciate it.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Next up we have Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance — Gillian Fuss.

Hi, Gillian. How are you? If we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great. Thank you.

LOWER FRASER FISHERIES ALLIANCE

G. Fuss: My name is Gillian Fuss. I’m the coordinator for the emergency planning secretariat, which is currently housed at the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance. We are an emerging body that aims to improve capacity and assist with flooding mitigation and planning for the Mainland Coast Salish peoples. We are working both collaboratively with and in parallel to the Fraser Basin Council on their Lower Mainland flood management strategy.

We stand or sit here today on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples — in particular, the territory of the Sumas and the Leq’á:mel peoples. In this traditional territory and in most of Canada, as I’m sure you know, flooding continues to be the most prevalent and expensive natural disaster. In fact, the Fraser Basin Council’s recent analysis predicts that a flood in this area would be the most expensive disaster in Canadian history, rising into the tens of billions of dollars. This is only projected to get worse with climate change, which increases the severity of a large flood as well as increasing sea level rise by an estimated one metre by 2100.

Furthermore, this area is plagued by aging flood infrastructure that doesn’t meet modern standards or is harmful to the riverine environment, something that must be increasingly considered with routinely decreasing salmon abundance. New infrastructure may only worsen this problem, as increasing diking can raise water levels.

Despite this being their traditional territory and having lived here since time immemorial, the Lower Mainland Coast Salish peoples have had the most impacts. Of the 30 communities, 19 are situated next to the river or the coast, and some of those are unprotected. Several communities flood yearly, such as Kwantlen or Katzie. Some communities are losing land due to erosion, such as Seabird Island. Other communities flood regularly due to king tides, like Semiahmoo.

Flood effects are immense. Nations often lack the capacity for up-to-date flood and emergency planning, particularly when the regulatory environment is complex and lengthy to navigate. Funding currently can be put towards training or hiring consultants, not increasing office capacity or maintaining long-term safety practices.

[11:50 a.m.]

Flood infrastructure is extremely expensive and, in some cases, has damaged critical fishing sites and cultural areas. Funding is limited in amount, and regulations are limiting in scope. There are also few options for First Nations to receive timely recovery funding at the federal or provincial level, and the approach of the respective governments is not necessarily collaborative.

There have been many recent improvements, and we do thank you for that. To move forward, we ask for increased funding and attention to flood mitigation on both First Nation reserve lands and title lands. This includes funding for hazard mapping as well as environmentally friendly and innovative mitigation methods. We ask for improved regulations that will allow for modern, innovative flood mitigation techniques that are rooted in traditional knowledge and that allow for timely and collaborative work to take place.

Finally, we ask for continued support for the establishment of the First Nations emergency planning secretariat, which engages and makes decisions on a government-to-government level by providing funding to increase the capacity of the Mainland Coast Salish communities to manage mitigation planning and response.

We welcome the opportunity to expand further on details such as strategies, workplans and budgets, if given the opportunity.

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

Part of my constituency is Katzie, in Kwantlen. Last year the whole community was out doing sandbags with many other communities. I literally feel what you’re saying. It’s a big issue, and with climate change, it’s going to be one that we have to deal with.

M. Dean: Thanks for your work and for your presentation.

You said you could follow up with budgets. So the different kinds of ideas that you had and the strategies…. Do you have all of that costed out that you’re going to be able to put in a submission to us? What were you suggesting?

G. Fuss: Well, it’s a little bit general at this point, because we are still an emerging secretariat body. We are in the process of engaging a leadership. I guess the exact strategies and the exact more specific asks will have to come from them. So that will be under construction still. Yes. We will, hopefully, be submitting something more concrete in the coming future.

Does that answer your question?

M. Dean: I’m just wondering, Chair, whether it would be helpful to ask for any kinds of figures by the end of the submission time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. We have until June 28. So if there is anything that you can get in writing that would give some indication….

I mean, we’ve been presented by the insurance companies, who say that climate change is…. They showed us a graph. They’re not denying it. It’s real. They’re paying out massive claims. So this is a real thing.

Any details that you can provide would be very helpful.

G. Fuss: All right. I’ll see what I can do.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Mitzi.

Anybody else?

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Next up we have the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources of British Columbia and Yukon — Kristi Searle and Susan Ryan.

Welcome. Susan and Kristi, if we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions, that would be great.

CHARTERED PROFESSIONALS IN
HUMAN RESOURCES OF B.C. AND YUKON

S. Ryan: Thanks very much for giving us the opportunity to present to you today.

I’m Susan Ryan. I am a chartered professional in human resources and also a chartered professional accountant. I’m the chief financial officer for the Nanaimo and District Hospital Foundation. I’m here today to speak to you as the chair of the board for the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources of British Columbia and Yukon, also known as CPHR B.C.

Alongside me is Kristi Searle, who is the proprietor of her own long-standing firm, Peoplebiz Consulting Inc. Kristi is also a member of CPHR B.C.’s board of directors and is a certified human resources business strategist as well as a chartered professional in human resources.

We are just two of over 6,200 professionals who belong to CPHR B.C. Founded in 1942, CPHR B.C. is a not-for-profit association incorporated in British Columbia. We’re governed by a 15-member volunteer board of directors elected by our members. CPHR B.C. is funded primarily through membership dues, professional development courses and sponsorships. We do not receive funding from any level of government.

[11:55 a.m.]

Our purpose today is to raise awareness of the increasing importance of the HR profession in B.C. and across Canada as well as to share with you the broad recognition of and the growing trust in the CPHR designation.

We’re proud of both our profession and CPHR B.C., and we’re pleased to let you know that one of our strategic priorities is to take public positions on relevant policy matters. To that end, Kristi and I will discuss (1) B.C.’s economy as it pertains to the provincial government’s upcoming budget for fiscal ’20-21, (2) the vital role HR professionals play as they endeavour to make certain that our economy and labour market function smoothly and cooperatively and (3) the importance of CPHR B.C. in protecting the public interest by establishing the highest professional and ethical standards for our chartered professional members.

I now turn to my colleague Kristi Searle.

K. Searle: B.C.’s economy is growing ever larger day by day and year by year. Workplace issues also are becoming increasingly complex, and there is a rising demand and need for HR professionals. Exactly one year ago, in June 2018, Statistics Canada reported that the number of British Columbians with a job, for the first time in our province’s history, has soared past 2½ million. Today more than 2 million workers are employed full-time in B.C., and another 560,000 hold part-time jobs.

A few observations will illustrate the size and growth of our provincial labour force. Our total labour force is composed of over 2.7 million people. This is on an actual but not a seasonal-adjusted basis. Of that number, the actual number of unemployed workers in May was less than 121,000. B.C.’s actual unemployment rate in May was 4.5 percent, the lowest amongst all of the Canadian provinces. Our seasonal-adjusted unemployment rate was 4.3 percent, also the lowest in the country.

Our current employment rate, which is the proportion of our province’s population aged 15 years and over who have jobs, is 63.4 percent, the highest number in British Columbia in more than a decade and the third highest in Canada. Notably, the number of women who are working full-time is at a historical high of more than 875,000. The number of women in British Columbia with a job, full-time or part-time, is now closing in at 1.3 million.

A final point. The latest labour force survey from Statistics Canada shows something interesting. Over the last year, May 2018 to May 2019, British Columbians added 107,600 new jobs. That’s more than the entire population of the city of Delta and almost as large as the population of the district of Langley. That’s how fast B.C.’s jobs economy is growing today. We are now adding, in a single year, the equivalent of an entire municipality in terms of the number of newly employed British Columbians.

Here’s the key issue. At the same time B.C.’s labour force is growing larger and more diverse, human resources issues are becoming increasingly complex.

I’ll pass it back over to Susan.

S. Ryan: HR professionals must be knowledgable of a wide range of issues, issues which can and do change frequently. For example, B.C.’s human rights code was amended last fall to, among other things, re-establish a human rights commissioner. A few weeks ago, you and your colleagues unanimously selected Kasari Govender to fill this important post.

The labour relations code was amended this spring through Bill 30. The amendments are intended to improve dispute resolution and mediation processes to facilitate increased cooperation.

B.C.’s Employment Standards Act, which sets minimum standards in the province for wages and working conditions…. It, too, was amended this spring, by Bill 8. One of the important changes was to raise the age at which children may work without a permit from 12 to 16 years. There is an exception for 14- and 15-year-olds, who may do light work that is safe for their health.

[12:00 p.m.]

In addition to these bedrock pieces of labour legislation, HR professionals must also be knowledgable of the Workers Compensation Act, the occupational health and safety regulations and the newly created Fair Wages Commission.

We believe it is essential for us to play our part to provide the professional services and expertise that assist our economy and jobs market to work efficiently and productively. The Chartered Professional in Human Resources, CPHR, designation is a nationally recognized level of achievement within the field of human resources, obtained through a rigorous process set nationally and administered provincially. By supporting the HR profession and our members, through education and advocacy, CPHR B.C. has become the voice of the HR profession.

We thought it important, therefore, to appear before you today to discuss our contribution to B.C.’s economy and, as part of that, to the province’s budget and finances. On behalf of the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources of B.C. and Yukon, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this standing committee. We’d be pleased to answer any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks. Before I go to the other members, is there a specific ask that the organization is asking for in terms of the budget, just so that we have that on the record? Or is it more an introduction of your services?

S. Ryan: It’s an introduction.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

Mitzi, go ahead.

M. Dean: Thank you for your presentation today.

We know that sexual harassment is actually one of the key contributors to the gap in earnings between men and women. We’ve had the Me Too movement, etc., and I’m sure that sexual harassment matters come to the attention of HR professionals. I’m wondering whether you’ve seen any trends, whether we’re actually moving the dial. Are there any kinds of headline trends that you’ve seen that you could update us on?

S. Ryan: I don’t know if you have, Kristi.

K. Searle: Well, it probably falls more in the lines of bullying and harassment. I know that’s separate and it’s wide, but under WorkSafe B.C., you’re seeing that where everyone is more compliant in doing the training, there’s still a large gap, because a lot of the larger organizations that have large HR departments are doing that training. But a lot of them don’t realize that it’s mandatory that we on-board all our employees so they understand the bullying and harassment, which covers the sexual harassment and that.

We’re seeing the numbers definitely lower. But are we making an impact? It’s still quite small. There are huge issues of really understanding about it, but what we’re doing is we’re talking more openly about it. A lot of people didn’t really know what it was, and by having those conversations, we are definitely seeing a more comfortable workforce of people coming forward and feeling safe to say, “This is what’s going on,” and making sure that, as employers, we provide that safe work environment.

M. Dean: Are you saying, then, that in order to make more progress, if we did more monitoring, for example, then that might actually help to kind of shift the dial?

K. Searle: I think the biggest thing is really education and by doing the training. I think a lot of organizations just don’t understand that it’s mandated by WorkSafe B.C. that we provide that training. It’s really just a marketing issue for those people that are at the smaller companies.

S. Ryan: If I may, just an additional comment. One of the things that we do focus on is professional development for our members, so people occupying HR roles within companies and organizations…. We do offer training through our professional development and access to training so that people are aware of their role in HR in investigating complaints or preventing and managing.

R. Leonard: Just a question along the same lines, but it’s more of a demographic of the kinds of companies. I know women in trades and technology, with only 4 percent being women, and one of the big issues is around the workplace environment and feeling safe there. I’m wondering if you have a sense of the compliance amongst that industry, in terms of the training aspect.

S. Ryan: For people working in sort of non-traditional roles.

R. Leonard: Yeah.

S. Ryan: I don’t have a sense of numbers. Anecdotally, I can tell you that the people are a lot more aware of the issues. As such, organizations are a lot more aware of their necessity to provide training and support in the workplace so that people do feel more comfortable bringing things to people’s attention. Whereas, even five years ago, people may not have been as comfortable and things may not have been raised.

[12:05 p.m.]

Certainly, we’re seeing that through our membership, through our conversations, through our round tables and conversations that we have with our members — that it is starting to change. But as with all change, it can be slow.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Susan and Kristi, for your presentation. We really appreciate it.

Next up we have British Columbia Chiropractic Association — Clark Konczak and Angie Knott.

B.C. CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION

C. Konczak: I said hello to everybody in Victoria. It’s been a long road for you guys. Thank you so much for all your all hard work. It’s really, really good to see you. A quick re-introduction. I’m Dr. Clark Konczak from Victoria. I’m a chiropractor and the current chair of the BCCA. This is Angie Knott, our executive director.

I’m very, very thankful for the opportunity to present to you on how chiropractors can improve the health and well-being of British Columbians. British Columbia’s chiropractors are musculoskeletal — or what we refer to as MSK — experts. We represent 1,160 chiropractors living in all of B.C.’s communities, caring for over one million British Columbians each year.

British Columbians choose chiropractors for safe and effective health care. This is because musculoskeletal conditions represent at least 30 percent of all primary care visits to general practitioners and medical doctors. So 90 percent of people had pain in their muscles, their joints, their backs, headaches, knee pain or shoulder pain in the last year, and 90 percent of chiropractic patients report that chiropractic is an effective treatment for all of these aches and pains. Because of this, this effectively reduces the need for prescription pain medications.

High-quality research also recommends the use of chiropractic treatment for musculoskeletal conditions, and it’s because chiropractors provide improved clinical outcomes, reduce pain and improve function and lower health care costs. Chiropractic patients have a lower use of X-rays and fewer hospitalizations than people who don’t see chiro­practors.

Chiropractors provide drug-free pain relief. Because of this, we can help curb the need for opioid prescriptions. It has been shown that 41 percent of B.C. patients who receive a long-term opioid prescription did so because of low back pain and that 12 percent of B.C. residents are dispensed at least one opioid prescription per year. This is equivalent to 600,000 opioid prescriptions per year still. It’s the poorest 25 percent of British Columbians that are the most likely to be prescribed. They’re prescribed opioids at three times the rate of the wealthiest 25 percent.

Chiropractors like myself work very well in team-based care. When we’re treating musculoskeletal conditions in team-based care, particularly a primary care network, this would actually open up access and appointments for patients to go see doctors for medical reasons as opposed to MSK reasons, and this would help the growing body of unattached patients, which is a growing issue. Studies prove that medical doctors and chiropractors work well together and that patients see better results because of that.

Chiropractors across the province have the capacity to join these primary care networks, including in the rural and remote communities where the need is the most. An example of this is actually just down the road in Chilliwack. It’s called the New Hope Health and Wellness Clinic. It’s an inner-city, street-level clinic that is opening up. It has medical treatment, dental treatment, counselling and chiropractic.

[12:10 p.m.]

Chiropractic is the modality that is providing the manual therapy treatment, the exercise, as well as the advice for a healthy lifestyle. It’s truly multidisciplinary access to free care. It takes a multi-pronged approach to dealing with many of the co-morbidities that are associated with the opioid-troubled population. As part of that organization, they will also be collecting data on an ongoing basis to see whether or not it’s effective.

Bringing attention to the placard in front of me, chiropractors are trained to order X-rays in B.C. It’s within our scope of practice. However, unlike a lot of provinces, we are unable to directly order X-rays that are medically indicated. This means that a patient has to go through a goose chase to basically go and get a referral. As well, MSP, or the health system, pays for two extra visits that are totally unnecessary. Again, delaying care.

By our calculations, the Ministry of Health could save at least $4 million per year just based on what is done right now, and patients would save countless hours if chiropractors could directly refer to public imaging. We were talking about employers needing employees at work. We don’t need them sitting in doctors’ offices waiting for X-ray referrals.

Because of this, the BCCA recommends supporting patients in B.C. that are in pain and, instead of opioids, should have non-drug treatment options that include chiropractic treatment. This can be helped by increasing musculoskeletal condition treatment funding for vulnerable patients who do not necessarily have third-party coverage.

We also recommend that we make B.C. a leader by including chiropractors as part of our primary care networks for musculoskeletal care and spine care. This will free up at least 30 percent of the medical visits that are currently used and allow them to be available for a multi-pronged approach to complex musculoskeletal problems.

Finally, MSP should allow chiropractors to directly refer for publicly funded diagnostic imaging tests, saving MSP $4 million a year and countless patient hours waiting for the tests.

With that, I thank you very much and would be happy to entertain any questions.

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

Any questions?

D. Clovechok: Just a comment. Thank you for what you do. I just made an appointment with my guy next week, after these two weeks of riding around. It’s very important, and I agree with all the things you said.

C. Konczak: Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a quick thought. In terms of the direct request for X-rays, would there not be a fear that there would be an increase in the number of X-rays? Is that partially why there has been resistance to this? Maybe you could talk about what the resistance is.

C. Konczak: Yeah, I can. It’s for a good reason. There are studies out there that show the imaging costs are just going up and up and up. So I can understand why there would be reluctance to hand another group the ability to order X-rays.

Chiropractors are different in the sense that what we do is…. Because we do physical exams on patients and take a thorough history and do a lot of hands-on work, we actually rely on X-rays last. Per patient, I am actually less likely to order an X-ray, because I can try other things. I have a different toolbox.

When I get to the point of ordering an X-ray, what ends up happening is it’s one that the patient would be going to see the doctor for anyway. It’s actually not an increase in the number of X-rays; it’s actually the X-rays that are already being taken. We’re proposing a less expensive way to get the imaging done, because there are less people involved.

A. Knott: I think that although there’s a hesitance…. We’ve done some internal surveying of our members, and 80 percent of our members actually refer to GPs right now. So we do have that statistic.

It wouldn’t necessarily increase the amount that’s going, because the other 20 percent have their own machines and do their own imaging. We’re looking at taking that 80 percent that is literally sending to the doctor and then sending back for results.

For us, naturally, it’s the swap of those extra GP visits for something that’s already happening. I think part of the hesitance has been a lack of data. As you see, with the formulae in front of you…. We’ve calculated it based on Saskatchewan’s data, because they actually do allow for public funding. We’ve never had that here, so we haven’t been able to create that idea of data. It’s something that we are looking at.

We’re currently opening up a pilot program in the Comox Valley, where there will be some direct referral, as a study, and comparing that to somewhere else — we’re looking at Vernon, where that’s not going to happen — to actually have a little bit of data. We’re hoping that will prove that there isn’t this…. It won’t open this floodgate.

[12:15 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): What about doctors? What’s their feeling?

C. Konczak: In 21 years of practice, I’ve never had a doctor say: “No, I’m not going to copy out what you wrote on this X-ray form and get an X-ray.”

B. D’Eith (Chair): No, I appreciate that. Just in terms of…. Is there resistance from doctors to…? They have had, in a sense, a monopoly on making those. Would they want to give that up, given that’s part of what they do? Is there resistance from doctors or not?

A. Knott: Not that we’ve heard of. I think, generally, anybody that we talk to about this is surprised that it doesn’t already happen. I think there are a lot of people who are like: “Well, why isn’t…? I thought this was a no-brainer.” That’s generally the sense we get. Most chiropractors do have great relationships with doctors and understand that that’s just the way the system works. We haven’t seen any resistance.

D. Clovechok: Just on the X-ray piece. If a GP orders an image, are you able to access that image?

C. Konczak: Yeah, that’s the other trouble. I am, personally, in Victoria. On the Island, Health does allow it. Ironically, it is 100 percent possible. But in the rest of the province, my counterparts can’t.

What ends up happening is…. If you have somebody who’s actually been hurt really badly over the weekend, and you know they’ve had an X-ray, you have to simply tell the person: “You have to go back to your GP and get the results. I can’t treat you today because I can’t get those results.” I can.

D. Clovechok: Is there a reason why you don’t have access to that?

C. Konczak: It lies, usually, in the decisions in the…. Health authorities have made the decision not to.

D. Clovechok: The health authorities? That doesn’t make any sense.

A. Knott: Yeah. That’s something that…. We’ve been fighting for access. Again, Island Health absolutely does allow for it. The other ones do not.

We constantly have requests. Generally, the statement is: “Because you’re not part of the health authority system, we won’t allow you to have access to it.” So either, as Clark was saying, you have these two visits, or what happens is that the patient will request from the imaging facility a copy, a disk, of the images. So at a cost to the patient, which is generally what happens.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, we’re out of time. Thank you very much for your presentation. Nice to see you again.

C. Konczak: We’re going to be early next year so I can teach you how to use those throughout the whole time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. There you go.

C. Konczak: My only suggestion would be: one meeting, sit on this side; the other meeting, sit on that side. You’re not always looking the same way at the people.

B. D’Eith (Chair): There you go.

C. Konczak: Thanks for all your hard work, guys.

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

All right. Next up we have B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association — Kelly Scott.

K. Scott: Good afternoon.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Hello. All right, Kelly, if we could try and keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that’d be great.

B.C. ROAD BUILDERS AND
HEAVY CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION

K. Scott: Certainly. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I’m Kelly Scott with the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. We’ve passed out some literature to you on our association, some of the priorities we have as an association and where we think the government should be focusing as we go forward.

It’s a privilege to be here speaking on behalf of the roadbuilders. We represent the majority of the heavy construction contractors throughout British Columbia. We represent all of the contractors that look after the highway maintenance in British Columbia, which takes us from Victoria to Fort Nelson. Our contractors have been involved in every major project that has been built in British Columbia, trying to stitch together this network of transportation systems that make a safe, efficient system for all of us to benefit from in British Columbia.

One of the messages we want to convey to the committee today is that our transportation system needs continued investment. Our system is like a house. If you don’t continue to invest in upgrading it, it will deteriorate. We encourage you to look at continuing to fund capital projects. But probably equally as important to us are the rehabilitation projects. It’s nice that we build the bridges and the tunnels, but we have a lot of roads that are degrading and falling apart up north that need continued investment.

Our concern right now is that we’re seeing some projects coming in that are over budget and that may detract from the rehab budget. I think you all need to be aware, if you’re living outside of Vancouver or Victoria, that there are roads that are falling apart, and you need to be investing in those. Our paving part of our business…. We’ve noticed it’s starting to tail off with government contracts. We’re going to pay for that in the future.

[12:20 p.m.]

Continued investment not only in the infrastructure but in people. We embrace what we see coming out of the CBA. I don’t think anybody is questioning that. We’ve always embraced the Indigenous, the female, local community involvement. It’s in the Road Builders’ DNA to hire local. It’s cheaper to bring contractors from Smithers than it is from Vancouver if you have a job up in the Burns Lake area.

We’ve always done that. That’s been part of the Road Builders going forward. What we’ve been able to do is, as we work in those communities and live in those communities, we contribute to those communities. Through the investment from the government, it encourages our contractors. As they see more work coming, they see the ability to have funding for training going forward. They see the ability of bringing on apprentices now as they see projects going down the road.

One of the issues the industry has always had is this stop-start industry. You gear up, you get ready for a project, and then we slow down. If you’re a contractor who has to invest in people, you need to be seeing something out there a little longer than one or two years. That’s what we’re looking for from the government.

Part of our issue on the CBA as well is the engagement of our Indigenous people. Again, our members live up in Burns Lake. Our members are elsewhere. They are engaged in that. As much as the industry sometimes gets a bad shake on this, we are engaged with that. We are engaged with the female side and, certainly, the apprentices as well, as we go forward.

The 2019 budget committed critical funding to many infrastructure projects throughout B.C., and we applaud the government for those. The government has recognized the need to continue to invest, and we applaud them for that. We believe it’s critical that you continue these investments as we go forward, because we cannot allow this infrastructure to start to degrade. It will cost us in the long run, so you need to continue to focus on the rehabilitation of our roads, going forward.

We’d like to recognize also the close working relationship we have with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. We’ve developed what we feel is a very strong working partnership with them, allowing us both to talk about what goes on. We feel there’s a need to be more creative and innovative out there. We talk to them constantly about the ability to come in and let us design and build some of these projects. Government may know how to run some businesses, but sometimes we feel that private industry knows how to design effectively and efficiently and be environmentally sound.

Today we’d just like to thank you for our time being here. Our key message to you is continuing the investment in our infrastructure. I think, if you refer to the back page here of this document…. You know, our view, as a working partner with you, is that we’re not just building an infrastructure. We are building our economy, our society and our vision of the world we want both for today and for tomorrow. That’s what we do with your ministry.

Thank you. Any questions?

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

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just really quickly, I want to thank you for what you do. Especially for a person that commutes on a continual basis between here and the Interior, the roads are actually in very good shape. You know, there’s a button down, here and there, but your folks do a good job.

Just a question, though, on the amount of truck use that we see more and more. You used to see two axles on the back of trucks, then three, and now four on some of them, for carrying the weight. I understand why it’s being done, but are there different types of pavement densities or different types of pavement that can be put in that accept the weight better than doing that movement where you get the troughs in?

K. Scott: Yeah. The roads that we have today are engineered for the fewer-axle trucks. We are seeing more weight coming on. We’re seeing push-back from government. We’ve got weight restrictions now that you see coming onto the roads. But what we’re finding now with the new specs is they’re starting to move up to what we’re seeing with trucks coming into the industry, that we can have a little denser product.

We’re also promoting the use of rehab. Don’t just take some of the soil around you and throw it away. There are some rocks. We can rehabilitate some of that stuff and throw it back in. So recycling is coming more and more into the fore, keeping our costs down. We’ll see more of that, we feel, with the trucking coming in here.

[12:25 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Could you just talk…? We’ve been up north, and we did hear about road conditions up there. I’m just wondering if you could just speak a little bit more. It seems that, with things like LNG Canada coming, the amount of trucks and heavy trucks that would be going on these roads…. Could you maybe just speak a little more to the need, especially in the north and other areas, more remote areas as well?

K. Scott: It’s a unique need. We freeze; we thaw. We freeze; we thaw. The ground moves. You talk to the Americans about it. They don’t have this issue. We need to be constantly on top of this. As you know, frost heaves show up in the middle of nowhere that you haven’t seen for 30 years. So it’s constant monitoring. There is technology available now. You can now run diagnostic tools over those roads to see what’s going on. But it’s part of the rehab program. As we see more development up north, we’re going to see the need for those highways. And off highway the gravel roads are going to be significantly impacted too, with a lot of that travelling going on.

There is a rehab budget. We work with the government on that, but I think it’s something we need to be very mindful of. As we increase the economic development up north, there’s going to be a lot more traffic on those roads, and we need to make sure that they’re running effectively and efficiently and safely.

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

Next up we have Gale Stewart.

GALE STEWART

G. Stewart: It’s just me. No presentation. I was struck that there’s quite a bit of similarity between investing in roads and investing in youth. Crazy.

My name is Gale Stewart. I’m the founder of an organization called Aunt Leah’s Society, Aunt Leah’s Place. Aunt Leah’s cares for foster children as they age out of government care, and we also care for vulnerable moms, giving them support so that they don’t lose custody of their children and those children don’t go into foster care. So Aunt Leah’s is at both ends of the foster care system.

Personally, I’m a parent of four adult children and also a grandparent to seven grandchildren. Over the years, the connections between what parents give their older children when they’re transitioning into adulthood and what our goal is at Aunt Leah’s merge. Those have been our values, and those have been our goals for the 30 years — over 30 years now — that Aunt Leah’s has practised and met with and helped foster children as they’ve reached their 19th birthday.

Over those years, especially in the last five or six years, we’ve seen tremendous growth in terms of the knowledge on what needs to happen for young people, and I certainly thank this government for its movement toward those changes, especially things that you all know — tuition relief and many other things. But of course, there’s still a long way to go.

I come with 30 years of wisdom. I come with 30 years of common sense. And I come today to ask two requests. The first one is I would ask that you would consider making AYA universal — does everyone know what AYA is? — and that it be for all foster children when they reach 19 years of age.

I’m sure I’m repeating what you already know, but only 27 percent of foster children, when they reach 19, access AYA. In your own homes, that’s not what happens, right? I’ve got four children. One was ready to fly the nest at 16. Another one, not so much. That person was waiting until he was near 30. But at that point, he graduated. He got honours. He got his master’s. So it’s okay. It’s okay for foster children as well.

[12:30 p.m.]

I think if it was universal, two things would happen for sure. We wouldn’t see young people feeling the terror of knowing they’re going to turn 19. We wouldn’t have as many homeless children. I think the suicide rate would decrease. So if only for those three things. There’s much more of why the AYA should be universal. That’s my first thing.

My second thing is that your budget would include funding for what I call AYA-accredited programs that non-profits could create and oversee and be held accountable for. I think that would then address the 73 percent, because the 73 percent are like, I’m sure, some of the children that you’ve been close to. They’re not ready. They either don’t have the skills or whatever inertia is happening within them, they’re not going to fill the forms out. They’re not going to go for the open house. They’re not going to get that first job in the time frame that we think would be good, as parents.

So 73 percent who are in an accredited program where they can get funding from the AYA program to have a house…. You just think about it. The young people that we know, from our privileged place, can stay at home. We know the high percentages of Canadian youth that are staying at home, and it’s the right thing for them to do. In the present times, it’s the right thing for them to do. It is the right thing for us as the parents of these children to give them the money so at least they have housing. From there, they can move on.

In conclusion, I’d just like to tell you one success story, and it’s been this year. Aunt Leah’s asked the Ministry of Children and Family if they would accredit a program that we’ve run for, well, certainly 20 years. That program is one where we provide life skills training once a week. We provide dinner once a week. We provide a training program — a pre-employment training program. We provide a support worker. We provide housing assistance.

We asked the government if they would accredit this program. This year, for the first time, it’s accredited. What that means is, and how things are right now with AYA, a young person can come in and do the number of hours that’s requested of them in our program, and then they are entitled to the AYA.

The first month that we opened it, 26 young people signed up for the program. In the two months following that, another 11 came into the program. That’s 37 youth that couldn’t have the AYA in their present situation that came into the program and are succeeding.

I don’t know. To me, it’s a microcosm of what we can do together if we were to make AYA universal and if we were to set up programming that fostered that — a parenting program, in other words.

These young people are a Canadian resource and our Indigenous young people — an amazing resource. It’s up to us to continue to move it forward. Again, I do thank you for the fact that you are moving it forward.

One of my big learnings — I just thought I’d share this little anecdote — over the years…. My son now works for Aunt Leah’s. I heard him speak maybe something similar to this. I can’t remember the context of what he said, but one of the things he said he learned was that nagging was an expression of love. I remember thinking: “Huh.”

All of us have gone through feeling really bad about how we nag. But when you think about it, if nagging is an expression of love, we just need some programs and some people out there that are going to nag.

Anyway, thank you for your time.

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

N. Simons: I just want to say I’ve had some working relationship with Aunt Leah’s, and I admire the work that Aunt Leah’s has done.

[12:35 p.m.]

I just wonder. I totally agree that we need to do more to nurture young people past the age of 19. I worry about the kids who have had a difficult time, never having been in care — maybe with massive amounts of services or maybe family care that’s not officially through…. I’d like it to be more universal. I’d like AYA to be more universal as well, for those who have been in care. I still worry about those young people who have managed to get through the system without being in the system as “in care,” perhaps through voluntary care agreements or long-term kinship placements and such. That’s one area. Not to take away from what you’re saying.

The other area that I think we need to do is improve or encourage young people while they’re in care — while they’re in foster care, before they turn 19 — to have more programs in preparation for that adulthood. I’d just like to hear your comments on that.

G. Stewart: Well, you know, that’s about a half-day conversation. The foster care system…. I mean, the young people that we serve have been through, on average, nine homes. So I don’t think programming will address that. That has to be addressed in a different way.

To your first point about other young people, I agree with you. We see moms who keep their children, and they’re struggling because poverty is the instrument that brings people down. These are moms trying to keep their children out of foster care.

I do think that if we worked on the AYA and if we worked on what happens to a 19-year-old, success would breed success. We would look at that and say: “Well, let’s just move over here and do a little something over here.” You know? As long as we can see that it’s an opportunity for not just foster kids but that it could move on, I think….

R. Leonard: Just one comment. I wanted to say how moving it was when you said that turning 19 is a terror, something that they feel. I think that really puts into perspective what we’re dealing with.

G. Stewart: I don’t think people…. When I started the work, that would be foreign to me, totally. The second young woman I worked with committed suicide, and that was why. She left a note saying why: had to turn 19.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So sad.

D. Clovechok: Thank you, Gale, for all the work that you do. It’s God’s work.

I just had a question, out of curiosity. How many foster parents, when a child turns 19…? Are there any statistics to show how many foster parents keep those kids? Or are they just gone?

G. Stewart: Well, it’s twofold. There are some foster children who stay with the foster parents. Those are great success stories. But on average, there isn’t an opportunity for that, because the young person has been moved from home to home. I mean, I did emergency fostering for a while, and what I observed was that they didn’t want another mom and dad. They were done. They needed help and support. They wanted to be independent, and they needed help to get there.

In the situation where a young person is in the same foster home, I think the foster parents do that. I think they do an incredibly good job at that. It’s just that it’s not the majority. As a matter of fact, it’s the minority.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Also, it’s recognizing that times are different. I mean, like you, I have five children, and they’re all between 17 and 23. Four out of five are at home and will be for some time, and that’s fine. The point is that that’s what’s happening throughout our community. How can we expect youth who’ve actually had a harder time — having to be in the foster care system and often trauma and other things — to suddenly be on their own?

I really appreciate your comments, Gale. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Next up we have B.C. Notaries Association — Rimpy Sadhra.

[12:40 p.m.]

B.C. NOTARIES

R. Sadhra: Good afternoon, everyone. Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone for giving us the opportunity to speak today. My name is Rimpy Sadhra. I’m a notary public practising in Vancouver with West Coast Notaries.

I’m here today as a member of the Society of Notaries Public, a director of the B.C. Notaries Association and as a voice for my clients. I believe Susan has passed around our presentation. It speaks a little bit to what B.C. notaries do and the services we provide and also the couple of recommendations that we have. I would like to speak to these two important issues today. The first one pertains to consumer protection and the Mortgage Brokers Act.

B.C. notaries handle approximately 70 percent of the residential conveyancing in B.C. The majority of those transactions involve preparing mortgages for banks, which secure loans against their properties. As notaries, we discuss these loan provisions and mortgage terms with our clients.

The Supreme Court has been clear in confirming that these obligations and duties of the notaries are the same as lawyers when it comes to drafting and discussing and advising on these mortgages. The Mortgage Brokers Act is where you need to be registered in order to have those discussions. The Law Society has an exemption under the act.

As the work we do with respect to the mortgages and the loans for the consumers is the same as a lawyer’s, we’re requesting that the notaries be added to the Mortgage Brokers Act and also be exempt from the act in order to achieve greater consumer protection. So we’re requesting to revise the current legislation to reflect the same.

The second issue I’d like to talk about is access to justice. I’ve been practising as a notary for eight years now. Not a day goes by when I don’t have a client come to me and ask me to assist in probate, drafting a cohabitation agreement or a simple uncontested divorce. This is a request made by members of the public to notaries across B.C. every day. Unfortunately, with the limitations under the Notaries Act currently, we’re not able to assist in these issues. So in terms of when our clients do come in, we’re having to turn them away and say: “Unfortunately, we can’t do that.”

I come across this when I have my clients, and I’ve helped Mom and Dad do their wills. I’ve helped their daughter, their son. Now the son and daughter or the grandchildren are coming in and saying: “Mom or Dad or grandma or grandma passed away, and can you help me with their probate? We’ve been coming to you for years.” That’s where we kind of have to say: “No, unfortunately, we can’t help.” That rapport that you have with your clients and that trust that you’ve built over the years…. We have to turn them away and say: “You know, you’re going to have to go seek the services of a lawyer.”

As notaries, we’ve been coming to the table for years in efforts to have the provincial government review and modernize the Notaries Act to meet the public’s needs and provide access to justice. There’s an overwhelming need for more affordable options for legal services for the public. With a growing and diverse population, there’s a need for more accessible services. This is especially the case when it comes to people who live in smaller communities — the Interior, the Island, up north. In some of the rural areas, you’ll see that there are only one or two notaries and no lawyers, and that community is highly underserved. That poses a challenge, really, for that community.

As supporters, the B.C. Notaries Association has endorsed the access to justice triple aim. We, along with each of our members, are committed to achieving the goal of access to justice. The time is now to extend the scope of practice for B.C. notaries and to increase the public’s access to justice through more accessible services. B.C. notaries, B.C. families, our clients, your constituents are asking to request for the extended scope of notaries and their services all across B.C.

B.C. notaries are highly trained, diverse in language, culture, age and experience. Our notaries not only have the trust and confidence of the public, but they’re well-educated, and they’re ready to serve the community. I can speak to myself as a graduate of the Simon Fraser University master of applied legal studies. I can really attest to the rigorous training, the strong educational foundation and practical training that’s provided by Simon Fraser and by the B.C. notaries society. That’s the regulator for the B.C. notaries.

[12:45 p.m.]

The current program brings qualified notaries to service. Currently we have about 400 members, and over half of them have a master’s degree from SFU.

The B.C. Notaries Association is already committed to providing continuing education and training to the notaries. With the extended scope of practice, we are going to ensure that there is relevant education and training provided to our notaries to make sure that we’re offering the best-qualified service and acting in the best interests of the public and as a legal professional.

In final, I’d like to thank you all for this opportunity. We look forward to working with the current administration, with other organizations and ministries to expand our scope of practice. We’re really hoping that we can actually get the dialogue moving further and to see progress happen here, because the community really needs this. The public needs it. Our clients ask for it every day, and you’ve got a group of 400 qualified notaries who are ready to step up to the plate and help with this access to justice.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. I’ll probably get in trouble, because I’m a lawyer. At a recent lunch that B.C. Notaries put on at the Legislature, there was a request, in wills, to be able to deal with trusts, for example, which is one area that notaries aren’t able to deal with. Fair enough. I mean, if half the members, the notaries, are trained and master’s…. There could be training, for example, like lawyers have at law school, with trusts and the complexity of trusts.

I’d be concerned about grandfathering in 200 notaries who may or may not have any experience or any real training in it. It’s something that I don’t think you can do in just a continuing legal education course. I think it’s something a bit more profound than that.

I’m just concerned. I’m not concerned about how…. As a lawyer, I worked with notaries all the time, and I was very pleased with all the relationships. I value notaries. I’m a notary too.

I’m wondering if you could briefly talk to that, about the…. Fair enough with the…. We say, “Okay, but we get six years, you know; we have a master’s,” but the other notaries didn’t. So how do we deal with that?

R. Sadhra: Well, I think there is that gap, perhaps, of the education qualification or criteria that we’re trying to meet. But there is the experience part of it. I mean, coming to the table, I think we can definitely look at perhaps putting something together. Could there be some sort of course that we could create and perhaps have those 200 notaries who don’t have it? There is a group that does and is ready, willing and able.

We’re definitely open to seeing how we can close that gap and how we can have them actually assist in those areas. I know they may not have the education piece, but we’ve got notaries with over 35 or 40 years’ experience who’ve dealt with a lot of complexities and who have worked with lawyers to be, “Okay, I know this is out of my scope right now. I know what to do, but I’m handing it over to you because I can’t do it,” or: “I’m not allowed to do it.” I definitely would think that we can open that dialogue up more.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you.

Any questions?

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

Before we break, there were a few things that we wanted to discuss, if we could do that now. And if we could ask the gallery…. We need to have the committee meet in camera, so if you wouldn’t mind. Thank you very much. I promise it’ll be short.

Can we have a motion to go in camera?

R. Leonard: So moved.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 12:49 p.m. to 12:56 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Can I have a motion to recess until two o’clock? Great. Thanks, everybody.

The committee recessed from 12:56 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

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

Next up we have the Research Universities Council of British Columbia — Blair Littler.

If we could just try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great. Thanks, Blair.

RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
COUNCIL OF B.C.

B. Littler: My name is Blair Littler. I’m the interim president of the Research Universities Council of British Columbia. It’s a privilege to be here today. I thank you for your time. I know you’ve had lots of people before you already.

Of course, those of you that know the university community know we’re not known for our brevity. You have some speaking notes in front of you. They’re much longer than what I will give. I’ve got the abridged version.

First, who we are. RUCBC represents the six B.C. research universities. So that’s UBC, SFU, UVic, UNBC, TRU and Royal Roads. We work on behalf of these institutions to improve university education in B.C. We work closely with the B.C. colleges and institutes, with government and with the communities we serve. We have presented to this committee every year and appreciate the support you have given to our previous submissions.

With that, let me be clear. British Columbia has an excellent post-secondary educational system — one of the world’s best. Our public universities, colleges and institutes, built over generations and supported by successive governments, reflect our province’s broader commitment to shared citizenship, community and economic prosperity.

Today I’ve come with five recommendations that will make a practical difference in the lives of our students and expand the reach of university education to more people across more fields of study. We have broken them down into three areas: learners, research and innovation, and community.

Let me start with learners. In this year’s submission, we have zeroed in on three recommendations to support the learners in British Columbia.

In developing talent, B.C. is behind other provinces when it comes to funding graduate education. We have a demonstrated shortage of undergraduate spaces in fast-growing regions like Surrey as well. Why is this important? Because the skills our students learn are in very high demand, and access to education is important. The bottom line is we need to provide more students, graduate and undergraduate, with the skills and talents they want and need.

As an aside, one important way we do this is by adding to the educational experience through work-integrated learning, which offers students practical work experience and employers the opportunity to identify and foster talent through co-ops, internships and mentorships. These are great programs, and they are in huge demand.

Now, when I originally drafted this presentation, I was going to come with six recommendations. Happily, we had to drop the one on work-integrated learning. On June 10, Minister Melanie Mark announced $9 million in additional funding to support work-integrated learning. So instead of asking the committee to recommend additional support for this area, RUCBC simply thanks the government for supporting these programs with new investments that are crucial to their expansion and success and thanks the committee for supporting this activity in the past.

The second way government can help universities support learners is by improving student supports. Universities have a duty to keep our students safe and to meaningfully address the mental health challenges they often face. We have implemented and enhanced policies and practices to end sexual violence and harassment on campus, and we have targeted new resources to help students in distress.

Earlier this month the minister announced a one-time grant to the post-secondary system of $760,000 to increase the capacity to respond to sexual violence. It is an encouraging first step, but the demands are only growing, and we need to do more.

The third way we can better support learners is by promoting diversity and reconciliation. B.C.’s research universities share British Columbia’s commitment to true and lasting reconciliation with First Nations, and we are taking action. Indigenous student enrolment has increased 36 percent at our universities over the last ten years. But that’s on a small base, and much work needs to be done.

To summarize, we have three recommendations regarding learners. First, to help expand the reach of university education, we ask the committee to recommend funding for new graduate and targeted undergraduate spaces. Second, we ask the committee to recommend funding to fully extend support for students in the areas of mental health, safety and security. Third, we ask the committee to recommend a meaningful increase in provincial operating grants to support diversity and inclusivity on campus, including dedicated funding for Indigenous student support.

Let me now turn to research and innovation. As we all know, innovation drives economic growth and productivity, and research drives innovation. B.C.’s universities punch well above their weight in attracting federal research and innovation dollars to the province, but we are still well behind other provinces in our provincial support for research and the financial assistance we offer to graduate students.

[2:10 p.m.]

We are making progress, and we are catching up. The B.C. government’s recently announced graduate scholarship program is an important step forward, and universities are directing more internal resources to attract and retain talented graduate students to the province.

To build on this momentum, we have two recommendations. First, we ask the committee to recommend a targeted investment in provincial research and innovation to take advantage of opportunities to leverage matching federal funds.

Second, we ask the committee to recommend that the one-time B.C. graduate scholarship funding be increased and made ongoing so B.C. universities can better compete with other jurisdictions in attracting and retaining talent for the province.

Finally, I want to talk about community, and I will be concluding on this. I would like to conclude by speaking about the role that universities play in the economic, social and democratic life of the communities they serve. Universities do not exist in isolation from the broader society. Their impact can be seen in almost every area of life.

Take, for example, the role universities play in fostering cross-cultural understanding. Students from over 180 countries study at B.C.’s universities, and every year thousands of B.C. students study abroad. The impact this has had on our economy and our society cannot be understated. International education to and from B.C. contributes to the diversity of the university experience and deepens our connections to each other and to the world. I could go on about our role in the community, but in the essence of time, I will invite any of you to contact me and get a tour on campus just to demonstrate that.

In conclusion, the Research Universities Council has considered these recommendations carefully. They are supported by all our members, and I know you will give them your fullest consideration as you prepare your recommendations to government. I want to thank the committee for the time, and I’d be happy to take any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, Blair. We really appreciate that.

Questions from the members?

Well, obviously, post-secondary is incredibly important to continued growth. I’m just wondering. With the change in the workforce — all the demands that are going on out there — how do you feel that the universities can respond to that sort of pressure, for more people to be able to…?

B. Littler: If you look at one of the last slides on your presentation, you can see the changing program mix that goes on. We spend a lot of time looking at the labour market, as an organization, and each institution has internal institutional analysis that looks at all this. But I would say one of the best indicators of the changing marketplace is the students themselves.

You can see, from some of the enrolment statistics — I think it’s on page 4 — the change in credentials awarded over 2008 to 2018. Engineering, technology, physical sciences, life sciences are way up, and arts and sciences are down a bit. That’s student choice.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Right.

B. Littler: It reflects the change in the marketplace. They’re a very good indicator. They’re looking for jobs in the future.

B. D’Eith (Chair): There’s also the influence that people can have on students when they’re young as to the choices they make when they move forward. I mean, one of the things that we’ve talked about, for example, is women in STEM and trying to encourage more women to go into STEAMD, or whatever you want to call it. But to get that is a bit of a paradigm shift — to get more women, particularly, interested in STEAM and technology. That kind of starts early.

I’m just wondering. Are these six universities looking at trying to…? Because it’s student choice, and sometimes that choice may…. I know I chose law school because that’s what my dad wanted me to do. You know what I mean? I wanted to go on the road and tour as a musician.

B. Littler: I think parents have a great influence, but the K-to-12 system has a great influence and, I think, outreach to the communities to demonstrate that, which happens all along. There are all kinds of…. Shad Valley and other things that happen on campus demonstrate that, so there’s lots of that interaction.

I’ve been doing this for 30 years, and you can see the integration and the communication between the various systems, whether it be colleges, the K-to-12 system or teaching universities or institutes. It’s pretty significant.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Right. That’s great. Thank you, Blair.

[2:15 p.m.]

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation, Blair.

You talked about the targeted provincial investment in research and innovation. What criteria would you use to prioritize what should be targeted? You’ve put in here “to leverage matching federal funding,” but the federal priorities might be very different to provincial priorities. How do we create those criteria that make sure that the targeting reflects the priorities for our province?

B. Littler: There are really two aspects of it. You can use the British Columbia knowledge development fund as an example, where it matches the Canada Foundation for Innovation funding that comes from the federal government, and B.C. has its own set of criteria that they lay on top of that to come into matching. That’s one way of doing it.

The other way is at least having an available fund so that you can be opportunistic when there is matching funding coming from the federal government. So if something like the supercluster initiative comes up, there’s not this lengthy process to go to find some matching funds from the province. It’s got to be flexible.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Blair. Appreciate your presentation.

Next up we have Music B.C. — Rob Calder and Lindsay MacPherson.

Lindsay and Rob, just if we can keep the initial comments to about five minutes, then we have time for questions.

MUSIC B.C.

L. MacPherson: Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Lindsay MacPherson. I’m the executive director of the Music B.C. Industry Association. We are the voice for the for-profit and non-profit B.C. music industry locally, domestically and internationally, and are made up of 1,200 members. Joining me today is Rob Calder, a private business owner who has been an active member and advocate of our industry for well over 20 years.

I’d like to take a moment to thank Minister Beare and her team for their continued support and the province’s commitment to ensuring our sector is given a competitive advantage in the global marketplace with the renewal of the Amplify B.C. fund earlier this year. We are here today to advocate for ongoing, permanent support through Amplify B.C., fixed in the budget at $7½ million a year. I want to address the unique nature of this fund, which is one of the few opportunities open to the commercial and not-for-profit sector, which has created much collaboration and communication across our industry as a whole.

To date, with Amplify B.C., Music B.C. has provided 162 artists and 135 music companies with travel assistance through our travel grant program. We’ve provided 70 artists with showcasing opportunities in nine countries through our export development program. We hosted 20 workshops through our training and professional development program aimed at developing the next wave of emerging talent and business owners, and we introduced a new Let’s Hear it Live micro grant program created to support live music events throughout the province, which are building community and demonstrating equity, diversity and inclusion in their programming.

I also want to highlight three successful initiatives that show how Music B.C. has used Amplify to leverage new partnerships as well as private and public funding.

First, we were the first industry association to host two successful trade missions to India, in partnership with the B.C. trade office in Mumbai, which expanded ten B.C. businesses into this fast-growing market. Second, the B.C.-launched Phoenix program ran for two years, fostering the professional development of 27 senior music managers before the program was picked up nationally by FACTOR and the government of Canada. Lastly, we have made much headway in forging performance and B2B opportunities for artists and businesses in the Cascadia region, partnering with six festivals, many in partnership with the Consulate General of Canada in Seattle.

B.C. is on the map as an industry leader because of these initiatives. I know you’ve probably heard some of these numbers before, though it’s important to reiterate that we are here representing a $690 million industry with 8,000 jobs in Vancouver alone and $850 million in GDP to the B.C. economy from the live music sector. As a result of the 2018 Juno Awards, the province saw $10.9 million in economic impact. There is a real opportunity to attract events like the Junos or the Canadian Country Music Awards to B.C., but it often takes years of planning to secure the bid.

This is all to illustrate the long-term stability we seek in permanent funding through Amplify B.C. so our industry can plan ahead to maximize programs, leverage funding and build on the success of their projects. There is no shortage of talent in B.C. to mentor. We are hopeful this fund will continue. There is no other fund of this kind that has played an integral role in cross-sector collaboration and economic development while fostering community and connection in our vibrant, diverse province.

Now I’m going to pass it to Rob for his portion.

[2:20 p.m.]

R. Calder: Thanks for listening. I’m the owner of Secret Study projects, a boutique music agency that produces live events, programs and music campaigns and consults on artist development projects in the province. I’m also co-owner of DoBC Media, a digital platform that includes Do604 and Do250, servicing the best cultural events in Vancouver and Victoria. I’m also on the board of Music Heals, a charity that supports music therapists in our communities, and I’m a member of the Vancouver Music City Steering Committee, advising the city of Vancouver on sound music city strategies.

Over the past few years, I’ve been lucky to have worked on a variety of projects and programs that have received funding from Amplify. I’ve witnessed firsthand how the fund has incited progress across our industry.

From an internal perspective, my company has benefited directly from the fund. One key project we’ve been developing is new technology for musicians with disabilities, called extended expression. Seed funding from Amplify, over two years, has now been leveraged to include SR&ED funding and IRAP funding. We are now in line for a half-million-dollar federal accessibility technology grant to produce world-leading adaptive solutions for the disability community. As a side note, it’s not just about creating songs and nurturing traditional industry. Amplify has actually supported new and innovative technology.

DoBC has also been the recipient of industry initiatives funding, which has produced a first-of-its-kind report on music consumer insights in the province. So 3,000 local music fans participated in the study, which will be released on July 3. It’ll provide the sector with much-needed information on behaviours, needs and trends of music fans in our community.

Other projects that we have been peripherally involved with include VIFF Amp, a conference bringing world-class music supervisors and music professionals from around the globe to Vancouver. This project is a key cross-sectoral win for both the film and music industries and, with the support of Amplify, enables purposeful business development, networking and essential mentorship to our next generation of music talent and industry.

We’ve also leveraged Amplify funding to develop strong business connections in the Cascadia corridor, as Lindsay mentioned, through producing the Canada House at the Upstream Music Fest in Seattle.

We’ve co-authored the influential Vancouver music ecosystem study, which has provided us, as an industry, with a leading baseline of the economic and social impact of music in Vancouver. Amplify’s commitment to progress and innovation has helped increase B.C.’s reputation as a leader in developing the future of our industry.

On a more social aspect, the fund has allowed an industry, sometimes buried in mixing desks and guitars and minor chords, to galvanize and collaborate, cement a stronger identity as a diverse, inclusive and profitable creative scene to be reckoned with on an international scale. The basic fact is that Amplify has enabled the music sector to blend and balance better, strengthening the core of our scene.

I strongly support the continuation of this fund in a multi-year capacity, one that will enable us to entirely focus on craft and progress and continue our quest to be world leaders in both art and commerce.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Questions?

I just had a question. It’s my understanding that Amplify B.C. is sort of year to year right now. I’m just wondering: what is the advantage of having it actually in the budget? Are there things like leveraging federal funds or other funds that are helpful? Maybe you could just comment on that.

L. MacPherson: Absolutely. The Canada music fund got an influx of $15 million earlier this year. Those are examples of what we can access federally to leverage the Amplify B.C. funding. As I mentioned, with the Junos and major events coming to town, it does take years of planning to bring those here. That’s sort of the leverage piece with Amplify and what that brings.

R. Calder: Yeah, I think, as a sector, similar to the research universities, there are other opportunities for both artists and industry to get funding. I think when you look at…. What’s actually vastly important for a music manager in the music industry is to have more than 12 months of lead way.

The other thing that’s been interesting is just how much effort…. The industry has galvanized, but it takes a lot of effort every year to come back to the table. There are some long-term development plans for things like the Phoenix program, the Junos and the Vancouver International Film Festival. It really sucks a lot of energy out of a relatively moderately sized scene to continuously go after the dollars. I think, most importantly, there’s some great Canadian funding that Amplify has been able to leverage. If we had a little bit more time, I think we could be more effective with it.

L. MacPherson: Yeah, working on a year-by-year basis has been really challenging. We’re seeing artists applying for sound recording and marketing and video all in one go because they just don’t know if the fund is coming back. It really puts a lot of pressure on their projects, which I know sounds a little precious, in a way, I suppose, but if we’re trying to create really strong pieces of IP that are going to be picked up globally, then we need more time and room to build on these projects and build momentum.

[2:25 p.m.]

N. Simons: Thank you for your presentation.

I’m trying to figure out: do you cover all types of music? Are we talking about the broad spectrum — classical, everything?

L. MacPherson: We do, yeah.

R. Calder: From an outsider’s perspective looking in, I think the past few years, with initiatives like the India initiative, with our super strong South Asian population here…. They’re going to Korea. They’ve been into eastern Europe.

Also, there’s a big shift in…. Urban music is the number one…. It’s surpassed rock and roll. There are changes in the marketplace. Gibson guitars is almost in bankruptcy. People aren’t buying guitars. They’re buying samplers and keyboards. So there’s a big shift, and Music B.C. has really had to open up and really relate and fill an authentic place for support for all genres and all musicians and all industry.

B. D’Eith (Chair): One last thing, just in regards to the challenges of digital and also the number of live venues that have gone down recently. What sorts of challenges do you see in the future? And how can Amplify and other programs help with that?

L. MacPherson: It’s interesting. It seems that whenever a venue goes down, there are almost two more that pop up. What’s interesting about our community is that they find these underutilized spaces. That’s exactly what our microgrant program, through Amplify B.C., supports — those underutilized spaces, supporting all-ages venues. A big piece of what Amplify provides, as well, is infrastructure money to some of these venues.

R. Calder: Yeah. Celebrities got infrastructure money. A new venue in Whistler got infrastructure money. I personally know of a few very deep-pocket investors that are looking at integrating music venues within their development process.

Amplify is kind of new for those types of developers to maybe leverage. It’s not huge amounts of money in terms of what they’re trying to build infrastructure-wise, but it has definitely built some awareness that there are these pockets of dollars that can help sustain or grow those venues.

In reference to the digital economy, I think you’re referencing artist revenues. Is that maybe where you’re going? I think the easiest answer is that if there’s the ability to put that seed funding into the development of the content, it eases the burden and maybe some of the market shifts within digital revenues. And it gives the artist, definitely, a leg up in competition with all the other great artists in the world.

I’ve run an independent record label for many years. The seed funding from Amplify and FACTOR really gets you started at zero, and that’s a good thing. You’re not down 60 grand, 100 grand on albums or forced to be in some oppressive contract situations with labels. You really have…. You’re putting a lot more power into that artist and manager and Vancouver- or B.C.-based record label to be a little more, I guess, innovative and creative with that next step, that launch of an artist’s career.

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

Next up we have the Motion Picture Production Industry Association — Peter Leitch.

Peter, if we could keep the initial comments to about five minutes so then we have time for questions, that’d be great.

MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

P. Leitch: Well, thanks very much for seeing us today. My name is Peter Leitch. I’m the chair of the Motion Picture Production Industry Association and manage two film studios: North Shore Studios, which is in North Vancouver, and Mammoth Studios in Burnaby. Our association has 40 charter members representing all aspects of the industry. We work closely together, and we actually have had a great relationship with the government over the years and really appreciate the engagement that we do have with government.

We don’t have too many asks, but just to put them out front. Really, the stability of the tax credits has been a huge advantage that we’ve had — to have stable tax credits that are reliable. Creative B.C. has done a great job in managing those credits, so we’ve worked closely with them.

Creative B.C. has also been a great supporter through the B.C. Film Commission work. They’ve developed a program now where they’re out in all the different communities. We have all the film liaison people from not only the Lower Mainland, but the regional film commission has come in. We talk about best practices and share ideas.

[2:30 p.m.]

When we have issues, we certainly seem to have access to the right ministry quite often. Right now one of the important issues that we’re working on is with the Ministry of Agriculture, where there’s a limitation in terms of how much filming we can do on farmland. We got caught up in sort of an event legislation, where we’re only supposed to be on farmland for 24 hours, and we’re allowed to do that ten times a year. That doesn’t really work for our industry.

We certainly pride ourselves, when we do use a location, to leave it in exactly the same condition as when we came in. So we don’t do damage to it. In fact, I was talking to Gemma Martini about it. The Martini family owns film studios, plus they own a lot of farm property. So we’re working towards a solution to it to accommodate film activity that doesn’t do harm to the farming activity. I think we can come to a compromise on that. But I just wanted to bring that up, because it’s one of the current issues we’re working on.

I also want to bring to your attention some of the initiatives that we’ve undertaken lately. We just had an international location forum where we had location managers from around the world, including a gentleman from Ireland that does the Game of Thrones — the location manager for Game of Thrones. And sharing best-practice ideas globally, which has been really fascinating for us.

Locations, especially in British Columbia, are a bit of a scarce resource. I know we have lots. We call it the “world of looks” in B.C., and we’re certainly spreading out throughout the province. But because of the volume of the industry, we do tend to go back to locations over and over again. One of the things that location managers do is they can get creative in terms of substituting one location for the other. It was really great hearing from everybody worldwide and incorporating, really, best practices globally.

Another thing that’s happening right now is the promotion of B.C.-based directors. We recognize that we’ve got a lot of talent up in B.C., but with the volume increasing rapidly over the last ten years, we didn’t see the same growth in the number of B.C. directors directing certain episodes of U.S.-based projects. So we went and dug a little bit deeper. One of the things is it’s because we’re polite Canadians. Whereas an American director will go and say, “I want that job,” we’ll say: “I think I could do that job for you.”

What we’ve done is we’re taking a bunch of B.C. directors down to Los Angeles, introducing them to the right parties, updating their reels and resumes. In fact, we’re doing some filming just with them specifically to accomplish that. We’re seeing some progress now. I think over the next couple of years we’re going to see more B.C. directors doing that. I think that’s a real gateway to helping us continue to create our own IP up here and exploit that. We’re never going to be independent of the U.S., because they’ve been a fantastic customer to us and bring a lot of business. But it’s nice if we can grow that B.C. sector, and that’s one of our initiatives.

The other thing we’re doing is we’re really upping our Reel Green program. This is our sustainability initiative to recycle, reuse and lower our carbon footprint. We’ve taken great strides on that. We’re working closely with the city of Vancouver now to try and eliminate diesel generators where we have drop sites. These practices are going to continue, and I would say that we are now probably the greenest industry in North America in terms of film industries.

We made a lot of progress there. A number of the companies in our industry association are investing a lot of money, where we’ve got a graduate from Harvard that’s working on making sure that we all adopt best practices.

There’s also an ongoing investment by the unions and by the visual effects and animation on education, training and job skills. That’s certainly a really important initiative for us. We’ve done a labour market impact study. We realize that, just with the attrition rate of all of those baby boomers that are going to be retiring at some point in time and the growth of the industry, we continually need to feed things. It’s nice to see that the unions are spreading themselves out to all corners of the province to attract talent and put on programs in outside areas.

[2:35 p.m.]

Again, we’re expanding the infrastructure of the industry into the outside zones, including Kelowna and that area, where we’re building studios, and also Vancouver Island. I understand that outside of Victoria, they’re looking to build a studio. I think the mayor of Saanich is behind that. He came and met with us, and we said: “There’s never been a better time if you want to do it. I’m sure you’ll get support and attract production.”

We also have a separate industry task force on diversity and inclusion to, again, attract people that wouldn’t necessarily identify this as an industry they could be part of. We’re working hard on that aspect of it. I think that’s going to open things up and open some doors for some people that didn’t necessarily have access to the industry previously. So lots of good work going on.

We’re doing a project on the Downtown Eastside right now where we’ve engaged with an organization called EMBERS. We’re trying to get people in the Downtown Eastside that…. Giving them a hand up so that they can get involved, putting them to work in the industry and then really building their self-confidence so that they can work in other industries too.

Those are some of the things we’re doing. I did a presentation in October and covered some of the big numbers, with 45,000 people employed in the industry right now. It’s really about job creation. A lot of these jobs are becoming more technical now. These are transferrable skills to gaming. When you look at some of the quality of the work that we do, for instance, in visual effects and animations…. Spider-Man, of course, won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. That was mostly done all up here.

Sony’s head office is up here, and Michelle Grady now runs the whole operation, both north and south. So it’s great to see that base in Vancouver.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you.

Questions?

M. Dean: Thanks for your presentation.

I just want to go back to the diversity. I’m interested in how you are measuring success and what kind of success you have observed. Then, also, you talked about the directors — taking them down to Hollywood or California. How many of them are women, for example?

P. Leitch: Well, I can tell you right now that I’ve seen a sea change since I started in the industry way back when in terms of being more inclusive. In our industry association, for instance, the head of the Directors Guild is a woman. The head of Creative B.C. is a woman. I mean, probably 50 percent of our members are women that are leading organizations. I think that has made a big difference. It’s really top of mind for us, in terms of the gender diversity. I think we’ve done a reasonable job there.

I think there’s still some work in pay equity, which really surprised me, because, in general, how it works is that they’re union positions and there are scale wages and all that. But certainly, that’s one of the things that came to my attention in the last 12 months that I think is being addressed now more so than before.

In terms of other inclusion, it’s fairly broad. It’s certainly way more than just gender diversity. It’s early days now, but in terms of measuring it, we’ve now got a…. We call it a task force, but it’s actually going to be a standing committee. It is certainly diverse in a number of ways.

One of the things that just came to me today was…. Say that we don’t have any representation with our members on this committee for a particular race and they ask: “Can we bring this person on board?” And it was a bit of a no-brainer: “Of course you can.” So we’re going to look at…. I think that in some of the work that we’re doing we won’t see, statistically, the changes for probably a year or two. But we’re certainly going to track it.

I think that’s one of the things that we said is the most important thing — to get the data. I’m hoping a year from now that we’ll have some data for you to sort of say: “Hey, these are the steps we’ve done, and this is the result.” It’s kind of early days now, but it’s one of the things that we talk about at every meeting.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Just a quick question around tax credits. You’re asking for stable tax credits.

[2:40 p.m.]

Basically, first, is there anything within the tax credits that needs to be changed? Secondly, there was quite a bit of upward pressure on the tax credits, and I just want to make sure that the Finance Committee understands what caused that and what we would expect to see in the future with the tax credits.

P. Leitch: Certainly, in the last five years, with the streamers all coming on board — Netflix would be sort of the big guy on the block, but you’ve got Apple and Amazon and everyone else getting into the industry — globally, there’s a lot more content creation than there ever has been before.

Vancouver has been a go-to place — certainly the Lower Mainland and British Columbia. As a result of that, our business has increased. But we can only grow so fast. First of all, it’s labour-based. Our tax credits are labour-based. It’s resi­dent labour–based, which is a good thing. We like that. There are certainly small-spend tax credit programs, which I’m less enamored of. I think what we’ve got is probably best practice right here.

We’re seeing a flattening of the curve. That’s one of the things that we saw, but that doesn’t mean growth is going to stop. There are still companies that want to grow, but I think we’re growing at a more stable level than we were before. It kind of ramped up fairly quickly, and now we’re seeing even growth. In fact, this year has been a bit of a slow start, but by year end, the numbers will be strong, I would say. Tax credits are certainly a big part of it, being competitive.

There are higher tax credits. But then you look at Georgia right now. They put in some legislation that made Hollywood say: “Hey, we’re not going there anymore.” They want other locations to shoot at, so some of them will come here. These people are shooting all over the world. If you look at Netflix now, they’re shooting everywhere. We see, I’d say, moderate growth going forward, but I just don’t think we can accommodate anything more than that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I guess the point is that it can’t go like that because it’s tied to labour and it’s at capacity, sort of a ceiling, in a sense.

P. Leitch: It’s tied to labour and tied to infrastructure. We’re in the studio business. We had some capacity at Mammoth to build a couple of stages, but we don’t have any other capacity. We’re not shopping around for any. Having said that, though, a lot of the warehouse space is now taken up by the film industry. The lighting and grip companies are all into the studio space. They’re taking up some of that. With all the space we’re creating, we’re creating a lot of jobs — a lot more, I’d say, than some other industries right now. We’re creating a lot of employment.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Peter. We appreciate the presentation. Great to see you.

Next up we have Pacific Hepatitis C Network — Alicia Kobeck and Daryl Luster.

If we could just keep the initial comments to about five minutes.

PACIFIC HEPATITIS C NETWORK

D. Luster: Thanks for having us here today. We have submitted something to the committee. I believe you should have a copy of that. If you’d like, we can go through it point by point, but I wanted to open with more of a discussion around the human cost of hepatitis C. I myself was diagnosed ten years ago with hepatitis C. Some of you are familiar with my story, perhaps.

In any case, it was quite a shock for me. It was unexpected, and I didn’t know anything about it. I’d been sick for a period of years. I was very lucky. My own primary care physician connected me with an excellent specialist, and I ended up being cured. I’ve been cured for nearly ten years.

[2:45 p.m.]

In that time, I’ve been involved in awareness, education, community support and also advocacy, trying to get governments and other organizations and institutions on board for what is really, as I sometimes refer to it, the ugly stepsister to HIV. We all know a lot about HIV. It’s a terrible disease, but hepatitis C gets very little attention and not a lot of funding. That has been problematic for all of the nine-plus years I’ve been doing this work. We’re here today not so much to have a big ask or even a whole series of asks, but really to just reinforce the need for there to be a stronger response to this.

There are lots of reasons why. Years ago patients were told by their physicians — this isn’t so long ago; I heard this in the community: “You will die with hep C, not from it.” Well, there’s some accuracy in that because you don’t die from HIV, either, or hep C. You die from what it does to you. Last year I lost 20 good friends because of what hepatitis C did to them. It’s liver cancer, primarily, that’s causing these deaths. Hepatitis C is the main cause of liver cancer globally, and now deaths because of hep C outstrip HIV and TB combined globally. It’s a big thing.

Now we have highly curative treatments. All of the ones that are so highly curative are added to the formulary here in B.C., and we applaud government for doing that, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.

This is Alicia Kobeck, a member of our network.

A. Kobeck: Hi. Thank you for giving me this time to talk to you. I didn’t write anything down. I just thought I would tell you about what happened in my life, in my experience.

I had struggled with exhaustion for a long time, and I just thought everybody did. We all work, and we all have lives and children, and we’re all really tired. Then I started having some tummy troubles and some other things like that. I’m a baby boomer, right at the very end of what a baby boomer would be. I had heard of hepatitis C, but it’s one of those things that unless it affects your family, you hear it, and it’s off on the other side.

It was quite by accident, just when I got desperate and asked to be tested for anything and everything because I just wasn’t feeling well, that we found out, late in 2017, that I had hepatitis C. In a traceback, we found out that I’ve had this since 1986. I was very blessed…. It scared me. I didn’t know anything about it, and I made the mistake of googling. Has anyone ever googled something?

D. Luster: Beware of Dr. Google.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Dr. Google. Yeah.

A. Kobeck: Never, never google. It’ll take you….

D. Luster: Unless you find our site.

A. Kobeck: And that’s what happened. Luckily, through the googling — I was sure I was dying; I really thought I was going to die from this, because of what I read — I did find the B.C. Hepatitis help for hep C site. I phoned, and I was able to talk to Daryl, actually. He put me at ease, and he gave me facts. By the time I was done talking to him, I had an action plan. I was able to call and get into the Vancouver Infectious Diseases Centre right away. Because the government had approved these new medications, I was able to get on medication right away. It was approved. I started in January of 2018 — boom, boom.

That would have been April when I was finished the 12 weeks. I had no detectable viral load. I’ve just gone back and had my one-year-out test. I have no viral load. This year I’ve just consistently felt better and better. It’s wonderful. I’m back to work. I do nursing.

I would like to mention where I work. I work at a group home for persons with acquired brain injury. There are actually two people there who are hep C–positive.

[2:50 p.m.]

I tried to share with our primary care doctor who comes in, and with the people who manage that, that hep C now can be as easy as an eight- or 12-week, once-a-day medication that can actually cure these people. I’ve actually come up against some…. There isn’t a big thing. These people have fallen through the cracks. I’m wanting to do work around this and go and speak to people in different group homes for people with acquired brain injuries or with seniors.

Especially in that baby boomer…. People think that you won’t die because of hep C, that if they have acquired brain injury…. I’ve heard some different things: “It’s not just the medication. The cost is a factor here.” Things like that. So I just want to thank you for approving the medication, and I want you to know that our work isn’t done yet, that we still have got work to do with some people.

D. Luster: I just want to add that our two stories are success stories. Most of the stories are not. In fact, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control holds — arguably but pretty much established — the best data set in the world on hepatitis C, and their data shows us that there are more than 30,000 British Columbians who have been tested who are not linked to care and have never received any care for their hepatitis C. So they’re out there. That’s just part of the picture.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Daryl, I have two quick questions for you before I open it to the members. First, why is that the case? You said that the doctors are resisting it. Or is it just that people are not asking for it? Secondly, in terms of an ask, is it more education that you’re asking for?

D. Luster: It’s all those things, and it’s also the level of personal stigmatization. There is a societal stigmatization. I can tell you anecdotally, but I talk to thousands of people, that stigma mostly lives in health care, sadly — not where you would expect it. You would hope that people would not be judged in that setting, but unfortunately, that’s where it lives. It’s not just with hepatitis C, of course, but if you were stigmatized in that environment, you’re less likely to want to go back.

There is some research that is starting very soon, part of a program on the north Island, which will move down the Island, that will be looking at this issue. I’ve been sort of crying about this lost-to-care group for some time now, because it’s a significant number of people.

R. Leonard: I’m from Vancouver Island. Did you say that there is a research project going on?

D. Luster: Yes, the BCCDC has two researchers — part of a fellowship that is starting — working with a couple of clinics in the north Island. They’re going to be looking at finding these people. There have been discussions around ethics and that sort of thing, about contacting people. But the fact is that these people were contacted when they were diagnosed. That’s my opinion. So why would it be an ethical issue to follow up? They are in fact starting that. My understanding is that it will start in the north Island and then work its way to mid-Island and down into the Victoria and south Island area.

R. Leonard: So AIDS VI will be involved in helping iden­tify them?

D. Luster: AVI, AIDS Vancouver Island? I’m not sure of their level of involvement. I didn’t see their name on that. But I don’t know why they wouldn’t be. One of our help line callers works with them in their work in Campbell River. They’re very active up and down the Island, absolutely.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Daryl and Alicia. Thank you for bringing awareness to this important issue. We really appreciate your coming in.

A. Kobeck: Thank you. We appreciate you so much. Thank you so much.

D. Luster: Thank you for taking the time. Get tested.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have school district No. 36, Surrey — Shawn Wilson and Greg Frank. Good afternoon.

SCHOOL DISTRICT 36, SURREY

S. Wilson: Good afternoon to you as well. Thank you for the opportunity for the Surrey school district to present to the committee on the development of your provincial 2020 budget.

The Surrey school district is the largest school district in the province and has a total school-aged population of over 74,000 students, which represents 13 percent of the total provincial student enrolment in public schools.

[2:55 p.m.]

The district student population is growing in Surrey, at the rate of 1,000 new students per year, creating a critical shortage of school capacity. The number of portables in the district is continuing to rise and will reach over 360 portables in the 2019-2020 school year, which represents close to 9,000 students in portables. If we just took about 9,000 students in those portables, the Surrey school district would be larger than 44 of the 60 school districts. It gives you an idea of how many students are actually housed in portables.

The district’s 2019-2020 operating budget revenues total $695 million, with almost 97.5 percent of that revenue, or $677 million, being received from the operating grant provided by the Ministry of Education. Our total budgeted consolidated revenues for the district exceed $835 million. We believe that as governors of the largest school district in British Columbia, it is important for us to share with you our priorities for government’s funding of public schools.

In terms of the new spaces, new capital spaces in a bricks-and-mortar building, as I stated earlier, one of the most significant challenges for the Surrey school district is our continued enrolment growth and critical shortage of school capacity to accommodate students. In response to our school capacity shortage, we continue to convert other specialty educational spaces such as computer labs and multipurpose areas into classrooms, and we have been forced to place over 360 portables to accommodate those 9,000 students that cannot be accommodated in our already overcrowded schools.

We appreciate this government’s commitment to fund a number of capital projects to provide additional school capacity in our district since they have taken office. However, this investment is insufficient. We request that the level of investment in new-space capital projects in Surrey to be further increased and that this higher level of investment be continued into future years in order to provide safe and appropriate educational spaces for all of our existing and future students.

On local school district contributions to major capital projects, this has been a real problem. The current government requirements to have school districts contribute up to 50 percent of the total cost of capital projects for new space is neither appropriate, fair nor equitable. Other districts that have major capital projects, such as seismic projects or replacement schools, do not have the same requirement to provide funding from their operating budget, which removes services from children to acquire capital.

We see no reason why major capital projects of any kind should require an allocation of funding from school districts. The burden of this policy on all districts, and particularly on fast-growing districts like Surrey, is too great and requires the reallocation of operating funding away from much-needed services to students. We request the policy requiring a local school district capital funding contribution on major capital projects be eliminated.

With respect to portables, another significant unfunded cost driver for the Surrey school district directly related to our continued growth and our lack of school capacity is our growing reliance on portables. This summer our district will incur the cost of moving 35 portables, purchasing and outfitting 25 additional portables, as well as incurring the substantially higher annual cost of operating and maintaining our growing fleet of 360 portables.

The cost of moving a single portable is $75,000. The cost to acquire, place and prepare each portable for instruction is approximately $210,000, and the annual average operating cost for a portable is over $13,000. Given those above figures, we have estimated that Surrey school district will incur a total cost for portables of over $10.7 million for the coming school year. There currently is no additional funding allocated to school districts to cover the cost of acquiring, placing or operating portables.

[3:00 p.m.]

In order to fund the cost of portables, our district must reallocate funding from other areas within our operating budget, with the overall effect of reducing our ability to fund other services to our students — which means fewer teachers, education assistants, professional development opportunities and supplies for students — because we need to put the money towards capital projects.

We request that the operating grant funding model be modified, or alternately, a special grant be provided to districts to cover the cost of acquiring, moving, operating and maintaining portables for those districts without sufficient school capacity to accommodate all students appropriately.

Regarding the annual facilities grant, the Surrey school district, like most districts throughout the province, continues to struggle with insufficient funding to support the mandatory maintenance of our existing schools and buildings. The district’s sole source of funding for this work is through grants, most significantly the annual facilities grant. It’s known as AFG. The provincial AFG has only increased minimally over the last many years, while costs have increased significantly.

This lack of sufficient funding has left many of our schools in an inferior state of repair, negatively affecting the quality of our educational spaces, shortening the life of some building components and increasing our operational costs.

We request that the AFG provincial funding allocation be increased significantly and that a process be developed to continue to increase this funding annually, recognizing inflationary costs as well as the age and number of buildings in each district.

The ongoing Ministry of Education review of the current operating grant formula for schools is looking at a different option for allocating funding to districts for students with special needs. Regardless of which funding allocation model is eventually selected, the funding allocated for services to these students needs to be increased significantly.

The Surrey school district, like many districts in the province, spends up to 50 percent more on services for special needs students than the funding formula provides. This increased cost to the services for our most vulnerable students must be funded through a reallocation from other areas within our budget, negatively affecting the services to all students. We request that the operating grant funding provided to districts be increased substantially to cover the full cost of services to students with special needs and all vulnerable students in districts.

Finally, funding to cover annual, inflationary and other costs. The board of education appreciates very much this government’s commitment to fund the cost of unionized labour settlements and enrolment increases. We do believe, however, that government should be annually funding other inflationary costs as well, such as salary increases for all exempt principals and vice-principals and staff, and annual inflation on supplies, services, employee benefits, energy and utilities.

The annual impact of inflation on district cost beyond just unionized salary cost is significant. Without additional funding allocated to districts to help offset the impact of the annual inflation pressures on district expenses, districts must continue to reallocate from other areas within their budgets to cover these costs.

As emphasized elsewhere in this report, any time budgets are forced to be reallocated to cover unfunded cost pressures, there is a negative impact on the funding remaining available for all other services to students.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Shawn, we’re at nine minutes. If you could wrap it up, that would be great.

S. Wilson: Okay. Well, again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present. We’re proud of our school district and its accomplishments. We appreciate our partnership, our working relationship between our staff and the ministry staff, so we look forward to government’s response to some of our issues.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you.

R. Coleman: I have a number of questions, but we’re going to be out of time. So could you just confirm one thing for me? Did you say that each portable is $210,000 — that it costs $35,000 to move, and each one is a $13,000 operating cost?

S. Wilson: That’s right. That is correct.

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

I did cut you off. Was there anything else you wanted to say before…?

S. Wilson: No. I just had a short conclusion.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Good.

G. Frank: And you have a copy of our report.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes, of course. We have the written report. We’re over time now, anyway. Thank you very much for your presentation.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’m just going to turn the chair over to Dan for a couple of minutes.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Good afternoon, again. We have Restaurants Canada up — Mark von Schellwitz.

Sir, welcome. We’ve allotted five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a heads-up at the five-minute mark.

RESTAURANTS CANADA

M. von Schellwitz: All right. Well, thank you very much. My name is Mark von Schellwitz, and I’m the vice-president, western Canada, for Restaurants Canada. We’re the largest hospitality industry association in the country, representing about 30,000 members coast to coast. We’re managed by a volunteer board of directors. We’re also the number one source for industry information as far as statistics and that type of thing.

As far as the restaurant industry in British Columbia is concerned, we’ve actually been a growing industry over the last few years. We’re now a $15 billion industry, representing about 14,550 establishments, of which 7,000 are full-service restaurant establishments.

We’re also the third-largest private sector employer in the province, representing 192,000 employees. That’s 7.7 percent of the province’s workforce. We’re also the number one youth job creator, with about 85,000 youth jobs in the province as well. It’s a very, very competitive, low-margin, highly competitive, labour-intensive industry, with pre-tax profitability for full-service restaurants at less than 5 percent.

By the way, I hope you all got an electronic copy of my submission. If not, I have extra copies here that I can give you afterwards.

The last couple of years, we’ve been facing a bunch of operational cost increases. Some of them are just naturally through food cost increases through the marketplace, but also, a number of policies have increased our operating costs — everything from corporate income tax hikes, personal income tax hikes, increased carbon taxes, the new employers health payroll tax. There’s the speculation tax, foreign buyer tax, property transfer tax, school tax and significant municipal tax increases right across the province as well, which is really hurting our ability to keep our prices in line.

As a result of this, we have to raise our menu prices and certainly cut back on labour hours where necessary in order to maintain those very low margins. Also, we’ve had significant increases in the minimum wage. Over the last couple of years, it’s been several times the consumer price index or the average weekly wage inflation rate. As a result of that, that is also impacting our ability to toe the line as far as prices are concerned, which has led to a lot of menu price increases. Of course, that reduces the affordability for our guests of eating out.

Also, we’ve had a whole bunch of municipal single-use-item plastic bag bylaws. We’re willing to do our part on those, but this requires a wholesome sort of approach with public education. Instead of a bunch of patchwork of municipal — sometimes contradictory — bylaws that are of concern to our industry versus retail, we would like to see a national or provincial approach to this.

It’s also important, I think, to note that in the last year alone, $4.3 billion was added just in that take-home, home-delivery market. That’s a 44 percent increase. So on the single-use-item side, we want to do our part with recyclability and that type of thing. But we still have to make sure that we can meet the demands of our guests, who are increasingly wanting those home-delivery options.

As far as our top three recommendations are concerned, one is the number one recommendation from the business technical advisory panel on liquor. It was for wholesale pricing. I understand that work is underway right now with Treasury Board on that particular item.

It’s very, very important that we get some sort of competitiveness that will bring us back some of the cost increases that’ll happen on the liquor side. It’ll also reduce the gap right now between retail and hospitality liquor prices, keeping people more involved in licensed establishments, where there’s a safe drinking atmosphere, as opposed to a lot of the pre-sipping that goes on with retail.

It’s an extremely important issue, as well, with our neighbours, both in Alberta and Washington state, having wholesale pricing. Right now, we’ve got a situation where there are millions of dollars in lost tax revenue as far as that is concerned because of a lot of illegal importation from those jurisdictions of more premium products.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think, as well, a lot of our members are frustrated that even though we’re not a huge percentage of the overall liquor sales, we actually contribute significantly more tax revenue for every drink we sell versus the retail store. For example, a $30 bottle of vodka. You’ll pay 10 percent PST on that. At the retail level, that bottle of vodka makes 25 Caesars, say, at $8 a piece. That’s $200 in PST tax revenue from that same amount of liquor sold by rounds in our establishment.

We want to make sure that that happens. That’s certainly our number one priority.

Number 2 — we’re really pushing hard. We really think that the Small Business Task Force did some really good work last year and made a bunch of recommendations. We would certainly advocate and recommend that those recommendations be implemented, especially excluding those under 19 from the employer health tax; increasing the threshold of the employer health tax; introducing a training wage and other sorts of incentives to hire inexperienced, first-time workers; and a predictable formula, once we get past 2021, on minimum wage, based on CPI and average weekly wage inflation, which a lot of other provinces do.

Then, finally, as I mentioned before, we’d like to see an introduction of a provincial or a federal…. Prime Minister Trudeau just announced something recently. But again, we’re seeing a bunch, a patchwork of municipal regulations that just don’t make sense, especially if you’re operating in multiple jurisdictions.

Those are our main points. I will obviously do a much more thorough submission by the end of next week. But I know my time is limited, and I hear my watch buzzing, so I’m now available for questions.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks. You’re at six minutes.

Any questions or comments?

Seeing none, thank you, sir. You have until the 28th, correct?

M. von Schellwitz: Yes, the 28th. The end of the month, as I understand it.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): I wanted to thank the Deputy Chair, even though I didn’t witness any of it.

Thank you, Dan.

Next up we have Tuition Freeze Now — Kayla Phillips and Annie Bhuiyan.

If we could try to keep the initial comments to about five minutes, that would be great.

TUITION FREEZE NOW

K. Phillips: Before starting today, we’d like to thank the Matsqui and Sumas nations as we gather on Stó:lō land today. We join their calls for the immediate return of their sacred lands.

If you would deny the importance of a post-secondary degree as a means of securing one’s future in terms of career and financial stability, particularly in B.C. as the cost of living continues to climb, the need for an educated workforce to respond to the challenges of today is clear. This government has made its commitment to post-secondary education known by removing interest from provincial student loans and increasing funding for the expansion of campuses and certain programs.

Unfortunately, these improvements have not addressed a fundamental reality of post-secondary education in B.C. It is too expensive for many and continues to become more so by the year.

We believe, and we hope the committee believes, that education is a human right, and that one’s life circumstances should not determine their ability to access the education they need to make a better life for themselves. This is why Tuition Freeze Now is asking this committee to recommend a cap on university tuition, with a corresponding increase to B.C. universities to maintain their budgets and continue providing quality education.

Through careful analysis, Tuition Freeze Now has documented the decline of funding to public institutions as well as some potential solutions. Since 2008, the operating grant given to Simon Fraser University per full-time-equivalent student has not kept up with inflation and has, in fact, decreased by almost 10 percent. This means that universities such as SFU have had to rely more and more on tuition and student fees to meet their budgetary needs. In fact, tuition now makes up a larger part of SFU’s revenue than government funding does. This has meant significant cost off-loading to students who are already financially strapped.

Since starting Tuition Freeze Now last October, we have heard countless stories from students who have questioned whether they can afford to continue their education or if they have to choose between food or tuition, housing or tuition or whether they can even stay in B.C. at all. This comes at the same time that universities increase tuition by the maximum allowable amount for domestic students and as international tuition fees rage out of control. In some circumstances, such as SFU this year, that means up to 20 percent increases per year, which is thousands of dollars each semester.

This is not a phenomenon limited to SFU. Branches of Tuition Freeze have popped up around the province at schools like UVic and UBC as students who simply want to gain the education they need are expected to make up for government funding shortfalls and they find the financial strain much too great.

[3:15 p.m.]

A. Bhuiyan: Unfortunately, while at schools like SFU these costs have risen faster than the rate of general inflation, grant funding for full-time-equivalent, also known as FTE, students has decreased substantially, in real terms, since 2009, and only recently recovered part of the shortfall in the last two budgets, as you can see in graph 1 in the handouts that we have given you guys. This has inevitably resulted in SFU relying on an average of about $10 million per year in increased tuition and fees levied on domestic and international students studying in many different programs, as represented in graph 2 in front of you.

While this is a large amount of money for a university, and the resulting tuition and fee hikes are certainly having a large impact on students, it isn’t unreasonable for a large provincial government with a nearly $60 billion budget. A tuition freeze would therefore not require burdensome hikes in grant funding, but relatively small adjustments for a few percent above inflation per year to existing grants.

We are SFU students, and as such, we are more familiar with our university’s situation. But similar issues of costs outstripping provincial grants over time plague the other ten universities, leading to very well-publicized protests over their own tuition and fee hikes. The constantly falling share of university funding as a percentage of B.C.’s GDP, as you can see on graph 3 in front of you, represents students falling down the list of government priorities, and we would like to see that changed.

In the short term, reversing this trend would mean small but meaningful hikes in real terms of the provincial grant funding given to universities, which would allow some measure of relief for students suffering from affordability issues across the province. In the medium term, the committee should research and recommend the amount of ongoing increase in funding that would ensure a viable tuition freeze but does not degrade the quality of education and services provided by universities.

In addition to mandating such a freeze, one possible solution would be to tie post-secondary funding to GDP as a small percentage to ensure adequate funding increases over time.

We thank you for your time today, and we hope you will take our suggestions into consideration.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Any questions?

Well, thank you very much. We have heard from a number of students around the province with regards to tuition fees and other funding for post-secondary, and we appreciate you adding your voice to that. Thank you so much for your presentation.

Next up we have B.C. Family Hearing Resource Society — Lisa Cable.

Hi, how are you?

B.C. FAMILY HEARING RESOURCE SOCIETY

L. Cable: Good afternoon.

Again, I’m Lisa Cable, from B.C. Family Hearing Resource Society. Thank you for taking the time for me to come and speak with you this afternoon. I know you’ve heard from a lot of people, so hopefully, I have some new and interesting information to share. I hopefully will be under the five minutes, and then there will be a few moments for questions.

Every year approximately 100 children are born deaf and hard of hearing in the province of British Columbia, and the majority of these children will be born to hearing parents. This means that many of them will not be educated about the specific needs of their children as it relates to their hearing loss and deafness. Our job is to support, educate and build a community around these families during the crucial years of early learning.

There are currently three early intervention agencies in British Columbia serving deaf and hard-of-hearing children under the age of five. All of these agencies have been operating in the province for over 30 years, working with families in myriad ways: one-to-one interventions with these families in their homes, group programs, workshops, education, sign language training and events and opportunities for this special community to come together.

In 2007, the province established the early hearing program within the Provincial Health Services Authority. Part of this program is the newborn hearing screening program, whereby over 90 percent of children born in B.C. are screened for hearing loss as newborns. This program, along with the work of the early intervention agencies, has resulted in B.C. becoming the national leader in providing services to this specific population. We are recognized not only in Canada but internationally as a shining example of how to provide professional, effective and meaningful support to families with young deaf and hard-of-hearing children.

The second sentence on the cover of the Budget 2020 Consultation paper says: “The desire to protect, improve and celebrate all that British Columbia has to offer is what brings us together.” The paper also goes on to talk about creating opportunities, meeting the challenges of tomorrow and helping people to achieve their full potential.

[3:20 p.m.]

These words mirror exactly what we are trying to achieve in the field of early intervention for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in this province. When we are able to work not only with the children but with their families, their extended families, their friends and the professionals that surround them, it builds capacity within the community to ensure that these children, despite their hearing loss and deafness, can achieve whatever they want to in life, just like their hearing peers.

There is a statistic that tells us the average deaf adult will only achieve a grade 4 literacy level, but as a result of the work done in our province over the last three decades, we are seeing our graduates go on to university, become business owners, skilled tradespeople and thriving members of society. The restrictions of the past need not be the restrictions for our children today.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is the primary funder for the early intervention services for deaf and hard-of-hearing children. The contract for this MCFD funding will come up for renewal through an RFP process in spring of 2020. We’re asking your committee to ensure that funding is available at a level that allows us to continue building upon the success of what we have achieved so far.

Families do not pay for the intervention services they receive from our agency, thus ensuring no financial barriers to any services. The challenges we do face are in the growth in the numbers of families needing services and ensuring that families receive equitable services regardless of where they live in the province. In order to ensure that we continue to offer the quality and quantity of services that we know lead to the best outcomes, we are asking for your help in putting the proper funds in place.

Early intervention services for families of children who are deaf and hard of hearing in this province is undoubtedly a success story. It’s important to celebrate and recognize the support that we have received to make this happen. So as representatives of the provincial government, we say thank you to you.

Looking to the future, we are passionate about continuing to provide these crucial services, as we know they have a direct impact in changing the lives of children and families. I am personally passionate about this, not only as someone who works with these families at B.C. Family Hearing Resource Society but as the parent of a profoundly deaf child myself.

Being a part of the early intervention program at B.C. Family Hearing for the first five years of my daughter’s life undoubtedly gave us as a family the skills to support and nurture her as well as providing her with the confidence and knowledge to face the world with excitement and enthusiasm. The success of my daughter is directly tied to the support we received, and I believe it is imperative that every family is able to receive the same for their child.

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

R. Coleman: Lisa, I just want to thank your organization. When I came across a situation with one of my grandchildren — who is actually having tubes inserted at the end of the week, after waiting a while, for hard of hearing — your resources were very helpful in the understanding. I just want to thank you for that.

L. Cable: Fantastic. I’m so glad to hear that.

N. Simons: I just want to say that if, in fact, universal screening was introduced in 2007, I can think of something good that the previous government did.

B. D’Eith (Chair): There’s a first for everything.

N. Simons: I want to say that it’s late in the day, so I felt a little weak.

I just want to say, as well, that my grandmother and my mother are both teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing kids, so I’ve been around…. I’m wondering about the adaptive equipment coverage for whatever is necessary beyond the social supports. Can you just give us an outline of how those impact on families?

L. Cable: Yes. We don’t provide the equipment, but that is all sort of under the auspices of the early hearing program. For children under the age of three, their first set of hearing aids will be provided at no cost, covered by the province. Then children who receive cochlear implants, which is another type of equipment, will receive their first cochlear implants and the surgery. It’s all covered by the province.

There is currently a program that’s been set up. To replace the external portion of the cochlear implants is approximately $5,000 per — so if a child has two — and usually about five to six years they would need replacing. Currently, there is a program whereby families at that five-or-six-year time period can pay $700 towards the cost, and then the province will cover the remainder of it. That is an excellent program that’s come in just in the last few years.

[3:25 p.m.]

I know a couple of things have happened under that program. One, the demand is sort of beginning to outpace the funds that are available for that program. But also, there is nothing equivalent for children with hearing aids, and we know that those are also expensive, about $3,000 a hearing aid. So families with young children who need to replace hearing aids — which, again, can be every three to five years — are responsible for paying the full cost of those after the first pair has been provided.

N. Simons: As a follow-up, are there any organizations that assist? I understood that our coverage of those hearing aids themselves was not up to par with other provinces.

L. Cable: I’m not particularly well-versed in what’s being provided in other provinces. But to be honest, we do have by far and large the most extensive program. I’m not sure. I can’t compare. I know that we’re doing quite well in terms of providing services to young families. But, yes, the coverage of equipment is definitely one area where there could be more done and particularly in the area of hearing aids to at least bring them on par to what’s being done for families with cochlear implants.

M. Dean: Thanks, Lisa. Thanks for your work and for coming today. I was worried about what you said, though — that there’s a trend of increasing need. Is the trajectory of children being born with hearing loss or hearing impairment actually climbing? Is it going up?

L. Cable: No. As a percentage of the population, that number is not necessarily moving. It’s just the growth in population means that as more children are born, then that 1 in 1,000 or whatever it is — that number goes up. We also have cases whereby…. Obviously, we are identifying the newborns, but we also have cases where we have, for example, families, new immigrants move here. They have a young child who was not necessarily diagnosed where they came from, so they are now coming into our system at age two or three. Similarly from other provinces, where they don’t have newborn hearing screening programs. It’s not always necessarily at the newborn level, as well, that they are coming to us.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your passion for this. It was really great hearing your story.

We’re going to take a short, five-minute, recess.

The committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:37 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. Next up we have Burnaby board of education — Jen Mezei.

If we could, Jen, keep the initial comments to about five minutes so we have time for questions, that’d be wonderful.

JEN MEZEI

J. Mezei: It’s a pleasure to be gathered with you today on the traditional territory of the Stó:lō Nations of Matsqui and Sumas.

Thank you for providing an opportunity to present to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

The Burnaby school district has the fourth-largest student population in the province of B.C., serving approximately 24,500 K-to-12 students, 1,440 international, fee-paying students and a large continuing and community education program.

The district operates a large and complex learning environment, with a culturally rich and diverse student population. In the submission before you are recommendations in the areas of supports for special education and inclusion, newcomers to Canada, mental health supports, technology and capital project funding. I’ll be touching on three of these points today, but please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions in our submission.

The funding provided to support students with special education needs is simply inadequate. The mandate of the funding model review panel did not include the quantum of funding allocated to school districts. A significant resource investment is required to address the diverse needs of students with unique learning needs. Our district believes that current funding for special education students is not adequate to address the complexity of each student.

Educational supports and parental expectations to provide access to education for students with special needs into inclusive classrooms were not sufficiently contemplated when the existing funding formula was created. Today educators use strength-based approaches and develop core competencies for students. Inclusive education practices have evolved.

[3:40 p.m.]

However, funding has not been increased to support best practice. The complexity of students with special needs is placing higher demands for personalized supports on the school system in order to assess and support learning needs, resulting in increased labour costs, pressure on human resources recruitment and pressures on individual class­rooms and educational assistants. The true cost of special education that is transformative, innovative and inclusive requires consideration in the revised funding formula and should be reflected in Budget 2020, as is the basis of recommendations 1 and 2 in the brief.

So 48 percent of families and students that arrive in Burnaby require support by our settlement workers in schools, or SWIS, programs. Now they’re arriving as refugees — refugee families with complex needs which, from a perspective of students in the school system, include huge gaps in education. Students who have lived in refugee camps arrive to school having never sat in a classroom or held a pencil. Their academic needs are significant, as teachers work to help students acquire literacy and numeracy skills as well as social skills required to work and play safely in a school environment.

The makeup of who requires settlement services has changed a lot in the last three years. For example, in 2015, 18 percent of the students we serviced were refugees and 69 percent were skilled workers. This year we are seeing that 40 percent of the students we’re serving for settlement services are refugees and 45 percent are skilled workers. That has really changed the dynamics of what settlement supports are in our schools.

Many refugees arrive with mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder, having witnessed the death of family members, experienced war or abandonment and isolation. They are battling poverty and lack of employment. Parents are struggling with language barriers themselves, and older students are expected to hold out-of-school jobs just to try to put food on the table.

Refugees often arrive in Burnaby with multiple children and are housed in one- or two-bedroom apartments. Access to mental health support is difficult for families due to stigma around needing mental health services as well as the number of students who require services, specifically language-based services with qualified counselling specialists.

The federal government provides financial support for the SWIS program that provides important programming for newcomers to Canada. The families supported face multiple barriers as they settle into Burnaby. Since 2014, when the administration of settlement funding moved from provincial to federal jurisdiction, our temporary residents and returning Canadian citizens are ineligible to receive funding for settlement services.

Of concern is the high number of newcomer families needing settlement support that are currently ineligible under the federal government funding requirements, such as temporary workers, refugee claimants and naturalized Canadians — for example, children that are born to refugee or immigrant parents. These are the families who need support when they come to Canada.

We are recommending that the provincial government provide financial support to cover the costs of funding ineligible newcomers to Canada and that the provincial government seek to enhance coordination with the federal government for SWIS supports to ensure all families receive the necessary supports as soon as they arrive in our classrooms, regardless of the time to adjudicate their claims.

Our last item. The Burnaby board of education continues to support students, staff and families from all sexual orientations and gender identities, SOGI, with inclusive classes and facilities. Recently the district SOGI committee recommended to amend our board policy to require, where possible, the inclusion of gender-neutral washrooms and change rooms in schools. The board policy committee is supporting the recommendation.

We understand the Ministry of Education has begun a review of the school area standards manual. We request that consideration is provided to develop gender-neutral washrooms and change rooms in schools and to ensure that adequate space be provided to support the development of gender-neutral washrooms and change rooms in schools. Additional funding is also required to cover the costs of retrofitting current buildings to provide gender-neutral washroom and change room space.

Thank you for your consideration of our proposals. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have.

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

Questions?

M. Dean: Thanks for your thorough presentation.

Just on the SOGI strategies and space in washrooms, have you managed to implement the feminine hygiene products in your school district?

J. Mezei: Yes, we have.

M. Dean: How has that been rolling out for you?

[3:45 p.m.]

J. Mezei: Well, we approved it in, I believe, April. We actually had approved to have them put into all of our female washrooms and also all of our gender-neutral washrooms. We’ve been pretty progressive in that area. All of our schools do have some gender-neutral spaces.

M. Dean: Good to hear.

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

Thank you very much. This was a very, very thorough presentation. We really appreciate it, Jen.

Next up we have the Mining Association of British Columbia — Michael Goehring and Lindsay Kislock.

Thank you for coming. If we could keep the initial comments to about five minutes, we’d appreciate that.

MINING ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

M. Goehring: We will do our best.

Good afternoon, committee. Thanks for the opportunity to present to you. We’ll get right down to it. By way of background, the Mining Association of B.C. represents operating steelmaking coal, metal and industrial mineral producers as well as smelting operations and advanced development companies in British Columbia.

Our mines are the largest producers of copper and steelmaking coal in Canada. We’re the second-largest producer of silver and the only producer of molybdenum. All of these commodities are crucial in the development of a low-carbon economy that we’re all trying to advance.

Our mandate is to encourage the safe, responsible development and operation of mining and related facilities across British Columbia.

Mining helped build our province and remains a critical economic driver, producing billions in economic activity and generating tens of thousands of jobs in rural and urban B.C. Last year alone the industry generated $12.3 billion in economic activity, supported over 33,000 direct and indirect jobs and provided $953 million in payments to the provincial government. That doesn’t include corporate income tax or other employment-related taxes. That’s moneys that are vital to provide critical public services for British Columbians.

A thriving and responsible mining sector is essential to the future economic growth of our province and the prosperity of British Columbians. Mining is not just a rural industry. We’ve done some studies that we published last year. We found that there are more than 125 municipalities and Indigenous communities in B.C. that are home to more than 3,000 businesses providing about $1.35 billion worth of goods, services and materials to the mining sector. Of these companies, 1,200 — about half — are in the Lower Mainland and have contracts worth more than $460 million. They supply goods and services to the 13 mines that participated in the study.

Here in Abbotsford, about 30 companies provide just shy of $1 million worth of goods and services to B.C.’s operating mines. Around the table, I see representatives from Maple Ridge, Penticton, Langley and Victoria. Those are communities that are not really considered traditional mining communities.

Penticton is not just wine country. There are more than 25 companies based in Penticton that sell goods and services to our industry. Victoria is home to more than 55 companies that sell goods and services to B.C.’s miners. In Langley, there are more than 80 companies supplying more than $25 million worth of goods and services. These companies represent significant economic activity and jobs in your communities — jobs of families, friends and neighbours.

As communities across the province are grappling now with the impacts of mill closures and curtailments in the forest industry, mining is becoming increasingly important to the B.C. economy. It’s of mounting importance to ensure that B.C. remains a competitive mining jurisdiction. As global commodity prices continue to shift, mining companies right now are reviewing the economic viability of their operations, assessing whether mines on care and maintenance should be moved back into production, whether existing mines should be expanded, and they’re considering the business case for the development of new mines in B.C. versus other mining jurisdictions worldwide.

Importantly, effective regulatory processes and sound fiscal policies are critical to ensure that B.C.’s mining industry remains globally competitive. The “so what” of that is to make sure that we maintain and continue to grow jobs and increase investment here in our province.

[3:50 p.m.]

As our mining operations approach the end of their permitted mine life, they must evaluate the opportunities to expand their operations or move towards closure. Mines are finite. The operating permits and approvals for existing mining operations begin to expire as soon as 2023.

What’s important is that the average time for a mining project to move through the EA process and permit approval process alone is in excess of six years right now. This is followed by years of construction, all before a mine can become operational. If our province and our people are to continue to benefit from the employment and economic activity created by mining, new mining projects and current mine expansions need to be encouraged and supported by an efficient and timely regulatory and fiscal framework.

The current government has embarked on an ambitious agenda of legislative and regulatory change. This has created some uncertainty in the mining sector. To be successful and effective, these changes need to be thoughtfully considered and contemplated before being executed. So on behalf of our membership, we present five recommendations, for consideration by the committee, that together will support the industry and the benefits it provides to British Columbians.

Our first recommendation. To ensure that the British Columbia mining industry remains globally competitive and a critical driver of jobs and investment here, we recommend that the government take the necessary time to thoughtfully consider and prepare appropriate regulatory and policy amendments to three pieces of legislation: the revitalization of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Mines Act and the Mineral Tenure Act.

Our second recommendation is to implement all of the recommendations of the Mining Jobs Task Force. We were very pleased to see Premier Horgan accept all those recommendations, along with Minister Mungall. We support all the recommendations of the task force, and we encourage the standing committee and government to move forward and execute these recommendations expeditiously. It’s important to note that Indigenous representation, labour, communities, academia and industry all contributed to these recommendations that were accepted by government.

The third of the five recommendations is to ensure fairness for B.C. trade-exposed industries with their competitors in other provinces and worldwide. We recommend that the CleanBC industrial incentive be available for every dollar of carbon tax paid by trade-exposed industries.

Four, we’d like you to address the competitiveness challenge posed by the application of the provincial sales tax, by removing this input tax on investments in mining machinery and equipment. This was something that was addressed by the Mining Jobs Task Force.

Last, examine and implement new measures to reduce upward pressure on electricity rates, to ensure that we regain our low-cost-electricity advantage. Further, look at new programs that will incent new mines and the expansion of existing mines through low-cost electricity.

In closing, all communities in B.C. are mining communities. There’s no urban economy versus a rural economy. We’re all in this together, with urban, rural and Indigenous communities seeking opportunities, jobs and prosperity. A thriving and growing mining sector can continue to deliver prosperity, jobs and investment to all of these communities while providing the essential metals and minerals for our transition to a lower-carbon economy.

Those are all our comments. Thank you for the opportunity. We’re pleased to take any questions.

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. I’m not familiar with the task force recommendations other than what you’ve just expressed here, and I don’t know when the report was made.

My question is regarding the sales tax on equipment. Was that recommendation made before or after the budget item of 2018 that provided $800 million to help with equipment purchase for industry? It was a federal-provincial….

M. Goehring: In the last budget, the completion of the elimination of the provincial sales tax on electricity was….

R. Leonard: No, that’s not the one I’m talking about.

M. Goehring: I’m not clear on what you’re referencing.

[3:55 p.m.]

R. Leonard: I can’t remember exactly what the…. It’s an $800 million…. I want to say incentive, but I don’t think that’s quite the right word that was applied. Agricultural equipment would benefit from getting some reductions in costs. It’s not familiar to you at all?

M. Goehring: I’m sorry. It’s not.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Michael, thanks for coming. I appreciate what you’ve put in today.

I just wanted to say — you had mentioned Penticton — that we miss the days of Mascot on the hill. There was a $25-million-a-year payroll that came into Penticton from that.

You mentioned, I think, 18 or 20 businesses today that do a substantial amount of business in mining around the area. Thank goodness for Copper Mountain. We still have a lot of residual effect that comes from there. But there were an awful lot of other businesses in Penticton, which don’t exist anymore, when there was a mine up on the hill. For a community like Penticton, where industry is not as diverse as it could be, mines in close proximity make a world of difference for many, many families in the community. Thank you again for everything you do.

D. Clovechok: Thank you for your presentation.

I just want to echo my colleague over there. I represent Columbia River–Revelstoke. We have some gypsum mines, but that’s about it. In the Elk Valley, of course, it’s feeding a lot of our families. We just want to thank you for your continued work. We certainly support all things that you do.

R. Coleman: I want to add to that. I’ve actually been in almost every single major mine and most minor mines in British Columbia. The technology always amazes me. Particularly, the one that always amazed me was the one in Princeton, where for 17 years, Mitsubishi bought all the concentrate, FOB the Port of Vancouver, from that mine — simply because the copper was going to be so important in the new economy of electric vehicles and stuff like that. Copper is something that’s critical, actually, to e-cars, EVs and all the rest of that. It really is an amazing industry when you go look at it.

M. Goehring: We drove out here in a 100 percent electric vehicle. It’s our mining car, fuelled by mining.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’ve seen that at the Leg.

M. Goehring: It’s a sweet little car. Just for the record, it takes four times the amount of copper that a normal internal combustion engine requires.

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

Next up we have the B.C. Cycling Coalition — Richard Campbell.

B.C. CYCLING COALITION

R. Campbell: Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Apologies for not having a written submission yet.

The active transportation strategy, which we’re very excited about — move, commute, connect — was released on Monday at the B.C. Active Transportation Summit, which we’re organizing. I just had a chance to get around to looking at it last night. Quite frankly, it looks quite excellent. Congratulations to the staff in the ministry, Minister Trevena and everyone else that looked at that. We are excited to see that being implemented.

For background, at the B.C. Cycling Coalition, we encourage cycling for commuting, recreation and transportation. Our vision is simply cycling for everyone. We have 24 member organizations across B.C. Between them and us, we have about 70,000 supporters in all these organizations.

Cycling and walking are very popular activities that people want to do more often. And 1.9 million people in B.C. ride a bicycle at least once a year, 250,000 children ride a bike to school; 82 percent of children 12 to 14 ride a bike at least once a year, and 1.3 million B.C. residents say they would ride more often if they had bike lanes that were separated from traffic. From the last B.C. transportation plan, 2.8 million adults support enhanced cycling infrastructure funding.

[4:00 p.m.]

Now, as far as jobs, 11.4 jobs are created for each $1 million spent on cycling projects, versus 7.8 jobs for road projects. So it creates a lot more jobs for the dollar. It’s really something that’s quite popular, and it’s really important that more funding be provided. In the B.C. active transportation strategy, the commitment was made to double active transportation trips by 2030. We think that’s definitely a doable goal and would have many benefits for the people of British Columbia — obviously, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, increased physical fitness.

There’s growing evidence that the only way most people can get the amount of physical activity they need to remain healthy is if they can incorporate active transportation in their daily lives. Some communities in B.C. are doing quite well as far as that goes; some aren’t. Even within some communities, there are huge disparities. For example, in the city of Vancouver, about 60 percent of people use active transportation to get to work. If you go near the Burnaby border, it falls off the cliff, and it’s about 1 percent.

We have a lot to do to make it universally accessible for everyone. Part of that is increased investment, and we’re glad that the active transportation strategy recommends that going forward. Also, there were some design guidelines that were released as well, as part of the strategy. That should help municipalities of all sizes get quality walking, cycling and rolling infrastructure on the ground quicker.

Now, one thing that’s important in rolling out this strategy is ensuring that the Ministry of Transportation and the other ministries involved have the capacity and the staff they need to do all the policy work that is still in front of us. I think the plan says they want to do a lot more monitoring. They want to see what people are doing and what the barriers are. All that takes time and money. The monitoring is important for several reasons. The active transportation strategy is one of the first initiatives that has been developed under the gender-based analysis plus. That’s one way to ensure that everyone benefits and that no one gets left behind.

Going forward on transportation, probably in the budget process, instead of getting overall numbers and aggregate numbers reflecting the whole population — as the doubling of that is — we need to target people that are disadvantaged, that are not getting the exercise they need and that don’t have the transportation choices they need to access jobs and education. That involves doing some more work, having some more measurables and doing some more analysis.

People living in rural areas often have more difficulty with transportation, especially if there’s not good transit service. People with disabilities have even greater challenges, and people in poverty face even worse. There are also various barriers that women face that men don’t face — personal security in all forms of transportation. We need to acknowledge that, and we need to measure that so that our investments help the goal of equity. I think there’s the opportunity to look at and change the way we analyze our transportation projects.

For example, the Massey bridge or tunnel — I’m not sure which one it will end up being — was a huge investment that will benefit a relatively small number of people in B.C., and the benefit will be some time improvement. Of course, over years and over a number of people, that gets to be a large number, but it might be possible — had those billions of dollars been spent on walking, cycling, wheelchair safety and other transportation improvements around British Columbia — to have benefited far more people, in providing them with the basic access and the basic exercise they need to remain healthy in B.C.

I think some other things would also help. Disability rights legislation is something that was talked about a lot at the summit. We had some people from the U.S., where they have the ADA — where governments are required to make things accessible. For example, in Vancouver, their plan was to build out curb cuts over 400 years. They were shamed, by somebody we were working with, to bring it down to 40. But in Seattle, due to that legislation, they were able to take them to court. They’re building out their curb cuts — which are essential access for some people, but help everyone get around — in about ten years.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Richard, would you mind wrapping it up? We’re at about seven minutes now.

R. Campbell: Sure, that’s fine. Yes, if there are any questions, that’d be fantastic. I could talk forever about this stuff, but I think I got my points across.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): I did have a quick question. We had one really wonderful presentation from a 70-year-old cyclist in North Vancouver, who is an advocate and who started cycling when she was 60. She started with an e-bike, and I’m just wondering if you could talk a little bit about e-bikes.

You talk about how cycling drops off in certain jurisdictions. Vancouver is relatively flat compared to North Vancouver, for example, where the hills might be tough for certain age groups — like most people. I’m just wondering if you could talk about that as well as the people-powered bikes.

R. Campbell: Oh, yes. Definitely. We strongly support e-bikes. They overcome all sorts of barriers, whether it’s time; effort; heat; forest fire smoke, where no one should be really exercising hard. They help people with cardiovascular and respiratory problems, various leg issues.

There is also a variety of e-bikes. There are both the bicycles and e-tricycles, which really help people with balance problems. There are cargo bikes, both human-powered and electric bikes, that help people carry things and transport their children and other people to school.

I think that in the active transportation strategy, there was a suggestion that these be looked at. So we would encourage a broad-based, inclusive look at that and support that’s perhaps means-tested so the people that need it the most could take advantage of that. Low-cost financing and things, where people could pay low-cost monthly payments, would be another option to encourage e-bike use.

Also, they increase the average commute from 6 kilometres, by human power, to about 10 kilometres. That’s a real game-changer, because that gets, I think, about 60 percent of the commutes within reasonable cycling room. So if you’re looking at reducing GHG emissions, the e-bikes are certainly a game-changer.

We strongly support additional incentives beyond the $850 SCRAP-IT that people can now get towards an electric bike.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Richard.

Any questions?

Great. Well, thank you so much for your passion for cycling and for making sure that we take this all into account whenever we’re planning. I’ll be really interested to hear your feedback on the announcement on Monday, and your written submission.

R. Campbell: Yes. I’ll definitely include that in the written submission. Really good work there.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have office of seniors advocate — Isobel Mackenzie.

OFFICE OF THE SENIORS ADVOCATE

I. Mackenzie: Thank you very much. A pleasure to be back before the committee this year. It’s a similar message, actually, to last year but, I think, reinforced a bit by some more information that we’ve been able to find out.

I think being distributed to you right now is the report that my office released yesterday on home support in the province of B.C. It talks about many things. It’s a very comprehensive report. I’m going to focus on that aspect of the report that I think is relevant to this committee and to the budget going forward.

One of the things we found when we looked systematically at the totality of the program and reviewed it provincewide was that 61 percent of residents admitted to long-term care had no home support in the months leading up to their admission. That’s not really in keeping with our goal that we would be supporting people to maintain their independence at home, that there would be a progression, and that, if needed and required eventually, their needs would reach a threshold where they would need full-time care in long-term-care facility. When you see 61 percent of people admitted having had no home care, it raises the question: what has happened in the system?

What we found was probably one…. There are two issues. There are the people who don’t access it at all, and then there’s the service that those who are getting it receive. But clearly, the biggest gains are on the people not accessing it, and we looked at the financial barriers. I think that I would not be speaking out of turn to say that most everybody, when presented with the totality of the numbers, was quite surprised at what we are charging modest-income people for home support.

I’m going to draw your attention to a few pages in the report and would ask you to turn to page 44.

We have a regulated daily rate co-payment for home support in the province. You are exempted from this daily rate if you are in receipt of the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, and 28 percent of British Columbians receive the GIS. That means your income is below $25,000 a year.

[4:10 p.m.]

The other exemption is a $300 monthly cap for anybody with earned income defined by Revenue Canada. That can be employment income, farm income, fishing income or self-employment income. It’s line 236, I think, of the return. Anything reported on that line, regardless of what your daily rate is, you would pay no more than $300 a month. Approximately 16 percent of people aged 85 and over actually have what we call earned income or employment income. The rest are subject to the full daily rate.

What that means, effectively, is that a person with $26,000 of income — so they’re over the GIS cutoff — has a daily rate of $20. If they’re going to receive daily home support, it’s going to cost them $7,300 a year.

If you’re a single with $50,000 a year in income, your daily rate is $45. It’s going to cost you $16,425 if you get two hours a day, which is 39 percent of your income, or $13,870, or 32 percent of your income.

If you’re a couple with a combined income of $65,000, you will have a daily rate of $60. The annual cost for daily home support will be $21,900, or 37 percent of your income.

The practical impact of this rate is that a number of people are simply unable to afford public home support, and they don’t have the money to afford private home support. At $20 or $25 as a daily rate, the public system is still less expensive than any private home support they would be able to get.

The other thing we do with the daily rate is…. If you turn over to page 46, you will see how we create a financial incentive for people to move into long-term care. We’ve presented three income scenarios: $27,800, which is the median income of a person 65 and over; $56,000, which is the income at which we stop assessing the co-payment for long-term care; and $80,000, which is the average income of the top 20 percent of seniors in the province.

I’ll draw your eyes to the bottom of the page, which shows that a person on $27,800 a year is going to save $9,700 by moving into long-term care rather than staying at home and getting an hour or two of home support. But we are going to pay $36,000 more for housing that person in a care facility.

At $56,000, it’s not as compelling, but it’s still on the same side of the balance sheet. So $4,000 is what the person will save by moving into long-term care.

At $80,000, however, the person saves $14,000 by moving into long-term care versus staying at home on two hours of home support. The reason for that is we cap what you pay to long-term care at $3,300 a month. There’s no cap for your payment for home support. It keeps going.

We are spending more money to subsidize a person in long-term care than we would pay, certainly, for one or two hours of home support. The tipping point is four hours a day. I’m fascinated by the fact…. When I started 25 years ago in home and community care, four hours a day, 120 hours a month, was the tipping point, and it remains the same today. There’s no ambiguity at three hours a day or two hours a day that it is less expensive.

Now, what I would like the committee to consider in a recommendation is looking at a way of developing a much, much more progressive system of payment that is affordable and that reflects a reasonable percentage of income to be spent — similar, for example, to Fair PharmaCare, where we spend 4 percent of our income before the province comes in and pays the remainder.

Because the current system has this incredible cliff, if you’re on GIS, you pay nothing. If you’re one dollar over GIS, you have to pay $7,500 a year. When you combine that with the data that shows how many are going into long-term care, with having received no home support, when you look at the incomes of the people in long-term care…. We know that as well.

[4:15 p.m.]

We know that only 9 percent are at the $56,000 threshold. So 91 percent are below that. We are pushing people, because it’s the cheapest option for them, to go into long-term care. But it is actually costing us more. So that would be my ask of this committee.

I realize it’s a long report, and you’ve got lots to read. To me, the most compelling numbers out of this report were: 61 percent admitted to long-term care with no home support; 15 percent in long-term care who could easily be accommodated at home, when we review the clinical records of their care needs; the requirement, at an income of $28,000 a year, to pay $8,800 a year for one daily visit of home support. Then when we look at the amount of home support we are providing to the people who receive it, we are also not, I think, being as cost-effective as we could.

The biggest barrier at the moment would appear to be that a number of people simply can’t afford it. When you look at the incomes, it’s not because they’re buying private care. For the higher incomes, that may be true, but not at $28,000 and $30,000.

That’s my presentation.

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

Questions at all?

N. Simons: I’m just wondering. When you were talking about…. Are we basing this on two hours of home care per day or…? How do we calculate that?

I. Mackenzie: It’s a daily rate. So what that means is that for every day of service — I’ll use the $20 — you are charged $20, whether you get one hour, four hours, two hours. If your daily rate was $50…. You would revert to what we call the private rate or the billing rate of $38 if you only received an hour. But if you received two hours, which would be $72, you would only pay the $50. You only pay it on the day you receive it. That is also weaving back into our data, which are showing that only 41 percent of people are receiving daily home support — 41 percent.

N. Simons: Were there initiatives within the health authorities to — I think that there are — increase the number of people who provide home support, to make it more accessible for community members, including by paying for people to attend a course on becoming a home care provider — such as in Vancouver Coastal Health? Are there other initiatives that you see that might…? I guess that doesn’t address the cost. It simply addresses the lack of….

I. Mackenzie: That’s about increasing the supply of the workforce, and the report talks about that as well. The workforce — 75 percent are casual or part-time. The difficult thing here is: how are you going to attract people, even if you provide training, to an occupation where, when they’re hired, they’re hired as casual and they get four or five hours a day? And in order to get those four or five hours a day, they have to make themselves….

There’s a chart in here, on page 49, that demonstrates…. This is a chart from the largest home support program in the province, on the south Island, in Victoria, and it shows the start times and the problems that you have with trying to create stable jobs. There are 248 workers needed at eight o’clock in the morning. You lose 26 by nine o’clock. You lose another 16 by ten o’clock. So there are 26 people in greater Victoria that I need at eight o’clock in the morning, and I never need them again.

There are some realities of the work that have to be addressed, because there’s no sense recruiting people to work one hour a day. It won’t work.

N. Simons: Thank you very much.

R. Leonard: Nice to see you again as well. Thank you for the report.

In that particular vein of the people working as health care aides that go out into the community, would the numbers shift, in terms of being able to support them, if the level of service was higher?

[4:20 p.m.]

I. Mackenzie: To some extent. When you look at the chart, what you clearly see is that if we were providing respite in the afternoon, more programs…. We have the staff to do that because they were working in the morning, and there’s no work for them in the afternoon. If we, however, expand the number of people…. The bulk of home support is morning care. There is always going to be a group of clients for whom that is all they need.

What I have talked about in the report is looking at a more apprenticeship-like approach to training our community health workers. We’ve got to make it more attractive. All the ads and job fairs in the world aren’t going to help when you’re hiring somebody for a job where they start off casual, and they don’t know what clients they’re going to get each day. The four-hour work minimum is exempted under this collective agreement for community health workers, interestingly enough, so you’re not even guaranteed four hours of work a day. You could have one or two hours a day.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thanks. Nice to see you again.

I. Mackenzie: Nice to see you, Dan.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I’m just trying to think out of the box here. For those people that…. You say you don’t need 26. And with the habitual shortage of care workers in many of the homes these days, could they act as floats in those homes to help with bath and the morning rituals of getting some of those seniors active?

I. Mackenzie: I think the challenge is that you’ve got a peak time everywhere, whether it’s in a care facility or in the community. I know there’s a lot of talk about: “You know, we could have them….” The reality, though, is that all those care aides working in the care homes, in facilities — 40 percent of them are casual. So they want work in the afternoon too, right? As we smooth it out…. There’s more, structurally, the opportunity for full-time jobs in a care facility, because the worker is there. They can be cross-trained. There are more things for them to do. It’s more challenging in the community. It’s not impossible.

One of the places where care aides could work in the afternoon, actually, is adult day programs, if we started to have consecutive shifts. The traditional adult day program is one shift a day. You get there by ten o’clock, and you leave by about three o’clock. I think there are possibilities for some models of two cohorts a day in the adult day program, and you would have staff for that from these community health workers.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): It was the home care workers I was talking about, acting as floats coming into the care facilities. That’s what I was speaking of. You said that they don’t want to work two hours a day; they want more. So it would be an opportunity to help out. I just think….

I. Mackenzie: But the care facilities need the help at the same hours, right? There are also the practicalities of getting to another workplace. Unfortunately, I am burdened by the reality of experience in this field. And we’ve been talking about that for 15 years.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. We’re over time, but I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your very interesting report.

Next up we have Ekona Power — Gary Schubak and Chris Reid.

EKONA POWER

C. Reid: Hi, everybody. Thanks so much for inviting us here today. We’re happy to be here to talk to you about Ekona Power. My name is Chris Reid. I’m the CEO of Ekona Power. I’m up here with Gary Schubak, who runs our sales, marketing and government relations group.

Ekona Power, just very quickly, is an energy technology venture, which is building a new way of producing low-cost hydrogen and low-emission hydrogen and low-emission power. It’s invested in by the B.C. ICE fund, for one thing — the innovative clean energy fund. It’s also backed by Suncor and Cenovus out of Alberta.

There’s a handout that’s just gone around. I’m generally going to quickly follow it, to get through what we’re talking to you about today.

What we’re really proposing is that we have a technology, which is called trigeneration pyrolysis — TGP, for short. It consists of two separate pieces of technology. One is called a methane-pulsed pyrolyzer, and the second part of it is called a direct carbon fuel cell. What this technology does is it takes natural gas and breaks it down into hydrogen and solid carbon.

[4:25 p.m.]

If you remember, from your chemistry years, that natural gas is made up of methane, which is CH₄. This breaks that molecule apart into pure hydrogen and pure carbon. The hydrogen can then be used for a variety of different applications. The carbon can just sit in the ground, if you wanted to sequester it like that. It’s a solid. Or it can be used and put into carbon markets. Or it can be used to produce clean power as well.

The second part of this is a direct carbon fuel cell, which takes that carbon and converts it into power and heat and pure CO₂, which can then be sequestered.

What we’re looking for is…. We have some funding already, as I mentioned, through the ICE program. We’re looking for a $100 million project, for which we would bring $50 million of private money towards. We’re looking for a partnership with the province for $50 million over five years. The question, naturally, is: why would you fund this technology?

Gary and I have spent our careers building clean energy ventures out and installing equipment and competing against incumbent technology. Really, the answer boils down to…. Clean energy is often much more costly than the incumbent. This technology that we’re talking about is a very low-cost alternative to being able to produce hydrogen and power.

The emissions profiles that we’ve had…. I’m not going to spend time talking about party platforms for emissions, other than to say that there’s a whole series of reductions that are planned — 40 percent by 2030 of 2007 levels in this province, going to 80 percent by 2050. Those are largely intractable, very difficult to achieve. The point of this particular technology is to help us get there and do it in a way that’s economic, cost-effective and creates jobs.

There’s a series of quotes you’ll see in the paper in front of you from all three parties. The punchline of them is that all parties are committing to be able to reduce emissions while being able to grow the clean energy economic sector.

What the TGP can do fundamentally is…. You can divide it into two areas that are probably of particular concern right now in the province. The first is the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, which has kind of blown a hole in the emissions budget that we have in this province right now. By converting the natural gas used to power the liquefiers in that program with our hydrogen, we can reduce that GHG footprint by about 40 percent, which would be about 2.7 megatonnes of GHG emissions.

The other thing we can do by producing our hydrogen is start to green our natural gas grid by introducing the hydrogen into the natural gas grid and start to convert that over, eventually with the idea that we would convert that over to hydrogen. The combination of those two and the application of using the hydrogen over the years in which we would deploy this technology — we can get about a 15 megatonne reduction of GHGs, which will represent about 40 percent of the target from where we are now to our 2050 target. So it’s not an inconsequential impact that we can have.

Specifically, if you look at the last page, there’s a series of bullets there to which this technology can do…. As I mentioned, it can go a long way to reducing the impact, the GHG levels, by 15 megatonnes of CO₂ each year as it rolls out, greening the LNG Canada project by 40 percent. We can create a new market for liquefied hydrogen.

We’re talking about LNG right now, which is liquefied natural gas, as a big industry that this province is looking to build. The world is already turning it sights to liquefied hydrogen as the next decarbonized molecule that would be transported. The Japanese have already started the program of importing that from Australia. We think we can make liquefied hydrogen and transport it and land it in markets like Korea and Japan for the same cost or less than they are getting out of the Australian markets right now. There’s a whole new market that we can grow here.

We can produce hundreds of megawatts of clean energy out of this process as well, employ thousands in terms of trades, technical and professional people. If you think about the evolution of our natural gas grid as we go forward and we convert it to hydrogen, that’s going to be a large job component in British Columbia.

[4:30 p.m.]

We already have a reputation of being a leader in GHG reduction and clean energy technologies. That is being pulled in many different directions in different jurisdictions. So this could help us continue to punch above our weight in this province in this particular area. We hope that’s reason enough to consider this proposal.

Happy to take any questions.

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

Presumably, you’ve met with Minister Ralston about…. Have you met with the ministry about this?

C. Reid: Not yet. Our engagement with the B.C. government is….

B. D’Eith (Chair): Or would it be Minister Mungall? I’m not sure.

C. Reid: No. We’ve met with some ADMs from a variety of different ministries through our engagement with the ICE fund. We’ve sat in front of them. We’re developing the prototype of this technology right now. As we go through these gates, which are scheduled for the end of this year and next year, we’ll be ready to start the pilot process.

B. D’Eith (Chair): So the technology is proven?

C. Reid: It’s being proven right now.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Chris and Gary. Appreciate it.

Next up we have Ken Collier. You have an electronic version of the presentation.

Hi, Ken. How are you? Nice to see you.

KEN COLLIER

K. Collier: I’m here to talk about transit. If you saw the electronic transmission from yesterday, you’ll know more or less what I’m on about. I’m not here representing anyone else, although I have been active in promoting transit and campaigning in four different provinces plus in Britain. So I have some background in this area.

The general point that I wish to make, actually, has been presented to the B.C. government before. The hotlink that you were given in the electronic version — I have paper copies if you want it — leads you back to a presentation made in September of 2017 about the effect of transit facilities on property values, which then leads directly to: where does the money go when property values rise because they are close to transit? Is that adequately taxed? I propose it is not, because most of the increase in value of property caused by local transit actually goes to the developers.

It isn’t just a one-time gain. It goes to the developers every year following the building of the property where the transit has increased that value, and it tends to compound. The effects of this are far bigger in the large cities than they are in smaller centres, but they are present everywhere where good, quality transit helps property values around.

The specific proposals that you’ll see in the electronic version that I sent…. I just picked out part of one page — that government invests in transit infrastructure, but the land around it increases in value. Therefore, there could be tiered-tax rates within that area, depending on how much extra value is created by nearness to transit. There are also influences that government can have on zoning requirements, cost-sharing for transit and that sort of thing.

Now, I’ve been on several transit committees in different towns that I’ve been in. Every time you bring up the topic of transit, the hand-wringing begins about how much it’s going to cost, as if it’s going to subtract from everything else. This argument supports the idea that transit actually builds value. It does not subtract from it.

We have a number of transit issues locally that probably would be affected by this, but I suspect that if there was adequate transit funding to be able to make transit accessible to all ages, the disabled and whatever, it would prove to be of value in the long run.

[4:35 p.m.]

I’ll just mention two or three of the issues that we face here. I think it’s fair to say that in Central Fraser Valley — Mission, Abbotsford — the quality of transit is not good. I’d say it’s poor. Last weekend I went to Victoria and rode around on transit. The weekend before that, I was in Vancouver and Surrey, and what they get on transit there is far superior to what we get here.

In my view, part of the reason for that is that, in essence, transit in Mission and Abbotsford has been basically privatized, given over to a private company on meagre funding. Trying to get any improvement in that, on transit committees that I’ve sat on, is absolutely always met with a blank stare: “Where’s the money coming from?” Well, this proposal, based on material that’s already on the open government website, gives some ideas about where adequate funding could come from.

A couple more points. I think part of the quality of transit here is that it’s largely what I would call unarticulated. That means it’s not hooked up very well to anything else. If you want a clear example here in Abbotsford, if you want to go to the airport on public transit, you’re out of luck. There are two trips by bus to the local airport per day, and they stop about a kilometre away from the terminal. So if you want to carry your bags that extra kilometre, well, go ahead.

One thing we know from Mission, which is where I live, is about 70 percent of the trips from Mission go to other towns outside Metro Vancouver. They’re not going into the big city. They’re going to other towns around here. Most of them, apparently, are for jobs, but a fair portion also are for people to visit relatives, to access health services, to go for education or other miscellaneous reasons.

An issue that has been hanging over our heads for a long time, long before I ever got here, is the bridge and the Mission-Lougheed bottleneck — the interchange. I guess it’s an interchange. It slows everything down. It drives log trucks and gravel trucks down the main business street in Mission. That’s been an issue ever since the first moment I got here.

If you could remove some of that traffic — and part of it could be removed by better transit and getting a lot of people out of their cars and onto transit — a lot of those problems would be solved. Now, there’s still the problem of the big bottleneck of the bridge and the interchanges that won’t be solved by that, but it would be a contribution.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Ken, we’re at about six minutes and 30 seconds. So if you wouldn’t mind wrapping it up, that would be great. Thank you.

K. Collier: All right.

There’s a number of seniors’ transit issues that have to do with accessibility. I’ll leave them aside. I see in the local newspaper that there’s a proposal now for a Rally for Rail — somebody, a fairly well-known person in some of your backgrounds, proposing that there ought to be a passenger train using the existing track, going out to Chilliwack. I’d say that’s a nice idea, but it does not solve the disarticulation issue.

Thank you for listening.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thanks so much, Ken.

Any questions at all?

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation.

A question around: do you have a regional transit planning committee in your regional district?

K. Collier: Yes, we have. It’s got about four layers to it. Right now I’m on the bottom layer. Trying to get anywhere near the top layer is a royal pain, to be frank.

R. Leonard: Okay, but you are engaged at that level. That’s good to know, because that’s where, eventually, decisions are made.

K. Collier: Except I think the province could have a big influence on all those decisions by taking on some of these ideas. Usually the question is: where’s the money coming from?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, Ken. It was great seeing you.

Next up we have Kwantlen Student Association. This is on the phone. We have David Piraquive from Kwantlen Student Association.

David, if you could please keep your initial comments to five minutes, then we have some time for questions. Okay?

[4:40 p.m.]

D. Piraquive: Yes, sounds good.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you. Go ahead.

KWANTLEN STUDENT ASSOCIATION

D. Piraquive: Hello. My name is David Piraquive. I am the president and vice-president, external affairs, at the Kwantlen Student Association. The KSA represents over 2,000 students across the Lower Mainland.

Kwantlen Polytechnic University has five campuses, which reside in Surrey-Newton, Surrey Central, Cloverdale, Langley and Richmond. KPU has a number of diverse students that come from many places across the Lower Mainland, such as Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Burnaby, North Vancouver and the cities in which our campuses are sited, among others. We also have many international students from places such as India, Germany and Brazil, just to name a few.

While we have a large, diverse group of students, many of them are facing a lot of similar issues that affect us all. Two key issues that I’d like to highlight today are the lack of regional funding to Kwantlen and the lack of transportation. While KPU is a community campus, transportation is sorely lacking to our campuses.

Since 1985, KPU has only been funded for half of the number of full-time enrolment student seats relative to the size of our region’s population and in comparison to the rest of B.C.’s regional post-secondary…. In 2017 to 2018, KPU had 8,670 FTEs, but we only got $8 per FTE for 1,000 students. The provincial average is $14 per 1,000.

Due to the lack of funding to Kwantlen, they’ve had to close down one of their faculties: their academic and career advancement. This provided upgrading classes to students who want to return to school or ESL classes to newcomers and better assistance to our students with disabilities. Furthermore, KPU has had to basically halt their intake to their music program and their farrier program due to the lack of funding. This is really disappointing to see because we personally feel that this makes Kwantlen a very unique school due to these programs. We’re not asking the government to take funding away from other schools but simply to invest more into post-secondary education.

The other problem that I noted was the lack of reliable transportation across our five campuses. This is a problem that I have personally faced throughout my time as a student at Kwantlen. There have been many times when I have missed my bus and, due to that, I have basically missed classes or been late to classes. We’re mainly a commuter campus because we do not have student housing.

During the month of May, we engaged many of our students, and they’re really supportive of the SkyTrain expansion between Surrey and Langley. Even more, they’d like to see a Surrey-to-Richmond expansion just so they can get to their classes. They’d also like to see better security, better safety among, again, more bus times.

I would like to thank this committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of all Kwantlen students.

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

Any questions from the committee?

Thank you very much for your presentation. We have heard from a number of student associations. We really appreciate your comments and your advocacy on behalf of the students. Thank you very much.

Next up we have Wes Pidgeon.

Hi, Wes. How are you?

W. Pidgeon: Well, I’m here again. So let’s see what happens.

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

WES PIDGEON

W. Pidgeon: I’ll just read straight off my paper, and we’ll leave it at that.

This is more than a budget request. This is a legal onus to follow through.

Again, I am asking for a reallocation of funds to start an investigation into the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre, psychiatric and forensics for the province of British Columbia. Sections 14.1 and 14.2 of the children and families act clearly state that if you know of a child being abused and you do nothing about it, you can get six months in jail, a $10,000 fine or both.

[4:45 p.m.]

I have to be involved in this independent investigation because I’m the one making the complaint. The thumbnail details can be gleaned from the budget meetings, which are in Hansard, October 10, 2018, in Mission, British Columbia. You can also find more information at the Children and Youth meetings — Hansard, again — June 4, 2019, in Surrey, British Columbia. There is also a series of radio shows with Reg Argue on Co-op Radio. The Agora Newspaper also did a couple of stories, etc.

Nobody has stepped up. I’ve had contact with every person, even on this committee, several times — except Doug. We’ve never spoken. We’ve never been in a room together, but I have left information with your staff. This is the first time. Doug is the only one in here that’s never seen me face to face. We’ve never had a conversation.

Anyways, nobody has stepped up. I’ve had contact with every person on this committee several times, either through direct conversations, in person, on open-line radio, CKNW, where that individual actually said they never turtled. Then they went to commercial, and they cut me off again. I put the information out there. As soon as you hear it, you have an obligation to investigate it. That’s the law. And they didn’t. I’d actually met with that individual in person before that.

I’ve left unreturned messages with office staff and assistants. Due to the treatment I’ve been receiving from each political party, the children’s rep…. They actually have a staff member who sent us an email saying they are not obligated to protect these children. Then that same individual….

Is this funny, Nicholas? There seems to be a smile. I’m sorry if I’m saying something funny.

N. Simons: Are you talking to me?

W. Pidgeon: I’m trying to be serious.

N. Simons: Keep trying.

W. Pidgeon: Thank you, Nicholas.

The children’s rep. This individual used to work for the ministry. He was the first person they sent to me, basically to make sure we didn’t talk. He now works for the children’s rep. He is in conflict.

Shortly after that, he sent an email to a father saying that if anybody looks at that email, if he passes it to anyone, then we’re going to have problems. Well, he actually passed that email to another MLA who we met on Burrard Street. And that staff member, or that MLA, has yet to get back to us. Their staff has basically communicated that they weren’t supposed to talk about children’s issues with us anymore.

My credibility is sound. I have a background that I’d like to say is second to none. It’s very diverse. I worked at the highest levels, which is the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre. I worked with the courts. I worked with the highest profile of kids in our valley, which could be also considered the province — kids with gang involvement or potential gang involvement.

The treatment that I’ve received for trying to get these children protection…. Each political party, the children’s rep, the RCMP, who are in conflict and in serious trouble over this because of a little girl named Serena Fry and her suicide in there…. It places each group in conflict.

The treatment that I received from the Children and Youth Committee…. Well, all you have to do is look at it and see how I was treated. I was the only person that day that was ever challenged. I was the only person in that room that was questioned and interrupted, and that’s in the Hansard notes. In fact, at one point, I believe that the recording was asked to be turned off, and I was given a talking-to. Thank goodness for things like little tape recorders.

I sit here asking to protect the children at the highest level in the province of British Columbia. There’s nowhere higher. Each one of your communities…. When you didn’t know how to work with your child or they needed help, they came to us. You’re not going to heal the children by punching them in the head. You’re not going to heal the children by driving them to places they shouldn’t be. When kids commit suicide or try to commit suicide, we are told that if the parents, the press or the police call, you keep your mouth shut — constant. That can be verified — plenty of notes in the Vancouver Sun and Province, plenty of articles.

When that little girl, Serena Fry, committed suicide, every time they caught the minister of the day, they just changed the story. Nothing ever came of it, and that little 12-year-old girl, who was raped by a 27-year-old who took her to his apartment…. She should never have been let out. He was let off the hook. The RCMP let that happen.

I’ve met with the RCMP twice.

One young man that got punched in the head dove off a bridge and committed suicide. Was that the precipitating factor — that he committed suicide? Maybe not. Do you think a punch in the head helped?

I sit here. All of this is legal. It’s all on the record. It’s all in Hansard. My records, my phone records, my conversations. Yes, we got to a point where we had to tape our conversations, because it’s amazing what people will say and how they’ll say they didn’t do it. The things that people have done to try to provoke me so that they can charge me…. We have it all on tape. We have the witnesses. They’ll sign the affidavits.

[4:50 p.m.]

But somehow, with my background, I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve been called every name in the book. I’m a yo-yo. I’m a clown. We have the emails and text messages confirming all this. Every time I have this conversation, it’s just due diligence.

We need somebody to step up. We need somebody to reallocate some funds. We need to walk into that institution to start cleaning up the Children and Families mess that we have. If you look at today’s Vancouver Province — she has a copy over there, the woman with Hansard — you’ll see another article about how we are not providing the needs for these children in care, the most at-risk children.

If you want to sit down and look at my background and my credentials, we can do it confidentially. You’ll see some names, and you’ll wonder why this happened. You’ll also see the success of my programs.

Nothing more I need to say. Any time I’ve come here, nobody has ever asked questions.

Laurie Throness decided that he would say: “Oh, I told you to go to the RCMP.” Laurie and I had a conversation one day. He wasn’t too happy with me. His assistant had a lot to say too.

It’s really interesting how you try to fight the good fight to protect these kids, and you’re the bad guy. I don’t understand that, but again, I’m not smart enough to know that you’re supposed to go along. I’m not smart enough to know that you’re supposed to keep your mouth shut. I don’t think I’m ever going to learn that, and thank goodness I didn’t. If it was any of your children, I guarantee that you would want a guy like me fighting for your child.

I have seen staff do things. I have tried to stop it. I have tried to report it. It’s amazing how people get promoted when they do these things.

I’m sure I’m over by now.

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

Any questions at all?

Thank you so much, Wes, for coming.

W. Pidgeon: You have my phone number. The obligation now is…. People need to call me. We need to take care of this. It’s gone on too long. It’s got a long, ugly history.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Wes.

Could I have a motion to adjourn, please?

R. Leonard: So moved.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:52 p.m.