The committee met at 9 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Janet Routledge. I’m the MLA for Burnaby North and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from the government and opposition parties.

I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting this morning in Prince George, which is located on the traditional territories of the Lheidli T’enneh people.

I would also like to welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meeting on the Budget 2022 consultation.

Our committee is currently seeking input on priorities for the next provincial budget and has heard a number of presentations over the past month. British Columbians can also share their views by making written comments or by filling out the online survey. Details are available on our website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The deadline for all input is this Thursday, September 30, 2021, at 5 p.m.

We will carefully consider all input and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be included in Budget 2022. The committee intends to release its report in November.

For this morning’s meeting, all presenters will be making individual presentations. Each presenter has five min­utes for their presentation, followed by five minutes for questions from committee members.

All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website. A complete transcript will also be posted.

I will now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): It’s great to be here in Prince George. I’m Ben Stewart, the MLA for Kelowna West and the Housing critic.

H. Sandhu: Good morning, everyone. I’m Harwinder Sandhu, MLA for Vernon-Monashee.

I’m coming to you from the unceded and traditional territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations.

M. Starchuk: Good morning. My name is Mike Star­chuk, MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale.

This is located on the unceded, traditional territories of the Coast Salish people, which include the Kwantlen, Katzie and Semiahmoo.

G. Kyllo: Good morning. My name is Greg Kyllo. I’m the MLA for Shuswap, and I’m currently the B.C. Liberal Labour critic.

M. Dykeman: My name is Megan Dykeman. I’m looking forward to your presentation. I’m the MLA for Langley East.

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

L. Doerkson: Good morning. My name is Lorne Doerkson. I’m the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Rural Development critic.

J. Routledge (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Jennifer Arril and Stephanie Raymond, from the Parliamentary Committees Office, and Amanda Heffelfinger and Simon DeLaat, from Hansard Services.

Let’s proceed with our first presentation. Our first presentation is Donna Flood, B.C. Hospice Palliative Care Association.

You have five minutes. We will try to time it as closely as possible. Jennifer will hold up a sign to let you know when you have 30 seconds just so that you can wrap it up.

Budget Consultation Presentations

B.C. HOSPICE
PALLIATIVE CARE ASSOCIATION

D. Flood: My name is Donna Flood. I’m the president of the B.C. Hospice Palliative Care Association. It’s an association that’s a member organization that has been around for over 35 years.

We represent hospices throughout the province. There’s probably over 50 hospices. They range from memberships of one person, which may be just one lady sitting at her kitchen table that’s providing care in her community, to hospices like Victoria Hospice and Canuck Place that are multi-million-dollar organizations.

What we’re trying to do is to create grief and bereavement into something that is better supported and better recognized and better evidence-based across the province. Right now there are no formal grief and bereavement programs or funding put towards it. We’ve now found that through COVID and through the reconciliation crisis, there has been a 500 percent increased request for grief programming.

[9:05 a.m.]

What we’re hoping to do is…. We’ve put forward different blocks of funding that we’re looking for. What we’re looking to do is to really do a deep dive on what the current state is — what is currently out there, who is offering it and who is needing it — and, with that, do a gap analysis of what’s needed. Create programs to support people. But not only that, create educational programs so that we can give capacity to these small hospices.

Prince George, itself, is a multi-million-dollar hospice. We’re very fortunate that we have the capacity and the resources to provide grief and bereavement care, but we would really like to see that being offered right across the provinces.

We’re looking at, again, creating a strategic plan to allow us to determine what that will look like, moving forward. With that, there’s also unresolved grief. I’m not sure if you are familiar with unresolved grief. Unresolved grief creates addiction issues. It creates mental health issues when people don’t get through their grief. We see that a lot in our Aboriginal communities, where it’s almost like an onion, where it’s layered and layered and layered until it’s just unable to do anything. That’s where, I believe, a lot of our homeless and community problems are stemming from.

We would like to start creating evidence-based programs that are consistent across the province so everyone has the same access to these programs — programs that are evidence-based — and so we work together with the universities, through other organizations, through the health authorities to really create proper, vetted grief and bereavement programs.

We’ve put in our document, the different layers that we would be doing that with. The first one is just creating provincial leadership. That’s finding out who our stakeholders are, bringing them all together, helping us do the current state analysis. Then workforce support and training — again, that’s developing the education and programs for that unresolved grief.

In Victoria, you are blessed to have two of the best experts in that in the country, and we would like to be able to utilize those resources to provide that right across the province. Someone in Fort Nelson should have the same access to grief support as someone that’s in downtown Vancouver.

We also want, then, a wide range of grief support programs for children, for adults, for men, for culturally diverse communities. We really want to have those programs — again, evidence-based — spread across the province so that access for everyone is there.

Again, evidence and research. I feel strongly that when­ever you put a program together, whenever we’re going to go into something, we need to have exact measures that we can report back on so that we actually know the work that we’re doing. Is it effective? Is it reaching our targeted audience? Are we doing what we purport to do?

I thank you for the opportunity to talk. Again, I am very, very privileged in Prince George to be able to — I’m also the ED of the Prince George Hospice — oversee the work that we do here. I would love to see that totally stretched across our province.

Thank you for the consideration of our proposal.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Donna.

Now I’ll ask the members of the committee if you have questions for Donna about her proposal.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Donna. I always appreciate an eyes-up presentation when it’s coming, because you speak from the heart.

You talked about creating evidence-based programs. I’m curious if you have to reinvent that wheel or if it exists somewhere else in the country. If it doesn’t exist, then how long would it take to develop that program?

D. Flood: Thank you for that.

Where we’re moving towards, again, is a sophistication within our programs. The Ontario Hospice Palliative Care association has an accredited service they've developed right across the province there. We in Prince George have now adapted it. We’ll be the first non-Ontario hospice to be accredited through there. Within there, they have policy and standards of which to make these programs, so we would utilize those as well as utilizing our own academic resources that we have here.

Both in Victoria, Prince George and Canuck Place, we utilize the universities all the time to ensure that we are meeting best standards and are evidence-based and in the development of those measures that I think are key to moving the work forward.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Donna. We had a similar presentation yesterday in Victoria. It sounds like you folks are trying to, kind of, present together and push this effort forward. Is that the case?

D. Flood: Yeah, that was Kevin Harter, I believe, from Victoria Hospice.

L. Doerkson: Yeah.

D. Flood: Yes. Again, he is very fortunate that he is, sort of, the centre of excellence for hospice care and is the centre of education. So it would be working hand in hand.

[9:10 a.m.]

His has primarily been on the hospice and clinical care. We want to extend that into the grief and bereavement care. When we talked about the experts, that was under his direction that we have those. Yeah, it’s all working together. He is actually the vice-president of our association.

L. Doerkson: I see. So how is the structure? It sounds like you guys are very independent. But is it the B.C. Hospice Association, together?

D. Flood: Well, it was very fragmented, to tell you the truth. We were very siloed, and we really weren’t even sure what we were offering our membership, because it’s a membership organization. Like I said, we have about 50 hospices throughout the province.

What we want to do is to collaborate more strongly. We want to be able to share the resources of the bigger hospices with those of the smaller hospices, or even what we’re finding virtually, here, in Prince George — that I’m able to care for people in Fort Nelson and other places because of virtual care. Sort of the unintended support that we get from COVID is this ability to work virtually. We’re hoping to stretch that into something where no person in B.C. doesn’t have access to grief and bereavement support.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Donna. I guess the question…. You mentioned — I don’t know if it was a revelation or discovery, during COVID — things that were facing people that are using the services.

Could you elaborate a little bit more about what it is that happened and how that has impacted people? Just to get a better understanding, is this temporary or longer term?

D. Flood: I believe we’ve probably opened the doors to something longer term. What we found is that due to the isolation, due to the lack of people being able to get together to grieve, to go through celebrations of life or funerals, people were left with their grief unattended to, and no way of community supporting them. That’s why we found that there was an increased reach-out.

We’ve also found an increased reach of people wanting to know how to care for people that are grieving. Even within this time, we’re looking at how we develop programs that support, maybe, teachers in the school that can help children that are grieving, so that they have the tools and the words and the things to say to these kids as they move forward in their grief.

What it’s done…. I don’t think there are more people grieving. I think it has lifted the lid off what the needs are for people. They’ve been looking for places for support.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much. I appreciate that. I can’t think of how many people I know that have gone through that in the last almost 20 months.

D. Flood: Absolutely.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m not seeing anyone else indicating that they’d like to ask a question.

Donna, on behalf of the committee, I would really like to thank you for coming here and making the presentation but also for the work that you’re leading. As you were speaking, I was thinking. All of us have had to figure out for ourselves, at different points in our lives, how to cope with our own grief. The concept of unresolved grief and the implications of that are very powerful. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

D. Flood: Thank you for the opportunity to share our work.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Todd Corrigall, of Prince George Chamber of Commerce.

Todd, you have five minutes to make a presentation. We’re using our phone to time it. We will signal to you when you have 30 seconds left so that you can wrap it up, and then we budget about five minutes for questions.

PRINCE GEORGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

T. Corrigall: It’s kind of nice coming in after Donna, who’s one of my board members. We also accessed her services, almost a year to the day. They are a great organization here in our community.

Thank you so much for allowing us another opportunity to present to you today on behalf of the Prince George Chamber of Commerce in our community. What we’d like to talk to you about today was something that was distributed to you, I believe, about a week ago, which is a letter to the Premier and a number of the cabinet ministers, regarding the mental health and addictions crisis that’s currently plaguing communities throughout B.C. It’s something that’s certainly not unique to Prince George, but we will speak to the Prince George issues.

[9:15 a.m.]

The issue of mental health and addictions has not only increased but broadened through the pandemic. When we look at economic recovery as a whole — which, I think, by and large, is what people think we’ll speak specifically to — it has become challenging.

Our business districts have been overrun with homeless populations. A large number, we suspect, are heavily mentally ill or mentally ill as a result of their addictions. This has become greatly challenging, as small businesses are trying to find their path forward. They’re constantly met with drug paraphernalia, human feces and persons at risk in their doorways, vandalizing their property and tormenting staff.

What we do appreciate and understand is that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at its core — that is, finding out what issues are plaguing these individuals and how we find a joint path forward. There’s certainly a number of people that get quite angry at this system and at the process. While we can appreciate the anger and the frustration, we understand we still don’t fully comprehend and understand what the root causes of those problems are.

Within our letter, we’ve identified a few areas of concern. As we note, the four pillars approach introduced by now Senator Campbell a number of years ago was really driven to not only tactically helping the problems and stopping the spread of communicable disease through the sharing of drug paraphernalia; it was also finding treatment and resources to help that process move forward. That is something we believe quite strongly.

As we head towards a strong dialogue around safe supply, as instructed by the PHO, we see that as a unique opportunity to really drive some information forward, to understand what root cause looks like, to understand where the mental illness stems from. We do know that this largely impacts our First Nations community to a much higher degree than it does other parts of our community.

Our concerns currently are that Minister Malcolmson, the Minister for Mental Health and Addictions, has truly got an unfunded ministry. She’s able to afford her staff but doesn’t have the necessary financial resources to dive into these challenges. Without that appropriate funding, it’s a ministry that is out to sea without a sail.

We are greatly concerned with that and are strongly suggesting that that ministry receive the necessary funding to tackle some of these issues and be a true partner. As noted from the response from the Premier’s office, they have passed this to Minister Malcolmson’s attention. She was cc’d on the original note. We have not heard back. We understand it’s a challenging time with UBCM and the ongoing pandemic, but we do hope that that dialogue will open up.

Additionally, the burden of this has been passed onto municipalities throughout B.C. That becomes another financial burden downloaded to municipalities, which is quite challenging and something that we would like to see worked towards.

Through that, what we are suggesting is that WorkSafeBC be used as a catalyst organization to help with training programs and initiatives to train municipal staff, not only how to handle these materials appropriately, but how to work appropriately with the at-risk population so that they’re being compassionate in the situation and that personal effects and property are dealt with appropriately. Because this truly is a work-based challenge in creating safe spaces for the workers, we see this as a great opportunity for WorkSafeBC to be the catalyst.

With that, I am happy to take any questions.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Todd.

I’ll now ask committee members for their questions.

J. Brar: I think it’s important to ask a question. Good morning, everyone.

Thanks, Todd, for raising an important issue, particularly from a chamber of commerce perspective. It is very important, because the opening of new businesses and the operation of a small businesses are always challenging under those circumstances.

What I want to ask you is apart from the lack of money in the ministry. In the rural area — small towns like Prince George and others — do you see any different set of needs as compared to the Lower Mainland, so that something different has to be designed or worked out?

T. Corrigall: Yeah. Thank you for that question, MLA Brar. That is a great question.

I think the similarities in the problem are not exclusive. The issues plaguing the at-risk populations, which are translating into challenges on the doorsteps of small business, are exactly the same. It’s mental health. It’s addictions. It’s a lack of housing options that provide that opportunity to move forward.

[9:20 a.m.]

While the climate may be different between the Lower Mainland and northern and central B.C., the issue itself is quite similar. However, those geographical issues that play into it — inclement weather, cold — do elevate some of those concerns, certainly. As we can see from the weather today, it’s cool, and it’s damp — not to say that the Lower Mainland isn’t cool and damp at the best of times. We’ll get to minus 40. It will snow, and people will die outdoors.

J. Brar: If you can expand on that. You’re particularly pointing out that the safe supply is not working. Can you elaborate on that?

T. Corrigall: Certainly. Well, I understand the concept of safe supply, at its core. We’re trying to create a drug that is clean and is not going to force an overdose or kill somebody on the spot in the minute. That’s tremendous.

What it isn’t doing is helping us better understand what the underlying issues are so that we can move towards a four-pillars approach or, at minimum, some type of treatment option. So having safe supply truly is this catalyst opportunity that, I think, we’ve been waiting for to better understand root cause for mental health and mental health–caused addictions.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Todd. It’s always nice to hear the term around four pillars — just instead of one pillar. That seemed to have been the problem in the past.

I’m very intrigued by your link to WorkSafeBC becoming the trainers. I would really like to know how you leapt to that.

T. Corrigall: How we leapt to that is the historical overfunding in business payments that have gone to WorkSafeBC. We know that there was a tremendous amount of money that was spent by businesses into the WorkSafeBC process. Their ultimate role is creating safe spaces for workers in B.C., which we 100 percent appreciate.

Safe spaces for workers, in my opinion, extend beyond the four brick walls that might be the confines of your workplace. If we have municipal employees, parks employees, outdoor workers who are forced to clean up encampments, move encampments along or deal with drug paraphernalia, that can and does result in a very unsafe work environment for them, which is where we come to the place of WorkSafeBC being a product that gets utilized.

M. Starchuk: Can you tell me how far you’ve gotten with this idea? I mean, it’s a great idea. I’d just like to know how far it’s been nudged.

T. Corrigall: Yeah. August 18 was the initial letter to the Premier and a number of cabinet ministers. The response was received on August 26, which we were greatly encouraged by — to see such a quick and positive response and the item being referred. But we have not heard back at that point. We’re waiting for Minister Malcolmson or her office to engage us in that discussion.

How far down the road we are…? In November of 2019, the Prince George Chamber of Commerce created a community meeting where we invited businesses to attend — back when we could — a large gathering of people for an open sharing of ideas, which we were able to capture some thoughts from. We captured those ideas and provided some policy recommendations through the B.C. Chamber to our federal partners and, as well, to the municipal government.

From there, the city was somewhat forced into a position of creating the safe, clean and inclusive community task force, which was another opportunity for us to engage these discussions. And we have pushed policy through the B.C. Chamber every year since then.

On the letter specifically, we are approximately a month and a half down the road. On the process, we started this in November of 2019.

J. Routledge (Chair): A final question from Ben.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Todd. There’s something about the north. I say that not having been a northerner but lived in the north for a number of years and having worked here. I do think that the problems when we look at rural British Columbia are very different than in urban British Columbia.

[9:25 a.m.]

I’m wondering if you could just maybe tell us a little bit about what Baldy Hughes, which is an alcohol treatment facility nearby, has done for your community from that point of view and how that might translate if there were proper mental health. Have you got a comparison? Something that…?

T. Corrigall: We’ve got more anecdotal information. Our engagement with Baldy Hughes is quite high level be­cause of the privacy that’s in place, but we want to understand what success looks like.

One of the policies we put forward, I believe two years ago, was having government properties that are unused or underutilized — since taxpayers already own these facilities — retrofitted into treatment facilities, similar to the Baldy Hughes model. That way we’re able to have a place, a safe space, for people to recover, where people who want to be with their partners or family who are in recovery could go. For example, the Prince George youth detention centre is an area in town which I believe currently has two or three active users in it but could hold probably 100 recovery beds.

Baldy Hughes being close to town — but a little bit out, only welcoming men — really sort of shortens the number. The Baldy Hughes model has been highly successful. We’ve seen good numbers of recovery rates. There’s even a gentleman who works there currently who is a recovering addict and speaks quite passionately about his experiences at Baldy Hughes and why he currently works there. I’d like to see more of that. I’d like to see more of that for all genders, for all races, and really open that up for our communities.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, on that note, we’ll conclude this part of the presentation.

On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you, Todd, for coming and making a presentation. I’d also like to say that I’m struck by the compassion with which you have stated what you want to see happen on an issue that often is conveyed to us as an inconvenience to businesses. I’m really struck by the fact that you’ve taken it beyond that. I think that it’s a way of framing it that leads, more likely, to solutions. Thank you very much.

Our next presenter is Candis Johnson, supported child development.

Candis, you have five minutes. We’re keeping track with our phones. When you have 30 seconds, Jennifer will hold that up so you know it’s time to wrap up. Then we’ll have about five minutes for questions as well.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OF
PRINCE GEORGE AND DISTRICT

C. Johnson: My name is Candis Johnson. I’m a supported child development consultant at the Prince George Child Development Centre.

The child development centre is located on the unceded, stolen territory of the Lheidli T’enneh Nation, which is now colonial — known, of course, as Prince George. At the child development centre, we are definitely dedicated to looking at the calls to action. This is why we included an acknowledgment.

The child development centre provides services to a wide range of children with diverse abilities. We have mental health services, as well as for behavioral challenges. The Prince George Child Development Centre provides services to over 1,000 children per year, and the CDC provides multidisciplinary therapy and integrated services, such as speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy.

What I’m here to speak to you today about is supported child development. Supported child development consultants and support staff are critical members of the early intervention team. Supported child development helps provide inclusion for children to be able to attend child care programs within the community.

CDC services are essential to enable children with di­verse abilities to participate in child care and preschool programs as well as make successful transitions into the K-to-12 system. Unfortunately, there are too many children that never make it off our wait-lists before this critical phase is finished, making the transition to school even more challenging.

Traditionally, CDCs have focused on addressing physical and behavioral needs for children with disabilities, but we also are now finding that behavioral, social and emotional psychological supports are also needed for these children and families. If children with disabilities do not receive the necessary services, they are less likely to be successful in school. They require more ongoing services from MCFD, health care and the education system. The human and economic costs of failing to provide CDC services to children with disabilities are staggering.

The B.C. Association for Child Development and Intervention has noticed there have been no provincial funding increases to early intervention therapies from 2008 to 2016. In 2016, the program received a small increase, although the budget consultation reports for 2018, ’19 and ’20 made specific recommendations to increase investment in early intervention services. As a result, early intervention therapies continue to have the longest wait times provincewide.

[9:30 a.m.]

The Select Standing Committee on Finance, for the 2021 report, also noted the importance of early intervention services. Recommendation 112 of the report states that providing funding to the Ministry of Children and Family Development helps reduce wait times to improve access to assessments, early intervention therapies, early childhood education, infant development programs, health and medical service systems, and home support services for before- and after-school care programs.

Investments made in child care presently by the NDP government will be saving families up to $19,000 per year, and the ten-year child care plan is bringing universal child care to British Columbia. As an early child educator, I welcome the $10-a-day child care plan. It’s something that we’ve been fighting for, for a long period of time. I applaud the current government and their child care plan.

Unfortunately, there are children with diversities that continue to fall through the system cracks. We need to continue to reduce barriers that COVID has highlighted. Not only is child care an issue for parents with children with challenges, but even if they find a space, they may be unable to take that space due to not having the support staff. The wait list numbers only reflect those children that have been referred. Many families choose not to put their children onto a wait list due to the fact that they know that their children will not receive services.

The SCD support systems this year started with 17 support staff here in Prince George providing supports to 46 children in 22 early child education programs. There are currently 117 children on our wait list to receive services. SCD consultants are also planning ways of addressing the wait list, by doing small groups with occupational therapists and speech therapists, in order to help address the children’s needs that are on wait lists, in order to provide them with the ability to go into programs, possibly without support.

In comparison to 2020 and 2021, we continue to see referrals grow. In April 2020, we had 78 children. In April 2021, we had 92 children. In August of 2020, we had 82 children, and now, August 2021, 117 children.

What we would like to see in the ECE community is, in order to actually build capacity, in order to have early childhood education jobs, receive the support staff jobs to receive the ECE incentive program, which is an amazing program that’s been facilitated for early childhood education…. Currently the support staff are not able to do that.

Recruitment and retention are an issue here in Prince George as well. We’d like to be able to see advanced seats and advanced education in order to provide more online resources through the College of New Caledonia as well as be able to address recruitment and retention issues by ensuring that children — all children — have access to child care.

It’s impossible to solve this puzzle of child care without involving supported child development. All of these children have the right to child care, just as their typical-developing peers.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Candis. I’ll now invite members of the committee to ask you some questions.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Candis.

I know how large this problem is. I’m from Williams Lake. I know that our child development centre is incredible, but they work with a very limited budget.

Can I get a sense of when the wait-list started? You mentioned funding. The last funding increase was in 2016?

C. Johnson: It was a very small funding increase of maybe one position.

L. Doerkson: Okay. So one position. When did wait-lists start?

C. Johnson: I would say wait-lists have started since the very beginning of supported child development due to the fact that when block funding was changed from the way that it was supported to child development centres….

When block funding was made, and rightfully so, in order to give parent choice, wait-lists started. When you’re moving children into communities…. The prior block funding allowed children to attend one program, and we would have maybe one or two educators with a large group of children. But whereas we have parent choice, you’re able to go to all these different child care programs, so now the wait-lists have definitely increased from there.

Our wait-lists have increased…. I cannot even…. It just keeps growing and growing and growing.

L. Doerkson: One of the other struggles that I know that other facilities are having is pay equality. Are your staff unionized or non-unionized?

C. Johnson: Our staff are unionized, although, like I said, they are unable to get the ECE wage enhancement, which other early childhood education programs are able to. So for us, recruitment and retention are quite difficult. Even though they do make a good wage and have benefits, we’re unable to compete now with early child education programs when they’re able to get the $2- and $4-an-hour enhancement.

L. Doerkson: Right. Of course. Thank you.

[9:35 a.m.]

C. Johnson: If you find anybody.

L. Doerkson: Right. I understand completely.

J. Brar: Thank you, Candis, for coming today and also for the exceptional subsidy you’re providing to very wonderful children.

I just want to ask you…. I know that the $10-a-day child care is one program that is, of course…. We’re moving forward on that one. But you’re talking about different children who have very different needs. Can you tell us what percentage of children fall into that category, if that’s possible?

Also, it may sound simple to you: supported child development. It may not be simple to us, what it means. If you can elaborate a little bit more to us as to what you’re talking about.

C. Johnson: Supported child development. Myself as a consultant…. We provide consultation to child care programs in order to help provide inclusion for children with challenges and special needs to be able to attend. We also have 17 support staff that can go to different child care programs in order to provide one-on-one support. So it’s kind of like what you would see in an EA system in the school district. That’s what we’re doing, but in child care programs.

As for the number of children, like I said, we service over 1,000 children right now at the child development centres, so I wouldn’t be able to give you the percentage. That’s something that I’m unsure of just due to the fact that we don’t know even the children that are attending that haven’t referred to supported child development. But like I said, our referrals continue to grow every year, and it is important. These are their early years. This is what’s actually the foundation, in how important this is for them.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Candis. It’s always heart-wrenching to hear about these challenges.

Having met with parents on the side of getting the services, I guess the question is…. The government changed the way that the funding model worked — from going to the child development centres to a per-child individual — because the parents were saying that they weren’t getting the services they needed.

It seems to me that by addressing that, we’re kind of not satisfying either side. How do we get the two sides…? It appears to me that there is more diagnosis and other issues that come…. I mean, autism and all of the different interventions and stuff like that. I guess I’m just trying to say: how do we get this so that it’s working for parents and children and the people that are providing the services?

It doesn’t seem to me that…. I mean, I’ve seen them in my own community where services have been discontinued or cut because they couldn’t afford to do it, and mostly because they couldn’t fund the staff. So what do we have to do to fix this?

C. Johnson: I wish I had a magic answer for that. At the child development centre, we did have early child education programs, and we were able to provide that. But again, due to funding cuts and ongoing cuts from the Ministry of Children and Families, we weren’t able to sustain that.

In a short answer, if you tripled our budget, we could probably provide more services. I hate to say that money is the answer, but it truly is. Money — that foundation — right when the children are starting saves so much money moving into the future. It stops health care costs. It cuts more costs from Child and Families. It costs less in the case system. We know that the case system is overrun with children right now and being able to actually support with assistance in the programs.

If we actually are able to help put the money into that foundation, we will be able to make a difference, and I think that there are more children now being diagnosed just due to the fact that we have more awareness. We have more abilities to know that. Parents are now seeing that those services are available for their children, and I wouldn’t want it to go back the other way, honestly, be­cause I really think that parent choice is very important.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you, Candis. We are out of time, but it’s a very important topic. I wrote down the human and economic costs of not addressing this at the early stages, and I’ve been reflecting on the implications for….

C. Johnson: Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): So thank you.

C. Johnson: Thank you very much for your time. I ap­preciate it.

[9:40 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Next we will go to Gail Wallin, Invasive Species Council of B.C.

You have five minutes, Gail. We’ll give you a signal when you’ve got 30 seconds to wrap up.

INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL OF B.C.

G. Wallin: First of all, thank you for having me. I’m with the Invasive Species Council of British Columbia, which is the largest non-profit on invasive species in Canada. I just want to recognize that B.C., including B.C.’s government, is actually a leader in Canada on invasive species.

I’m here today…. I know you’ve already had a number of presentations on invasive species and environmental issues. I’m going to follow up on that.

I have got to give you guys a marathon. You guys go through so many of these. Well done. I listened to a bunch of them, and I was going: “Wow. You guys get a marathon badge for that.”

First of all, I want to reset invasive species. Actually, what we’re really concerned about is our healthy environment, which is really important for us for clean water and clean air and, particularly with COVID, being able to go outside. That’s what we’re working for.

Invasive species are the second-biggest threat to those healthy environments. With climate change coming up and growing, it actually exacerbates the impact of invasive species and the threat. When we take a look at extreme weather events — whether there are floods, in many areas, or fires — invasive species can actually make those much worse. It’s really important, just like with forest fires, to be ahead of the game, rather than trying to fight it afterwards.

When I take a look at…. We consider invasive species like an environmental pollution. They’re not all the…. We have a lot of species here — roses and crocuses. Those are fine. It’s the few number that come without their predators that can take over our environment and then cause millions annually and environmental damage, like species at risk.

We need to avoid that devastation. The first thing you need to do is close the pathways, close how they’re coming in and being spread. We can all relate to that as we’re wearing masks today. We need to close the spread.

We take a look at many of the…. Sixty to 70 percent of our invasive species are introduced often intentionally. Whether it’s garden planted Scotch broom for you guys on the Island…. Those are just really simple examples. We need to prevent them coming in. We need to take some action.

I’ve got four actions I want to call on. One of them is that we need to protect our green infrastructure. We know that nationally. We know that Canada is in a negotiation with B.C. We know that B.C. cares about our environment.

If we don’t protect that green infrastructure, whether it’s grasslands to support our food supply or species at risk, whether it’s dealing with forests, which are carbon storage and which are threatened by forest pests…. All of those are at greater threat with climate change. Those are absolutely vital for mitigating temperatures in cities, mitigating carbon storage, etc. So protecting our green infrastructure has got to be paramount.

How do we do that? Right now — I know you’ve already had this — we need to increase the annual funding to at least $15 million. That’s having worked with government folks where our current funding is in British Columbia. I’m not calling for our council. I’m calling on behalf of provincial interests.

Calling for a $15 million investment — rather than five, six, seven — is going to put you ahead and give you a better chance to be ahead of that silent forest fire, rather than trying to fight behind it. It needs to be continual. It can’t be just year-end. “Here’s bonus money.” You actually, for invasive species, have to have multi-year approaches. You can’t get rid of mussels. You can’t get rid of knapweed by just one year and then ten years off. So it needs that.

One of the things about stable funding that is ideal right now is…. It’s everyone in this room. Whether you’re rural, urban or Indigenous, there’s a relationship between you and invasive species. Indigenous communities are much more aware now of the impact on traditional food and traditional plants and food supplies. Many of them want jobs. So we can involve great jobs. Ranchers, people that care, are stewards of our land. They care because it’s impacting the quality of life.

Actually, by having increased funding…. We are currently running a funding program to create jobs for people in rural and remote parts of B.C. because jobs are needed. Invasive species are awesome because they can touch every person in British Columbia. That’s not a good thing, but it actually is a reality.

Solutions for invasive species. More money. Involve the citizens and create jobs, which lines up with your mandate.

There is an invasive species trust fund that was called for in all three invasive species strategies in British Columbia, which have been released by three different Forests and Environment Ministers. They all call for an external invasive species trust fund to enable those fast emergency responses, when required.

The last action is regulation. We have so many species that are not regulated that are sold or traded. We can’t era­dicate them and then have somebody else planting them. We need to have stronger regulations that are enforced.

[9:45 a.m.]

I just want to close by saying thanks again for the opportunity. Leadership is needed. B.C. is already a leader. We need to do more. We need to be able to take leadership ahead. Just like a new approach for fires, we need a new approach for invasive species.

Thank you for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Gail.

I’ll ask for questions from the committee.

L. Doerkson: Thanks, Gail, for the presentation.

You touched on forest fires and this…. I’ve had the op­portunity to tour a number of areas of forest fire. At Pressy Lake in the South Cariboo, I can tell you that for as far as the eye can see, it is Paintbrush. I don’t see a lot else growing there.

What can we do to mitigate this? The ranchers would suggest that if we threw three pounds of grass seed from helicopters over every acre, it would help, but we seem to be doing nothing about it. The Chilcotin, also, has been devastated by weeds since the 2017 fires.

G. Wallin: Fires are actually…. There’s lots that we can do proactively.

First of all, equipment coming in, like in the States, is often regulated for where you draw your water from. Let’s not draw water from a mussel-infested lake and take it to another area. We can also make sure our equipment is clean coming in. Those are standards that are elsewhere.

Once you’ve had a fire…. You’re right. Proactive action is important. It’s a big discussion whether it should be plane-seeded or different seeding methods. You need, also, to have clean seed. Many areas have been replanted after fires, but they have contaminants in the seed mixes. That has to be addressed.

The other thing is…. When you’ve got disturbed soil anyplace, particularly after fires, you need to get it revegetated. Clean seed is one of the best ways. Perfect time to create jobs. Perfect time to restore an area. Let’s not leave it open. It’s a huge issue.

L. Doerkson: You said $15 million — increasing to that from five or six. What happens with that money?

G. Wallin: First, government has got to be staffed internally.

You also need to match it externally with many of the stewards or ranchers, the Indigenous communities, groups like ourselves. We leverage other funding to come in. All the steward groups that are out there in B.C. can make a difference. You can’t do it within government. You can do some within government but not all of it.

It needs to go into, absolutely, prevention first. Let’s stop the new Asian giant hornet from getting established. Let’s stop the new feral pig population from getting established. Otherwise, you’re chasing them, like you are broom on the Island, forever.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation. I have heard a little bit about the Invasive Species Council of B.C. through LEPS and other organizations in Langley.

What I’m wondering is…. It’s becoming a larger and larger challenge…. I’m a farmer myself. What sorts of initiatives are taking place — you mentioned cattle ranchers, and so on — moving forward, specifically, with the $15 million of stable funding? Where do you see that going in the food areas?

G. Wallin: The food areas?

M. Dykeman: Yeah.

G. Wallin: Again, prevention is going to be your first…. We need to have more inspections coming in so that there are less contaminants. There are lots of international res­trictions, but we need to have more inspections coming in so that the food industry isn’t impacted.

Then they need to be acted on more quickly, like following [audio interrupted] for the food industry for years afterwards. The Sunshine Coast has been calling: “Let’s keep it out of our region.” We need to set up those regional boundaries so you don’t spread one invasive insect from one part of the province to the other.

Soil movement in the food industry is a huge issue. Soil is where you move many of your invasive species — and not just plants but many of the insects, like fire ants. If you haven’t heard about those, those have really impacted a lot of the agriculture industry, and it’s simply by movement of soil.

Dollars need to go into partnerships with organizations such as the B.C. Landscape and Nursery Association or food production groups like ourselves and our partners. Together we can make a difference.

The Japanese beetle initiative in downtown Vancouver has four different levels of government, and it has community and industry working together. That’s a model in Canada. That’s what we need to do more of. It’s not just one up, and you do something different.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m not seeing….

Did you have a question?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Yes.

Thanks very much….

G. Wallin: I didn’t touch aquatics for you, sorry.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Well, you did. You mentioned mussels. Thanks, Gail.

I really…. You touched on, with Lorne’s question about forest fires and this…. I guess the question is: considering the forest fire damage we’ve had in the last four or five years, how plugged in is the Invasive Species Council with B.C. Wildfire? Like this restoration and what’s going on. Do you feel like you have good input into the reconstruction of the forest as part of what you do?

G. Wallin: We’ve got some communication and more meetings coming up. Absolutely could be more. One of the calls that has been happening on forest fires is to have — and this is not new to you guys — more local decision-making rather than provincial. The fires out in the Chilcotin have certain concerns that are different than the ones down even in Elephant Hill.

[9:50 a.m.]

So two calls. One is that when people aren’t working, back in the early spring, they can be doing more on invasive species control. That’s a recommendation we’ve carried forward to the fire department or forest fire. The second thing is proactively going in immediately to deal with the open roads and disturbances that Doerkson had referred to. That’s important.

Remember that many invasive species are actually fuel. Things like Scotch broom — highly flammable. If we are talking about community fire smarting, you need to get rid of these invasive species and get rid of some of the new ones, because they’re actually exacerbating the fire.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, Gail, we will thank you for your presentation and for fielding the questions.

I think we’re all becoming much more aware of the im­pact of invasive species and far less likely to just think it’s something we have to just shrug off. Thank you for proposing very concrete solutions.

G. Wallin: Thank you for your time. Thank you to all of you for your work.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is George Davison, who is representing the Faculty Association of the College of New Caledonia.

George, you have five minutes. We’ll give you a signal when you have 30 seconds to wrap up.

FACULTY ASSOCIATION
OF THE COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA

G. Davison: Okay. This might go a touch longer than that, but rehearsals are always different than live.

Thanks for allowing us to be here. My partner, the president of the faculty association of the college, Bill Deutch, just stepped out for a doctor’s call that was timed right in the middle of this. We represent the Faculty Association of the College of New Caledonia.

We’re on the unceded and ancestral lands of the Lheidli T’enneh Nation. There are 21 other First Nations in the college region.

Thanks for this opportunity. We are Local 3 of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, and we fully endorse the recommendations the federation made to your committee back in late August. For the sake of time, I’m not going to repeat those. Instead, I’m going to focus on local concerns, some long-standing, some that have arisen as the college has faced the COVID pandemic.

We’ve long advocated for the elimination of the secondary scale at CNC. It’s been in place since 1986, four years before I got to the college, but it now means that part-time faculty are paid 75 percent less than their full-time colleagues for doing the same work. I’ve been working on trying to address this since I got involved in the faculty association back in 1992. Despite a letter in the last round of bargaining to allocate some funding to partially reduce this inequity, we’ve seen little movement from the college to address this long-standing issue.

Another one has been the institution’s accumulation of surplus. CNC alone has increased its operating surplus from $13.4 million in 2015 to $23.8 million, adding $1.5 million in the last year alone. Provincially the 20 post-secondary institutions under the auspices of PSEA, the Post-Secondary Employers Association, have a combined $1.13 billion in surpluses on their books, almost double the amount posted ten years ago.

While some of these funds encompass scholarship and bursary dollars, not all do. The system would be much better off if these dollars were used to create equitable working conditions for faculty, improve learning conditions for students and meet the programming needs of the communities within the college region. The practice of including institutional surpluses in the province’s consolidated revenue means that these funds cannot be used as they should be used — for students, not to offset the provincial debt.

Similarly the trend to administrative bloat has continued unabated. CNC has 70 excluded employees, and 20 years ago, when the college was much larger, there were 40. Their total compensation has increased from $2.8 million to $6.9 million in the same period.

Provincially — again, in the PSEA orbit — last year there were 1,723 excluded employees versus 909 in 2000. Their combined pay has increased from $67.8 million to just over $215.6 million — 90 percent more administrators, 317 percent more pay. To make matters worse, perfor­mance bonuses have just been introduced into the system.

[9:55 a.m.]

Direct government funding to institutions has also de­clined relative to inflation over the years, and student tuition revenues have increased dramatically. When I started in the 1990s, CNC got 85 percent of its funding from government, with tuition making up about 10 percent. The government grant last year was 50 percent of revenues. Student tuition was 31 percent.

Ten years ago CNC took in about $10 million a year in tuition. Last year it was $24.4 million coming from students. This is partly because the 2 percent cap on domestic tuition has been meaningless — institutions have found all sorts of creative ways to get around tuition caps — and, secondly, because international fees are completely unregulated.

When CNC is paying over $1 million a year to recruiting agents, another completely unregulated field, there’s a problem. It also means that CNC isn’t delivering on its regional mandate, underserving the people in its region in favour of recruiting students from all over the world because they pay more tuition.

Pandemic problems locally started with the almost overnight shift to online education. This was done in violation of the local collective agreement, which calls for a release in developing online courses. Language has been there for 20 years. Faculty did this because they had to, but the college’s refusal to entertain some compensation for this added to a huge workload for all faculty and is now a part of several labour board complaints.

Despite the pandemic, many faculty continue face-to-face instruction, particularly in the trades and health sciences. We were fortunate that there was only one COVID outbreak, but it took the intervention of WorkSafeBC to deal with it.

We’ve seen a significant rise of grievances in the past year. We’ve also seen layoffs, despite the fact that there isn’t a funding problem and there isn’t really a student enrolment problem.

To wrap up, I’ll say that CNC is not a happy workplace anymore. The cuts of the last 15 years have taken their toll. Once a comprehensive community college serving a vast re­gion in the central interior, 50 percent of our students are now international. The sense of community that existed, such as it was, was shattered by the move to online courses.

It’ll take time to rebuild that community. In the meantime, government can act to support faculty and students, curb the rise of the managerial culture and promote access to affordable and comprehensive programs that serve British Columbians. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, George.

Now I’ll invite members of the committee to pursue any line of questioning.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation.

I have a quick question. Will you be putting in a written submission too?

G. Davison: I can do that, yes.

M. Dykeman: The second thing is: this year are you 100 percent back in class, or are you partially online still?

G. Davison: Mostly in class. Some online still exists.

M. Dykeman: Do you see that returning fully to in person?

G. Davison: At some point, but it’s hard to say. It’s up to the pandemic. It’s up to the health authorities, and it’s up to the ministry. The college has very little control over who’s in its classrooms anymore.

M. Dykeman: Okay, so it’s because of the health orders, not just sort of a…. You don’t see a shift in your universities or environment going to partially online?

G. Davison: No.

M. Dykeman: Okay, that’s where I was going with that. Thank you so much.

J. Brar: Thanks, George, once again. You’ve raised very important issues, whether it’s the surplus of $1.13 billion or performance bonuses or fee increases or the number of international students you have in the college.

Moving forward, I would like to ask you: what kinds of solutions do you suggest?

G. Davison: That’s a good question.

I just retired at the end of August. I have been made an hon­ourary member, a life member of the faculty association. So it’s in that capacity that I am here. I was a former president of FPSE and of the National Union of CAUT. So I’ve thought about this for a long time.

I think there needs to…. Well, there is a funding review going on. I’m aware of that. The funding system has been broken for decades, so it needs to be fixed.

[10:00 a.m.]

There's no regulation of international fees. There should be some regulation of international fees. Colleges and universities shouldn’t be able to charge whatever they want for this to make up declining government funding. That’s where it comes in — 85 percent then. Some institutions are under 30 percent government funding, and their revenues are made up largely by tuition. That’s a problem.

I haven’t even talked about student debt. There’s a huge problem there. Reducing or eliminating the interest fees on loans is a little bit, but it does nothing for the massive debt that students are incurring now and that they will be carrying forward into their marrying years and their careers. That’s a problem, and it needs to be addressed. Only the government can do that. It’s not something that we can do as a small faculty association in the middle of B.C.

J. Brar: A couple of quick questions, keeping in mind the time. You mentioned the $1.13 billion surplus. This is of PSEA members?

G. Davison: Yes.

J. Brar: Do we, as a government, have any control of that?

G. Davison: Yes. I think there was some allocation last year for institutions that were in trouble because of lack of students, and they were allowed to dip into those surpluses. But any dipping into those surpluses has to be ac­counted for in the provincial debt. The province doesn’t want the debt to go up. Using those funds, in effect, does that.

It was a change that the Liberals made sometime in the mid-2000s. Institutions complained about it at the time. I haven’t heard much lately. But these funds have been incurred by charging students and underpaying part-time faculty — and the rest of us, I guess. It’s a problem. Institutions do not have the ability to use the funds that are there.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, George.

You made a statement just at the end of your presentation that 50 percent of the school’s student population was international. Where did you get that information?

G. Davison: From the preceding president of the institution.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Is that something…? There is a cap.

G. Davison: There’s no cap on international students anywhere.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay. Well, then, there’s a set of goalposts. I know that at UBC and many of these other institutions, the cap is kind of around 25 percent or less.

G. Davison: Yes, I’ve heard that in the past. But at places like UNBC, it’s aspirational, because they don’t have 20 percent. At places like CNC, we’ve gone from a trickle of international students ten or 15 years ago to 1,500 international students just before the pandemic hit. All of these numbers are usually about a year or a year and a half out of date. It’s just the way numbers are counted.

The college is funded for 3,500 students, perhaps — more trade students now than university transfer students, where I was for many years. It’s like 60 percent of its funded FTEs, because international students aren’t counted in that. So in order to make up the lack of funding for the traditional programs, international students have come in. The college, a couple of years ago, was paying $1 million a year to recruiting agents to get students here from South Asia and the Middle East. And this is a small college; it’s not Langara.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, George, we’re out of time. We want to thank you very much for your presentation, for your passionate advocacy and for raising some issues that we need to take into consideration in going forward. An institution like this plays an important role in economic recovery, and they have to be part of that. Enjoy your retirement.

Our next presenter is Rebecca Beuschel, Literacy Quesnel Society.

LITERACY QUESNEL SOCIETY

R. Beuschel: Hi. That was interesting. I am one of those underpaid part-time faculty members at the college in my other job.

Thank you for allowing me to be here today. My name is Rebecca Beuschel. For the past 21 years, I’ve worked in community literacy here in B.C. I’m currently the executive director with Literacy Quesnel Society.

It is a non-profit organization situated on the unceded and traditional territory of the Lhtako Dené Nation.

[10:05 a.m.]

I’m really grateful for the opportunity to speak to you all in person — it seems like a rare treat these days — about the importance of literacy. I really appreciate that you’ve invited people from community organizations to speak to you about all kinds of issues. It’s a really good example of good governance.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Ad­vanced Education and Skills Training, the provincial literacy organization Decoda Literacy Solutions and groups like ours work together to provide community-based literacy programs and services. These programs support peo­ple of all ages, who are often not served in other ways. Many people associate literacy work with traditional im­ages of education, but after the past two decades of working in this area, I’ve seen firsthand that traditional, typical examples of educational settings and expectations don’t work for everyone.

We have a unique system here in B.C. in that we have literacy outreach coordinators to do the work in over 400 communities across B.C. The LOCs, as we call them, do the work that fits their communities. We have programs that look different from other programs but that all hold the core value of really working with the learner and trying to meet the learner where they’re at. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs funds the literacy outreach coordination program, and it’s a really valuable model of government working together with communities to provide appropriate, relevant support.

As a literacy organization, we are in a key position to determine how best to work within our community in a meaningful and realistic way. We’re really grateful to be trusted with the autonomy to do that. The LOC program really does provide that unique, autonomous way of working. The Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training plays a significant role with its long-term commitment to adult literacy through a program called the community adult literacy program, or CALP. CALPs work with hard-to-reach and vulnerable people.

In Quesnel, we have funding for two of these CALPs. We are able to support individuals who want to increase their skills or improve their literacy knowledge, but they’re not able to access similar support in other ways, and they’re not ready for institutionalized, more formal, regular learning. We’re always grateful for this support. I’d like to give a special thanks to the staff of the Ministry of Advanced Ed, who are consistently available, supportive and encouraging to groups such as ours. They’re really collaborative with us and help us understand how to best use our funding.

Helping someone improve their literacy skills can literally change their life. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. If you’ve ever experienced the buzz of accomplishment when you put together a PowerPoint, or if you’ve uploaded an app on your phone and you’ve actually been able to use it, or you’re able to answer a question that helps someone else figure out something that was important to them, you’ve probably got an idea of what I’m talking about.

These are small milestones for fairly reasonably literate people. So imagine the impact of being able to read something independently for yourself or your child, or knowing that you can complete a training session because you understand the information being presented, or knowing that you are able to make a decision or vote in a way that actually has an impact because you understand what the issues are and how it works.

These are life-altering achievements. This is what we do with the funding awarded to us by various ministries and funding that we are successfully able to get in our fundraising efforts or our grant applications. This work produces a kaleidoscope of reactions. It’s difficult, rewarding, frustrating, endless work, and we need and really want to keep doing it.

That’s the crux of my message to you today. Please keep the funding in place. Increase it if you’re able to because the needs go up, and so do the demands on what we are ex­pected to do, what we want to do and what we see as necessary. When we do one thing, it builds on another thing that we would like to continue doing. When funding stays the same but the need increases, it puts pressures on groups to compete with one another rather than collaborate, and we really would rather collaborate than compete.

[10:10 a.m.]

Please keep stable and secure funding in place for literacy programming. Keep the parameters wide, so that we’re able to continue to move within a flexible system of delivery. My request is just please keep increasing the amount of funding that you give in that flexible way, because we don’t want to exclude anyone who seeks support, and we’re seeing different levels of support.

That’s it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Rebecca.

Already some members have indicated they want to ask some questions.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation. I saw you put in a written submission. Thank you for doing that.

My question is just related to the CALP program that you spoke about earlier on. How many people do you see accessing that program annually?

R. Beuschel: In Quesnel, it differs. We are able to have regular registered users, but we’re also able to help drop-ins.

I would say between 15 and 30 are our regular users. They’re people that come in once a week, sometimes twice a week, sometimes for intense periods of time. So our coordinators will see someone two or three times a week for four weeks, and then they won’t see them for a few weeks because they get busy doing something else. That runs through sort of a nine- to ten-month period.

Then we see…. Over the past year, we saw about 23 drop-in users who were accessing support for filling out forms. A lot came with the census. We’ll probably see a spike in people when there are things like taxes to pay on their B.C. assessments and things like that. There were some people that needed help with downloading the QR code for your vaccine passport kind of thing.

There are moments where we see influxes based on what’s going on or what the request is in the community.

M. Dykeman: So it’d be fair to say somewhere around 50 to 100 people, probably, a year in the adult CALP program.

R. Beuschel: Yeah.

M. Dykeman: All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Rebecca. I agree with you with the app thing. I think we should have an app that teaches us how to use apps.

With regards to your funding streams, you talked about fundraising efforts and ministry funding and grant funding. Can you just kind of give us the relationship of what those percentages would be of the overall program?

R. Beuschel: We have different programs at Literacy Quesnel. We have stuff that directly impacts families, so we’re able to access funding for that. Just as an example, for our adult literacy funding, I would say about 70 percent of what we spend working directly with adults comes from CALP. So it comes from that funding stream from the Ministry of Advanced Ed.

Then we get one-time or special funding that we try to go for. It might be a pilot project. It might be something that specifically addresses a skills need. But they’re not long-term or sustainable. So we do them when we can and inject a kind of learning model or some extra funding into our program, but we know it’s not going to be there the following year.

For adult literacy, the CALP is our mainstay. Then with our society, when we raise funds, we kind of divvy it up between family literacy, early childhood stuff that we do, community-based stuff and adults specifically.

M. Starchuk: Could you maybe just…? In this ballpark field, what percentage of your budget comes from fundraising?

R. Beuschel: From fundraising out in the community or fund…?

M. Starchuk: No, fundraising.

R. Beuschel: A very small amount. I would say 10, may­be 15 percent. We’ve seen over the last year and a half, of course, that it’s really hard to fundraise, because we haven’t been able to have our in-person events that we like to have.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much, Re­becca. Thank you for coming and making your presentation. Thank you so much for the work that you do. I think you’ve reminded us how isolating a lack of literacy can be and how liberating it can be when people feel that they’re more literate.

[10:15 a.m.]

I’m personally struck by your comparison between collaboration and competitiveness and how a lack of funds can push organizations into competing with each other when they would rather be collaborating. So thank you for that insight.

R. Beuschel: You’re welcome. Thank you for having me here, and thanks for travelling from different directions to be here.

J. Routledge (Chair): We are now scheduled to take a break until…. Oh, no break. We’re on a really tight time schedule this morning. So let’s not take a break.

I’ll go to our next presenter, who is Dave King, Caledonia Ramblers Hiking Club.

Dave, you have five minutes. We are timing it with our phones. When you have 30 seconds left, Jennifer will hold up this card so that you know that it’s time to wrap up. Then we’ll ask you questions.

CALEDONIA RAMBLERS HIKING CLUB

D. King: I’m with the Caledonia Ramblers Hiking Club and also the Prince George Backcountry Recreation Society. My presentation — I’ve sent in a written document already. I’m going to send in a slightly modified one, because there are a couple of editing things and one or two things like that. I’ll probably do that later today.

In any case, we’ve had working relationships with B.C. Parks and Recreation Sites and Trails for many years and have volunteer working agreements with both groups. Basically, it’s very apparent to us, and I think people all around the province, that if it wasn’t for volunteers, both B.C. Parks and Recreation Sites and Trails would be in pretty serious trouble.

The maintenance of trails and other facilities within parks and outside parks just does not have the resources, staff, etc., to do the work that’s needed. I just did a quick check this morning. The Caledonia Ramblers alone have spent about 40 days this year out doing trail maintenance work. You know, that’s alone; that’s all.

Anyway, on the Recreation Sites and Trails side of things, they look after recreational activities on 80 percent of the landscape of the province. The parks branch, a small amount. Part of it is urban and other things. They only have around 50 or 55 staff, some number like that. They really don’t have support staff. This year they did get very small summer work crews, but they’re just on for a short period of time, and it’s the first time that’s happened.

Locally here we have got two people looking after the Prince George and Mackenzie forest districts, and there’s absolutely no way that they can manage all the recreation sites and all the trails in the two areas. I mean, there are hundreds of kilometres of trails. Some are registered trails, but there are many, many other trails out there which have been in use for years, heavily used and very popular, that are unregistered and are just there.

If somebody wants to go and do some industrial development — logging or something else — then the trail has got no protection whatsoever. If it’s destroyed or severely impacted by a logging operation, there’s nothing there to protect it, even though it may have been there for 40 years or more.

A good example is Fraser Mountain, just west of Van­derhoof. Starts in Beaumont Park, and the first 200 to 300 metres go up the mountain. We had a club trip there this weekend. Very crowded, many, many people on the trail that’s been there for years and years. It starts right off of Highway 16.

Our feeling is there really need to be more resources. They’d like to designate more trails and get them properly registered under section 56 under the act, but they can’t. They just don’t have the people to go through the process of reviewing an application. They said: “Just can’t do it. We just cannot manage more trails.”

[10:20 a.m.]

They’ve got, I understand, about an $8 million budget for the entire province. They probably should have at least double that. We’d really like to see a permanent staff member in Mackenzie. There’s just no way that two people who are based in Prince George here can handle everything going on in Mackenzie. It’s really a sad situation.

On the B.C. Parks side, just briefly here, they have had some increase in funding. They do have a summer work crew, but next summer…. It’s a summer work crew. With the COVID pandemic and things going on, the use of back-country trails and recreating in the wilds has just really, really gone up. The crews should be there all year round. It would be really nice to see the so-called summer work crew available throughout the winter to look after trails and so on.

Related to that, in some of the very heavily used parks, it would be really nice to see park interpreters, as used to exist years ago, and sort of guide-interpreters to be there to meet people, explain things, and so on. Like in the Ancient Forest Park out there, we played a key role in establishing…. It would be nice to have somebody who was actually Indigenous be the interpreter out there, because there are so many things they’ve played a role in, in the way they used forests — medicinal plants, food and different things there.

Anyway, those are the main points I would like to make. We just see it as a sad situation. The province is promoting recreation or tourism and using our parks and so on, but they’re not providing the resources necessary to manage that activity.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Dave.

Questions?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Dave, thanks very much. You know what? It wouldn’t be possible without volunteers like yourself and the other people. You guys really take it personally.

If the government didn’t…. Let’s say it can’t find the ne­cessary staff, for instance. If there were increased resources to the volunteer groups, like you mentioned in your presentation about the park enhancement fund, is there something that might work for volunteer organizations like the Caledonia Ramblers to help augment the volunteer efforts to do that?

D. King: I must say that at both recreation sites and trails, the parks branch has provided some moneys. Maybe a little more would help. I’m not quite sure about that. I think you’re asking a good question. I don’t know.

A little more money would be beneficial to help cover travel costs and gas and oil, chainsaw costs — you occasionally have to buy a new one — and these kinds of things. But not a lot more money. Metal trail markers, purchases, that kind of thing….

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Keep it up. Thank you.

L. Doerkson: I just wanted to make a comment. I’ve hiked many of the areas around Prince George — Grizzly Den, Robson and a few of those places. I just appreciate your initiative. Thanks for making the presentation today.

D. King: Raven Lake Trail this summer, the use — that’s a whole other thing. It hasn’t got a good road that goes into it. It’s outside of the park. Nobody has got any money to do any maintenance on it. It’s getting in pretty tough shape, 12 kilometres into the park boundary.

Locals had to get very busy to do a lot of shovel work to make it passable, because it washed out in one location about three or four kilometres in this year. But there are 20-odd people in there on a weekend. That’s 20 vehicles, as opposed to maybe four or five in past years.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much, Dave, for your presentation and for bringing this to our attention. Thank you for your commitment to parks and trails.

I think it’s something that we, speaking for myself, may­be have taken for granted — that they would always be there and available. But not without the work of people like yourself.

D. King: It’s a big problem right now.

[10:25 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for that.

Our next presenter is Nancy Harris with Access B.C.-SCI B.C., regional tourism association.

ACCESS B.C.,
SPINAL CORD INJURY B.C.

N. Harris: I’d just like to acknowledge Dave’s presentation. Spinal Cord Injury B.C. has worked closely with the Caledonia Ramblers. They have had great vision on access and inclusion throughout the years. We do a lot of training in the Ancient Forest and in Rec Sites and Trails that are showing examples of accessibility. I’d just like to acknowledge that after hearing Dave’s presentation.

J. Routledge (Chair): Lovely.

N. Harris: Good morning. My name is Nancy Harris, and I’m the regional development liaison for Spinal Cord Injury B.C. and the Access B.C. lead.

I’m very pleased to be here today representing the Access B.C. program. It’s a program that’s very close to my heart after a number of years of working as a volunteer and as a staff member.

We’d like to take a moment to thank the province for providing opportunities that allow input into these consultations and to respectfully acknowledge the traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of the land we call B.C., whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day. We are grateful to be living, learning and working on the lands of the Lheidli T’enneh, where these sessions are being held today.

What is access and inclusion? To help answer this, I’d like you to consider for a moment a quote by Dr. Scott Rains: “‘What is so unique about a situation that justifies exclusion?’ instead of ‘What is the cost to make it accessible?’” I haven’t thought of one answer yet.

The concept of accessibility is ordinary for everybody. It is not about having a special solution or having a big price tag. It is not about labelling people or singling them out. Through all stages of our lives, we’ve already required and benefited from accessibility. As we age, accessibility will become more and more relevant to all of us.

With a focus on outdoor recreation and tourism, Access B.C. aims to promote and expand accessibility throughout the province by continuing to implement universal design, awareness and training, accessibility consultations and re­source development, and by building and sustaining crucial partnerships.

Through this week, we are positioning B.C. as a global leader in accessible tourism and helping create a province that is truly the best place for everyone to live, work and play.

My husband Pat has used a wheelchair since he was a child, and accessibility is an issue we face on a daily basis. From family outings to vacation planning to hotel stays, we are one of many that are always looking for solutions to make our travel experiences seamless and stress-free.

For almost 40 years, we have advocated to increase in­clusion for people with disabilities and for the past five years have been working hard with Access B.C., along with our tourism partners and community stakeholders, to achieve this goal.

What’s next? As a provincial non-profit community service organization, Spinal Cord Injury B.C. has worked tirelessly over the past six decades to improve access and inclusion for British Columbians with disabilities and their families.

Spinal Cord Injury B.C. is genuinely excited about the Accessibility B.C. Act and the province’s commitment to increase accessibility and inclusion for all in British Columbia. In this context, we are eager and motivated to continue expanding our Access B.C. initiative to all regions of the province as we help make B.C. the best place for people with disabilities and their families to live, work and be active.

To date, we have achieved our impact with minimal support. Further advances require additional dedicated funding that will allow us to expand the scope of our im­pact and leverage the invaluable partnerships and collaborations we have developed.

Priority initiatives to be undertaken include expanding our regional access and inclusion liaisons positions. We’re currently working with regional tourism association partners to expand the scope of accessibility in these positions within each region of the province.

Leveraging additional opportunities through partnerships — whether a tourism association, local government, non-profit and private sector partners — to develop and deliver accessible tourism products and experiences and promotional materials.

Universal design and accessibility education and training for all stakeholders. Best-practice models and evaluation of accessible tourism-related practices.

Accessible employment and customer service are high on our priorities, and although we are making great strides with accessibility, there is more to be done.

[10:30 a.m.]

Accessible tourism requires accessible communities and the partnerships we are creating today. We look forward to having other ventures. Let them begin.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Nancy.

Now I’ll invite members of the committee to ask you any questions.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Nancy. That was great, and the documents you have submitted are very comprehensive.

I saw a video a while back, and it was from this area, about people that were having accessibility to some of the things. I like your quote at the start: “What is access and inclusion?” I don’t think I got the whole thing, but I have to say that the message to me is very clear that we can do more. Anyways, I appreciate your presentation and the work that you’re doing with Dave and others to bring that outdoor access.

The other thing you talk about in your last component is about the Access B.C. positions for tourism. I think that that is an — not exploited — underutilized opportunity, so I would encourage you to continue. I think that, all across, you’ve highlighted some of the things going on in my riding, like the KVR in Penticton and things like that. We do have to make certain that we’re doing more on that. So thank you.

N. Harris: Absolutely. Thank you for that. This speech will be attached to our presentation materials, if you want to look at that quote again. My ASL signer wasn’t able to be with us today, because they had a family emergency. We like to keep showing that respectfulness of all-inclusiveness.

Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Yes. Thank you for that.

Okay, our next presenter is Mayor Lyn Hall, city of Prince George.

CITY OF PRINCE GEORGE

L. Hall: First of all, thank you very much for the opportunity. I think you have our presentation. I’ll keep my comments to the five minutes.

As you know, we are on the traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh. I’d like to acknowledge that.

To give you a little overview, Prince George is the largest city north of Kamloops. We are a population of about 85,000 people. We’re famously known early on, a few decades ago, as B.C.’s northern capital. We’ll try to revive that a bit today.

Given the fact that we’re the largest city in the north, we have become really, for all intents and purposes, a hub city for a tremendous amount of services throughout the central and northern Interior. These level of services that I’ll key in on today are really around health care, and the two presentations that we’ve left with you are specific to that.

It’s interesting. I do want to say that we have had great collaboration and discussion with a multitude of ministries and government as a result of the two things that I’m going to speak to. The first request really focuses in on the challenges that we have addressing infrastructure and resource requirements for individuals with complex needs in relation to housing and services, which is really impacting municipalities — not just in this province, but throughout the country.

The city of Prince George is requesting the province’s 2022 budget includes sufficient financial resources to en­sure that Prince George has the facilities and services necessary to ensure those with mental health and/or substance use disorders can quickly access both emergency and ongoing services and supports. This includes sobering beds, treatment and recovery services, as well as supportive housing that serves vulnerable individuals living with complex and overlapping mental health and addiction needs.

You’ve certainly all heard the discussion around complex care. I belong to the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus — 13 municipalities in the province that are represented by us — and a big part of the conversation at that table is around complex care and what does it look like. So we are having those conversations with our health authorities and with the Ministry of Health, just to try to determine what that model looks like.

The second request was around the University Hospital of Northern B.C., and I will tell you that it’s in profound need of additional acute beds and associated outpatient services to fulfil both its local community hospital and regional tertiary care functions. Treasury Board has ap­proved a concept plan in February 2020, and the business plan phase is now nearing completion.

The city of Prince George is requesting that the project be prioritized in the government’s ten-year capital plan to ensure funding availability in 2022 to enable the project to proceed to procurement and construction.

[10:35 a.m.]

Those two items I’ve talked about are really tied together. The University Hospital here is integral to the north. You’ve probably heard quite often that we service half of the geographical area of the province. We have communities — like Fort Nelson, for example, Fort St. John — small communities of 800, 500 people, plus our First Nations communities along Highway 16 and Highway 97 that really depend on Prince George to provide those health care services.

That’s why we really took the opportunity to focus on this. We accept that responsibility as a hub city to provide those services. I think, really, what I’m asking today, aside from these two proposals, is really that we want to partner with the province. That’s key for us. We find it just absolutely necessary to have that strong partnership. We hope that you folks can take that back and let your colleagues know the position that we are in and the position that we want to take. We want to continue to be that hub city.

Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Mayor.

Questions from the committee?

H. Sandhu: More so a comment.

Thank you, Mayor Hall, for your presentation.

Having to live in communities surrounding Terrace and Mackenzie, my family…. We’ve accessed not only Prince George Hospital from both communities. I know patients you would often talk to from Fort St. John and so far. Like, I can imagine.

I don’t know what the surrounding community would do without Prince George, from every facility…. They don’t exist in small towns like Mackenzie. Thank you for highlighting these issues and the need for services.

L. Hall: You’re very welcome.

H. Sandhu: Again, just more so a comment. Thank you for the work that you’re doing.

L. Hall: Thank you for your comments.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Mayor. In your request, there’s a photo, and it says: “Construction begins on an integrated health and housing site September 2021.” Is your request that’s there in addition to that site that’s there?

L. Hall: Thank you very much for bringing that up. We have a partnership with Northern Health and a partnership with B.C. Housing that I should have mentioned, and it’s a strong partnership. We have an MOU the three of us have signed with respect to this integrated health model.

This integrated health model, in phase 1, will provide 50 units of health services to people with opioid addiction and mental illness. Phase 2, which we’re thinking will be somewhere two to three years down the road, will provide those services as well. So we’re looking at about 100 beds, 100 units to help these folks. But it’s very specific. It’s health care–driven, and it’s beyond supportive housing. It will give those health care professionals an opportunity to treat folks with those two afflictions.

M. Starchuk: Just to follow up on what you just said. With regards to the second site, is there a site in mind? And how is the community taking that, because we all know that NIMBY comes into play no matter where you are in the province of B.C.

L. Hall: This is on First Avenue, more of an industrial, commercial location. Currently it’s NR Motors, which is a recreation dealership. We’ve purchased that land. We’ve purchased two pieces of it. Phase 1 was a single purchase. Phase 2, where they’re still operating from, will be where we put that second phase of the model.

A little bit of NIMBYism, there’s no question about it; but not as much as you would see if we went to a residential area.

J. Brar: Thanks, Mayor, for coming and making a very brief and very powerful presentation about two outstanding issues.

The hospitals…. I’ll make sure you’re talking about…. I’m aware that the concept plan was approved and subsequently funded. Now the business case is probably — I don’t know where it is — close to completion. Subse­quently, it goes to a tendering process.

What you’re really requesting in this presentation…. I would like to be a bit more clear. I understand the budget has to be in ten year, what you call the capital plan. Is that the ask you are asking about this?

L. Hall: The ask is, I guess, fairly specific in terms of moving to the next step, which is procurement. The business plan has been underway. Certainly, if this could happen next year, I’d be ecstatic, but we know that it’s going to take time. We understand that it’s a long process.

For me, today, it’s about proceeding to the next step, which is procurement and construction down the road in a few years.

[10:40 a.m.]

J. Brar: Okay. The other question I want to ask you, about the mental health and addiction…. As a mayor of the city, if you can, probably, elaborate a bit more as to what specifically would you like to see in the city that will actually help or change — bring a positive change.

L. Hall: The opioid crisis, and I’m sure you know this…. If we take a look at the number of cases that we have in the Northern Health Authority, which stretches from Quesnel to Haida Gwaii to the Yukon border, you prorate that population, and we are the highest in opioid deaths in the province.

Really, when we take a look at the mental illness and the opioid crisis and the impact on communities, we’re looking for that complex care facility that can take care of many of the folks that are very difficult to be treated, difficult to be put into facilities like that. We’re really seeing an influx of those two particular issues in our community — well, throughout the entire region. But they migrate to Prince George because we have the services.

As I said earlier, if we’re going to provide those services, I think we, then, now have to focus on complex care facilities. As you know, and you’ve heard it in other communities, the hospital just doesn’t have the capacity at this point, given the pandemic and its fourth wave.

I hope that answers your question.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have time for one more question.

M. Dykeman: I’ll be very brief.

Thank you for your presentation, Mayor. Very quickly, in your last paragraph, you were talking about advocating for emergency services, including sobering beds and on-demand treatment. Do you have any of those yet at all, accessible within your community? Secondly, how many people do you think are, approximately, waiting for these types of emergency services within the region you serve?

L. Hall: B.C. Housing is currently working on a project that could provide sobering beds, fingers crossed, within the next probably 12 to 24 months. When I talk about treat­ment and recovery services, they’re either given by non-profit social service agencies or by Northern Health.

Access is…. It’s like you folks. You have got a timetable. I have a timetable on many things. It’s about access on a particular day, at a particular time. I think what we’re looking for is that emergency access for people that are suffering, and families can take those individuals to those emergency locations at the drop of a hat.

We’ve probably, on our streets…. I’m hazarding a guess here. I have to think 200, 250 people.

M. Dykeman: You don’t have just drop-in emergency beds anywhere right now?

L. Hall: No.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, Mayor Hall, I’d like to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking time out of what must be an incredibly busy schedule to talk about a very important thing.

I live in a Lower Mainland city surrounded by other cities. Explaining the implication of being a hub city in the north is very meaningful. Thank you for that insight.

L. Hall: You’re very welcome. Thank you very much for everything you’re doing. Greatly appreciate this. Take care.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our final presenter here in Prince George today is Amanda Alexander, representing YMCAs of British Columbia.

Amanda, you have five minutes. We’re keeping time. When you have 30 seconds left, Jennifer will indicate. That will help you shift into wrapping up, and then we’ll ask you some questions.

YMCAs OF B.C.

A. Alexander: Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Amanda Alexander, and it’s my privilege to be the CEO of the YMCA of Northern B.C. I am here to present on behalf of the five YMCAs across British Columbia.

YMCA of Northern B.C. serves children of families in diverse, traditional territories, home to numerous First Nations and Indigenous groups, so I would like to begin to acknowledge that I’m presenting to you today from the traditional, unceded territory of the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation.

YMCA is submitting two recommendations for your consideration today for Budget 2022 that align with several of the priorities in your consultation paper. The first recommendation relates to building a stable foundation to grow a universal child care system in B.C. — specifically, the need for a rapid increase in early childhood education professionals.

[10:45 a.m.]

The second is to commit to three-year funding for the YMCA Y Mind program to support youth mental wellness.

I’ll start with early learning and child care. Right now we are so grateful to live in a province — and really appreciate your leadership — where there’s a synergy between our provincial and our federal governments on the im­portance of early childhood education that is connected to economic recovery and healthy child development. We want to acknowledge the province’s leadership, and we are pleased to be partners at the table to work with you on building a universal child care system.

We are the largest child care provider in British Columbia. We have over 3,500 spaces in early-years and school-age care. We are a large employer of 750 child care staff. But our ability to keep growing spaces is hampered by the lack of trained early childhood educators. This is a problem in the north and all across B.C. YMCAs currently have vacancies in 121 child care staff positions.

Specific to the work that I’ve been doing in the north, we’ve been working with Northern Health around the medical staffing crisis. We see child care as part of that solution in being able to encourage people to come and work in the north and stay in the north. But they won’t do that without adequate child care provision. We can’t step up and provide the solution unless we have early childhood educators. We want to do this, and we want to do this in a different way.

This strategy is not possible without child care workers. MCFD tells us we need 18,000 more ECEs to implement the child care plan. In order to achieve this, we need a new, innovative strategy, one that incentivizes people into the child care field. We need to come together — the education system, post-secondary, child care sectors, all levels of government — to figure out how to change the system of recruitment and training of all childhood educators.

For your consideration, I’d like to recommend that the recruitment of trained ECEs move to an apprentice program. It’s estimated that the cost of the two-year early childhood education program, including living expenses and tuition, would cost someone approximately $20,000.

Trades programs aren’t required to complete unpaid practicums. In fact, they are paid for their work experience and receive paid benefits while attending school. Furthermore, upon graduation and throughout their career, they are making higher wages. People, predominantly women, who wish to educate and engage in a career of early childhood education experience significant financial burden compared to those that engage in trades education.

Developing an early childhood educator apprentice program will not only value the role of child care workers but most importantly, find a solution to our child care crisis. This is the most urgent step towards an affordable, high-quality early learning and child care system in B.C.

Our second recommendation is to continue funding our Y Mind program for youth mental wellness. Y Mind is a community-based program that supports youth with mild to moderate anxiety. Since receiving the funding from the province in 2017, it has extended supports for teens and youth to 44 communities throughout B.C. Mind Medicine is an adaptation through Indigenous partnerships to better serve Indigenous youth. As of December 2020, we have reached more than 1,800 youth experiencing anxiety across the province and trained over 400 program facilitators in urban and rural communities.

This program has been rigorously evaluated and shows that it makes a difference. Youth who are experiencing anxiety reduce their anxiety and, as well, learn to live and cope successfully with that anxiety present. We are seeking $1.5 million over the next three years, $4.5 million in total, to reach 40 communities annually, with 900 youth participating each year.

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity, hearing our re­commendations for funding in both child care and youth mental health. We look forward to helping the province reach your goals in these areas and look forward to more opportunities to see what we hear and experience in communities to inform policy and roll out programs that benefit young people and families across our province.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Amanda.

I’ll now invite members of the committee to ask questions.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, Amanda. Your recommendation and suggestion with respect to the onsite ap­prenticeship program training makes so much sense. It reduces cost. Plus those individuals are going to be able to participate and help with that staff shortage right out of the gate, meanwhile paying taxes and actually contributing to the economy.

[10:50 a.m.]

I don’t know quite why it has taken so long for government to give strong consideration to it, but I’m certainly very supportive of that approach.

M. Dykeman: MLA Kyllo touched a little bit on where I was going to go with my question related to it. It does seem like it’s such a fantastic idea.

Where are those conversations — I know you touched on it a bit — right now with the ECE apprentice model? How are they going generally? I only heard a little bit of what you were saying on that.

A. Alexander: Yeah. There have been pockets. My sense is that if it were a top-down conversation, to say, “This is the model that we want to see, that has the right people at the right levels of government and of education to actually mandate that….”

It’s very difficult for us to create a program, say, with Northern Lights College, as opposed to the province ex­ploring those conversations. Really, my ask is for those people, who have the power and authority to create that, to come to the table. We might be part of that solution, absolutely. But at this point, it is more difficult for us to make that change at a very individual level than something that is created at a higher level.

M. Dykeman: So you’d like to see sort of a provincial conversation about this?

A. Alexander: Absolutely.

M. Dykeman: Okay, all right. Thank you. I appreciate that.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions before we wrap it up?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Amanda.

You mention a number of 18,000 with MCFD. Could you explain that a little bit more? Is that number the shortage that you were referring to in ECE child educators?

A. Alexander: Well, it’s a combination. It’s the shortage, but it’s also about reaching the targets of how many child care positions the province has targeted in order to meet the needs in the communities across our province. Child care providers won’t be able to open spaces unless they have early childhood educators. In many areas, we are staffing with early childhood educator assistants because, really, it’s impossible for us to get the required amount of ECEs.

It’s not only about meeting our current needs. It’s about the province’s targets in order to meet the child care needs across our province.

G. Kyllo: To Ben’s point, I’ve certainly seen that in some of the communities in the Shuswap, the riding that I represent, where for many of the existing daycare providers, we haven’t seen a net increase. We’ve just seen unlicensed facilities become licensed.

We have not seen a net gain, because it largely comes down to the shortage of staff that actually have the appropriate training. We need to, obviously, take a different ap­proach, because we’re not seeing a net increase in spaces around the province. Part of it has to do with the shortage, but it also has to do with the new funding mechanism, which has just moved unlicensed daycare providers into a licensed facility with no net gain to communities.

A. Alexander: Yeah, absolutely. I know the province has been fabulous about the wage increases, but that in itself hasn’t moved the needle. It’s also created compression issues for any of our staffing that are managers or supervisors. They don’t get the wage subsidy. It has been a great movement, but it actually has never been as bad as I’ve experienced.

I mean, COVID is layering into it, for sure. All of a sudden, I would say to you, in the fourth wave — in the other three waves, we did not have exposures in our child care centre — it is now happening very consistently in our child care facilities, where we’re having exposures — and exposures with children, not just staff.

Particularly, I serve communities in the north that have the highest rates of unvaccination. So we are having this com­pounding issue that’s happening in the pandemic where we then have closures as a result, where we either can’t meet ratio…. Predominantly, that’s it. Our staff are off, and they’re having to monitor for symptoms. Again, I’m very worried about the implications of children that are experiencing COVID, literally in the last few weeks, in our YMCA facilities.

It is no different than others. I know I tangent, but the piece is that it is very complex. The movement we’ve made and that you’ve spoken of has been good, but we need something bigger and more robust that will help really reinject and solve the problem in a more robust way.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, with that, Amanda, I’d like to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for taking the time to come and present to us.

I think it’s quite appropriate that you are our last presenter of the morning, in that you’ve really reinforced why it’s important to build a budget based on public consultation and to hear from people like yourself — about what your challenges are but also what your suggested solutions are. I think you’ve intrigued us. We will be talking more about it.

I will now entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 10:55 a.m.