The committee met at 8:21 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

National Day for
Truth and Reconciliation

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 today in Richmond, which is located on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Kwantlen Nations.

This acknowledgment takes on special significance today as we honour the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The establishment of this day is one of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to honour survivors, families and communities and ensure public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools, the last of which remained open until 1996 — institutions that, by definition, were designed to destroy an entire people’s way of life.

Over the last several months, we have been confronted with the atrocities of residential schools as unmarked graves of children have been found at former residential schools across the country. The unmarked graves of 215 children at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, followed by hundreds more at other schools in B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba, brought these atrocities to the forefront of our collective attention.

However, for survivors and for Indigenous families and communities, the graves are confirmation of the experiences, stories and trauma they have been speaking about, sharing and living for generations — about families who were separated, children who were forbidden from practising their language and culture, children who disappeared or ran away and children who were abused and mistreated.

Individually and collectively, we all have a responsibility to learn about residential schools and the legacy of colonialism and the systemic racism, discrimination and injustice that are directly linked to the ongoing trauma, inequities and challenges that Indigenous peoples continue to experience. I hope all British Columbians will take some time today and every day to listen, to learn the truth, to reflect on and commit to reconciliation, and to teach and encourage others to do the same.

I would now like to invite members of the committee to introduce themselves and make any additional reflections, starting with Deputy Chair Ben Stewart.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Chair, for those very thoughtful comments.

My name is Ben Stewart, and I’m the MLA for Kelowna West.

This is located in the traditional territories of the Syilx and Okanagan peoples.

[8:25 a.m.]

I acknowledge the grief that Indigenous peoples, families and communities have been experiencing as a result of residential schools for generations and, more acutely, over the last several months as unmarked graves have been and continue to be confirmed at former schools in B.C. and across Canada.

In this time of grief, we recognize that there is so much more to be done on the path to meaningful reconciliation. It is vital that we come together as a community to both acknowledge the immense loss and the dark legacy of residential schools and listen to Indigenous voices as we work together for a better future.

All Canadians have a responsibility to listen, learn and grow from these grim reminders of our past in order to create a more inclusive, respectful and equitable tomorrow for everyone who calls our communities home.

Today, the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, marks one more step in the process of reconciliation. I encourage all British Columbians to take the opportunity today to honour the children lost, the survivors, their families, and to participate in learning and commemoration events. This is one day in a journey that will be long, but one we take together. As allies, as leaders and as British Columbians, we must actively raise awareness and provide space to support Indigenous peoples, families and communities to be heard and to heal.

H. Sandhu: Good morning, everyone. This is Harwinder Sandhu, MLA for Vernon-Monashee.

I would like to acknowledge that I’m coming to you from the unceded ancestral and traditional territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations.

Today, on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I would like to share a few words to reflect on this day.

We recently witnessed the findings at residential school sites across the province and country, which have been a stark reminder of the atrocities experienced by thousands of innocent Indigenous children and families and the harms that continue to be felt to this day.

One of the first discoveries was at the former residential school in Kamloops. My thoughts are with the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation and all the other nations, including the Okanagan Indian Nations, who are deeply affected by these discoveries.

It is our collective duty and responsibility to come together to stand in solidarity to support Indigenous communities as we work our way to a place of healing. I honour the leadership, resilience and strength of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples throughout British Columbia and across Canada.

It is time to reflect and learn more about the history and ongoing legacy of residential schools and to have these important conversations with our families, our friends and communities about how we can all bring action to reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples in B.C.

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

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

September 30, Orange Shirt Day, is our National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. The recent findings made across the province and country have brought the truth of the atrocities of the residential school system fully into the light.

I was at a vigil in Victoria after the 215 unmarked graves of young children were found. The stories that were told are forever etched into my mind and my soul. That day brought out the real truth of what was taking place.

The following day — and I’ll personalize this — a good friend of mine who considered himself lucky to not be a Scoop baby…. I started working with Wayne as a volunteer firefighter 40 years ago, and it was those events that brought a new light to how he shaped his entire life and how he was going to move it forward.

Today, when we see these orange shirts, remember all of those children who didn’t make it home and how the truth of how they didn’t make it home never leaves us and how every child does, in fact, matter.

[8:30 a.m.]

G. Kyllo: Good morning. My name is Greg Kyllo. I’m the MLA for Shuswap.

I come from the traditional territory of the Secwe­pemctsin-speaking peoples.

Today, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I just want to send out my condolences, my well wishes and my hope for a brighter future for all British Columbians and all Canadians. I hope that everyone across the province will join us in recognizing this very important day and listening to the Indigenous voices, working towards meaningful reconciliation and seriously thinking about how we can shape a better future by working to achieve equality and prosperity for all.

M. Dykeman: My name is Megan Dykeman. I’m the MLA for Langley East.

It resides on the traditional territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Matsqui and Semiahmoo First Nations.

Today is Orange Shirt Day and the first-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Today is an important day to reflect upon the history of the residential school system and the harms that continue to be felt to this day. Today is a day to come together and reflect on what we can do to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples to build a better future for every child, for all of our children.

In my riding, there are events to mark this important day that provide opportunities to listen and learn. I encourage all to take the time to find and attend one of these events in working together towards meaningful reconciliation.

J. Brar: Good morning to all of you. I am Jagrup Brar, MLA for Surrey-Fleetwood.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that I come from the traditional territories of the Kwantlen, Semiahmoo and Katzie peoples.

This is a historic day. The recent findings at the residential school sites across the province and country have been a stark reminder of the atrocities experienced by Indigenous children and families and the harms that continue to be felt to this day. As a father of two young children, it is hard to believe — and shocking for me — that these children were stolen from their families to teach them English, to make them Christians and to “take the Indian out” of them. It is really shocking.

The federal government has now designated September 30 a new National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, responding to a call to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The province of British Columbia is also responding to a call from the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation by joining with Indigenous partners and allies to light the province orange today. More than two dozen buildings and landmarks in communities throughout the province will light up orange today, September 30, including the Legislature, Robson Square, the Wood Innovation and Design Centre in Prince George and B.C. Place.

We will work with Indigenous leaders, organizations and communities on the best and most respectful ways to mark a truth and reconciliation day in B.C. Today we encourage every British Columbian to wear an orange shirt to show that every child matters and to show our commitment to working together with Indigenous people to create a better future for all of our children, for the province and for the entire country — a future that is fair, equal and just for all children.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, members of the committee, for your reflections on this very important day.

We will take a short recess before we proceed with the rest of our introductory comments.

The committee recessed from 8:34 a.m. to 8:42 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, everyone, for your introductory comments in recognition of this very important day.

I’ll proceed to talk in a bit more detail about how the work of the committee will proceed today. With respect to today’s meeting, we will be hearing our last set of presentations on Budget 2022 consultation. On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank everyone who has participated in the consultations so far. We have heard over 300 presentations and received hundreds of submissions and survey responses.

We encourage everyone who hasn’t yet taken the opportunity to have their say and share their priorities on the next provincial budget by 5 p.m. today. To participate, you can visit our website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. You still have some time to take the survey or submit a written presentation.

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 the report in November.

For today’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.

Assisting the committee today are Jennifer Arril and Stephanie Raymond, from the Parliamentary Committees Office, and Amanda Heffelfinger and Simon DeLaat, from Hansard Services. As this is our last day of presentations, I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the entire committee, to recognize the staff who have helped make this consultation happen.

[8:45 a.m.]

Many thanks again to Jennifer, Stephanie, Amanda and Simon, and also to Mary Newell, Karan Riarh, Katey Stickle, Jesse Gordon, Jenny Byford, Mai Nguyen, Jonathon Hamilton, Darren Parfitt, Mike Baer, Dwight Schmidt, Billy Young and the entire Hansard broadcasting, transcribing and publishing team. As you can see, it takes a lot of help behind the scenes for us to be able to conduct this kind of consultation.

We thank you, all, for your expertise, your good nature, your incredible organizing skills.

I would also, before concluding, like to make special mention of Stephanie. We want to acknowledge that after 14 years of helping us with these committees, this is her last committee meeting. She will be moving on to do other things in her life. So let’s all thank Stephanie. [Applause.]

Let’s call our first presenter of the day. Our first presenter is Karen Ranalletta, representing the Canadian Union of Public Employees, B.C. division.

Karen, you have five minutes. We will keep time. Jennifer will hold up a card when you have 30 seconds so that you know it’s time to transition into wrap-up comments. Then we’ll have another five minutes for questions.

Okay. So whenever you’re ready.

Budget Consultation Presentations

CUPE, B.C. DIVISION

K. Ranalletta: Okay. I’ll start now, then.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

On all days, it’s appropriate to acknowledge the land or territory on which we stand, and today that’s especially important. I’m grateful to be here on the unceded and stolen territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

I know that this hearing was scheduled before the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was enacted. I’m sure, like me, you would rather be joining Indigenous people to honour residential school survivors and to remember those children who never returned home.

As you know, CUPE B.C. is the largest union in the province. We represent more than 100,000 workers in a wide range of sectors and occupations across the province. Our submission to this committee is equally wide-ranging.

I know that you’ve heard from a number of representatives from CUPE during your hearings. From local activists to members of our provincial executive board, you’ve heard some of our specific recommendations. In the interests of time, I will focus on just a few of our recommendations. There are 35 in total, so I’m not sure how I would get through all of those in five minutes. I encourage you to read our full submission. I know members of the committee will have access to it, and anyone listening can access our full budget submission paper at cupe.bc.ca.

The first recommendation I’d like to talk about is around K-to-12 education, specifically the issue of daytime custodians. Over the last two decades, CUPE custodial workers across the province have raised concerns over the limited day shifts and daytime hours, which is threatening their ability to perform the work they know is vital to maintaining a safe and healthy learning environment for students. We’ve been reminded during the pandemic just how essential daytime custodians really are to keeping our kids and everyone who works in schools safe.

Recommendation No. 12. We strongly recommend that sufficient funding be allocated to the K-to-12 budget to provide for the full reinstatement of daytime custodial staff, to immediately restore adequate staffing levels going forward and to fund the ongoing provision of health protections such as PPE for K-to-12 custodial workers.

You’ve also heard from other CUPE members and, no doubt, many other voices in this province calling for a continued commitment to the $10-a-day child care plan. I want to add my voice to that. You’ll be hearing much more about child care from CUPE B.C. in the coming weeks and months. It’s one of our top priorities over the next year.

Now, I don’t have kids myself, so child care isn’t something that affects me directly. But the lack of quality, affordable child care certainly affects many of our members. After decades of inaction under former governments, this government is doing good work on child care. Much remains to be done, but we do acknowledge that there has been some good work on it.

[8:50 a.m.]

We think that the most logical solution to the lack of affordable, quality before- and after-school child care is to bring it into schools. It makes sense. Parents who need child care just drop their kids off at school for before-school care. Then after school, the kids don’t need to be shuttled to wherever their child care provider is. They just stay at school.

Like so many ideas, it’s almost unbelievable that it hasn’t already been done. That’s why we’re recommending that Budget 2022 include resources to — and this is recommendation 17 — “build a world-class system of early childhood education and care by fully implementing the $10-a-day plan, including fully funding school districts to operate child care in their districts.”

Finally, I want to talk about post-secondary education. Before I was elected president of CUPE B.C. just this past May, I worked at UBC for 14 years. So I could talk about post-secondary education for as long as you like, or longer, or as long as anybody wants to listen, but I’m going to just keep it short.

With relatively small investment, the government could bring back living wages to the hundreds or even thousands of people who provide campus support services, mostly women, whose jobs have been contracted out to the same multinationals that benefited from mass privatization of health care services under the B.C. Liberals. It would improve the quality of campus life for students, faculty and staff.

Recommendation 19 addresses this, and the government recently announced that the thousands of health care workers whose jobs were privatized are coming back in-house, and we support that decision 100 percent. For many of the same reasons, it should also increase funding for campus services and support bringing back those in-house campus services.

I saw Jennifer hold up the card. That’s all we have time for. I really hope you’ll take the opportunity to read our full submission and the 35 recommendations we’ve put forward. Thank you very much.

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

Now I’ll invite committee members to ask some questions.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Karen, for your presentation. It’s unfortunate that we’re not doing this live so we could see those orange shoes that you have on right now.

My question is about — and it’s more about a definition — recommendation 13. You make a comment: “Eliminate public funding to elite private schools.” Can you define for us what the term “elite” actually refers to?

K. Ranalletta: The elite private schools are the St. Georges of the world. I mean, we’re not…. The ones that cost tens of thousands of dollars to attend. That’s what our researchers have told me.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Just to follow up, in my riding, there are a number of religious schools that are there. I just want to make sure that that’s not what you would consider an “elite” school.

K. Ranalletta: No.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Thank you.

J. Brar: Thanks, Karen, for your verbal presentation, and also the written, which is a very detailed one. Thirty-five recommendations. It might be the first time I’ve seen 35 — list of recommendations. But it’s good to make it as long as you can.

Much of the stuff you said, we are fully committed, I think, whether it’s $10-a-day care programs and some other programs. There are two areas I would like to ask, probably, your response, if you can give us more information.

One, you have picked up a 75 percent funding to post-secondary institutions. I heard that question before as well from another presenter, and I asked the same question which I’m going to ask you: if you can explain on what basis you picked that number, which is 75 percent funding to post-secondary institutions. If we go there, how much will it cost to the province, if you have any numbers? That’s one.

The second one I would like to ask you…. You have recommendation 8, which is: “Immediately implement card check certification.” If you can, explain as to why it’s needed where we are — is there any other province doing it? — or where we are in terms of how many unionized workers we have in B.C.

K. Ranalletta: Yeah. When it comes to recommendation 8, which is around card check certification, B.C. is one of two provinces that does not have it. In many provinces, once the threshold is met by the number of union cards signed, those workers are considered unionized.

[8:55 a.m.]

In British Columbia, there’s a second step to that. They have to sign the cards, and then after, I believe it’s a five-day waiting period. I need to double-check. There is a waiting period between when enough cards have been signed and the application has been filed. Then there’s a vote.

We see that this extra step is an extra administrative burden. It’s much easier for everybody to recognize that these workers want a union after having enough cards signed in the first place. That is recognized in almost every province across the country, with the exception of British Columbia and one other.

J. Brar: The last question I have…. You may not have the information. About 75 percent post-secondary institutions…. That’s okay. You can send it later on.

We are, right now, consulting about the paid sick leave. I don’t see…. I skimmed through it very quickly. Do you want to make any comment about that?

K. Ranalletta: About employer-paid sick leave? We are fully supportive of at least ten employer-paid sick days implemented in employment standards. It’s better for the economy, it’s better for workers, it’s better for employers, and it’s better for the health of our communities.

J. Routledge (Chair): Megan.

M. Dykeman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

J. Routledge (Chair): We’re getting close on time.

M. Dykeman: Yes. I promise I’ll be brief. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Recommendation No. 12, where you were speaking in regards to the K-to-12 budget having a full reinstatement of daytime custodial staff…. In addition, you went further on about PPE for K-to-12 custodial workers. In the written submission, you talk about this course of action likely requiring a progressive reduction.

I was wondering if you could just expand a little bit on where the conversations are in relation to daytime custodial staff — it has been an ongoing conversation during the pandemic — and then, further, the rationale below it. Could you just expand a bit on it? Thank you so much.

K. Ranalletta: Yeah. The conversation about daytime custodians has been ongoing for as long as I’ve been involved in CUPE, and it continues to be.

As we all know, there was federal funding that was available for the school districts to access to increase daytime custodial staff, but past any kind of influx of that money, we don’t see where it’s going to come from.

That’s why we are advocating that districts keep daytime custodians on. Custodial staff often only work in the evenings and the afternoons. That increased cleaning has proven very successful, especially during the pandemic.

That’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for an increase in funding to address that shortfall in custodial services past any kind of extra funding that has been made available to the sector.

M. Dykeman: Just briefly in follow-up, Madam Chair.

Do you know how many districts currently have daytime custodial staff? Is this ongoing now?

K. Ranalletta: Some do, and some don’t. I don’t have the exact numbers. I can have our research department send that information to you.

As well, MLA Brar, on your question about the 75 percent, we can send some follow-up information.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for your presentation.

With respect to the provision of daycare on school properties, it certainly makes a lot of sense. I’m just wondering: is your support conditional upon a unionized workforce providing that daycare service, or are you supportive even if it was deemed to be let out to the private sector?

K. Ranalletta: We will always, always advocate that these be good union jobs.

For before- and after-school care, a lot of our EAs are already qualified to provide this care. They know the kids. They know the work. They know the teachers. They know the spaces. For us, it makes sense to deliver the services on school grounds not just because we want the work but because it makes it easier for parents. It also makes it easier to find the workers to do the work.

G. Kyllo: So your support is conditional upon growing the union?

[9:00 a.m.]

K. Ranalletta: I would not say that it is conditional on growing the union. I say that we advocate for before- and after-school care that is delivered by the school districts.

G. Kyllo: Okay. So you guys would be supportive of the concept of on-site school care, even if it was provided by the private sector?

K. Ranalletta: We would like to see a daycare system that is easily affordable and accessible for parents. Our preference, of course, is that our members deliver the work.

G. Kyllo: Do we have any more time, Madam Chair?

J. Routledge (Chair): We’re way over time, but our next presenter hasn’t come.

I think we do need to be a little cautious about cross-examining.

G. Kyllo: Okay. No, I was just looking for some clarity, Madam Chair.

With respect to the 75 percent funding level for colleges and universities. With the international student population picking up 100 percent of the cost, for the province to meet the 75 percent funding level, it would mean that government would also have to provide 75 percent funding for international students.

I’m just wondering: is the intention of your recommendation that our colleges and universities would no longer provide education for international students, or are you suggesting that for the province to meet that funding criteria, they would actually provide 75 percent funding for international students as well?

K. Ranalletta: Our colleges and universities have always had international students. It’s not new. It’s the increase in using international student tuition to subsidize the lack of funding coming from the province.

Many of our institutions are funded at less than 50 percent. Using international student tuition seems…. We’re not in favour of gouging folks for the sake of subsidizing what we think the government should be funding.

G. Kyllo: Is your suggestion, then, that with the international student population, the revenues provided by international students would not be part of the equation?

We had a presenter previously making the same argument. The challenge is that with international students providing 100 percent of funding or more than…. Obviously, these colleges and universities are trying to attract and retain international students because it’s highly profitable for their organizations.

K. Ranalletta: And that’s it. It’s about 100 percent profit. They recruit all these international students. International students bring a rich experience to the post-secondary experience, right? However, the institutions aren’t funding the extra support services needed for those folks. So on the face of it, it looks like a cash grab.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Karen. That was a much longer presentation and interaction with the committee than I think you probably expected.

Thank you for coming. Thank you for the breadth of your recommendations. I think that it reflects the breadth of the work that your members do and the role that they play in our society and how tuned in they are and, therefore, how tuned in their union is to things that you need to flag for us. We will take your recommendations into consideration and have a really lively discussion about working them into our recommendations. Thank you so much.

Our next presenter is David Black, representing MoveUP.

David, you have five minutes to make your presentation. We will signal you when you have 30 seconds so you know it’s time to move into wrap-up mode. Then we’ll have five minutes to engage you with questions.

MOVEUP

D. Black: Thank you very much.

I do appreciate being invited here today on the traditional territory of the Squamish, the Tsleil-Waututh and, particularly, the Musqueam peoples.

[9:05 a.m.]

I do, unfortunately, want to start with that, the fact that you’re having this hearing on this very day. I appreciate that all politicians work very, very hard, much harder than the public gives you guys credit for. Your staff and the staff here work incredibly hard. I do appreciate that you’re on very, very tight timelines. You have a lot of the public to listen to. But I do want to rebuke the committee for meeting today on the very first National Truth and Reconciliation Day. However, I’ll get into this.

MoveUP represents 12,000 union members in the public and private sector in western Canada. We are a local of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and a member of several international union federations.

In terms of B.C.’s economic recovery, obviously, British Columbia, along with the rest of the world, is adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic that is still ongoing. I would like to say that, generally, our union supports the programs that the Legislature and the government have done to support businesses across the province, to support people, communities and workers across British Columbia.

Going forward, these are the principles that the union is suggesting guide your work. First, putting people first. You are the Legislature representing British Columbia and its people here.

Second, lasting and meaningful reconciliation for the history of our colonization of this province.

Third, to continue building on meaningful equity and anti-racism initiatives to address the historical injustice for other newcomers to our province.

Fourth, to build a better future through addressing the serious crisis that is climate change.

Finally, to continue building a strong, sustainable economy that works for everyone in B.C.

Following up on that, we have a number of specific recommendations. First, to create a new Crown corporation to retrofit buildings. We think this addresses a number of the previous points that I’ve just made.

Firstly, it does assist us to meet our climate change targets here in British Columbia and do it in a way that no other jurisdiction that we have been able to see globally has managed to do. Secondly, that does put a lot of people in British Columbia to work. There’s a lot of work. We’ve identified about $10 million over ten years in British Columbia to retrofit buildings of end-users of energy across British Columbia, whether that’s homeowners, landlords, businesses.

We also think that through the work created, we can address some of those other issues around reconciliation, equity, racism and sexism that have been exacerbated by the pandemic but, of course, existed before, and give people not just make-work projects coming out of the pandemic but, in fact, careers that they can have for the rest of their lives.

We also believe that there’s a role for an expanded ICBC. Certainly, I think the discussion around ICBC is very different today than it would have been a few years ago. We believe that by allowing ICBC to sell insurance to people in British Columbia in other areas of insurance other than auto insurance, most specifically property insurance….

We’re not suggesting that there should be a monopoly on property insurance but that it should be a choice that British Columbians have — to buy property insurance from ICBC. We think that particularly folks in rural communities don’t have very much choice and don’t have very many options. That’s one thing that we’d like to see.

Third, to continue investing in child care to create new and affordable places. My kids are a little bit older than that now, but I certainly know the difference it would have made for our family if we could have had affordable, secure and public child care when our three children were growing up.

Finally — I might even finish early here — implement a more progressive tax system and reduce the income gap. We know that the pandemic has had a large impact on all British Columbians. Some people have been very, very poorly affected by the pandemic, including members that we represent, but others have done very, very well by the pandemic. The pandemic has served to exacerbate some of the inequity issues that we saw in British Columbia and around the world before the pandemic, and we think one of the ways to do that is to look at a more progressive tax system, going forward, to help to redress some of those deficiencies in our economy.

I’ll stop there. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate all the time you guys are putting in to hear from us.

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

Now we’ll invite members of the committee to ask questions.

[9:10 a.m.]

J. Brar: Thank you, David, for coming today to make a presentation — good to see you here — and also sending a very well-developed written submission to us.

The priorities you’re indicating — putting people first, lasting and meaningful reconciliation, equity and anti-racism, a better future through addressing climate change and so on…. We are fully committed to moving forward on these items.

You made a recommendation for four different issues. I would like to ask a question on two, if you can be very brief. That’s affordability for ICBC and taxation. I know you did mention a little bit about ICBC, but I would like to understand more. Like what do you mean by expanding ICBC? Is there any other province which has done this thing? That’s one question.

On the taxation system, you’re talking about a more progressive taxation system and reducing the income gap. If you could provide a little bit more information on that one, that would be helpful.

D. Black: Certainly. Thank you very much. In terms of ICBC, there are three fully public insurer systems in Canada: British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Then there’s sort of a hybrid system in Quebec.

In Saskatchewan, they do exactly what you’re asking about. They do have an arm — the Saskatchewan Government Insurance company — that sells property insurance and does so in the competitive marketplace. Further — this is something that could maybe be looked at down the road — it sells insurance outside the province of Saskatchewan as well.

One of the things that we know about the property insurance market in British Columbia is that if you’re in one of the metro or regional centres, you probably don’t have a lot of issues finding an insurer, and there’s pretty good competition there. But in more rural parts of our province, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for people to find insurance for their properties. We believe, not that ICBC should write all of that, but it should be in the market, to be able to provide that option to people if they aren’t able to find it or to find it at a reasonable price.

There is a model for that. The Saskatchewan government runs that. In fact, it’s a revenue generator for the Saskatchewan government, so it’s a way to generate revenues for the government of British Columbia as well.

In terms of our tax system and the priorities that you mentioned, we think that there’s more room for that. There were tax increases. I’m a high-income earner. Let me put that on the table. I think I should be paying higher taxes. I can afford it. I did not lose a day of work through the pandemic, and in fact, many of the expenses that I had prior to the pandemic went away. My net income, my disposable income, increased.

I believe for people like myself and people that are wealthier than me…. My income stayed the same. Some people’s income went way up, depending on what business or industry they were in. I believe that the phrase, “We’re all in the same storm together, but we’re not necessarily in the same boat….” Some people’s boats are nice and have gotten a lot nicer since all this. Sorry to the member from Salmon Arm. I’ve ridden in his boats.

I do believe that the government could do more on that going forward, specifically in response to the pandemic.

J. Routledge (Chair): I see we are into our last minute. So just a caution.

We have a question from Megan and a question from Ben.

M. Dykeman: It’s wonderful to see you. Thank you for coming today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be very brief.

I just wanted to address very quickly us meeting today. Unfortunately, the inclusion of the holiday, the number of days we had to travel…. This committee struggled greatly with continuing or not, which would have meant losing a day. Today it closes.

It certainly wasn’t an oversight. It’s something we tackled. It was very difficult — and actually dedicated the first 15 minutes to addressing that and speaking about the impact of Truth and Reconciliation. It’s certainly a challenging day for us here too.

My question. You have a fantastic submission here, which I’ve had the opportunity to look through. With the rising insurance costs and the idea of expanding what ICBC offers, I’m wondering: could you just expand a little bit more on what you see that looking like and the benefits?

[9:15 a.m.]

D. Black: Certainly. What I think we see from the British Columbia context is, particularly in property insurance, as I said, in rural areas, there are, I guess, what are called market imperfections, where people have a difficult time. It isn’t really a very competitive market for those consumers, and in some cases they can’t buy insurance.

What we’re suggesting is that ICBC — and ICBC used to do this, originally — offer, in the competitive marketplace, the option of buying property insurance from a public insurer. The cost structure at ICBC tends to be a lot lower than private competitors, so we believe that where that market imperfection exists, there is a space for ICBC to serve British Columbians who either can’t afford or can’t obtain property insurance at all, and I think the Saskatchewan model offers a good blueprint for that for ICBC on how to do that.

I think that it’s very important to keep separate those lines of business. We shouldn’t be seeing cross-subsidization over those things. People in British Columbia are grateful for lower car insurance now. They do not want to see their insurance premiums subsidizing some other line of business. But we believe that there’s a market opportunity to provide better and more affordable coverage for British Columbians.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, in the interest of time, Ben has withdrawn his question. We’re a little over time. We have a lot of presenters today.

David, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

I guess my reflection would be…. Our theme is “build back better,” and we can’t build back better if we don’t have new ideas. You’ve presented us with some new, intriguing ideas that committee members have already engaged in — trying to figure out how to make them work. So thank you very much for stimulating our creative thinking about how to build back better.

D. Black: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the time. Let’s keep in touch, for sure.

J. Routledge (Chair): For sure.

Our next presenter is Kahir Lalji, representing United Way B.C.

Kahir, you have five minutes. We will signal when you have 30 seconds left so that you know it’s time to move into wrap-up, and then we’ll have five minutes for questions.

UNITED WAY B.C.

K. Lalji: Great. Thank you very much.

At the outset, let me pay homage to this very important day and to the lives lost, impacted and continuing to be impacted to this day, and offer gratitude for the opportunity to live, work and play on these unceded lands and territories.

I also want to acknowledge that members of the Finance Committee will not have received a written submission in advance of today’s presentation, but we’ll be sure to submit a written submission by the end of close this afternoon.

My name is Kahir Lalji. I’m the provincial director of government relations and programs with the newly formed United Way of British Columbia, serving B.C.’s Interior, Lower Mainland, Fraser Valley and central and north Vancouver Island. The United Way of British Columbia exists to drive positive impact and lasting change by strengthening vital connections and delivering resources and supports for the people who need them the most. We aim for a healthy, caring, inclusive community.

On behalf of the hundreds of organizations we work side by side with, we want to acknowledge and offer our gratitude to all elected officials and staff for their untiring support for all British Columbians, including, and particularly, vulnerable British Columbians. We know that the pandemic as well as other sociopolitical and sociocultural factors have shifted the face of vulnerability over the course of the last 18 months. To this end, in working with a number of organizations and charities across the province, we propose three recommendations as relates to vulnerable children and families.

[9:20 a.m.]

One, for the province to address the need for a holistic approach to child care which would include an expansion of complimentary child care options to support vulnerable families and to circumvent barriers to early childhood development, taking into account the need for various structures, locations, and philosophical approaches in service delivery.

Two, for the province to continue to strengthen the partnership and collaboration between non-profit service providers, private service providers and public partners in the provision of care outside of school time.

Three, for the province to invest in culturally safe spaces for children, specifically aimed at key social determinants of health, with a focus on being preventative in nature, with a focus on prosocial behaviour and an emphasis on emotional, cognitive and social development.

Pre-pandemic, vulnerable and marginalized families were struggling to find affordable and safe spaces for their children to go after and before school times. This led to a lack of affordable, accessible, quality programming for marginalized families to develop necessary skills, improve their well-being and self-esteem, keep them safe and give them a hot meal, if that was the only meal they would have for that day. During the pandemic, the need for this has shifted and grown even greater.

We know that there are about 330,000 children between the ages of six and 12 in British Columbia. We also know that there is an increase in two-income families and lone-parent families in sprawling urban settings, all leading to larger commute times for parents and increased discretionary, unsupervised out-of-school time for children.

In a study done by the United Way, a finding indicated that children between the ages of six to 12 have about 67 hours of discretionary time per week. Most of these children are marginalized, are in poverty, lack adequate and appropriate child care or supervision, face linguistical and cultural barriers to access and have physical or cognitive challenges. School-aged children in B.C. also face bullying, lack of sleep and childhood obesity.

Over the course of the last few years, United Way has invested in 54,000 spaces for children in the Lower Mainland. We seek to expand that across the province, in partnership with communities. We know that during the pandemic, all 60 programs continue to operate. We saw a retention of 85 percent of participants during the pandemic year, of which one-third, or 33 percent, of the services continued to be offered in person due to the extreme compounding vulnerabilities marginalized children are facing.

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

I will now invite members of the committee to ask some questions.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Kahir, thanks very much. I do look forward to your written notes, just to better understand it.

Your first point, the holistic child care for lower-income and marginalized families. What is your recommendation — that that be offered…? Is it free child care? I mean, $10-a-day is what’s being proposed by the government. Are you suggesting that there is another threshold below that that needs to be offered?

K. Lalji: The recommendation is unlicensed out-of-school care programming for vulnerable families in higher-risk neighbourhoods. We know that a licensed child care is one option, but we’ve heard, through many families throughout the province, that there is a need for a different type of approach to out-of-school programming.

Currently there are 60 out-of-school programs run in partnership with 60 different organizations — the neighbourhood houses, the boys and girls club, the Ys, etc. — that offer this type of programming. The need is to expand this programming outside of the Lower Mainland.

J. Routledge (Chair): Other questions?

J. Brar: I have one question, if there’s nobody else.

Kahir, thank you for coming today.

[9:25 a.m.]

I have, before being elected, worked in the non-profit sector for quite some time. You mentioned one of the recommendations you have is strengthening collaboration with the non-profit and private other partners. Can you explain that to me a bit more as to what it means?

K. Lalji: We think about putting people first. People come from all walks of life. If you take a look at a child-centred or family-centred approach to care, whether it’s education or health care or social care, there are different needs and different platforms that work best for different families. There is a robust private sector that offers opportunities for out-of-school-time programming.

We know our public partners do that. But we also know that there’s the third-party or the non-profit sector that can work with government to help the mandate to put people first. It’s the sharing of knowledge, coming together of best practices to holistically support the vast array of families which this recommendation seeks to do. So it’s really bringing the three different sectors to the table to have conversations about how best to meet the holistic needs of marginalized families.

We’ve found by speaking with the charities across the province that partnership can be strengthened in many parts of the province.

J. Brar: Are you talking about the families, or is your focus more the children?

K. Lalji: The focus is on providing out-of-school care for children ages six to 12 and having a preventative impact on their families.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Kahir. I don’t have a question. It’s more like a comment.

I just want to appreciate the work you and the United Way do. It’s very timely. In Vernon, we’re having a 20th breakfast drive-through on October 7. Last year they raised $15,000 just for one breakfast drive-through. In my community, they support more than 20 local charities. I don’t have enough words to appreciate the work that you’re doing, the difference you’re making and United Way is making across communities and all over B.C. Thank you for that. I do look forward to your written submission.

K. Lalji: Thank you, MLA Sandhu. We’ll see you on October 7, hopefully.

H. Sandhu: Yes. I will be at the Legislature, but my staff will be there. I’ll be encouraging people to join them.

K. Lalji: Prior to this rollout, I was the CEO of the United Way of the southern Interior, working in that region.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Kahir, I’m not seeing any other questions. So on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for taking the time to come and present to us and make your recommendations. The United Way has a lot of credibility for speaking up on behalf of our vulnerable neighbours and for providing a voice to those who don’t have a voice. So your recommendations carry a lot of weight. Thank you so much.

K. Lalji: Thank you very much. Thanks for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Launi Skinner, First West Credit Union.

Launi, you have five minutes to make your presentation. We’ll signal you when you have 30 seconds left so that you can shift into wrap-up mode, and then we’ll ask you questions.

FIRST WEST CREDIT UNION

L. Skinner: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I really want to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. As you’ve mentioned, my name is Launi Skinner. I’m the chief executive officer of First West Credit Union.

Before I begin my remarks, though, I’d like to acknowledge that First West is headquartered in the township of Langley on the traditional, unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, specifically the Kwantlen, Katzie, Stó:lō, Semiahmoo and Tsawwassen First Nations.

I also want to acknowledge the significance of this day, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Though I am speaking with you right now, the rest of the credit union has closed for the day.

At First West, there is an Indigenous persons employee network group, and we are listening to, learning from and partnering with them for insights and recommendations. They shared with us that closing our doors today is a meaningful way to give all employees additional time and space to honour survivors of residential schools, their families and their communities and to learn more about the Indigenous history and culture. I want to thank them for their ongoing guidance, wisdom and counsel as we seek truth and journey through the path of reconciliation.

[9:30 a.m.]

Because we are closed today, I actually wore my orange shirt yesterday. For everybody that wore an orange shirt and posted a selfie, we donated $5.25 for every picture to the Orange Shirt Society.

For our limited time together, I have chosen to focus my comments on the opportunity the province has in its upcoming budget to help the small business recovery. We ask that the forthcoming budget identify means to help small business improve productivity measures in order to support job and wage growth, particularly for women, Black, Indigenous and people of colour and those who live in rural remote and Indigenous communities.

I believe First West is well-positioned to speak to this matter. In fact, 75 years ago, when the banks refused fair credit for self-employed individuals in the farming, fishing and forestry sectors, these men and women pooled their resources and savings in the spirit of neighbour helping neighbour. Their cooperation created the credit unions that today form First West.

It’s incredulous to think, but when banks refused women credit without their husband’s or father’s signatures, these woman — often entrepreneurs and business owners in their own right — opened accounts and took out loans at First West’s founding credit unions.

Most recently, when COVID threatened to permanently shut down otherwise healthy businesses in the communities that we serve, First West was among the first financial institutions to respond. Within days of the Canada emergency business account being announced, First West was ready to receive applications. As of today, we have funded $193 million to more than 3,700 members through the CEBA program.

So why am I bringing this to your attention today? At First West, we know that the success of small business in our communities equals the success of the credit union. I would say this is also true for the province. As go small businesses in B.C., so goes the province.

According to the Ministry of Citizen’s Services’ Small Business Profile 2020 report, small businesses account for nearly 98 percent of the province’s businesses. Small businesses provide 53 percent of private sector employment, and they account for one-third of the provincial payroll.

What’s more, the ministry’s small business profile also states that 40 percent of self-employed entrepreneurs are women. Small Business B.C. reports that there are more than 2,000 Indigenous-owned businesses that operate in B.C.

In First West, we serve about 20,000 B.C. businesses, roughly one in every 25 in the province. We know that when we lift up small businesses in B.C., we lift up everyone. When we help small businesses in B.C. succeed and prosper, we help women, Black, Indigenous and people of colour, entrepreneurs, owners and, ultimately, employees succeed.

There are many ways the upcoming budget can help small businesses improve productivity, but here are three for you to consider. The first one: take measures to address labour shortages and labour mobility. First West small business members in agriculture, manufacturing and skilled trades, as well as service sectors such as law, have shared they’re experiencing significant challenges attracting and retaining talent. There’s no one surefire solution, so we must take a variety of innovative solutions to improve labour mobility, even in the midst of the COVID health crisis.

Second, support and incent robust internship, co-op and work-learning programs. Over the past year, First West had employed more than 20 students through our student hiring program, a mixture of internships, co-ops and other work-learning opportunities. We see tremendous potential in growing this program and know that other small businesses, with the support of the government, could do the same.

The third suggestion is further invest in communications, technology and infrastructure for non-urban centres in B.C., particularly high-speed Internet. This need has been especially made evident during the pandemic. Our members in rural areas of the province had a tremendously difficult time accessing banking and investment services. Many of them who were small business owners working from their home were unable to do that because they couldn’t access the Internet. Add this to the challenges of undertaking at-home learning for children. It really was a challenge.

First West lived experience is serving a diverse membership across the province. We know that a productive, healthy and competitive small business ecosystems in B.C. will create greater opportunities for economic recovery and productivity.

Thank you for having me today. I appreciate the opportunity, and I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have at this point.

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

Our first question is from Megan.

M. Dykeman: It’s wonderful to see you. I know, in Langley, we’re very fortunate to have First West. I appreciate and am grateful for all of the support you provide for our community and communities beyond. As a farmer, I certainly appreciate the history and the tradition of the organization.

My question is…. That was a fantastic presentation. Related to intern support, could you expand a bit on what that looks like? Will you be providing a written submission, not of everything you’ve said but of your ideas so that we can see a little bit on how they would be implemented, in your vision?

[9:35 a.m.]

L. Skinner: Absolutely, Megan. I’m happy and we’d be pleased to submit a written submission.

As it relates to internships, it could be in the form of incentives. It could be job-sharing and costs. It could be helping some of the organizations understand how you even access some of these co-op programs.

We’re really fortunate at First West. We have about 50 people in our human resources department, and we have two people that are just dedicated to helping recruit, who understand how to access co-op programs through the different colleges and universities. It may not seem like a simple…. I mean, it is simple, but it’s not when you’re a small business — like, how you do it.

An easy capability — a way to be able to access the different organizations or the different universities — is a good start, even having them to have knowledge and access. We think having some different incentives for…. Maybe there are even thresholds. If you bring X amount of co-op students on, what sort of incentive would you give back to the business to do that? Then you would train more people, get more people involved. Those are a couple of quick examples.

M. Dykeman: That’s great. I’m looking forward to whatever you send in, and I appreciate your taking the time to share these ideas.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Launi. I really like your ideas, and I just want to thank you for coming forward today.

On the labour shortages, I wanted to understand the mobility part and why there’s a barrier with mobility. Where does that come from? Can you elaborate, please?

L. Skinner: Yeah, I’ll give two examples of mobility. Particularly, I’ll just give the example of the Okanagan with the fruit growers. They really were challenged this year, because they often get workers even from Quebec and all across the country. It became unaffordable.

Housing makes a big difference, in terms of where a lot of these folks can live. I’m not suggesting traditional housing opportunities, but maybe even some of these farmers would build properties and build accommodations if they could maybe, again, have some incentives or capability to come at it from that perspective. Having places where people can live in an affordable way without being just in tents in an orchard would be, I think, one part of it.

The second area is just with immigration. With the shortage of new immigrants coming into the country, a lot of these particular businesses really suffer by not having people. If there were some way that we could provide, again, some help and support, be part of helping other people’s families from other parts of the world, be able to sponsor them to be able to come into the country to help for work, that could be a way for mobility as well.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I like your refocusing on co-ops. We’ve done that before, I know, in our business, but sometimes you can just kind of forget about it. We need to put the spotlight on those. Thanks very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m not seeing any other questions.

Launi, I would like to thank you so much, on behalf of the committee, for presenting to us. I guess, on a personal note, I’d like to say that I am a member of more than one credit union. I think credit unions play a really important, equalizing role in our society. In your presentation, you’ve just demonstrated that.

Our next presenter is Shiera Stuart, B.C. Gaming Industry Association.

B.C. GAMING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

S. Stuart: Good morning, MLAs. My name is Shiera Stuart, and I’m here today as the chairperson of the B.C. Gaming Industry Association — moving forward, the BCGIA.

It is also an honour to be here today on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

The BCGIA was formed in 2015 to act as the unified voice of gaming operators in the province of B.C. We’ve always been proud to engage in this consultation process, and I’m honoured to have the opportunity to do so again this year.

So 2020 and 2021 have been a very difficult time for our members and workers, as we navigated our way through the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. Our industry was one of the very few that was mandated closed on March 16, 2020, and was one of the last included for reopening in step 3 of B.C.’s restart plan, which took effect on July 1, 2021. This was almost a 16-month closure. Our operators worked extremely hard throughout the pandemic to prepare for a safe reopening.

[9:40 a.m.]

Casinos are among the most highly regulated environments in the province and, as such, are familiar with the implementation and enforcement of strict compliance requirements. All safety protocols in casinos have been adhered to, monitored and enforced by our floor staff, security and surveillance teams and casino management. Sophisticated equipment allows surveillance personnel to aid the floor staff in ensuring that patrons are complying with safety protocols. No other industry has the security, surveillance, contact tracing and oversight capabilities of the casino industry.

B.C.’s gaming operators play a significant role in the provincial economy and their local communities. Gaming facilities include many non-gaming amenities such as food and beverage outlets, show theatres, conference centres and hotels.

Pre-COVID-19, our members directly employed over 10,000 people in B.C. and annually paid wages and benefits of more than $300 million and property taxes in excess of $10 million. We currently have approximately 6,000 employees back to work, as our members are operating at approximately 60 percent capacity due to the current restrictions. At our full capacity, it is estimated that, collectively, the gaming industry provides 37,000 jobs directly and indirectly in communities throughout the province.

In fiscal 2019-2020, casinos and community gaming centres generated $929 million of the $1.3 billion in net income that BCLC delivered to the province of B.C. to support all the investments in health care, education and community programs.

Gaming revenues are also a long-term source of revenue for the B.C. First Nations. The provincial government provides First Nations with 7 percent of the BCLC’s net income for the next 23 years. The agreement will share approximately $100 million per year from provincial net gaming revenue. It is expected to result in approximately $3 billion in revenues shared with First Nations by 2045, to support priorities for communities, such as enhanced social services, education, infrastructure, cultural revitalization and self-governance capacity.

The provincial government also shares gaming revenue with host local governments. Local governments that host local gaming facilities in their area receive a 10 percent share of the net gaming income. In 2019-2020, $93.5 million was disbursed amongst 32 host local governments to fund programs and projects determined by these municipalities. In addition, $140 million was given to not-for-profit organizations through community gaming grants throughout B.C. to support the delivery of ongoing programs and services that meet the needs of their specific communities.

The members of the BCGIA are proud to support and be an active and integral part of the local communities where they live and work. We are also proud to provide socially responsible gaming entertainment and non-gaming amenities that provide great jobs and contribute to the B.C. economy. The gaming industry has been operating successfully here in B.C. for over 30 years, and we look forward to the next 30 years of creating more jobs and economic growth.

Thank you so much for your time today. I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Just to put it in perspective, I don’t know how much out of the B.C. gaming revenue gets out into community gaming grants. There are all sorts: sports, recreation, etc. At a quick glance, it’s over $300 million that’s gone, times the 1½ years that you’ve been closed. I don’t know what that 60 percent will look like.

What are your projections, based…? You’ve only got two months under your belt of this 60 percent capacity. What do you think the revenues are going to be for sharing with First Nations, the communities and community gaming grants?

S. Stuart: It’s a great question. I would be lying if I didn’t say that every mayor that hosts a casino in their riding hasn’t asked all of us that question.

It’s still a bit too soon to tell, but what I can tell you is that almost every property throughout British Columbia had lineups when we opened — for weeks on end. We are sticking very clearly to the 60 percent capacity. In some establishments, it’s 57 percent; in some, it’s 63 percent. It depends on the floor layout and the machines in each casino. It’s not quite 60 percent at every single establishment.

[9:45 a.m.]

What I also can tell you is that people who are in there are happy to be there. Our protocols and our health and safety guidelines are so strict. Obviously, we are now following the vaccine passports, and we are very pleased to do so. With that — the masks, the two-metre social distancing, the plexiglass — the customers and patrons that do come into our facilities feel very safe, and they’re happy to be there.

Right now the numbers that are coming in — and BCLC should be able to get those numbers at the end of the first quarter we have been open — will show that we’re doing pretty well. We might not be at full capacity levels, but I think that the host local governments and the province will be very happy with the numbers that are coming in from each facility since we’ve been open.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much. I did tour one of the facilities in Kelowna, and I have to commend you. Everything you said in that statement about the precautions, the security — I had no idea. Anyways, thank you.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Shiera.

I’m just curious whether your organization has any spillover, so to speak, with Hastings Park and Fraser Downs.

S. Stuart: I can’t speak to that. I actually work for Gateway Casinos. I’m here as the chair of the B.C. Gaming Industry Association, and those two facilities are not part of the association.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Jagrup, you had a question?

J. Brar: I do have a question.

Thank you, Shiera, for your presentation.

I really appreciate the gaming grant program. It’s really helpful to many, many organizations out there. But in today’s time, when access and inclusion is quite important for everybody, I just want to ask you: do you have a kind of lens to make sure the gaming grant is accessible to people, and you’re including everybody, whether it’s BIPOC people or First Nations, and so on?

S. Stuart: You know, that’s a great question, and I honestly don’t have the answer, as I don’t run the gaming grant program. However, as a follow-up to this meeting, I can get some information on that as to how it works and forward it to the committee, if that would be okay.

J. Brar: That will be great, particularly if you can provide us with information, and also to know if there’s any outreach program to educate those people that this funding is available to, particularly, small organizations to help other people.

S. Stuart: That’s a great point. I will definitely follow up with this committee.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. I’m not seeing any other indicators of wanting to ask you a question, Shiera.

Shiera, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for taking the time to come and present to us. Of course, your casino plays a really big role in my community. It’s a vibrant centre to the community. Thank you for reminding us where those gaming grants come from. They play a critical role in helping front-line community services do what they need to do. They come from your industry. So thank you so much.

Our next presenter is Blair Qualey, New Car Dealers of B.C.

NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

B. Qualey: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members. It’s really great to see you all in person. It’s a nice experience and a privilege to be here.

As the Chair mentioned, I’m the president of the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. We represent just over 400 new car dealers who do business in just over 55 communities around the province of British Columbia that generate some $16 billion in economic activity. They provide, directly and indirectly, just over 30,000 family-supporting jobs in the province.

One of the many communities that our members serve are, of course, First Nations communities around the province. On this special National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, our members are taking the opportunity to think about what it means, to talk to their employees about what the day is about. I think you’d probably find a number of orange shirts located around the province in B.C.’s new car dealers.

[9:50 a.m.]

It’s a privilege to be here today. Aside from representing B.C.’s new car dealers, the association is privileged to administer the clean energy vehicle program, now called Go Electric B.C., for CleanBC. The rebate point-of-sale program for…. If you purchase an electric vehicle, you can get up to $3,000 off a qualifying vehicle, and we’re privileged to work on that and administer it.

We’ve been doing that now for about ten years. We just celebrated ten years and 50,000 rebates given out under the program. I just noticed the other day that the DesRosiers folks, who are sort of a national collector of data on all things automotive, indicated that we had achieved 12 percent of new vehicle sales now being electric vehicles. This is a record for this country and for North America, and something I think all British Columbians should be very proud of.

I had mentioned some of the economic input and the economic engine that our dealers are. We’re very grateful to government and members of the Legislature for all the tremendous work done through the pandemic and continuing to be done, allowing our members to stay open and serve their customers. Transportation is such a critical part of keeping our society moving, even in pandemics. Our members have been open, and I know the Finance Minister is pleased to see the input of PST coming from our members through this time.

Just interesting to note, one in seven jobs in this country is tied to the automotive sector. Pre-COVID, we sold about 200,000 new vehicles in this province. When COVID hit, we fell off a bit of a cliff in March of 2020, dropping some 70 percent in vehicle sales. Fortunately, that came back over the last number of months. We’re not quite back to 2019 levels, but we’re getting very close.

The big challenge going forward right now, of course, aside from the pandemic, is the shortage of computer chips and other parts. The global supply chain is in disarray and has a lot of challenges to work through, which is meaning the supply and inventory of new vehicles is very short in the province and for the dealers, which, in turn, has turned people into looking at used vehicles, which now are also short in the province. It’s going to be a challenging time going forward, but our members continue to look forward to finding new and creative ways to deal with that.

I have three areas I just wanted to bring to your attention today before we wrap up.

One, going forward, a challenge that we frequently bring to this committee is the issues around luxury tax in the province. I’ve been a broken record on this, but I will bring it up again to say that we hope government will really take a serious look and review how the PST is structured, particularly coming out of the pandemic. It’s a good opportunity to see if all of the structures of tax are working well. From our perspective, a tax that leads to pickup trucks, work trucks, being taxed as luxury vehicles makes no sense, in particular in the province where we’re trying to grow and come out of a pandemic.

Secondly, I commend and encourage government to continue its support for rebates for electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging. It’s very important.

I also continue to ask government to look to ways to support and provide training for technical skilled trades. The trades certification recently was great news, but we’re continuing to look for and have a shortage of skilled tradespeople to repair and fix vehicles but also all sorts of entry-level jobs right through sales, marketing — you name it — at dealerships.

Those are sort of the three areas I’d ask government to continue to look at in the budget, coming forward. I know I’m pretty much out of time, so I’ll wrap up there and take questions.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thanks, Blair.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Blair, for your presentation.

I want to see if you can just…. There was a lot of joy in this room when you said 12 percent of the sales are EVs. You make mention that we’re like the leaders in North America, so can you explain that growth in the curve to get us to 12 percent, and what the rationale that you believe that we’re at 12 percent and shooting higher is?

B. Qualey: We have been privileged, as I mentioned, to administer this program with our members across the province and with government for ten years.

[9:55 a.m.]

It started out very slow, as you might expect. There weren’t a lot of electric vehicles available at the time.

Government has, I think, rightly recognized the power of working with the network of the people that actually sell the vehicles as a way to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles. Now the incentives are incredibly important.

Ten years ago, when staff in government called and asked me, “What are the things that you think we need to do?” I just said three simple things. You need the incentive to bridge…. Until we have parity between gas and electric vehicles price-wise, you need something to bridge that, and the incentives, the rebates, are there for that purpose.

You also need to make sure there’s charging infrastructure where people live, work and play so that they know that if they buy an electric vehicle, there’s somewhere they can charge it. Fortunately, battery technology has improved dramatically in the last ten years, and the range on these vehicles is much better. Range anxiety is not so much a thing anymore.

Thirdly, it’s education. It’s taking the time, in all sorts of ways, to help people explore and experience an electric vehicle. We’ve been running Green Ride-and-Drives at the auto show that we put on every year — well, almost every year, when we’re not in a pandemic. I’ve found if you put a bum in the seat, as it were, whether people ride in it or get a chance to drive an electric vehicle, it really changes the conversation and their experience and how they look at it.

We’ve worked with government, and continue to do so, on opportunities, and some other partners — Fraser Basin Council and others, Emotive — to make sure that those opportunities exist for people to try those.

Government has stuck to that plan for ten years. It’s been very successful. The dealers of this province have embraced electric vehicles and have been a big part of helping to promote them and make sure their customers understand them and give them a chance to drive them and try them. That simple combination, I think, has led us to this 12 percent. But it’s been a slow, steady climb. Now, as we have a lot more EVs available for consumers, assuming we get past some of these electronic chip challenges, I think we’ll see that continue to grow.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Blair. Good to see you again in person, as you said.

Being that you had a couple of years of experience with the luxury tax and the PST, graduated rates from $55,000 up, what did that do to car sales? I guess, really, to help us better understand, did it make people buy more fuel-efficient cars? Did they buy down? Where is that working today, considering the shortage of cars? Is everything getting a luxury tax on it? What’s happening?

B. Qualey: Well, I think I saw recently that the average price of a vehicle in this country, a new vehicle, is about $46,000. So in having a luxury tax kick in at $55,000….

Part of the challenge here is the threshold hasn’t been adjusted for many, many years, and as everybody knows, things are more expensive. Vehicles use many more materials that are much more expensive. The materials, the paints, the safety features, all of these things, make vehicles just naturally more expensive, yet the threshold hasn’t come up.

We’ve found that hit pickup trucks, for example, particularly hard. To your question about how it’s changing behaviour, there is, for a one-ton pickup truck, an exemption. If you want a smaller pickup truck, you pay luxury tax on it. What unfortunately happens for some is you’re forced into a larger truck than you need, which means heavier trucks on the road, more emissions and on and on. A number of unintended consequences from those kinds of things.

The luxury supertaxes, as I call them, that were introduced in 2019, for example, have also modified the behaviour of some folks who can purchase those vehicles. They have various ways. Many of them have addresses in other jurisdictions, like Alberta, so they use that address in Alberta to purchase a vehicle, have it delivered there and then don’t pay the tax and can ship it back and forth to Vancouver to drive it, or wherever else in the province they like, as many times as they want, given the savings that they have on luxury tax.

There are ways around it which have forced a reduction, actually, in the amount of PST that’s coming into government after that tax was introduced, about 33 percent reduction in that first year in the input of taxes from that high-end level of vehicles.

[10:00 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Blair, there’s a lot of interest in what you have to say, but we’re out of time. Sorry about that.

Sorry to the committee members who had additional questions.

Thank you so much for coming today to talk to us about what is a very important topic, in terms of how we work together to address climate change. I, for one, have been a victim of the computer chip problem. We have something on order. Can’t wait.

B. Qualey: It will come. Be patient.

All right. Thank you very much for the time. Appreciate the invitation.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have one more presenter before we take a bit of a break. That’s Heather O’Hara, B.C. Association of Farmers Markets.

B.C. ASSOCIATION OF FARMERS MARKETS

H. O’Hara: Good morning. Nice to see some new faces on the committee. I’ve been here a few times in the past as well. Thank you very much for the invitation to participate today, on behalf of the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets.

To begin, I’d like to acknowledge the significance we all share of this National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and the privilege we share meeting on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh people.

Similarly, on behalf of our organization’s B.C. farmers markets — which represents 145-plus member farmers markets, at which more than 4,000 farm, food and artisan vendors of all kinds that sell at farmers markets across this province — I’d like to acknowledge and express gratitude for the unceded Indigenous lands and territories on which these farmers markets are situated and thrive and on whose lands the food all of us eat is grown and harvested.

Today our organization reflects on the systemic racism, tragedy and genocide inflicted on Indigenous peoples and communities through Indian residential school policy and actions. We grieve in solidarity with our friends and cousins, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation, for their 215 lost children, and the thousands of other ignored children across the country.

In 2020-2021, the B.C. Association Farmers Markets also celebrates the Indigenous-led Kweseltken Farmers and Artisan Market, one of our newest BCAFM member farmers markets from the same Tk’emlúps community which has suffered so greatly, alongside the tragic loss of the Two Rivers’ Farmers Market in Lytton due to fire, one of our long-standing and inspirational Indigenous-engaged member farmers markets.

The B.C. Association of Farmers Markets is currently on our own journey of equity, justice and decolonization and is committed to doing the hard work walking a path towards Indigenous reconciliation. As such, we support a provincial budget and financial investment which supports the self-determination and participation of Indigenous people and communities in all sectors and areas of this province, in addition to the food and agricultural sector in which we operate.

We invite the province of B.C. to consider the following 2022-23 budget considerations outlined below.

One, the idea of sustainable investment in farmers markets. Along with the growing consumer demand, COVID and climate change, we are a catalyst to localize our food system and ensure greater food security in B.C. We really need strong, sufficiently resourced and meaningful investment in these non-profit farmers markets we represent, along with the farms and food producers, to meet growing consumer demand for food grown and processed locally through direct B.C. producer-to-plate sales channels.

Two, local economies and the B.C. farmers markets hatch and hype program we just launched in the Kootenays this summer. In 2021, thanks to a grant from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, the BCAFM is currently piloting hatch and hype, a farmers market business incubator initiative in the Kootenays and Columbia Basin region to support the launch of new B.C. farm and food products and businesses while assisting with COVID economic recovery. It’s going great.

We’ve long recognized the role of farmers markets as small business incubators, and so too have many others. We’d like the province to make additional investment in this program to expand and scale this work to all other regions across the province as part of its provincial COVID economic recovery strategy and support for small business.

Three, climate change and sustainability. We and our members recognize the climate change emergency.

[10:05 a.m.]

We believe that B.C. must invest in and establish farmers and food producers, including small-scale farmers, as true climate partners and seek farmer-led solutions to incentivize low-carbon, climate-friendly farming and food production practices. B.C. farmers are uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in climate adaptation and mitigation.

Four, equity, justice and decolonization, which I entered the conversation today with. We encourage the province of B.C. to invest in programs, services and supports of all kinds and in all sectors to increase equity, access, opportunity and participation by all British Columbians, including in our sector.

Finally, the B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon program, beloved by many, supported greatly by all levels of government, is just a wonderful program. We’re very proud to deliver that in partnership with the Ministry of Health.

We’re requesting ongoing funding to ensure the continuation of this program in 2022. We’d love to see an increased investment in this program in the total amount of $2.7 million annually, which will enable us to expand the impact of this program in 2022 as follows: increase our weekly coupon value by $3, from $21 to $24, and add six more communities and an additional 300 spots to address waiting lists.

In closing, thank you very much for your time and consideration.

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

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Heather. I really appreciate your presentation. It’s pretty thorough.

We are pretty blessed to have a very lively farmers market in Vernon and Lumby. It is alive to our community. People also get to socialize there as well. Coming from a farmer family, it’s always my favourite place to go.

You mentioned adding six more communities to existing…. Do you know which communities? Perhaps, maybe, it’s somewhere in your presentation. I was quickly going through.

H. O’Hara: You know what? I did not include them.

What it would be related to is…. When we get a new farmers market member in a new place, we give them some time to get settled in and to establish their farmers market. I believe we have a couple of new farmers markets that came online this year, for example, but who may not be participating in that program. I can’t remember offhand, but for sure, we know who they are. It’s just not top of mind right now — who they would be.

Next year we may have some new members that come on board as well. Vernon is definitely in the program, though.

H. Sandhu: I found it’s a great way to connect our future generations. Kids get very curious about farming. As you know, the newer generations have been shifting away from the concept. The farmers markets do bring their interest back to where our food comes from and the food supply chain. So I really appreciate the work of you and your members too.

H. O’Hara: Sometimes participants also become vendors, right? There’s a whole cycle that happens, this wonderful…. All these offshoot benefits of this program are incredible. It was very well used last year and this year as well, in spite of COVID and especially because of COVID as well.

J. Routledge (Chair): Do we have any other questions for Heather?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Heather. Having been connected with the farmers markets as the former minister, I have to say that I’m so appreciative of how they’ve grown and the interest in them.

What can we do to, I guess, expand their reach throughout the year? I’m talking about the farming producers. We’ve got the incentive to get the consumer to come there, but what do we have to do to get more farmers engaged in that?

H. O’Hara: A couple of things. Operating the farmers markets…. So 99 percent of them are non-profits and, generally speaking, are understaffed or underpaid. There’s not a lot of operating capacity for farmers markets, except for the vendor booth fees, which really are sort of bare bones to get those things going.

I believe an investment in the people and the places and the operational stuff is really important. Then you have some dedicated capacity to advance and manage those really…. Up and down. Take it down. Put it up. All that effort that goes into that…. Some dedicated storage. Some dedicated equipment and infrastructure in addition to the people. That’s one thing — being able to operationalize that all year.

[10:10 a.m.]

Two would be really…. We do a lot of marketing, but having some of that operating capacity will let them be much more abundant in terms of their offerings. I believe that would attract more farmers to participate — so that there are more consumers going — and make it a cost benefit as well.

A lot of farmers also want that direct sales channel now. I think there’s a real appeal for farmers to have this as one of a couple of channels for themselves. They’ve been doing a lot of farm-gate sales, online sales, and having these farmers markets to do those direct sales is something that a lot of, especially, small-scale farmers really, really want.

The stronger the farmers markets’ capacity, the more appealing it is for them to be able to run and for the farmers to participate as well.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): There’s always more that can be done.

H. O’Hara: Yeah. I mean, they’re such heroes, right? — the people that pull off these markets every week. It’s such an undertaking. The people that go…. Frankly, it’s a lot of work for the vendors as well.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I see no other questions, Heather. So on behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for coming to meet with us today and for sharing your enthusiasm. Your dedication comes across so well.

I also want to thank you for taking so much of the time allotted to you to talk about what this day means in terms of truth and reconciliation and about the first people who were on this land. Of course, farmers markets are all about land. So that was a wonderful connection that you made.

H. O’Hara: Thank you very much.

It was lovely to be able to speak about Kweseltken, that new farmers markets in Tk’emlúps, and the Lytton…. I get emotional about Lytton, because it was such a beautiful story and model for a farmers market, in Indigenous engagement.

Thank you for indulging me. It was a little bit longer, maybe, than you would like to hear, but it was really important to contextualize the issue.

J. Routledge (Chair): I agree. Thank you.

H. O’Hara: Thank you very much. Okay. Bye for now.

J. Routledge (Chair): We’ll now take a break until 10:15.

The committee recessed from 10:12 a.m. to 10:23 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Christine Terpsma, B.C. Dairy Association.

Christine, you have five minutes. We will signal you when you have 30 seconds left so you can shift into conclusion mode. Then we’ll have five minutes to ask you questions.

Whenever you’re ready.

B.C. DAIRY ASSOCIATION

C. Terpsma: Thank you. Good morning.

Before we begin, I would like to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Today we join together to acknowledge the tragic history and ongoing legacy of residential schools. May we commit to work towards a greater understanding of our shared history, to learn from it and to help create a better and more inclusive future.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Christine Terpsma, and I’m the director of producer and public affairs at the B.C. Dairy Association.

[10:25 a.m.]

B.C. Dairy represents about 500 dairy farmers through­out British Columbia. Nearly all of our dairy farms are family owned and operated. Our industry contributes over $1.2 billion to the provincial GDP and 12,700 full-time jobs in multiple regions throughout the province, making milk the largest land-based agricultural commodity in B.C. I am pleased to be here to present to this committee on behalf of B.C.’s dairy farmers.

Local farms are uniquely positioned to help our government build a stronger B.C. through increasing provincial food security. We have three related recommendations, which I am happy to outline today.

Our first recommendation is to work with government to develop school feeding programs to nourish children, starting with B.C.’s most vulnerable children. B.C. Dairy has supported nutrition education and healthy-eating programs in schools for over 40 years. We want to be part of growing these programs to support the province’s goal of healthy eating for vulnerable children within all B.C. school districts.

An example is a series of pilot projects that are currently taking place within New Westminster and Abbotsford school districts. B.C. Dairy and Simply Foods have entered into a pilot partnership with both of these districts, which centres around increasing healthy-food access for students.

This spring B.C. Dairy provided dairy products to over 150 subsidized students weekly in 12 schools in New West and 220 vulnerable students weekly in 17 schools in Abbotsford. We ask the government to maintain these pilots projects as a model for B.C. and seek support in expanding to all school districts to ensure children receive the nutrition that they need to learn.

Our second recommendation is for the B.C. government to enhance provincial food security by increasing dairy-processing capacity within western Canada. We’ve seen throughout the pandemic that British Columbians increasingly value stable supply chains and increased self-sufficiency within our food system. B.C. farmers are in a position to advance food production right here in our backyard, contributing more jobs to both our rural and urban economies.

In partnership with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, B.C. Dairy recently initiated a study to understand the opportunities and barriers to investment in dairy-processing innovation and growth within British Columbia. We look forward to sharing the findings with our government partners following the completion of this study in November of this year. We are confident that with increased investment in dairy processing, we can make B.C. a true leader in food security and provide more jobs for British Columbians.

Our third and final recommendation for today is for the B.C. government to ensure all farms, including dairy farms, can continue to lead in environmental sustainability through CleanBC. B.C. Dairy believes it’s important that B.C. is taking a leadership role in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Dairy farms are in a position to lead in innovation as our food system adapts to a changing climate. From clean energy production, carbon capture and forage crops to nutrient management technologies that have the capacity to reduce emissions, dairy farms are a part of strengthening our province’s resilience in the face of climate change.

The B.C. Agriculture Council and Investment Agriculture Foundation are currently developing a sectorwide greenhouse gas emissions reductions strategy that’s called AGCLEAN. We ask that future provincial budgets support this work in order to advance agricultural adaptation and climate change mitigation.

In closing, in order to expand local food production and enhance food security for communities around the province, we believe that Budget 2022 should be a historic budget that firmly places agriculture sectors, including dairy farms, as partners.

Thank you for your time. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

M. Dykeman: Thank you. It’s wonderful to see you again. Appreciate you coming to make this submission today.

I have two very brief questions. The first one is: are you part of a Feed B.C. program through the Ministry of Agriculture? The second one is: what processing support gaps exist right now that you feel are top priorities that need to be addressed?

C. Terpsma: Thank you for those questions.

We are exploring partnerships with Feed B.C., and individual farms that have a processing arm of their business have some direct partnerships as well. We look forward to growing those over time, especially with some of the items we’ve outlined in our submission.

[10:30 a.m.]

The second question related to processing gaps. One of the largest ones, really, is capacity. Dairy farms have the ability to grow the amount of raw milk produced on their farms with their existing facilities and some investments. However, they need the quota growth in order to make those investments and produce more milk. Without more local processing based here in B.C. and western Canada, dairy farmers do not have a vehicle to ship raw milk and have that processed to increase the amount of local milk produced in communities throughout the province. That’s the largest one.

The processing project that we’ve initiated with the ministry to explore other gaps and opportunities I’m sure will identify others that may be of interest. We’ll make sure the committee receives a copy of that report.

M. Dykeman: Wonderful.

G. Kyllo: Not so much a question but just wanted to lend my support, obviously, for the dairy sector. It’s a huge contributor to the local economy in the Shuswap region.

As you’ve highlighted, the large majority are family-owned and -operated farms. When they go to construct new barns, equipment, they certainly do utilize a lot of local resources in our communities. It has a huge impact in the riding of Shuswap. I just want to thank you very much for keeping your industry front and centre for us.

C. Terpsma: Certainly, the Okanagan is one of the major dairy sectors throughout B.C. We’re pleased to have many members growing their businesses there.

J. Brar: Thank you, Christine, for your presentation.

I’m interested to know more about one of the recommendations you’re making, particularly the school feeding program. We also heard yesterday somebody else talking about the universal school food program. You are indicating that there are some pilot programs going on right now, if you can provide me with more information. Also, if possible, if you know that if we have to expand that program in the school system — in the post-secondary, grade 11, grade 12 — is there any cost analysis you have done which you can point us to?

C. Terpsma: Thank you for that question.

The pilot projects that I spoke about in New Westminster and Abbotsford are a partnership between B.C. Dairy and Simply Foods, which is a catering company that’s based out of Burnaby. They have a program called Fuel Up that is located within several school districts throughout the province, whereby they provide nutritious lunches, directly in partnership with schools within those districts.

We wanted to take a look at how to make those lunches more nutritionally sound with the inclusion of nutritious dairy products. Our registered dieticians at B.C. Dairy worked directly with Simply Foods to support their menu and to be able to provide subsidized meals to students in vulnerable school districts — just in those two, to start. There is an opportunity to increase to other school districts, and we’d love to work with the provincial government and some of the other non-profit partners in a space to be able to make that happen.

J. Brar: Who is funding these pilot projects now?

C. Terpsma: B.C. Dairy has contributed to the dairy portion of the school lunches. I would need to ask Simply Foods in terms of other funding support — whether that’s coming directly from the district or if there are other non-profits in that space.

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

You talked about increased production and the need for quota growth. I know a little bit about this only because we were working on exports into Asia. We had a talk about this, Megan and I, last night about the brand of Canada and the fact that the organic milk that…. I mean, there’s a huge differential in terms of the brand.

I don’t know whether that’s just fallen off the radar. The Canadian Dairy Association and myself were doing extensive work in Asia. But the only thing I wonder about is the quota imbalance across the country. It seems to me that we could do more in terms of value-added production, like cheeses and things like that. I know we have production here, but I do look at the diversity from Quebec and even places like Manitoba.

I guess I’m just kind of wondering: is there anything we could do more to help get more of that to come to British Columbia and increase opportunities for dairy producers here?

C. Terpsma: Absolutely, I believe dairy farmers feel the same way. They would like to see increased innovation within the products that are being offered locally produced by B.C. dairy famers.

[10:35 a.m.]

There are several examples from eastern Canada — Joyya, an ultrafiltered milk that has an extra amount of protein. We’re starting to see that come to our shelves. It’s coming from Ontario. There’s an opportunity for B.C. farmers to produce similar products if we had the processing capacity within the province to be able to offer them.

I believe there is a willingness from the farming community to be able to partner with processors to be able to offer some of those more niche products or more innovative products that we’re seeing coming from eastern Canada to our store shelves.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Christine, unfortunately, we are out of time. There’s so much more to talk about when it comes to dairy and the role of milk in our communities and our lives.

As you were speaking, you were reminding me that when I was in elementary school, every child got a little carton of milk to drink at our desk. It was just normal. It was what was done. I’m very encouraged about your ideas about expanding production and expanding the presence of milk in the schools. Thank you for coming and sharing this with us.

Our next presenter is Laura Gillanders of FarmWatch.

Laura, you have five minutes. We’ll signal you when you only have 30 seconds left so you can think about wrapping it up. Then we’ll open it up for questions.

RICHMOND FARMWATCH

L. Gillanders: Thank you for having me.

I’m Laura Gillanders. I am the spokesperson and coordinator for Richmond FarmWatch, which is an organization of farmers and residents who protect farmland in Richmond and throughout the province. We have a set of recommendations for you — you should have them on your iPad — that we believe are some ways that the province can use the budget to enhance farming viability in the province. I’m just going to skip right forward to the recommendations on the bottom of page 2.

Farm classification and status. Revise the income requirements for farm status. We recommend to decrease the minimum farm revenue threshold on properties less than two acres. It’s currently at $10,000. We believe if you lowered that to the $2,500 that it would encourage small-lot farming instead of those landowners feeling that their parcels are not suitable for farming. Then also look at increasing the minimum farm revenue threshold on properties greater than two acres, which is currently at $2,500, which would avoid rewarding token farming on large private estates.

Make the B.C. Assessment farm classification contingent on a minimum five-year lease. Secure land tenure is increasingly difficult for tenant farmers who lease farmland from speculators who may have little to no interest in having their land farmed in the long term. Often speculators offer only a one-year lease to protect their ability to develop or sell at any time.

This is a massive and far-reaching barrier to farmers in running their business, investing in equipment or infrastructure, growing crops and practising proper land management. It’s almost impossible to run a farm or business when the lease is so insecure since farming does not operate on a yearly cycle; it involves long-term planning, field preparation a season or more in advance.

Research what has happened on farmland since the ALR was established. We could provide funding for a government study on what has happened to farmland over time, including the state of the farming sector when the ALR was established and trends since then — for example, how much land was lost to various exclusions such as churches, private schools, golf courses, industrial complexes, residential shopping malls, subdivisions, mega-mansions, gravel pits and other non-farming activities. A component of the study could be to determine whether house-size restrictions have had an impact on the overall performance of the farming sector, though it may be too soon to tell for that.

Taxation. While FarmWatch understands the federal government continues to provide emergency funds to maintain food security access across Canada, this doesn’t go far enough. Smaller-scale local farmers have been left to fend for themselves.

Allowing the PST exemption on smaller quantities of some materials. For example, small-scale agriculture is a significant and growing part of the food system and an important part of solutions adaptation to climate change. We recommend removing the 100-foot-by-20-foot minimum for greenhouse poly as specified in the Bulletin PST 101, because the current minimum discriminates against small-scale farmers on leased land who lack the ability to install larger greenhouses because of many reasons — landowner restrictions, layout of the land, the intensive nature of small-scale practices where smaller areas are more intensively planted.

[10:40 a.m.]

Buying farmland for leasing. We believe there’s an opportunity for the government to purchase farmland for leasing back to new farmers, and even leasing-to-own programs for new farmers.

Then incentives, subsidies, grants to farmers who are growing food. Providing incentives, subsidies and grants to farmers who are growing fruits and vegetables and providing local food security, food that’s grown locally and sold locally; farmers who are using regenerative farm methods which help increase crop yields and fight change, including no-till agriculture, cover crops, crops rotation; farmers who are facing problems with getting their produce to market because of the cost of required liability insurance for farmstands and farmers markets or because of the cost of marketing and setting up online ordering systems and developing sales stream methods; farmers who are growing fruits and vegetables, seeking to become GAP-certified, which can be very costly — the CanadaGAP is a food safety program for farmers that produce, handle and broker fruits and vegetables; farmers who are requiring extension services, technical and marketing support; and farmers who are hiring local workers because of subsidized wages, similar to those for red seal trades apprenticeships, so that farmers can hire and train workers who are paid a livable wage.

Those are our recommendations.

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

Our first question is from Megan.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation today.

I have two quick questions, the first one being: have you looked at the other possible effects of a five-year lease minimum in order for a property to be eligible for farm status?

I assume the premise would be that landlords that wanted the farm status and see it as a long-term investment would be likely to lease that property, even if it was for five years, because that’s their goal. Where there are other issues, like GST on the sale, if it’s a short flip, do you think there’s any chance that it would actually disincentivize people to lease their properties and actually create less availability of farmland?

My second question. I read your recommendations that were put in, in writing. One of them, under 1 (c), was to research the longitudinal situation with the ALR. I’m wondering if you’ve checked to see if that might have already been done. I’m just curious.

L. Gillanders: I have heard that concern that, possibly, it could deter a land donor from wanting to lease at all. I think the tax implications of having an estate that’s worth $18 million, versus one that could be assessed at $80,000, per se, could be enough of an incentive to really want to have farm status. But currently the landowners take advantage of it. They can do a year-by-year lease.

We know that especially in Richmond, close to residential areas, the landowners along some streets believe that eventually their entire street will be turned into townhouses. So they like to keep the investment liquid. Even though there’s no indication that they would ever get an exclusion from the ALR, that’s what a lot of the landowners are hoping for. We hope, with the incentive of the farm tax being low and incentivizing landowners to give long-term leases, that they’ll see the benefit of that over keeping the short-term leases.

On the second question, I actually am not sure if that has already been done. I think that surveys, the individual…. The Farmers Institutes will do an inventory. I know that Richmond did a full inventory back in 2011, I believe, to see what has happened in Richmond, the trends in Richmond. I’m not sure. It was not provincewide.

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

J. Brar: Thanks, Laura, for coming today.

Your recommendation 1, which was to revise the income requirement for farm status. It said to decrease the minimum farm revenue threshold on properties less than 0.8 hectares, which is 1.9 acres — currently $10,000. Then it goes on to continue, saying: “Increase the minimum farm revenue threshold on properties greater than 0.8 hectares.” That’s currently $2,500. That doesn’t make sense to me. If it’s less than 0.8, it’s $10,000; if it’s more than 0.8, it is $2,500. Can you explain that to me?

[10:45 a.m.]

L. Gillanders: Yes, correct. Back when this was established, there were many small parcels in the ALR, and they wanted to prevent people from buying these small properties and just turning them into large estates.

J. Brar: Of course, yeah.

L. Gillanders: They increased the revenue threshold to $10,000 for the small properties as a way to avoid fake farming, so to speak. But as the years have gone on, we believe that that has become counterproductive, because it’s actually so difficult to make $10,000 on a half acre or 0.75 of an acre, for example. We see landowners pushing back on those properties being in the ALR at all. They say it’s impossible to get farm status, so it’s really just a large estate.

We believe that if we lower it to $2,500, then you’d see a lot of small-scale farms on the backs of these smaller acreages, because people would feel like they actually have the ability to get farm status.

The larger properties, to grow $2,500…. We’re seeing just such massive estates with fully landscaped acreages and racetracks and gambling houses — just ridiculous — and then they’ll have a few rows of blueberries, just enough to get the $2,500 so they don’t have to pay full taxes on these large estates. We think that there’s room to increase that on the larger acreages — but look at decreasing it to incentivize.

J. Brar: In Richmond, there was significant activity to take over the ALR by some of the developers. So if you reduce the amount from $10,000 to — whatever it’s called — the minimum fund revenue, are you not opening doors again to the developers to come back?

L. Gillanders: I don’t think so, because we have the strict house size limits now.

The developers…. It was primarily driven by the ability to build a large mansion — so purchasing a small acreage and putting a 15,000-square-foot house on it and flipping it immediately to a foreign investor. The house size limit is preventing that. We’re already seeing small farms being bought and the house retained and small little farm operations starting up. We’re already seeing the benefits of that. So if these smaller acreages could be used for farming instead of just a big house and a yard, then that’s a good thing. They can’t develop it; they could farm it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Laura, I know that there are more questions, but we are out of time for now. I want to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for raising these issues, for making these recommendations and for the work that you do — in short, all the work that you do to make sure that we still have farms to watch.

L. Gillanders: Thank you very much for having me.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Daniel Allard, B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.

Daniel, you have five minutes. We will signal you when you have 30 seconds left so you know to wrap it up, and then we’ll ask you questions.

B.C. STONE, SAND
AND GRAVEL ASSOCIATION

D. Allard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First off today, especially, I want to acknowledge the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish First Nations on whose land we are today; the Kwikwetlem First Nation, whose land we operate on in Coquitlam; the Matsqui and Kwantlen First Nations, whose land my family’s business has operated on in the past; as well as the Nanoose First Nation on Vancouver Island.

Thank you very much for having me here today. My name is Dan Allard. I’ve been in the sand and gravel business my entire life. I’m third generation. I’m also a director of the Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and head of the sustainability committee.

I’m here today to follow up on our recommendations. We have three very straightforward recommendations in our submission that you, I’m sure, all have. Inspectors, education and infrastructure are our three priorities.

We’ve noticed, over the last several years, that the permitting process for new mines especially — new aggregate mines — is taking a lot longer than it has in the past. As an indirect result of this, there has been not necessarily illegal mining but legal-adjacent mining, non-competitors to us bypassing the permitting process.

[10:50 a.m.]

We believe that 20 new inspectors would be a very good use of funding to basically get us back on track as an industry. There are, last time I counted, almost 1,500 mines in the area that are properly permitted, and when there are people who can’t get a mine permit, there’s demand. The continued growth in the building industry and the infrastructure projects…. Demand for sand and gravel has not gone down, and we’ve been working gangbusters my entire life to supply that demand. So those inspectors, I think, are a key part of our recommendation.

Second is education. We’ve recently gone out and put together an education package for elementary school kids. The number of young people in general that we’ve hired over the years has sort of waxed and waned, but we certainly see a lot of older employees who are planning on retiring soon. We have 10,000 jobs — easily — in the industry that need filling, and the number of students that have gone through, for example, BCIT to earn red seal trades has not necessarily kept pace.

We would really like to see an investment in education towards trades that will help us fill not only the general demand for jobs. We know that everyone’s struggling right now to fill positions, but we’ve noticed this over the last 20 years and more. We would really appreciate an investment in education that can bring people into our industry, and we’ve made a concerted effort to try and help that as an association, as well, at the ground level.

The final recommendation is infrastructure. There are thousands of kilometres of roads in British Columbia. Every road, every building, every piece of infrastructure that is built uses sand and gravel in some way, whether it’s asphalt or concrete, and those pieces of infrastructure will create jobs for British Columbians.

Those are our three recommendations. I will leave it at that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. If there are any questions….

J. Routledge (Chair): There are, Dan.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation today.

With recommendation 1, you talk about investing in an additional 20 mine inspectors. I was just curious: why the number 20? How was that calculated? Was it based on when you had an ideal time of turnaround and that would be what it would take? Is there that much growth? I was just curious where that recommendation came from.

D. Allard: That was a fairly informal conversation. I guess it would’ve been a week or two ago. Hermanus Henning spoke to the B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association about the restructuring of his mine inspections department. That felt like an appropriate number that they could…. It was sort of the highest number that they could bring on. There was not a lot of thought that went into that on my part.

Yeah, that seemed like a reasonable number. That’s definitely a conversation that we have been having with Hermanus Henning, who is the chief inspector of mines. They have, like I said, recently undergone a reorganization into two separate inspection departments. I think that 20 would fit well in there. But that’s definitely a good question.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Dan. I know that working on permitting of mines is not an easy thing. I’m thinking about the public, in terms of their lack of understanding. So I commend you on the fact that you’re doing something in schools.

[10:55 a.m.]

I want to go back to skills training. What are the skills that the sand and gravel association…? What are the skill sets that are needed, in the sense of what areas of training you need?

D. Allard: Personally and immediately, heavy-duty mechanics. Red seal heavy-duty mechanics are something that we, as a company, struggle with finding. We have four right now out of, probably, a dozen mechanics that work for us who are in the process of moving from their apprenticeship to a red seal ticket. We’re very proud of that fact, that we’ve managed to keep some young people on in our operation through their apprenticeship project. Drivers are another thing. That’s not necessarily an education funding issue, though.

Generally, anyone who goes through any sort of trades school…. I think focusing more funding on trades school generally will allow people to be more comfortable taking that path in education. So I think focusing on trades in general will benefit us overall. But heavy-duty mechanics and mining engineering are sort of the two areas that I would point out specifically that we would target for hiring. But in general, I think anything that can go towards trades programs will benefit us overall in the long run.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have two more questions, and we’re closing in on the remaining two minutes. Greg and then Harwinder.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I’ve heard from a number of sand and gravel operators in my riding in Shuswap that permitting, even just renewing existing permits that are up for renewal…. Huge backlogs are having a significant impact. You’ve indicated that you’re looking for mine inspectors, but are you hearing from your membership about concerns around the time it takes to even renew existing permits? Not even permitting a new mine, but even just renewing a permit seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time, putting a lot of pressure on existing operators.

D. Allard: Absolutely. I’m not sure if there’s anything this committee can do to help that. I know that there was a big change in the implementation of FrontCounter B.C. over the last decade, basically. But yeah, that is absolutely a big issue for us as well. So anything you could do on that part as well….

G. Kyllo: Yeah, I’ve certainly heard that it seems to be a bit of a black hole. There seems to be no rhyme or reason. It’s not like you’re making a renewal, and it’ll take six or eight months. People just never know. It’s next month, it’s next month, and a year and a half later, people still haven’t had a permit renewed.

Okay. Thank you very much.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Dan, for your presentation.

A quick question around…. You said that there are, due to the licensing issue or permitting backlogs, illegal operations occurring. Do you have the sense how many are actively happening? And when they’re identified, is there a process in place where associations can complain? How would these 20 new inspectors…? I think my question was asked: how the number was justified.

D. Allard: That’s a really good question.

There are new soil removal and deposition regulations that are in the process of being implemented right now. One of the ways in which we believe that this, I would call it, legal-adjacent mining is happening is excavation from development sites and just sort of material that is not really being accounted for. We don’t really have a number or an idea on that, but those sorts of sites are supplying material into the industry that is not being permitted as a mine.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be — you know, if it’s within the soil removal guidelines that are in the process of being implemented. I think that would actually be outside of the purview of the mine inspectors and permitting, which….

[11:00 a.m.]

That might eventually get on side, I think. But right now we don’t really have an idea of where material is coming from, and I think those soil removal regulations will help give us an idea of that.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, on behalf of the committee, Dan, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to come and make a presentation. As you were speaking and answering questions, I was reflecting that our commitment post-pandemic is to build B.C. back better. I think the operative word is “build.” You’ve given us some real insight into some of the things that could get in the way of building back better.

D. Allard: Thank you kindly for your time. I really appreciate it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Lisa McGuire, Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C.

MANUFACTURING SAFETY
ALLIANCE OF B.C.

L. McGuire: Thank you, all, for the opportunity.

I’d first like to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation honouring the lost children and survivors of residential schools, their families and communities.

As the CEO of the Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C., we are a not-for-profit health and safety association serving B.C. manufacturers and food processors. We’re one of 14 health and safety associations in our province who collectively provide health and safety support to 30 percent of employers in British Columbia.

We play a key role in helping companies build and maintain effective health and safety programs, supporting companies through the pandemic recovery, addressing mental health in the workplace and contingency planning for industry occupational health and safety risks stemming from external factors such as climate change. We serve 24 percent of the manufacturing industry in British Columbia that employ approximately 55,000 to 57,000 British Columbians.

How health and safety associations help, like ourselves, is…. Through this pandemic, since the very beginning, we’ve helped support them in building COVID-19 safety plans together, then helping them transition to communicable disease plans and then working with the medical health officers getting vaccinations to front-line workers. We continue with that campaign in helping provide those opportunities through our specialist psychiatric adviser on the front lines giving education around the importance of becoming vaccinated.

The industry challenges are significant, with labour shortages, rising costs and uncertainty causing disruptions to the industry supply chain and related logistics caused by the pandemic, climate change and other emerging risks. It has a direct impact on the physical and mental well-being at all employee levels, increasing the demand, as well, for qualified health and safety professionals.

Mental health and safety impact is significant. Post-pandemic economic recovery and sustained growth depend on effective workplace mental health programs. Mental health programs are a critical factor in successful recruitment, retention, accommodation and return-to-work programs in our competitive and shrinking labour market.

Manufacturing is in the top four industries in which employers are likely to suffer from mental health issues. In the manufacturing environment, where employees spend a third of their day working in a culture of silence and stigma around mental health, the problem will be exacerbated and recovery period extended.

My first recommendation for your consideration is to invest in sector-based mental health solutions. Workforce shortages also increase the risk of physical injury, increasing workloads, stress at all levels, incidents of fatigue and related risk factors in manufacturing. Companies with health and safety management systems are better prepared to protect workers and mitigate risk in this changing environment.

My second recommendation for your consideration is to invest in strategies to address labour shortages and programs that assist companies to become occupational health and safety system certified.

Enhancing professional standards for occupational health and safety roles in manufacturing is important. We’ve worked through the sector labour market partnership funding to enable the industry to work towards an important goal of standardizing the health and safety professional practice in B.C.’s manufacturing sector.

[11:05 a.m.]

The funding has enabled the alliance to complete research to identify specific challenges, including the lack of qualified health and safety professionals — developing a clear strategy to define a certification program for the health and safety profession in manufacturing. This has enabled stakeholder consultation and engagement to achieve collaborative solutions.

There’s more work to do to solve industry’s challenges to standardize the occupational health and safety profession in manufacturing. We’ve shaped a competency and capability model, but there is work in defining an accreditation process and a certification process to help support this challenging goal.

My third and final recommendation is to continue to invest in the sector of labour market project funding initiatives. Together, our provincial goal is to make B.C. the safest place to live and work in Canada, and the recommendations align to this goal.

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

Now I will invite members of the committee to ask some questions.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Lisa, for your presentation.

We’re hearing a lot throughout the last little while about labour shortages. In the cases of some of the other sectors, people have found other employment and moved on. My question: did you have a labour shortage prior to the pandemic and do you continue to have that? Or did your employees or those people in the sector just find work elsewhere?

L. McGuire: There definitely was a pre-pandemic challenge, but it has been exacerbated through the pandemic. I’ve engaged in external outreach with various employers over the past few weeks, and it’s really a challenge for industry right now.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?

Well, Lisa, I guess your presentation was very clear, to the point. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for presenting to us and for putting your recommendations together, all of which are about making sure that employees are safe in their workplaces and healthy in their workplaces.

Our next presenter is Meena Brisard, Hospital Employees Union.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION

M. Brisard: Good morning.

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting today on the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples.

My pronouns are she and her.

HEU is B.C.’s largest health care union. We represent more than 50,000 members in health care working for public, non-profit and private employers.

I wanted to start on this day of truth and reconciliation by acknowledging the legacy of colonialism and the reality of discrimination and racism faced by Indigenous people, including Indigenous health care workers in the hospitals, care homes and other sites where care is provided. We may believe that health care facilities are places of compassion and care for all, but in reality, this is not the experience of many Indigenous people.

Dr. Turpel-Lafond’s unflinching 2020 investigation into these matters makes this reality very clear, and her report In Plain Sight provides us with a road map on how to systemically take on the work of decolonializing health care. I want to recognize the work that the Ministry of Health has done to support this work. We strongly urge this committee to ensure that resources are available over the long term to widely implement Dr. Turpel-Lafond’s recommendations. We are also committed to this important work.

During the pandemic, health care workers have been unwavering in their dedication to provide the best quality care to patients, residents and clients while facing risk to themselves and their families. But it has been a long 19 months. It has taken its toll on a workforce that was already facing crushing workloads prior to the pandemic.

[11:10 a.m.]

We recently surveyed our members, and nearly one out of four said they’re more likely to consider leaving health care in the next two years because of their experience working in the pandemic. Forty percent have worked at a COVID-outbreak site. About one in 20 have been infected with COVID-19. They’re working a lot of overtime, they’re burnt out, and they’re physically exhausted. Simply put, we have a serious staffing crisis in health care, and it has the potential of getting much worse.

We need to do more to make health care an attractive career choice and keep skilled and experienced workers in the system. This means making significant investments in supporting their mental health. That’s now and in the months and years to come. We need to treat the health care workforce as a whole. That means following through on the Minister of Health’s mandate to standardize wages and benefits in long-term care and assisted living across all ownership types to promote equity and to reduce turnover.

Recently government announced that it was repatriating the work of thousands of privatized hospital cleaning and dietary staff and reuniting them with the rest of the health care team. Actions like this are life-changing for the workers and create good jobs that promote the retention of a skilled and experienced workforce that is so critical to health care delivery. We also need to expand on career laddering opportunities to all workers across employer types without loss of service and corresponding benefits. Without these steps, we will continue to lose workers, and health care will suffer.

We commend the government for its commitment to applying gender-based analysis to policy decisions and to make sure we have a health care workforce that better represents our communities. We’re very proud of the work we are doing with health employers to apply these principles in broader recruitment and retention strategies. For example, we’re pushing for the gathering of baseline data to identify how Indigenous and racialized workers and other equity groups are currently represented with the health care team. We urge the committee to support initiatives like this and others that seek to transform our health care workforce.

Finally, I want to thank the committee for its commitment in past reports to making investments and addressing gaps in seniors care. Some of the recommendations you’ve made, like equalizing compensation in seniors care, were put to work as part of our government’s pandemic response. The provincial government levelled up wages across the sector as part of the single-site staffing orders, an important measure that saved lives and prevented an even more dire staffing crisis for low-wage operators.

Under this arrangement, more than 60 percent of contracted care home owners have now, under the single-site order, raised their wages to the provincial standard. It’s a government subsidy to low-paying employers worth about $165 million. For many workers that we represent, this boosted their pay by as much as $8 an hour. Twenty years ago such actions would have been unnecessary. Virtually all funded long-term-care operators, regardless of ownership type, were covered by a common collective agreement with wage and benefit parity across the sector.

Coming out of the pandemic, we need to return to stability by re-establishing common labour standards in seniors care. This will ensure continuity of care, help deal with the recruitment and retention crisis that we face, and provide a level playing field for both residents and workers when it comes to working and caring conditions. We’ve addressed a number of these issues, related to health human resources, improving seniors care and advancing employment equity, in a written submission we’ve provided to this committee.

I wanted to say thank you for taking the time. Those are our comments from the Hospital Employees Union.

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

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

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Meena, for that very thorough, well-spoken report.

Can you just tell us…? With regard to long-term care, the wages that have come up and working multiple sites, does that cover absolutely everybody in the system? There are no loopholes for somebody that’s a member to go around that system to get into another site?

[11:15 a.m.]

M. Brisard: At the current time, that’s correct. It does cover approximately 48,000 workers. All the health care unions worked extremely hard to implement the single-site agreement at the very beginning of the pandemic. I really want to thank and commend everyone who worked so hard to get that in place within 30 to 40 days of the announcement.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Meena. First of all, I would like to say congratulations on this role.

M. Brisard: Thank you.

H. Sandhu: You and HEU are doing a good job. I can say, because I have two proud HEU members in my family.

When you’re talking about these challenges, I know firsthand that 16-hour shifts are the new normal. Versus having four days off, it’s one at times, and that’s because of Interior Health’s fatigue policy. Otherwise, they’ll have them seven days a week.

The impact, the mental health…. It’s more like a comment. You mentioned that some of the new measures are taken, even in residential school, pay equality…. What kind of response are you getting from members? Being a health care advocate, I always believe in highly…. I always say that health care and seniors care should never be for profit, because we’ve seen and we know when it comes to privatization, it’s all about profit before people.

I wonder. With some recent changes and with the amalgamation of your members to the public sector, what kind of response are you…? It is definitely life-changing for many. I’ve heard from many. I wonder what kind of response you’re getting.

M. Brisard: Around the repatriation, again, a lot of the workers that were impacted were women and women of colour. Their wages are going to go up significantly, and they’re going to get the benefits and pensions that were really taken away from them 20 years ago by the Liberal government. They are going to have family-supporting jobs, which is huge.

I get emotional thinking about that because, again, coming from a family with immigrant parents and the struggle that they faced, I feel that impact on what these workers have faced. We’ve always taken the position that we need to end contracting out.

When it comes to long-term care and assisted living, we’ve seen the studies that show that the funding that goes into the for-profit sectors were not seeing all the funding going into the hours for care, that we’re seeing less funding going into that and more money going into the pockets of these privateers.

For the not-for-profits and the long-term care and assisted-living facilities that are funded through the health authorities, we’re seeing more hours directed to patient care. Again, we need to end the privatization and make sure we have a standardized level of wages and benefits for all workers and make sure that they all have the same safety measures in place.

H. Sandhu: A very quick follow-up. After this announcement, I got a call from somebody. They live in Salmon Arm. She told me…. She said: “In a moment, we were told that we are back to minimum wage.” She lost all her benefits, pension. I was only thinking privatization. I wasn’t thinking of the impact. This person shared her story and how, ever since, she’s never had stable employment despite going to school for some….

It was just many heart-wrenching stories. So thank you for the advocacy that you are doing.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m not seeing any other indications that anyone wants to ask any further questions.

Meena, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you so much for your presentation and your recommendations. And thank your members for the work that they do.

As you were making your presentation, I was reminded…. It was quite early in the pandemic. One of your members who lives in my community, who came off of a 12-hour shift and before she went back on her next 12-hour shift, went and stood in line at Costco so that she could buy groceries to contribute to the food bank. That is so above and beyond. It was so generous. It’s important that her community repay that generosity with our own and make sure that she gets to work and live in the dignity she’s entitled to.

M. Brisard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[11:20 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Becca Yu, Citadel Speech and Language Services.

Becca, you have five minutes. We will indicate to you when you have 30 seconds left so that you can start wrapping it up, and then you’ll have five minutes for us to ask questions.

CITADEL SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE SERVICES

B. Yu: Thank you for the invitation to speak today.

I would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the Musqueam people. As stewards of this beautiful place, we give thanks to the shared land. In partnership, we strive to enrich the lives and life chances of our youth so that they may reach their fullest potential. In this, we give thanks.

My name is Becca Yu, and I’m the owner of Citadel Speech and Language Services. I’m also the vice-president of Speech and Hearing B.C. I’m here to talk today about my experiences as a health care professional. I’ve been a speech-language pathologist for over ten years, and I started my career working in public health, providing early intervention. At the time, the wait-lists were long, and many children didn’t receive adequate services before they aged out.

Now, more than ten years later, unfortunately, not much has changed. Before COVID, families waited months, if not over a year, to receive services. Now, as a private practitioner, I receive many calls from families who have been waiting. With the reduced services due to the pandemic, the wait times continue to grow.

Between the ages of zero and five is a critical development period for speech and language skills. The time spent waiting for therapy is a loss of opportunities that may never be recovered, even with later intervention. The inability to access early intervention can have lifelong impacts. I urge the government to increase the early intervention funding and to hire more FTEs to decrease the backlog of many years of underfunding and the reduction of services due to the ongoing pandemic.

According to Speech and Hearing B.C., the professional association for SLPs and audiologists, approximately 500 FTEs are needed to meet the current zero-to-five population. There are currently about 175 FTEs for SLPs in this province.

Before becoming an SLP, I worked with a sweet little autistic boy who I met when he was three years old. He’s now a young adult and in university. According to the message his mother sent me at his high school graduation, early intervention was essential for where he is today.

Throughout my career, I have worked with many autistic individuals and their families, and I’ve worked as part of a private, non-BCAAN assessment team for much of my career. I continue to work with private assessment clinics to provide my expertise as part of the speech and language assessment.

According to the PHSA website, as of April 21 this year, the wait time for a BCAAN assessment was 78.7 weeks. That’s 1½ years. This wait time continues to grow, meaning that many families go over 1½ years before finding out whether their child is autistic and then given recommendations to support their needs. For many, the diagnosis and the subsequent funding is the only way to afford the services to support those needs. This is actually the best-case scenario.

I’ve worked with many families who waited for the assessment, only to not be diagnosed as autistic. Families scramble for the next steps, as they are unsure of how to support their child and now don’t have any funding to support the needs that their child still has. That’s about 50 percent of families going through the BCAAN assessment.

Imagine waiting 1½ years, only to be told to keep looking for answers, and there’s no funding to support their needs. The provincial government needs to triage the incoming referrals with screening tools to reduce the wait times and provide recommendations and funding to support families of non-autistic children.

As a pediatric SLP, I see children between the ages of zero and 19. From my experience, families of school-age children have difficulties accessing services via public schools. From my colleagues in the schools, I’ve heard how difficult it is to manage the very large caseloads. This leads to burnout for health care professionals and a lack of services for students.

Without adequate speech and language services at schools, students suffer not only academically but socially, reducing their quality of life and eroding the foundation of skills needed for life, such as literacy and numeracy skills that are needed for basic independent living, such as reading application forms or paying their bills.

I’m asking the provincial government to increase funding for FTEs and the restructuring of services for better access to patients and better retention of SLPs in early intervention in autism assessment services and school-age speech and language services. Early intervention can reduce the number of government supports needed later in life, therefore reducing overall costs to taxpayers. Increasing funding and FTEs means more manageable caseloads, therefore reducing burnout of speech-language pathologists, which increases the retention of health care professionals.

[11:25 a.m.]

Overall, funding for the essential service of speech-language pathology is severely underfunded, and there needs to be a change for the health of British Columbians.

Thank you for your time.

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

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

J. Brar: Thank you, Becca, for coming today to make this important presentation.

You mentioned that we need 500 new FTEs to provide services to the complete number of students available in this sector. Do you have a wait-list of children, and how big is that one?

B. Yu: My own wait-list?

J. Brar: For 500.

B. Yu: I don’t have numbers for a wait-list. I could try to get you those numbers if that would be helpful.

Just to clarify, the 500 FTEs would be the total FTEs, based on our calculation of the number of population between zero and five. Approximately 10 percent of children require some sort of speech and language support. That’s how we’ve come to the conclusion for those numbers. We’re also basing those numbers off a reasonable caseload of about 40 children, which is actually quite unusual.

J. Brar: These 500 FTEs are in addition to the 175?

B. Yu: No, the 175 are included in the 500.

J. Brar: Oh, that’s part of it. Okay.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Becca.

It seems like a long time ago, but it was yesterday morning that Staci Cooper met with us and gave us a similar presentation. I’ll ask the same question. The system that we have in place today to recruit the number of FTEs that were to be required…. How long do you think that that would take to find those people?

B. Yu: Honestly, I haven’t done the calculation, but I think it would be a long one.

There are a number of factors. We don’t have enough seats at the university level for our master’s program. That is what’s required to become a speech-language pathologist. The other aspect around here in the Lower Mainland is how expensive it is to live here as well as how expensive it is to register for our college. It’s actually a huge deterrent both for those UBC students to stay and for the other schools across the country to attract SLPs to come into the province.

I don’t have an answer to your question, but it is something that is not an easy answer.

M. Starchuk: With your personal experience with your personal practice, how difficult is it to retain people here in Metro Vancouver?

B. Yu: I’ve worked for six years for a company and now for myself for another two years, and it is difficult to recruit, incredibly difficult. I usually will put out something year-round, and if I speak to an individual that I feel is a good fit, I will be hiring even if I’m not quite ready yet, both when I worked for a company and now, in order to obtain the number of SLPs needed.

In order to sustain and keep them for retention, there are so many deciding factors that can come into play. As much as a salaried job sometimes is great — and I’ve worked for many years that way — there’s a sense of not having autonomy that a lot of my colleagues go into private practice for. It is the sense of being able to make your own schedule and to be able to do other things in life to maintain our mental health while working such a difficult job.

I don’t know if I’m answering your question. There are just a lot of reasons why it’s very hard to retain people, because not everyone has the same motivating factors. Some people want that salaried position. They want the stability. Other people need the flexibility, depending on what their life circumstances are.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, with that, on behalf of the committee, Becca, I’d like to thank you so much for taking time out of what must be a very busy schedule to come and share this with us.

[11:30 a.m.]

I don’t know if you would find it reassuring to know that you are not the first one who has presented to this committee to raise the flag on this very important issue. I think probably all of us know anecdotally the seriousness of this deficit and have met absolutely frantic parents who know what you’re telling us — that without early intervention, the lifelong impact can be very, very serious for the family, for society, for the individual. So thank you for raising this. I guess we all have to put our heads together in terms of how to fix it.

B. Yu: Thank you for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Dr. Zehra Gerretsen, B.C. Chiropractic Association.

B.C. CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION

Z. Gerretsen: Good morning, committee members. It’s so nice to be able to meet here in person today. It has been a long time since we’ve been able to do so.

My name is Dr. Zehra Gerretsen. I am the chair of the B.C. Chiropractic Association. We represent 1,160, or more than 85 percent, of the chiropractors in B.C. My own practice is in Maple Ridge, but our members are available in every B.C. community, including rural and remote areas. Those areas are often underserved by health care providers.

Approximately one million British Columbians visit a chiropractor every year, and it’s quite likely that someone you know or maybe even you have benefited from our care. Chiropractors are experts in pain management, specifically spine, muscle and joint pain management, as well as rehabilitation.

What I want to discuss with you today is the crisis in our province and how chiropractors can help mitigate it, a crisis of both opioid overuse deaths and chronic pain. As you all are so aware, the number of overdose deaths continues to climb. But did you know that almost half of those who died sought health care services for pain management prior to their death? Substance use and untreated chronic pain are interconnected. People who use substances point to the lack of accessible, effective pain care as a contributor to substance use, an impediment to successful treatment and recovery.

Of particular concern is the opioid use among the trades. As many as 75 percent of workers in the construction industry experience musculoskeletal pain, which puts them at risk for substance use. The Coroners Service tells us that most of the overdose deaths are among men from age 30 to 59, who are men in the prime of their lives. This is really sad.

We also know from research here in B.C. that the most common co-morbidity is low back pain for those who received long-term opioid prescriptions. Research studies have demonstrated an inverse association between chiropractic use and opioid receipt among patients with spinal pain. For example, chiropractic users have 64 percent lower odds of receiving opioid prescription than non-users. Other studies have shown that patients who received initial treatment from a chiropractor had decreased odds of both short- and long-term opioid use.

Just as pain and opioids intersect, so do pain and poverty. The prevalence of chronic pain is higher in populations affected by social inequity, racism and poverty, and they experience greater barriers to care. Pain may itself be a disability. Many drug-free pain management services are unfunded by public health, severely limiting access by marginalized and vulnerable populations.

The allied health coverage offered by MSP’s supplementary benefits program has not been increased for two decades. The $23-per-visit fee does not cover the overhead cost of a practice, so patients must pay out of pocket, which they cannot afford. And ten visits per year for all allied health providers combined is insufficient for people living in chronic pain. Addressing this issue will help reduce the financial barriers faced by vulnerable populations who are at most risk for opioid use and addiction.

Again, research in B.C. has shown that those in the lowest-income quintile had a dispensing level of long-term opioids that was consistently three times that of the highest-income quintile. This has serious implications for the most vulnerable people in our province. B.C. chiropractors want to be part of the solution and to contribute to managing the chronic pain of British Columbians, and chiropractors have the expertise and capacity to provide necessary care for musculoskeletal complaints that do not require medical attention.

[11:35 a.m.]

The B.C. Chiropractic Association recommends that to improve access to effective chronic pain management services: the government fund initiatives with primary care networks in nine to ten communities in B.C. — this would be two in each health authority — to provide public funding for chiropractors to treat, manage and prevent chronic pain conditions, particularly for vulnerable populations with low income; and, to help mitigate the opioid crisis and improve access to drug-free pain management services for low-income people in B.C., the government increase the number of MSP supplementary benefit visits to 20 per year and increase the visit fee to $53, which would be in alignment with current ICBC and WorkSafeBC fees paid to chiropractors.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Gerretsen.

I will now invite — oh, we’ve got lots of questions — Megan and then Greg.

M. Dykeman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation.

I was looking through the submission you put in, and I see you have some interest in some pilot studies, as you mentioned. I’m wondering if you can tell me a bit more about that and, specifically, any locations that you’ve been looking at.

Z. Gerretsen: Ideally, the pilot study would put chiropractors in all ten health authorities. So two clinics in each health authority. Maybe one in Northern Health but hopefully two in all health authorities.

G. Kyllo: For an individual that relies on a chiropractor on a regular basis, I certainly know how debilitating it can be when you have chronic pain associated with…. For me it’s in my shoulders and neck.

In any event, the correlation that you’re presenting with respect to those that suffer with chronic pain and use of opioids and the other correlation, I guess, or the stretch or the reach that it’s also contributing to the number of opioid deaths in our province — can you just share, more specifically, if there is any specific research that you can identify that actually shows that correlation?

I think it certainly appears that, in your presentation, you’re looking for reduced costs and increased access for British Columbians. So maybe if you could just share a little bit more about where that information is coming from.

Z. Gerretsen: I don’t have the research studies on me right now. I can have them sent over, for sure. Yeah. I don’t have them on me right now.

G. Kyllo: Okay. I certainly have talked to individuals…. I have individuals that work for me in one of my companies, those that have chronic pain, and we certainly have seen some challenges with, I guess, the lack of access for pain medication doctors. It’s harder to get in to see them now. I have experience directly with some employees that work with me — increased incidence of, I guess, self-medicating.

To the point that you’re raising, we have seen out of control opioid deaths around the province. It’s tragic. It’s had a significant impact. So it’s interesting you’re raising the point that increased access to chiropractic care can help to alleviate reliance on opioids.

Z. Gerretsen: Absolutely. It would help take pressure off the current health care system too. There are long waits to get in to family physicians. A lot of people will contact their family physician first if they’re in pain, whether it’s acute or chronic — more often chronic pain — and that really backlogs the system.

Hopefully, with this pilot study, if we can have increased access to chiropractic care for those chronic pain populations, it would take pressure off of the family physicians. Chiropractors would be that first-line contact, at least so we could triage those patients and hopefully help them. If they did need more serious medical attention, of course, referral. But hopefully we could reduce some of that pressure on the system and decrease those costs.

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

I have to say that this information is quite striking. I certainly didn’t realize, first of all, that you could deal with all these pain management issues in a natural way versus…. I can’t imagine somebody prescribing opioids if there was an alternative.

[11:40 a.m.]

We had a presentation just while we were on this tour recently about a primary care network which is very successful, working in Burnaby, but I don’t think it’s…. I know that the minister has talked a lot about it.

I guess I kind of see a disconnect here. Doctors…. I don’t know their kind of understanding of what you do and the pain management, but why is it that you’re not part of the primary care networks? Or maybe you are. Are you part of them, or why are you not part?

Z. Gerretsen: We are actively working with members of government to integrate chiropractors into the team-based primary care settings. That’s one of our primary goals through the association, and also a big desire of pretty much every chiropractor in the province.

We have talked to the Doctors of B.C. a few times, and they have directed us to build support in local communities through divisions of family practice. We’ve been meeting at the grassroots level with MLAs, a few ministers. I would love to meet with Minister Adrian Dix as well, but he is a bit busy right now, which is understandable.

We have been spreading information and the ways that chiropractors can contribute and be part of those primary care networks. That is the goal, and we’re working very hard on it.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Anyway, this is new information. Anything more of those studies that you have or whatever that you mentioned to MLA Kyllo, I think, would be very helpful. Anything to get down the opioid deaths — that’s what I would say.

J. Routledge (Chair): Unfortunately, we’re out of time. You’ve certainly piqued our interest and offered some solutions to a crisis that plagues our society. I think I really want to echo the Deputy Chair’s question, because that was what was going through my mind. How do we get chiropractors as part of the team-based medicine that is happening and being promoted in our communities?

I think this is something that we will go back and ask some questions ourselves. What you say makes so much sense.

Z. Gerretsen: Wonderful. Thank you so much for having me.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our final presenter of the morning is Roland Orfaly, B.C. Anesthesiologists Society.

B.C. ANESTHESIOLOGISTS SOCIETY

R. Orfaly: Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to present this morning.

I’m sure that the committee has already done this, but since I haven’t been here all morning, I just did want to acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples. I also work at Peace Arch Hospital, which specifically is in the unceded territory of the Semiahmoo First Nation.

My name is Dr. Roland Orfaly, and I am the chief executive officer of the British Columbia Anesthesiologists Society. It’s my honour to present on behalf of that organization, which actually represents over 400 consultant specialist anaesthesiologists in the province, as well as over 100 family practice anaesthesiologists across, particularly, rural B.C. It’s actually those family practice anaesthesiologists, or what we call FPAs, who are actually the generators of the idea and the work of the proposal I’m going to put before you today.

First, as a bit of background, consultant anaesthesiologists, after medical school, complete a minimum of five years of in-depth training so that they can provide the highest level of safe, anaesthetic care to British Columbians.

For FPAs, or family practice anaesthesiologists, after medical school, they have a minimum of three years of in-depth residency training and provide very unique and critical skills to the rural population of the province, because every general anaesthetic involves life support, involves intubating patients, putting them on ventilators. Those are skills that FPAs have in their communities that are rarely available otherwise.

Particularly during this COVID pandemic, I can tell you that the FPAs have provided a critical role in not just giving anaesthetics but in terms of resuscitating COVID patients, intubating them, putting them on ventilators and caring for them. FPAs have been essential in our response to COVID over the last year and a half.

As I said, they also provide critical anaesthetic care to rural British Columbians, and they are actually the ones who’ve generated the proposal I’m going to bring forward to increase surgical capacity and to reduce wait times for surgery.

[11:45 a.m.]

As context, I’ve presented at this committee several times over the years, and I’m on record as saying that it’s not so much about how much funding is given for health care but how that funding is allocated to effectively generate the results that are intended. That’s exactly the focus of the proposal that I have for you today.

About a year ago, just after the first wave of COVID, Minister Adrian Dix announced the allocation of $250 million to increase surgical capacity and reduce wait times. That was excellent news. During Health estimates earlier this year, however, he reported that there was an increase of 1 percent in surgical capacity over that first fiscal year.

I know that COVID has made things difficult, but I’m sure that we can all look forward to even better than a 1 percent increase in surgical capacity, which is about 2,000 to 3,000 extra cases per year for the entire province. In fact, the proposal I bring to you today will multiply that by more than six.

What I’m speaking about is surgery closer to home. That’s where patients would prefer to have their health care. It’s also where we have the most capacity to expand the delivery of surgery. The space in our public hospitals in smaller and rural communities is available, and we have the anaesthesiologists available to care for those patients.

As I said, our network of family practice anaesthesiologists, FPAs, have identified 16 smaller and rural hospitals that have capacity to do more surgery and to deliver it closer to home. On average, that capacity can increase by about 59 percent over the current baseline. A conservative estimate of what that actually means for the number of surgeries is about 16,650 more surgeries in one year. That’s by increasing scheduled operating room hours from the current 752 hours per week across those 16 hospitals to 1,196 hours.

What’s needed? Like I said, we have the space and we have the anaesthesiologists. Every hospital is different. One place may need just to hire a new surgeon. Another place may need to retrain nurses or buy the surgical equipment and supplies that are needed. We feel that that can be allocated from within the $250 million that has already been promised.

In summary, we can reduce surgery wait times. We can do it within our current space and with our current supply of anaesthesiologists. We can do it closer to home, and we can do it by allocating funding and attention to where it can deliver the best results for British Columbians. Thank you.

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

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation.

I have two questions that are interconnected. There was a budget allocation. Whatever percentage of that $250 million that was spent saw an increase of 1 percent, and there are 16 hospitals that could increase capacity that are not presently being used. Do you know, or do you think you might be able to shed some light on, what the obstacles could be — beyond what you’ve mentioned, which might be some retraining — to not have already attempted to implement this? And will you be putting in a written submission?

R. Orfaly: I’ll speak to that last point first. I apologize. I haven’t put forward a written proposal, but I will do so this afternoon. So you’ll have more details in that. It lists specifically each of the 16 hospitals, the potential capacity.

It’s actually that FPA network that we have who can speak to each individual site and what is needed at each site. What they’re telling us and what we’ve reported to the Ministry of Health is that each hospital may just need one more surgeon or a couple more nurses or just the funding to actually buy the supplies for that surgery. So it is quite variable, but they’re not insurmountable challenges.

M. Dykeman: It just hasn’t been tried to this point.

R. Orfaly: We’ve seen no indication that it’s being implemented. We’ve seen a lot of efforts in the larger hospitals in larger communities.

M. Dykeman: All right. Well, thank you very much. I look forward to your written submission. Thank you for your verbal one today.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): There are three more people who have indicated that they have questions, and we’ve got about less than three minutes left. So Jagrup, Harwinder and Ben.

J. Brar: Just very quickly, Roland, the same question as my colleague here. The 16 hospitals you are talking about…. As I understand your presentation, you have the space. You have some HR capacity, but some HR capacity is missing, like nurses and surgeons. Do they have complete infrastructure otherwise — equipment and all that?

R. Orfaly: What we’re saying is that they have the operating room space. Usually, if you have the operating room space, you have the major equipment. You have an anaesthetic machine. You have the carts. You have the stretchers, all of those things.

What you might need are the disposables, the specific things that are bought for each particular surgery. Yes, there are HR issues at some of those hospitals, but like I said, they’re not insurmountable. We have surgeons willing to do more surgery. We just need to connect them with the hospitals that need them.

J. Brar: It seems to me very creative thinking. You should submit your written submission to us and also to the ministry.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Dr. Orfaly. I really appreciate your presentation.

The quick question. You identified those 16 smaller hospitals. I’m curious: are they in different regions of the province?

The other thing I know, in our region, our area, is that we’ve seen an uptick in surgeries after that announcement. Recently, with the COVID cases rising in the Interior…. I was talking to one of my former colleagues, an anaesthesiologist. They were saying that now they had to spare and open the operating room, and ICUs were full with COVID patients. How much impact did that have? We all know it did have an impact when they had to be prepared for any additional COVID cases who may need ventilators.

My curiosity about the nurses. I know health author­ities, too, fund that program, and there is a lot of interest in the nursing people who were doing shift work. They are excited to move to operating room nursing. Maybe something…. If you can share some ideas in your written submission. How can we, perhaps, look into the way to fund additional nurses to give them incentive to do this speciality training? That would be really appreciated.

R. Orfaly: Sure. That’s a great idea. I’ll just speak very quickly to the first part. In our proposal, it will list the 16 hospitals. They run across Vancouver Island, Northern Health and Interior Health, which is where our smaller and rural hospitals are. That is a wonderful idea in terms of retraining the nurses with some encouragement from the system. That would be great.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Dr. Orfaly, I want to commend you for the out-of-the-box type of thinking that your group has brought. It’s just the same as the primary care networks we were talking about. I know that the minister is open to new ideas on this, and I think that your presentation is very important, because I think that they want to resolve the surgeries that are….

I don’t know the whole reasons — operating theatres and all those types of things. But by putting a different lens on it and getting to the solution about getting those done is really important. I just look forward to seeing your written presentation.

R. Orfaly: Maybe to just give you a practical idea of what we’re talking about…. For example, some hospitals might have an operating room running two days a week. But there’s capacity to run that five days a week. These are certainly not insurmountable challenges to increase capacity. Thank you again.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you, Dr. Orfaly, on behalf of the committee. What a wonderful way to wrap up a morning of presentations. I think you’ve given us all a lot of hope.

We will now recess.

The committee recessed from 11:54 a.m. to 1:18 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Matthew Grifa, Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres.

Welcome, Matthew. You have five minutes to make your presentation. We’ll give you a signal when you have 30 seconds left. You can move into wrap-up mode, and then we’ll move right into five minutes of questions.

CANADIAN ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTRES

M. Grifa: Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres, or CATC, and our patients. My name is Matthew Grifa, and I am the interim CEO at CATC.

Our organization is the largest provider of opiate addiction treatment services in Canada. We operate over 80 outpatient treatment centres across the country, delivering integrated clinical, medical and pharmacy services to over 19,000 patients a month.

In 2020, we added our first centre in British Columbia, the Alliance Clinic in Surrey. Over the last year, we have added five additional clinics in Vancouver, Surrey, Abbotsford, Chilliwack and New Westminster. We also deliver virtual addiction treatment services to the communities of Kitimat and Terrace through our relationship with the Northern Health Authority.

[1:20 p.m.]

Our patients are people of all ages who come from all walks of life. Patients come to our centres or centres like ours with the goal of managing their addiction and living healthier, happier and more productive lives.

Through a comprehensive care model that meets the broader care needs of our patients, CATC provides not only medication-assisted opiate addiction treatment, through the utilization of methadone, buprenorphine or slow-release oral morphine, but also basic primary care, hep C and HIV treatment, harm reduction supports such as needle exchange programs and naloxone kits, as well as counselling services.

Our team-based approach, which includes physicians, counsellors and other support staff, eliminates barriers to treatment and provides expert care that allows us to deliver the best possible outcomes for those suffering from opiate use disorder.

I know earlier in this consultation process you heard from other individuals and organizations who are working on the front lines of the addiction and overdose crisis in British Columbia. I too am here to underscore that there is a gap in addiction treatment programming in this province.

Harm reduction strategies have been a key focus of many stakeholders, and they’re an important tool to address the opiate crisis and reduce the number of opioid deaths. On the other end of the spectrum, many treatment centres utilize an abstinence model, with many requiring sobriety to participate.

Our services land somewhere in the middle of this care continuum. We meet patients where they’re at, whether that means they’re still using drugs but looking for supports to use less or whether they’ve had success with OAT and want to move towards full abstinence.

Leaders and stakeholders across B.C. acknowledge the profound harm that opiate addiction is doing to families and communities across the province. While B.C. has taken significant steps forward in the last several years, there are still persistent challenges that make it difficult for many people across the province to access the addiction treatment services that they need.

In our experience, there’s a missing middle in addiction treatment in B.C. Fee-for-service funding covers some clinical care, but the vast majority of treatment centres are still limited in their ability to offer wraparound services because there’s no permanent stable funding model available for all patients for these activities. Some patients may be covered through government assistance or employer programs, but CATC sees many low- and middle-income patients whose only option is to pay out of pocket for these essential health care services. More cohesion would improve their access to treatment services for this vulnerable population.

So what’s our ask? Our ask is that the government of British Columbia remove an ongoing financial barrier to seeking opioid addiction treatment for this missing middle patient group that I’ve referred to.

How? The monthly alcohol and drug fee paid by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction should be paid for all patients seeking opiate addiction treatment services outside of a health authority–operated clinic. That means across the province and not just those operated by CATC. Currently 40 percent of our patients qualify for financial assistance based on existing income-based thresholds. The other 60 percent are forced to pay out of pocket for the ancillary services we offer.

Why? The change I’m asking for would remove an economic barrier for patients seeking to lead more productive lives. Many patients either can’t or choose not to attend publicly funded clinics and cannot afford even a modest monthly fee being charged to them. They drop out of treatment as a result. Financial hardship adds shame and stigma, and it also forces clinicians to become collection agents, which damages the therapeutic relationship they’re trying to build with their patients.

How much will this cost? Extending the alcohol and drug free to all patients seeking care with CATC would cost the B.C. government approximately $1.4 million a year. Extending that same fee to all patients seeking care at centres across the province not operated by a health authority would cost the B.C. government somewhere between $10 million and $12 million a year. That’s based on our estimates of publicly available information.

The return on this relatively modest investment would be exponential when considering the full impact of increased productivity, lower health care spending for these patients and reduced criminal justice costs.

Thank you for your time. Happy to field questions.

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

Greg has our first question.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much for the presentation.

For those that are having to pay for the services you provide, how does that cost compare to an individual that’s going to be utilizing illicit drugs?

M. Grifa: The clinic fee that I’m referring to in this case can range anywhere between $40 and, say, $70 a month. I would say that it would probably pale in comparison to that. That’s the general range of fees, $40 to $70 per patient, per month.

G. Kyllo: I’m just trying to understand. For those that are using drugs, is it less costly to seek out the alternatives that you guys provide?

M. Grifa: I would say yes. I mean, on so many fronts, for the health care system broadly and for those individuals, it should be.

[1:25 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: If government was to move forward with your recommendation, I don’t really see where the cost impediment is. If people are spending more to use illicit drugs than they would be to use your services, how is cost thereby the impediment?

M. Grifa: Well, I think the challenge is that people are coming into the funds that they’re using to buy illicit drugs in ways that you would not want them to do so, right? They’re not going to steal to provide for their care, per se.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Perfect. That’s a very important point. So thank you very much for that clarity.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Matthew, for your presentation and highlighting a very interesting topic. Everybody is trying to grapple with how best to deal with this crisis.

In your presentation, you mentioned that you operate in three different provinces. I wonder if any of the other two provinces are doing things differently, if any discussions are taking place. If they do so, what’s the difference between our model and theirs?

M. Grifa: There are some pretty significant differences in both Ontario and New Brunswick, which are the other two provinces in which we operate. This concept of a clinic fee doesn’t exist. What would be called the MSP billings in British Columbia are much higher in other provinces. The funding is channelled in a different way. All of those MSP or OHIP or New Brunswick billings are coming from the health authorities, so there isn’t this bifurcation between fee A and fee B. It’s all sort of a schedule of benefit paid in other provinces, specifically Ontario and New Brunswick.

H. Sandhu: Would you recommend that we, as a committee, when we’re doing deliberations, look at one of those provinces to get some guidance? Or will you highlight some — like what’s working and what’s not?

M. Grifa: That’s a lengthy conversation, to be honest. But if you look at the….

In B.C., the MSP code that’s billed for services that the clinicians are providing or the doctors are providing in our clinics is 00039, and you can only bill for one of those per month. So the frequency and amount of that code would pale in comparison to similar billing opportunities and care-related payments that are made in other provinces through the provincial health plans.

G. Kyllo: Have you presented to this committee previously?

M. Grifa: I have not. No, we have not, as an organization.

G. Kyllo: Have you presented to either Minister Malcolmson or Minister Dix, with respect to your proposal?

M. Grifa: We have not at this point. No.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Matthew. What are the patient outcomes when they seek treatment and they have the resources, or the support, to hopefully manage or get off this? Tell me. Are the outcomes far different than what’s happening in British Columbia?

M. Grifa: You mean in other provinces?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Yeah. You’re in Ontario and New Brunswick you said, right?

M. Grifa: Yes, absolutely. I think the retention numbers — retention being how long someone is retained in the program or actively on a support program — are better in other provinces. I’m most specifically referring to Ontario. Unfortunately, I think the story is the same in Ontario, New Brunswick or B.C. Those retention numbers are sliding, and they have come down over the last 18 months.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Is that because of COVID?

M. Grifa: I think yes, to some degree, but also the fentanyl supply. It’s harder to treat. Getting to a therapeutic dose can be more challenging, so people are dying at a faster rate. That problem is a national one.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I think it’s a bigger conversation than just what you’re asking for here today. Obviously, this is treatment within the whole spectrum of all the things that the government is trying to do and whether the people are going to benefit from this or whether they actually need other supports that don’t even exist.

M. Grifa: I couldn’t agree more. I think the conversation is…. This is the place to start, but it needs to continue well past that.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much for coming today and presenting.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, with that, Matthew, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for coming and presenting. It has been a theme of our consultation. We’ve had a number of different individuals and organizations who’ve come to speak to us.

[1:30 p.m.]

Many have addressed root causes and what can be done at that level. I think the piece you’re adding is you’re identifying a potential barrier to treatment, and it’s something that we will want to look at more deeply. So thank you for bringing that to our attention.

M. Grifa: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Susan Sanderson on behalf of the Realistic Success Recovery Society.

REALISTIC SUCCESS RECOVERY SOCIETY

S. Sanderson: I’ve presented…. This must be my fifth year, and it looks like it’s all different MLAs from the past years. Some of you I know, and some of you I don’t.

I’m also with the B.C. Addiction Recovery Association, which is our fledgling industrywide association, so that when government wants to find out what the recovery industry is thinking or hopes or needs, there’s one body you go to.

I’ve also been part of the community advisory committee for supportive recovery, and I was part of the Liberal government’s 2016 committee to make amendments to the assisted-living regulations, which weren’t implemented when the NDP won the election in 2017, so we redid them all again after that.

I’ve sent you my soft copy of my report. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. I applaud the current government for the many and very significant investments made for the people and communities of British Columbia and, from my point of view, particularly the first-ever three-year grants awarded this year through the Canadian Mental Health Association, expanding bed-based substance use treatment and recovery services. It was magnificent, that grant.

Despite the significant investments made in affordable housing, safe supply and harm reduction, one area continues to be underfunded: supportive recovery and social assistance benefits. The health crisis caused by the poisoned illegal drug supply has resulted in the life expectancy of males in Canada to go down by 2.3 years, the first time in decades that life expectancy has not continued to rise.

I think I have, this year, seven recommendations. I’ll just do a summary, and then if you’d like to ask questions, we can go into them in more detail.

One is to immediately increase the per-diem rate to $50.90. It is currently at $35.90, which was the new rate in 2019 that we were successful in achieving from this government. Previous to that, it was $30.90 and had been that way for many, many years. The real cost is around $50 to $60 a day.

Recommendation 2 is to build into the system a yearly inflationary increase for the ALR support recovery. As you know, this year inflation is a real problem. Our grocery costs have just skyrocketed; our fuel costs. So any gains we made by the increase to $35.90 has just been wiped out.

Recommendation 3 is to increase social assistance rates to $15,000 a year for an individual person. I know that’s a lot. I know you’ve raised it at least three times since 2017, which is wonderful. It’s still really hard for anybody to try and support themselves on the amount they receive.

Recommendation 4 is to invest in the continuum of services for mental health and addictions, including funding for integrated wraparound support services. That includes employment training, health care services and affordable housing. So to have those facilities and those organizations and programs where it’s all together, like at Phoenix — where you have health care, you have addictions, you have some housing, you have some secondary housing and third-step housing, and you have employment training all in the same place — it’s really successful.

[1:35 p.m.]

Recommendation 5 is to expand the skills development STE program for individuals facing multiple barriers. Many of our alumni are successfully now working in trades, living on their own, having children, being part of the community because they went through the employment services program at Phoenix, stayed with us, were able to receive the per diem and their comfort while they did that and then continue on and now live independently.

Recommendation 6 is to provide access for psychological assessments free of charge to clients in licensed or supportive recovery facilities.

No. 7 is to build long-term psychiatric facilities for those folks with long-term brain injuries, many of them from being overdosed and being brought back.

That, in a nutshell, is it. If there are any questions.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Susan. We have questions.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Susan, for the brief five minutes that you gave us.

I just want to look at the one table that was there, increasing the monthly per diem rate to $50.90. It’s basically a $15-a-month increase. If I take a look at your numbers, you were talking…. In 2018 there were just under 1,600. So if I took that number, made it 1,700 and multiplied it all the way through, that’s only a $300,000 ask.

Can you just explain to us what the $300,000 would mean to that 1,700 people? I just did the math. It’s $15 times all of that, and that’s what my math worked out to.

S. Sanderson: There are about 177 beds in the province, licensed and supportive. So if supportive gets it, licensed gets it too. So there are few more people than….

Well, it would mean that we wouldn’t have to work so hard to get other grants. For those organizations that do, we could buy better vehicles. We could get more access to other supports they need that we just can’t get them to, because we’re hamstrung by the number of people we can hire and our ability to offer more than just the basics.

The other issue is…. We are really fortunate, because two of the houses we rent, we’ve rented from 2010, so they’re basically under $3,000 a month. If either of those landlords come to us and say, “I’m selling now,” we’re hooped. We’ve got ten people who we don’t know where they’re going to go, because we’ve just rented another house that’s $4,000 a month, so it’s double.

You can’t sustain that on…. I mean, we can do it because the other houses can help. They’re making a bit more money, so there’s a bit…. We’ve been able to pull it together, but without that, you can’t. The amount of fresh fruit and vegetables we can offer would be increased. We are really, really…. Lipton soup is the standard, because we can’t do anything more. We could follow the Canada health guide if we were at $50 a day instead of at $35. That’s the reality.

J. Brar: Susan, thank you for coming today, and thanks to you and your team for providing exceptional services to the people who have mental health and addiction problems. Keep it up.

I have a couple of quick questions. A simple one for you. The first one is…. You were asking for increasing social assistance rates to $15,000, or $1,250 per month. Where are we right now? That’s one question I would like to ask you.

The second quick question. You’re asking to expand the skill development STE program for individuals facing multiple barriers, so if you can maybe explain a little bit more about that program to me.

S. Sanderson: I think DIVERSEcity now offers it, and Phoenix offers it through…. I can’t remember the name of it. What your government did was allowed our folks to stay on social assistance and do employment training, and then go through Kwantlen trades until they start and get apprenticed or whatever it is they want to do.

There just needs to be more money for that.

J. Brar: So these programs are working?

S. Sanderson: Yes. Yes. Yes.

J. Brar: So where are we right now? To $1,250, you want to go. Where are we now?

S. Sanderson: I think we’re at $935, for a single person.

J. Brar: This is individual?

S. Sanderson: Yes. I didn’t do the other rates, because we deal with individual males. So we’re closer.

[1:40 p.m.]

When you got to be government, it was $650, so we’ve come a long way. It’s just that we have to keep doing it. I know it’s tough.

J. Brar: Yeah. I started on welfare when it was $650.

S. Sanderson: That’s right. When you did the challenge, it was….

J. Brar: I just lost 26 pounds in one month.

S. Sanderson: In fact, I think when you did the challenge group, it was at $560. It wasn’t at $650. I think it was….

J. Brar: No, $625.

S. Sanderson: So $625? Yeah. Okay.

J. Brar: The last question I want to ask you — to build a long-term psychiatric facility. Why do you think we need to build a facility now?

S. Sanderson: We’ve had four clients in the last three years who have serious brain…. I don’t know how to…. They have serious mental illnesses that are not schizophrenic, that are not easily categorized. First of all, there’s nobody doing an assessment.

We know that they’re serious because they get to a certain point. They can do a chore. They can do the daily structure. They can stay clean and sober for a year, and then they want to start working, which is a natural…. But they can’t do it.

Then, also, they’ll start to talk gibberish. One day they can walk in here, and they’ll just be fine. Then the next day they’ll be talking gibberish. So how do we deal with this?

The reality is that there is nowhere for them to…. They need to be housed. Of course they need houses. They need to have supports 24 hours a day. They need to have structure. They need to have somebody to care for them, to watch their medication, to encourage them to keep taking whatever medication there is. They need daily activities to keep their brains going and maybe some part time work. But they can never live on their own.

What happens to them is they can stay with us for two to three years. When there’s no where else for them to go, to live independently, they go back to the street. They relapse and start all over again, because there is nowhere that we can help get them to. There is just absolutely nowhere where they can live independently.

All right. Does that…? Sorry.

J. Routledge (Chair): So sorry, Susan. We’re way over time. We really, really appreciate your dedication to the topic and the enthusiasm and eloquence with which you talk about it. We have other people who are making presentations.

I do want to thank you, on behalf of the committee. Thank you for your persistence. We know that you’ve spoken to this committee before. Thank you for being persistent.

Finally, I just want to tell you how struck I am by your comment earlier in your presentation that as a result of this opioid crisis, life expectancy has gone down. That says a lot.

S. Sanderson: That’s last year. I didn’t have time to look for this year’s. That’s last year’s figures out of Canadian Mental Health Association.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Christian von Donat, National Elevator and Escalator Association.

NATIONAL ELEVATOR
AND ESCALATOR ASSOCIATION

C. von Donat: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and hon. members of the committee. Good afternoon.

I’d like to begin by expressing my thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. I should note I was a little disappointed that we’re meeting on the ground floor of this hotel. Otherwise, we could have taken a fine escalator or elevator up to a different floor. Nonetheless, very happy to be here.

My name is Christian von Donat, and I’m the executive director for the National Elevator and Escalator Association, also referred to as NEEA. NEEA represents the largest four manufacturers and servicers of elevating and escalating devices globally and in Canada. Those members are Kone, Otis, Schindler and TK Elevator.

NEEA has been an association in Canada since 1977 and was the successor to the Canadian Elevator Manufacturers Association. Over the past five decades, our industry has undergone tremendous advances in innovation and modernization. Our members continue to drive innovation and technological advances within the elevating industry, aimed at delivering the best possible experience to the riding public. Safety remains the number one principle in our industry — safety for both the riding public and those who install and service elevators and escalators.

[1:45 p.m.]

COVID-19 has further brought safety to the forefront, above and beyond a mere technical nature. I am proud of the safety record that our members hold in British Columbia.

NEEA members have been an integral part of British Columbia for the growth and continued success of this province, which is tied to the innovative and reliable products that our members offer as well as the high level of professionalism and expertise demonstrated by the workforce. As B.C. grows more vertical, our members and their teams have been meeting the needs of builders, residents, building owners, businesses and the riding public. We look forward to continue being a key part of this province’s growth.

Budget ’21 outlined how B.C. will come out of the economic impacts of COVID faster than many other parts of Canada. Thanks to efforts by this and previous governments, the economic conditions to operate a business and serve the public continue to make B.C. a great place to live and work in.

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

Prior to this pandemic, we saw new residential buildings going up that were over 20 storeys that had only two elevators built into these brand-new buildings. With the addition of COVID-19 and elevator constraints, it made the situation even more untenable for residents in these buildings to get around safely.

The pandemic aside, the needs of residents and the riding public must be anticipated, from those with accessibility concerns to people moving in and out to recurring preventative and normal elevator maintenance in order to ensure the continued safe operation of units. In light of this, we strongly recommend the committee members and government consider bringing forward legislation to establish a traffic analysis framework that would align B.C. with other global jurisdictions and make a meaningful impact in this regard.

Without action, new buildings will keep going up that are fundamentally under-elevatored. These are off-the-shelf solutions such as an ISO guide detailing exact formulas to calculate how many elevators should be built into a specific type of building.

It’s also important to note that as more individuals and families move into highrises, we consider the needs of individuals with accessibility concerns. Individuals and families could be excluded from access to housing due to limited access to proper and safe transportation devices. Outdated transportation systems and an inadequate number of elevators are leading causes of barriers to accessibility. It limits economic participation and social interaction.

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

NEEA as an association looks forward to working with the government to develop these frameworks. We have strong working relationships with regulators and officials across Canada, and B.C. should be no exception.

As British Columbia continues to recover from the impacts of this pandemic, let’s ensure we have regulations in place in order to lift every British Columbian up, keep the public safe and grow the economy.

Thank you for your time.

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

I’ll invite members to ask you questions.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Christian. I hadn’t really thought much about that and the traffic management studies. Tell me. Is that something that we’re readily equipped to do, in the sense that the skill sets are there from the engineer or whoever does this? I know in highways we do it, but is that something that’s well understood in the building engineering business that does these things?

C. von Donat: It’s a great question. I would say that this International Standards Organization guide for transportation systems that was developed a few years ago…. This is in place in most of Europe, parts of Asia, the Middle East, other jurisdictions. Our four members and any other global operator would be experienced with this because they deal with it in pretty much every other jurisdiction that they work in.

The good thing about it was that the ISO guides were established in consultation with a number of Canadian experts who are based in Canada, and in B.C. in part, and certainly know the jurisdiction, as they helped to develop this global standard. When I say it’s an off-the-shelf solution, we do see it as something that would be embraced both by the public but also the industry, which certainly supports it.

[1:50 p.m.]

When you see media stories of issues in a building with elevators, most of the time it’s the same couple of issues that are responsible for that. We can’t go back and fix a building that was built 50 years ago with not enough elevators in it.

The problem now is that as the price per square foot of living in places like Kelowna, Metro Vancouver and other places is going up, builders have no rationale or regulation to say that you must put X number of elevators in that building. To put another shaft through every floor of that building — it’s a bit of a difficult conversion that that developer will have to undertake on their own, but there’s no requirement.

Typically, what an elevator company would do is offer this outline to them and say: “In ideal circumstances, this is what you should be building.” At that point, it’s their complete wherewithal to decide what to do. We certainly think that having a standard that’s applied from a global standard and widely recognized would certainly help ensure that we are not under-elevating future buildings.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): What’s the standard currently, then?

C. von Donat: Well, there is none — not in British Columbia. That’s for sure. You can build a 40-storey building and put one elevator in it if you want. There’s zero standard to say what you have to do.

In other buildings…. Residential buildings are the primary concern. But even in hotels now, when you have these brand-new hotels…. They used to have service elevators around the back. Now the service staff use the same elevators as the people that are going up and down to get to their rooms, so they’re continuously reducing the amount of transportation devices that are available in these settings.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. You touched on a couple of things.

I had a constituent in my riding that was specifically calling out because they’re in a wheelchair. There were going to be mechanical issues done, regular maintenance that was done, and they were absolutely in tears in the fact that they were not going to be able to get to their suite during that time. So I welcome a standard that comes, 100 percent.

My question is: are you working with the organizations that have mobility issues or disability issues? I know the elevator businesses…. You’ve changed the panel so somebody in a wheelchair can reach all the ones that are there, you’ve put Braille on it, and you’ve got other signalling devices to accommodate those people. But I’m just wondering about working with those organizations.

C. von Donat: Yeah, 100 percent. As I mentioned to your colleague, I think we have a good sense, working with those organizations, what some of the….

When I look at what a couple of things are that cause 80 percent of the issues that would be of concern to individuals in those stakeholder organizations, one of the issues that we talk about often is something called the single-speed elevator. This is an elevator that was developed and last created in 1981, I believe, and it’s a very outdated technology. It’s those really slow elevators that you can tell just move at one speed and take a long time. They haven’t been built for decades now, but there are over 950 still in B.C. in operation.

Most jurisdictions in the States and others in Canada have had their regulators move to phase these out because the problem with them is that with any changes to humidity, anything that might impact the elevator shaft in that unit, the technology is so old the elevator will often mislevel by half a foot. If you’re in a wheelchair, if you have mobility issues, you can’t overcome that half-a-foot mislevel. Typically, that’s one of the issues that’s responsible for the trips and falls that you see, especially with seniors and people with mobility issues.

We know what the issue is, and we are trying to get TSBC to come around to say these need to be phased out within the next couple of years. Building owners don’t want to spend $500,000 to replace an elevator in some cases. But we know that these are going to cause issues, and they exist in B.C. We would recommend that they follow other jurisdictions to have a phase-out plan. I think that would help alleviate a lot of the concerns from individuals such as your constituent.

J. Routledge (Chair): Greg.

G. Kyllo: Actually, the questions that I was going to canvass have already been asked.

J. Routledge (Chair): On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you, Christian. We hear a lot of presentations on a number of different issues. This is unique, but it’s a unique presentation that relates to a lot of the issues that plague us around housing. Your phrase “under-elevated” really resonates.

C. von Donat: I’m not asking for a penny. There you go.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much.

Our next presenter is Meredith Klemmensen, Ishtar Women’s Resource Society.

ISHTAR WOMEN’S RESOURCE SOCIETY

M. Klemmensen: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to come here before you and speak to the needs of the women and children that I serve.

[1:55 p.m.]

Ishtar Women’s Resource Society is the oldest organization in British Columbia that has supported women and children survivors of family violence. We’ve been supporting them since 1973.

I’m here to speak to needs of women and children specifically. We know that B.C. Budget 2022 will continue to be a COVID recovery budget. One of the shadow pandemics coming out of COVID-19 is the pandemic of violence against women and children. We know it has been raised by at least 20 to 30 percent of incidences that are being reported, and we know that these crimes are always under-reported. So it’s likely much higher than that. The pandemic has also highlighted the ongoing level of economic precarity for women in British Columbia.

I want to offer some recommendations to prioritize their needs. There’s not nearly enough that I can speak to, here, but we’ll speak to issues around housing, access to legal services and integrative services for substance use recovery for women.

Housing. I’m sure you’ve already heard a bajillion presentations about housing today. It’s not a women’s issue by any means. However, women experiencing violence or who are at risk of violence have unique needs with regard to housing. Women who are in these situations cite either a lack of suitable housing — safe housing — or the risk of losing their housing as one of the primary reasons that they’re not able to get out of violent situations. There’s a direct correlation, and it requires a direct response from government. About 25 percent of the hidden homeless in British Columbia, or underhoused, are women fleeing violence.

We are advocating for housing-specific solutions for women and, in particular, supply-oriented solutions as opposed to increasing demand-side or portable-benefit solutions. While it would be great to continue raising rates of disability and income assistance and rental supports, these demand-side solutions are not adequate to keep up with rising prices, particularly in supply-constrained markets like Metro Vancouver.

We advocate for an increase in the stock of modular units, with wraparound support services for women who are most vulnerable and at risk, and an increase in the provincewide stock of non-market public and cooperative housing to 20,000 new units per year, starting in 2022, with about 25 percent of those to be earmarked for women fleeing violence or to be administered by women-serving organizations.

To lower costs, we would advocate to support those projects that employ a cross-subsidy or mixed-model design that would have multiple tiers, with a market-rental tier, break-even tiers and rent-geared-to-income tiers. That would allow for the speed of repayment for capital costs and contribute to building more healthy and diverse communities.

Additionally, we would advocate for funding the establishment of community land bank trusts to hold and acquire public land for public housing development, to prevent private developers from hoarding the land and driving up prices.

With regard to access to legal services, we know that access to justice is one of the fundamental tenets of a democratic society, but without the financial means to access, this is often a right that’s denied, particularly to women who are experiencing violence. West Coast LEAF did a study recently that said that of women who applied, only about 50 percent of them applying for legal aid supports were accepted, because of the highly restricted income caps, and only about 50 percent are able to have their concerns resolved.

That’s because proceedings following separation or around separation and family law issues are highly acrimonious and complex and often the site of a second wave of abuse against women and children, where abusers will use the court process, essentially, to run out the clock on legal aid services that are provided. So we want to advocate for a dramatic increase in funding for family law legal aid specifically. That would allow us to raise the cap on income minimums for women and to increase the service hours to become a more flexible contract that will actually follow women through the legal process.

To be able to do this, we would advocate to create a mixed model of service delivery, including tariff services; legal aid clinics and funding for in-house council located in front-line service delivery organizations; to fully restore and fund poverty law and legal aid in B.C. to address issues such as income insecurity, employment, housing and debt, beginning by expanding paralegal services; and to fund and provide the necessary training for anyone involved in legal aid or conducting family law assessments in those proceedings to operate from a trauma-informed analysis and take into consideration issues of family violence.

[2:00 p.m.]

With regard to integrative addictions supports, we know that addiction is also not only a women’s issue, but their pathways to using substances are unique. There is now, demonstrated in the literature, a strong link between experiences of relationship violence and use of substances to cope. However, there remains a mystifying silo between funding and programming, between mental health and women-serving organizations, which keeps women either barriered from accessing the service that addresses their needs, if they go to public health, or on excessively long wait-lists, if they go to an organization like mine seeking addiction services, which are always understaffed.

We would advocate to establish a cross-ministerial fund between the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to deliver a continuum of substance use treatment supports to women, particularly outreach, crisis intervention counselling, long-term trauma counselling and in-patient residential counselling and treatment services to be administered by women-serving organizations. We would advocate that this be solid government contracts, as opposed to one-time pilot funding that keeps organizations like mine in a state of funding precarity.

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

We have time for some questions. I would invite members to ask the questions.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): It’s interesting. I just had an opportunity to tour a new facility in my riding that’s mixed-use, like you’re talking about, with different levels of rent, etc., operated by New Opportunities for Women.

Did you say 20,000 a year need to be built to meet existing demand? You said “per year.” Where did you get that number from?

M. Klemmensen: That comes in solidarity with some of the work being done by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. In the package that I sent along, there are some references for ongoing work that’s being done around that number. It does sound very high and very needed.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Well, I guess the reality is that government has promised to build quite a bit. The bottom line is that there’s always the difficulty in finding the right locations, the space, people that want it in their neighbourhoods. They don’t necessarily understand. I don’t know if it’s achievable. Anyway, I appreciate your clarifying that number.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation. I was listening to the many ideas you have, which are fantastic. It’s such a complex but important area.

One of the things that I was wondering was: are you finding — as you know, the province is so large and diverse — that you’re seeing pockets where there’s really fast-growing need — one area versus another? Or is it fairly uniform?

M. Klemmensen: Certainly in Metro Vancouver, the need for housing is outpacing anywhere else. The needs are a little bit more unique in more rural areas. Where I work and live, in Langley and Aldergrove, for the women that we serve — I’m a trauma therapist; I’m not a policy developer — the number one issue that’s non-psychological and that people bring to me is housing, always. It’s always housing.

M. Dykeman: I just want to say, as an MLA in Langley, I appreciate the work that you do — and everyone else in your organization. It’s just a real privilege to work with you all.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, we’ll wrap it up. We want to thank you, Meredith, for taking the time to come and present. I guess, in closing, you’ve been around since 1973. Ishtar has been around since 1973. The depth and breadth of your organization’s experience in this area is very apparent in your presentation. You have a very deep perspective on what needs to be done to protect survivors of domestic violence. Thank you for your work.

Our next presenter is Halena Seiferling, Living in Community.

[2:05 p.m.]

LIVING IN COMMUNITY

H. Seiferling: Good afternoon, committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today from the unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including here the Musqueam, Quw’utsun’, Stó:lō, Kwantlen and Tsawwassen peoples.

My name is Halena Seiferling. I am the executive director of Living in Community, which is a non-profit organization here in B.C.

Before I share with you Living in Community’s recommendations for Budget 2022, I do just want to start by quickly noting that we’re, of course, gathering on Orange Shirt Day, which has recently become a federally recognized statutory holiday. I’m happy to see lots of orange around me today. This day is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Orange Shirt Day was based on residential school survivor Phyllis Webstad’s story of having her prized orange shirt taken from her when she arrived at residential school at the age of six. Creating a new statutory holiday on this day is meant to commemorate the history of and ongoing trauma caused by residential schools and to honour the survivors, the families and the communities who continue to grieve for those who never came home.

I know that the provincial government has recognized this day but has also chosen to continue with this budget consultation process, as scheduled, for us all. I hope that we are all able to take some time tonight, after today’s proceedings, to learn more about Orange Shirt Day and the ongoing impacts of residential schools, to read the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the progress that has yet to be made there and to reflect on what each of us can do in our roles and in our communities to continue to shed light on these realities.

I will now briefly summarize what Living in Community does and what our recommendations are for Budget 2022, which, of course, are further described in our written submission to this committee.

Centring on sex workers’ rights, Living in Community convenes diverse stakeholders in order to understand a range of experiences and perspectives on sex work, to inform sex work–related policies and practices and to provide education and training in support of all of our goals.

Living in Community also facilitates a group called the B.C. Sex Work Support Service Network. That is a group of over 20 organizations that provide front-line services, supports and advocacy for sex workers in their communities. Members are located across all regions of British Columbia. The network meets regularly to share best practices, to learn from each other and to strengthen our unified voice for sex workers rights across B.C.

Sex workers and sex worker–serving organizations are continuing to experience devastating impacts from COVID-19. Many sex workers have had a significant or complete loss of income, have been ineligible for federal government supports such as the CERB or EI and have struggled to access community services as many front-line organizations had to reduce their services or their hours to comply with public health and safety measures. Moreover, since provincial support programs like the B.C. emergency benefit required that applicants be first approved for the CERB, many sex workers here were also ineligible for provincial support programs.

That’s a bit of background here.

For this consultation, we surveyed the B.C. network members across the province on their priorities. So our recommendations speak to what they have shared with us.

Our three recommendations, then, for next year’s budget. One, ensure that provincial funding explicitly supports the safety of sex workers, not only victims of trafficking and those looking to exit sex work.

Past budget consultation reports have included the need to address gender-based violence and human trafficking. We’re very grateful it’s also, in more recent years, spoken to the need for sex worker safety, but still, comparatively little support is available for those engaged in sex work who have not been trafficked or are not looking to exit the industry but who do experience violence.

Two, provide funding to sex work support organizations across the province as an economic inclusion and recovery priority.

Given the barriers that many sex workers have experienced in accessing government supports during the pandemic that other workers were eligible for and were able to access, funds could instead be given to front-line organizations to distribute cash supports to sex workers. This allows the government to overcome barriers to supporting marginalized individuals who may not have identification documents, employment records or bank accounts. Further, individual cash supports can best be facilitated by these support services that recipients already know and trust in their own communities.

Finally, three, provide funding towards the provincial bad date and aggressor reporting system, which is being developed.

The term “bad dates” refers to cases where sex workers experience harassment, assault or other types of violence while working. In bad date and aggressor reporting systems, which are abbreviated as BDAR systems, information is collected about the perpetrators of violence and then distributed to other sex workers to screen their clients and increase their safety.

[2:10 p.m.]

This past year Living in Community, along with four sex work organizations in B.C., received three years of funding from the Law Foundation of B.C. and a private family foundation to research, develop and create a provincial BDAR system. This project is off to an exciting start, but we think the provincial government must support this project through increased funding.

Sex workers who engage with the justice system to report bad dates repeatedly experience stigmatization and vulnerability, which is why many prefer sex worker–led BDAR systems instead. Provincial government funding of this project would ensure that more sex workers and sex worker–serving organizations can participate fully in the project’s consultations to ensure that this tool will meet the needs of diverse sex workers across the province.

Thank you, again, for hearing our recommendations. I’ll welcome any questions.

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

Questions from the committee?

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation.

I just want to make sure…. We’ve heard a number of presentations over the last week, and I see, with BDAR, that we’ve met with PACE and Peers, for sure. I’ve lost track of who we’ve….

Your ask inside of here for that funding is a similar ask that we’ve been getting from them, and it’s not something specific to your organization.

H. Seiferling: No, that would be the joint project. For the sake of time, I kept it really short today. The five organizations working on that project are Peers, PACE Society, WISH Drop-in Centre Society, SWAN Vancouver as well as Living in Community.

Funding toward this project would support these five organizations that are guiding the project as well as the many folks who will be involved across the province.

M. Starchuk: Okay, good. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?

Well, Halena, I guess your presentation was very clear. You anticipated all of our questions. Thank you so much for coming and presenting to us and for the ongoing work you do to support a very vulnerable part of our population. Thank you so much for your work.

Our next presenter is Dr. Adi Mudaliar, Abbott Laboratories Diabetes Care.

ADI MUDALIAR

A. Mudaliar: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, especially on this first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

I’m Adi Mudaliar. I’m a family physician in East Vancouver, on Fraser Street — a UBC grad, class of 1981. I have about 40 years of experience managing diabetes. I teach for UBC as well — medical students in my office.

I’m here as an advocate not for Abbott but as an advocate for my diabetic patients. I’m here voluntarily.

I have a very large South Asian practice with hundreds of diabetic patients. They tend to be older, especially with co-morbid illnesses like chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease and heart failure.

For some of my insulin patients, thank goodness we have the Dexcom, the continuous glucose monitor. I hope you’re familiar with this. But it has its limitations. I’ve used it on some of my patients. You have to have a smartphone. You have to have be really tech savvy to use it. You need to be literate in English, and you need to be able to see quite well.

To get coverage through PharmaCare, we complete this form and send it in to PharmaCare. You’re only eligible if you take four shots of insulin a day. Typically, that’s one shot of basal insulin in the morning and then maybe three shots or more of insulin around meals and snacks. The trouble is that this is really for the younger type 1 patient.

My reality of diabetes management with insulin is that it’s perilous. There’s a real high risk for hypoglycemia. A lot of the patients, like I said, have chronic kidney disease, and they’re even more at risk for getting hypoglycemia and ending up in hospital emergency. My patients need to know the symptoms of hypoglycemia. They need to be able to test their blood glucose frequently, and they need to know how to reverse low blood glucose.

Actually, most of the insulin starts are type 2s, not type 1s. Typically, it’s one shot of basal insulin in the morning, maybe followed by one to three shots of meal-time insulin, maybe just two shots of insulin. I had a patient yesterday. He only needed…. He ate lunch, and he had dinner. That’s what he got. He got a shot with each meal. Frequent testing is really needed to adjust the dose.

[2:15 p.m.]

Patients are quite reluctant to do finger pricks. They are painful. They can be very messy. They’re never convenient if you’re working, definitely if you’re driving. And of course, if you have nighttime symptoms, it’s really not convenient to get out of bed and test.

These people, unfortunately, are excluded for Dexcom. I can’t fill this out, because they don’t have four shots a day. It’s really unfair. There’s a lack of access for these people who definitely require some kind of monitoring beyond finger pricks. They definitely need safe and effective insulin management through more frequent testing.

I’m advocating for the FreeStyle Libre. I hope you’ve heard of the product. FreeStyle Libre is a type of continuous glucose monitoring. We call it flash monitoring. In my practice, it’s a game-changer.

It’s so easy to test. People can test very frequently, as often as they want — hundreds of times a day. It virtually eliminates the need for needle pokes. You can test anywhere. You can test while you’re driving. You test while you’re working. If your hands are dirty, it doesn’t matter. The spouse or the caregiver can test somebody when they’re sleeping to make sure they’re not hypoglycemic. It really simplifies insulin management and definitely enhances patient safety.

Now, the thing I haven’t told you about myself is that I’m a type 2 diabetic for over 25 years. My sugars were going up, and my average blood glucose, as measured by the A1c, was increasing. It turned out this was post-meal glucose excursions, which is typical in a type 2 diabetic as you get into the diabetes long enough. I could not have so easily managed my mealtime insulin if I did not have my device.

I actually brought it. I’ll show you how simple it is. Funnily enough, you can use an iPhone, but of course, I have an iPhone 6, which is not compatible with Libre. Talk about tech savvy. So here we go. I’m wearing it right here. I had 5.7, so I can drive. Five to drive.

I’ve been able to manage my sugars and get my A1c down. What I’m hoping for is some kind of consideration for coverage in select patients for FreeStyle Libre. That’s my pitch, not for them, but for me, for my patients.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you very much, Doctor.

Questions from the committee? Megan and then Jagrup.

M. Dykeman: Thank you so much for the presentation.

Two questions. I may have missed it. What’s the cost of the unit?

A. Mudaliar: These are $50. You use this forever, though. This is the reader in lieu of a cellphone. This is really easy to use. You can extract a lot of information from this, like glucose excursions, also time and range and how many hypoglycemic episodes the patient had.

Typically, Abbott gives these things to me for free to give to patients. The sensor is $99 for two weeks of monitoring. If a patient is using six to eight finger pricks a day, they’re about a dollar each, so it’s almost the same.

M. Dykeman: How long does the sensor last?

A. Mudaliar: Two weeks.

M. Dykeman: Okay, so you’re changing that every….

A. Mudaliar: You put it on the skin every two weeks.

M. Dykeman: Okay. All right. Thank you so much.

J. Brar: Thank you for coming today and making, of course, this presentation voluntarily. We really appreciate that, because this is the work you are doing. The knowledge you have, nobody else probably has that.

I come from the South Asian community, by the way, so I really understand what you’re talking about. From that perspective…. I’m not a health professional, but I have heard a lot from, particularly, people working in your profession.

There are other people working on this issue too. I’m not sure whether you’re connected to them or not. I can connect you with them. There are other physicians who are very active approaching the provincial government and others just to do a similar thing — what you’re proposing here.

A. Mudaliar: I had no knowledge of this.

J. Brar: I’ll give you some contacts.

What I want to ask you is this. As I understand, the instrument you’re recommending is to check your blood sugar.

A. Mudaliar: Yes.

J. Brar: Then you manage it subsequently, of course. The cost for this one is $50, you say?

A. Mudaliar: No. This reader is $50. The sensor that I’m wearing is $99 for two weeks.

[2:20 p.m.]

J. Brar: For two weeks?

A. Mudaliar: Yeah.

J. Brar: Every two weeks you have to change that?

A. Mudaliar: Yes. But once the patient is established on the insulin, they may not need to monitor continuously. They may not need to monitor 52 weeks. But for the physician to initiate insulin…. If I had three months of monitoring, I could change their lives so much.

They don’t need to monitor forever. They can go back to the finger pricks. If they had…. Three months of the year you’d get the FreeStyle. Then we could use that for two months continuously, then maybe intermittently. That’s what I tell my cash payers to do now. I tell them: “You don’t have to buy it forever, but let’s get your diabetes under control, please.”

J. Brar: I have one quick question, keeping in mind the time. One thing. Have you made any written submission for this?

A. Mudaliar: No. I just found out about this meeting on Monday.

J. Brar: If you can make one, that will be helpful to us, but the date is today, right?

J. Routledge (Chair): Actually, we will have the transcript.

J. Brar: Okay. We will have the transcript.

Okay. I missed my question. We did introduce something around this area just recently, a few months back.

A. Mudaliar: Yeah, that’s the Dexcom glucose monitor, which is continuous glucose monitoring.

J. Brar: So that’s a different thing.

A. Mudaliar: It’s similar. It’s more sophisticated — only with a cell phone. You have to be near the cell phone. You have to know how to use the cell phone. And it’s only for people with four shots of insulin a day. It doesn’t include Mrs. Singh, who has two shots a day. Right?

That’s the problem. That’s what I’m saying. Those people are excluded even though their risks for hypoglycemia are very great. The type 2s are older, sicker, and I can make a lot of mistakes with those people.

Don’t forget. Getting the A1c down and controlling sugar reduces society’s risk of dialysis, neuropathy, retinopathy. Everything is controllable. We can prevent those things, and we would save health care dollars.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Mike has a question, and we are quickly running out of time.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Doctor. I loved the way you did your demonstration, where it took longer to get it out of your pocket than it actually did to test your glucose.

The question I have is: does that device…? Do you actually have the ability, as a physician, to extract the data out of it when you’re seeing your patient?

A. Mudaliar: Yeah, if they show me the reader on their cell phone. You can actually get the information transferred onto a computer if you have electronic medical records.

This is the Libre version 1. There’s a Libre version 2, which is even more sophisticated, but the Libre 1 is the simplest thing to use, and really, all I need is the cheaper model.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, Doctor, on behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for your presentation and for your demonstration of how it works. For those of us that know people who have diabetes, people in our families, this is very hopeful news. Thank you very much.

Our next presenter is Sharon Gregson — Sharon, I didn’t recognize you with your mask on — with the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C.

COALITION OF CHILD CARE
ADVOCATES OF B.C.

S. Gregson: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present. As the Chair said, I’m Sharon Gregson with the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C., and I’m the provincial spokesperson for the successful $10-a-day child care plan.

I will ask you, recognizing my time limit, to see our written statement, where we acknowledge that today is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. We note our support for the TRC calls to action, particularly No. 12, which says: “We call upon the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for Aboriginal families.”

The government of British Columbia, I’m glad to tell you, is in an enviable position in relation to much of Canada on the important and necessary journey to create a quality, universal $10-a-day child care system. This is significant, of course, because we all know now, if there was any lingering doubt, because of the pandemic, that quality child care is essential for children, women, families and communities — and for achieving social and economic equity in our province. B.C. is fortunate because we have the $10-a-day child care plan and road map developed by experts in our province and supported by voters in the last two provincial elections.

[2:25 p.m.]

B.C. has achieved measurable progress in recent years on lowering parent fees, raising educator wages and funding new spaces. We also have a knowledgable, dedicated Minister of State for Child Care. And now the big news is that we have a historic $3.2 billion commitment from the federal government to accelerate implementation of Premier Horgan’s election commitments to the popular $10-a-day child care plan.

It’s important to remind this committee of the B.C. government’s commitments in the 2020 election, because B.C. Budget 2021 fell far short of the funds promised during that election, and not all of those commitments can be picked up in the bilateral agreement. The six election commitments are listed in our written submission.

The bilateral agreement that B.C. has signed with the government of Canada will have a significant impact on delivering the child care system B.C. families want and need.

The priority areas for investment in that agreement in government’s two-year action plan are listed in our submission and include, importantly for you and your constituents to know, that by December 2022, just a year and a bit from now, the number of $10-a-day spaces in our province will be increased to 12,500.

The average fees that families pay for child care in licensed programs for children zero to six will be reduced to about $21 a day, and by the end of the five-year agreement, fees across this province for children zero to six will be $10 a day.

There are 30,000 new spaces going to be funded over the next five years, 40,000 over the next seven years. These new spaces, with federal money and provincial money, will be in the public, non-profit and Indigenous sectors.

There’s going to be a modular strategy in the bilateral agreement and expanded access to Indigenous-led child care and supported child development and Aboriginal-supported child development. These are good news.

We support his action plan and will be encouraging $10-a-day supporters to watch for and celebrate these improvements.

The bilateral agreement is specifically directed at child care for children zero to six. This means that school-age child care remains the responsibility of the province to expand. It is reasonable and achievable for every elementary school in our province to provide before- and after-school child care to meet the needs of families and communities.

The bilateral agreement commits to developing a wage grid for educators but does not commit to implementing that wage grid. Given the severity of the recruitment and retention crisis in the child care sector, transitioning the current wage enhancement program into a provincewide competitive wage grid is a necessity.

In closing, our six recommendations from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates for B.C. Budget 2022.

Our No. 1, confirm the move of the child care programs and services branch from MCFD to the Ministry of Education for April 1, 2022, along with provincial funding to regions and school districts to ensure a successful transition.

Two, commit the resources required in the Ministry of Education to move child care to a capital planning and budgeting approach, as is done with schools.

Three, create facilities more quickly and affordably for government with a bulk purchase of custom-design modular buildings and put them on public land.

Four, promptly implement a provincewide publicly funded competitive wage grid for positions within the child care sector.

Provide on-site school-age care to meet community needs, provided directly by school districts or through partnership with non-profit organizations.

Finally, work with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples to ensure Bill 41 and the Indigenous early learning and child care framework, which is a national document, are implemented and Indigenous leadership is meaningfully consulted where child care decisions impact Indigenous children on and off reserve.

We appreciate the political and public service leadership within government that is creating the first new social program in decades in our province and across the country. We offer these recommendations based on multiple cost-benefit analyses, an intersectional gender lens and government’s commitments to the rights of children, women and communities. Thank you.

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

I will invite members of the committee to ask questions.

[2:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I’m just wondering: what is the rationale for moving daycare into the Ministry of Education? I haven’t actually had that explained to me before, so I’d certainly appreciate some insight.

S. Gregson: Right. I’m happy to do that. Child care is delivered through ministries of Education through most provinces and territories in Canada. It’s a ministry that already has a mandate for children, actually, in the early years right through till K to 12.

It already has a system. It has public facilities in every community in our province. It already provides some early-year services through Ready, Set, Learn and Welcome to Kindergarten and StrongStart programs. And where there are successful systems across the world, they’re typically paired with early years in schooling. So there are multiple reasons, both through research and what currently exists in our province.

J. Brar: Thanks, Sharon, for your exceptional work in this area. You have been a leader, moving forward on this file, this issue.

The question I want to ask you…. I completely understand your recommendations, because they are very well researched. You’re in touch with all levels of ministries and know what’s going on. I have always, in our meetings, raised a question as to why we don’t build infrastructure within the school system, or with the school system, for child care, because we have the building, it’s centralized, there’s parking, there’s a playground and everything already there. So what do you think about that idea?

S. Gregson: This is exactly what we see in Minister Chen’s mandate letter and Minister Whiteside’s mandate letter — to move child care out of MCFD and into the Ministry of Education by 2023. We’re pushing for that to happen in 2022.

We used to say you could put child care in any ministry as long as you fund it well, but that really doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense to have a whole separate level of infrastructure to deliver on child care and early years when the Ministry of Education already has, as you said, the infrastructure, the public facilities, the human resources in many cases and the expertise.

From a capital planning point of view, from an operating point of view, from a mandate point of view, alignment with K to 12 makes perfect sense. In fact, as I mentioned to your colleague, where we see successful child care systems around the world, they are frequently paired with an education system. It is where child care sits across most of the country. B.C. has been a laggard to make this change.

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

In your improving affordability, you talk about 12½ thousand spaces by end of 2022. What’s the total number of spaces that we need in the province? What’s the magnitude of what we’re talking about?

S. Gregson: There are almost 600,000 children in our province aged zero to 12. About 400,000 of those children have got mothers in the paid workforce, and right now we have about 125,000 licensed spaces. So there is a massive gap between the current supply and the demand, and we can see that by looking at any of the waiting lists, even with the result of the pandemic.

Now, what we can learn from other jurisdictions is the typical rate of takeup. What we know is that when child care is affordable, families will choose it. But that doesn’t mean all families will choose it, and it doesn’t mean that they all need full-time child care. So the modelling that was done — and I’d be happy to share this with you — was done through several of the costing-benefit analyses for the $10-a-day at different times. We’re able to predict, based on other jurisdictions, on what the takeup will be.

For children who are zero to 12 months, the takeup is much less. For children who are three to five years old, the takeup is getting close to over 90 percent when it’s affordable and accessible in communities and meets the diverse needs of families — so not just nine to five, Monday to Friday but extended hours and part-time, flexible care, culturally competent care.

School-age care is another area where there needs to be massive expansion, and because we already have public facilities in our schools, we’re well positioned to be able to extend school-age care to more families.

It depends on the age group. It depends on making sure that it’s high quality and that it meets the needs of the families. But that research is available.

[2:35 p.m.]

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Then I guess the next question I have is…. It goes on to that, in the sense that…. In your modelling, looking at the 62 school districts, all the facilities that we have…. We’ve had reports from all sorts of school districts, saying that they’re at capacity. They’re at 120, 150 percent. I guess the question is: does the modelling look at the space that has to be created?

I know you touch on it in your report here — about using modular, and things like that. We’ve heard every­thing, from portables costing $300,000…. I guess what I’m wondering is: is the government committed to all of the increased space in the modelling or the plans that you’ve discussed or brought forward?

S. Gregson: Well, there are several pieces to that. When elementary schools are able to care for children from kindergarten through grade 7 between nine and three, the same spaces can be used before school and after school. So it doesn’t necessitate creating more space for school-aged child care. Those spaces already exist for young learners, and they can be just used for longer periods of the day.

For an expansion of child care for children before they start school, yes, modular is one solution. But we’re not suggesting that all young children should be cared for — and space created on site — in schools. We are very much proponents of a community-based model and expanding care in communities where it’s accessible to families. In some districts, where it makes sense, there are school-based land, hospitals, colleges, universities, libraries — to make better use of public land, municipally owned land. So yes, expansion is there. Modular is there. School-aged child care on school sites is very achievable.

We’ve never claimed that child care is cheap. Let me be clear about that. But we’ve also seen that when people talk about the expenditure, they quickly forget to talk about the returns that come when more parents can participate in the workforce, when more children are ready to be successful at school. So we have to, as we think about the expansion of child care, think about the returns as well.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m sorry we have to wrap it up, Sharon, but we’re way over time. We have other presenters who want to present.

S. Gregson: Yes, I understand. Thank you for the opportunity.

J. Routledge (Chair): I want to, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your work.

You said, much earlier in your presentation, that child care is very popular. It’s a very popular issue. I concur. That’s my experience. You also said it was very achievable. The popularity of it and that it’s achievable are largely as a result of your leadership and your work. So thank you so much.

S. Gregson: Well, I have a fabulous group of women I work with. And it’s important to note that what started here in B.C. has now gone across the country. B.C. remains a leader.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Laura Midan, Archway Community Services.

ARCHWAY COMMUNITY SERVICES

L. Midan: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me today.

I would like to start by acknowledging the unceded, traditional, ancestral territory of the Coast Salish people. I’m grateful for the opportunity to amplify the voices of those in our community here today.

We acknowledge that Archway Community Services exists and operates upon the unceded, traditional and ancestral territories of the Matsqui and Sema:th Nations of the Stó:lō Nation. As we present on the inaugural National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, we journey towards being an ally with Indigenous people and indigenization.

I am Laura Midan, director of the Abbotsford Mission recycling program and a member of Archway’s senior leadership team. Archway Community Services is a non-profit, multiservice, multi-funded community-based social services agency, providing services in Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack, Langley and Chandigarh, India. Each year 20,000-plus individuals and families receive help through one of our 90-plus programs. Our vision is “Justice, opportunities and equitable access for all.”

Today I would like to draw your attention to needs as well as some recommendations within our service area and sector. For a more detailed description of today’s summarized presentation and recommendations, please refer to the report that we submitted last week.

[2:40 p.m.]

The world has changed. So much has happened in the past 18 months globally, nationally, provincially and locally in our communities. The uncovering of 215 unmarked graves at the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School instigated local and worldwide awareness of the atrocity perpetrated against Indigenous peoples through­out our country.

The truth regarding the intergenerational impact brought on by colonization and residential schools has always been available, but had largely been disregarded until now. We have a heightened awareness and interest as to why a disproportionately high percentage of persons of Indigenous background do not graduate from high school, end up incarcerated, are unhoused or unsheltered and deal with insurmountable trauma.

Today we have the opportunity to right historic and ongoing wrongs and take steps towards allyship. Because the world has changed, we would like to make the following recommendations. Address the recommendations listed in these reports: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, United Nations Declaration of Rights on Indigenous People, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and In Plain Sight. Change must be ongoing, dynamic and always in collaboration with Indigenous peoples.

Ensure the sustainability of organizations and services that recognize the distinct cultural traditions and intergenerational impacts of the trauma faced by local nations, urban, Métis and Inuit populations.

The precarious nature of living provides instability for many of the populations that we serve. Like many communities in our region, Abbotsford is a dynamic urban centre, with one of the lowest vacancy rates for rental housing in Canada. Between 2015 and 2019, the average rental price soared to 34 percent. And as early as 2016, over 2,500 households were spending more than 50 percent of their income on shelter costs.

Moreover, in 2020, the vacancy rate in Abbotsford fell to 0.6 percent, while at the same time, the city predicted a population increase of as much as 1.5 percent per year until 2026. The severe shortage of affordable housing primarily impacts our most vulnerable community members in finding safe and secure shelter. Many of these people work with me at the recycling operation that we run.

In 2020, 33 percent of visible homeless in the Fraser Valley identified as First Nation or having Indigenous ancestry, while only 4.8 percent of Abbotsford’s population identifies as Indigenous. Archway Community Services operates various programs in response to housing and homelessness: Hearthstone Place, which provides low-barrier and supportive housing; the homeless prevention program, which provides rent supplements; as well as the legal advocacy program, which aids tenants experiencing issues with landlords.

Because of the precarious nature of living, we make the following recommendations. Increase the availability of long-term, affordable, appropriate, supportive housing for those experiencing chronic homelessness, leaving emergency shelter beds open for those who are temporarily homeless.

To ensure the continued delivery of essential, life-changing services in our community, the challenges associated with stability in the social services sector need to be addressed. The stability and sustainability of the community social services sector is threatened through inadequate funding towards legitimate administration costs. Increasing administration costs paid within the provincial ministry contracts up to 15 percent of the contract value would help to ensure sustainability for these agencies.

In order to respond to an ever-changing world, where keeping your head above water becomes increasingly precarious for individuals and families as well as community social services agencies, we request the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services respond favourably in B.C.’s Budget 2022 to these and our more extensive list of recommendations provided in Archway’s written submission to the select standing committee.

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

I’ll invite members of the committee to ask questions. The first question is from Megan.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation and for the accompanying documents. I had an opportunity to look through them.

I’m wondering. Recommendation (5)(d), where you talk about funding free ID banks to ensure that people experiencing homelessness have a safe and stable place to leave their identification. I’m sure that this exists widely. I’ve never heard of it. Is there a place where this is ongoing right now, and can you tell me a bit about what that looks like?

L. Midan: In our community, I’m not sure that this is happening. This is generated from our group that work with the homeless population through Hearthstone.

[2:45 p.m.]

This is something that is much needed. It is always a challenge for people to be able to secure housing, because they don’t have the proper identification. So it’s definitely something that needs further investment and attention.

M. Dykeman: In follow-up, the recommendations — I believe there are about 12 or so. Is there any costing to any of this, or are these from surveying your members to see what the needs are?

L. Midan: Certainly, I could reach back to our group. I don’t have the specific costing figures with me right now, but I certainly would be happy to get that information for you.

M. Dykeman: That would be wonderful. Thank you so much for your presentation.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, not seeing any other questions, Laura, I want to thank you for presentation. I also want to thank you for making this presentation on this day, because it’s so in keeping with the spirit of truth and reconciliation. Thank you for that.

L. Midan: Thank you for the opportunity.

J. Routledge (Chair): Before we take a break, we have one more presenter. That is Nathan Davidowicz.

Nathan, you can take your place at the table. You have five minutes. We will signal you when you have 30 seconds left, and then there will be time for some questions.

NATHAN DAVIDOWICZ

N. Davidowicz: Thank you, MLAs and members of the committee. I think it’s very good to have a committee like this, that all MLAs are trying to make some commonsense improvements to the provincial budget.

As an example, you recommended the elimination of the provincial sales tax on e-bikes, and that was implemented by the government. That’s just an example of a commonsense recommendation that this committee has done. There are many recommendations over the years that this committee has proposed, and unfortunately, many of them were never implemented by the government.

I’m going to speak about transit and transportation. The transit financing and governance is very bad in B.C. The bus services are suffering as most money is spent on megaprojects that only help about 25 percent of the riders, while the other 75 percent still use the buses.

The last time of a major expansion was the three years of Premier Dave Barrett and Minister Lorimer. That was way back in the 1970s, when the bus fleet was doubled within three years. No one else has ever matched that expenditure that was done.

We need the government to impose on our two transportation companies, B.C. Transit and TransLink, to buy at least 1,000 new electric buses over the next two years, because they have done almost nothing. They ordered ten or 20 buses one year — a very, very small number that will never impact the improvements of transit in all of B.C.

We have about 60 different transit systems in B.C. The biggest one is here in Metro Vancouver. But the capital is big. There is a transit system in small cities — Vernon, Prince George, Kelowna and so forth — and they are hurting. They need more buses, and electric buses are the way to fight the climate emergency.

[2:50 p.m.]

Their target is for 2040, and many other cities are able to do it by 2035, and some by 2032, like London, U.K., and so forth. We are behind many other cities in electrification.

The other main item is the handyDART custom transit. This has been mentioned almost every year by this committee, that we need to improve the handyDART. The population of the province is getting older, and Isobel Mackenzie, of course, had a special report about transportation for seniors in 2018. Nobody seems to have really done much about her recommendations. The real problem is it’s not just a matter of money. It’s using the money wisely. The problem with handyDART is that it’s privatized. It’s not part of the in-house transit services, the same as the regular bus services.

From what I understand, now another private company bought the present company. I think it’s from Sweden. It’s all the way from Sweden, some kind of a private company running our handyDART service, instead of having the regular one. Every major city in Canada has the regular transit system, whatever it is — Calgary Transit, Edmonton Transit, Toronto. The handyDART is part of the regular transit system. Until that’s not done, we’ll continue to suffer because of the way the private company decides what their priorities are instead of having the priorities that the government wants.

As I said, there are lots of things that could be done. We are so far behind all the big cities in Canada in transit, ridership per capita, in the mode split between public and active transit and car traffic. Many cities have asked that the government support having 50 percent of the trips done by public transit and public and active transportation and 50 percent by cars. In order to do that, we have to spend way more money. Otherwise, we’ll continue to be behind. I think the B.C. average is probably around only 10 percent of the trips by public and active transportation.

J. Routledge (Chair): Nathan, I’m going to have to ask you to wrap it up. You’re significantly over time. We do want to leave some time for people to ask you questions.

N. Davidowicz: Sorry. I didn’t see the 30 seconds.

That’s okay. That’s the end of my presentation. Basically, we need to do way more.

J. Routledge (Chair): I’ll invite the committee to ask Nathan some questions.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Nathan. We seem to be in the business of hearing people say: “We want more.” That’s a good thing. To want less is wrong.

I want to just make sure I’m clear on something. You said 1,000 electric buses in two years. Is that to replace or to add to the current system? If it’s to add to the current system, have you taken a look and provided this information to TransLink or B.C. Transit?

N. Davidowicz: Oh yes, it is to add. In 2008, we were prom­ised 1,500 buses, an announcement in Surrey by former Premier Gordon Campbell. You can look it up and see. He promised that. He never kept his promise. I can show you all kinds of promises and things. The front page of the Vancouver Sun article. That’s the one here: “Critics Slam Liberal Election Pledges.” That’s the federal Liberals.

[2:55 p.m.]

Unfortunately, the federal Liberals are coming to B.C. and saying: “That’s what we want.” They are trying to tell us what to do, when we are in charge of the province, not them. We are in charge of transportation. They come and try to get their way through the election by promising different things, and then some of those things never even happen.

J. Routledge (Chair): Jagrup, we’ve got a little less than a minute.

J. Brar: I will be less than that.

Nathan, I don’t have any question for you, but I really, really appreciate your commitment, dedication and hard work on these issues for the people of British Columbia. I really, really appreciate that.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, on behalf of the committee, I’d like to echo Jagrup’s thanks.

This committee is all about hearing from people about what should be in the next budget, and that’s what you’ve done. You’ve come and made a case. So thank you so much. We will take it into consideration, absolutely.

N. Davidowicz: Okay. Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): We will recess until 3:10.

The committee recessed from 2:56 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Valerie Dolgin, Family Services of the North Shore.

Valerie, you have five minutes. We will signal wildly when you have 30 seconds left so that you can move towards wrapping it up, and then up to five minutes for questions and answers.

Over to you.

FAMILY SERVICES OF THE NORTH SHORE

V. Dolgin: Thank you, all, for having me here today. Good afternoon.

My name is Valerie Dolgin. My pronouns are she/her. I am the community and stakeholder engagement lead for Family Services of the North Shore.

We are located on the unceded, ancestral territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh people.

For over 60 years, Family Services of the North Shore has provided counselling, support, education and volunteer engagement to over 10,000 individuals and families annually. Our low- or no-fee services are available to all residents of the North Shore and, through our Jessie’s Legacy eating disorders prevention program and our Proud2Be programming serving the LGBTQ2S+ community, we serve the whole of British Columbia as well.

We employ over 50 staff and over 600 volunteers who work together to achieve our vision of a healthy community where everyone can live full and meaningful lives.

Together with our provincial and federal government partners, our supporters and generous donors, we deliver just over $4 million of critical services to children, youth and families across the province, and to our home communities of the North Shore, each year. I’d like to thank you, our provincial leaders, for your support of our programming over these many years.

Today I’m here to speak specifically about the gap in attention and funding we see in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-identifying and two-spirit children, youth and their families.

This gap includes children as young as five, seven, ten, coming out to their parents. Conversations that happen as their parents are putting them to bed at night or over cereal in the morning. These brave kids finally telling their parent: “I am a boy, not a girl.” Children who are in distress and parents who are overwhelmed with this very new information.

This is all happening within families, not at a youth drop-in centre or at a Foundry centre. These children need their parents, and their parents need more support. This is why we believe it is critical to see LGBTQ2S+ issues as family issues.

Seven years ago we created our Proud2Be program because we knew more had to be done to support children, youth and families in our community. Our counselling staff already worked quite closely with many LGBTQ2S+ children and youth, and much of that work involved issues related to family relationships.

Additionally, many of our staff have lived experience in this area, including our executive director.

It is widely accepted that the mental health of LGBTQ2S+ youth is more at risk than their cisgender and heterosexual peers. Research also shows overwhelmingly that LGBTQ2S+ youth have better health outcomes when their parents are supportive and able to skillfully advocate for their young person.

[3:15 p.m.]

In this way, Proud2Be directly supports the provincial government’s mental health plan — the Pathway to Hope — which, like Proud2Be, emphasizes wellness promotion, prevention and early intervention.

There are four key services we provide to LGBTQ2S+ families: a virtual education series and, in non-pandemic times, a weekend gathering; a weekly support group for parents; a weekly support group for youth; and a parent advisory committee that helps us direct our programming where it’s most needed. All of these are offered for low or no fee and facilitated by professional counsellors with lived experience.

Participants joining us from across the province include the communities of North and West Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, New Westminster, Nanaimo, Fernie, Vancouver and Surrey, and as far away as the Yukon and across the country in some cases.

At one of our most recent virtual education events, an evening of Q and A with B.C. Children’s Hospital’s gender clinic, over 180 youth, parents, grandparents and extended family members from across the province and across the country registered.

Our weekly parent support group regularly hosts 12 to 16 parents a week. Some participants may have just learned a week or two before that their child now wants to go by a different name and start taking hormones. Imagine having to deal with that by yourself. These parents are overwhelmed and often scared. They need emotional support, accurate information and expert counsellors who can help them navigate their children’s journey and their own. We know that families are affected by their youth coming out — not just the youth but the parents, siblings and all the way out through the extended family.

Our in-person youth group meets outdoors once a week. This group hosts eight to ten youth, some of whom may not be going to school for fear of bullying or because of deep depression. Those same youth come to our all-body swim at the local community centre and get to feel safe and comfortable in their bodies with their peers, a moment to just be a young person goofing around in the pool without feeling self-conscious.

At present, we are the only organization in British Columbia offering weekly ongoing professionally facilitated services to those families. Because of this consistency, many group members continue their supportive friendships outside the group as well.

The need for our Proud2Be program is growing as more parents reach out to us. Our current overall budget is $110,000 per year. To expand to offer the programming and support we know is needed, we would need to double this amount. We have been so fortunate to have the provincial government’s support to date, and we believe that additional investments to support LGBTQ2S+ families and youth are needed in the next provincial budget.

While we are not experts on how government money is allocated, we believe the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, Ministry of Children and Family Development, gaming or other ministries should include additional and targeted supports for these families. Our agency is already responding with small grants and our own fundraising, but we can’t meet the needs of the LGBTQ2S+ youth and families without further investment and support. We hope you will consider our request. I’m happy to answer your questions.

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

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

V. Dolgin: Have I answered all your questions already?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Valerie, sorry. I don’t see your request. Did you submit a written submission?

V. Dolgin: Yes.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I must have missed it. Sorry. Anyways, what is the request? Can you just…?

V. Dolgin: Sure. The request is for additional funding for these families in the next provincial budget, a request to bring in some funding to support families either through the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, Health or through MCFD for funding to increase the level of programming that we’re currently offering.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): And the magnitude of that?

V. Dolgin: The current budget is $110,000, and we would like to see that doubled.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): It seems very modest.

V. Dolgin: Well, in the non-profit sector, we run on a shoestring. We would love for that to be more, but that’s what we would need.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have time for a couple of other questions.

[3:20 p.m.]

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Your website is great. That’s the only information I’ve got.

V. Dolgin: Oh, goodness. All right.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Well, it may not have been uploaded yet. There are gaps.

V. Dolgin: Yes, that’s possible. Okay, well, I’ll have to check and make sure that it does make its way back to the committee.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Valerie, you made a very full presentation. It’s something that…. As you were speaking, I was reflecting on my own experiences. I had a co-worker who changed genders in the 1990s. As co-workers, we were left…. You know, we had to figure it out, in terms of what was the right, supportive thing to do.

As you were speaking, I was thinking: what must families face? You don’t want to do the wrong thing. You don’t want to say the wrong thing. It can be very challenging. That you have taken the leadership to provide a support system where one may not ask for one because they don’t think they’re entitled to one is so important. You’re filling a really important gap. Thank you.

V. Dolgin: Well, thank you. We hope to see it move throughout the province as well. That’s definitely our hope.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presentation is B.C. People First, co-presented by Jo-Anne Gauthier and Margaux Wosk.

B.C. PEOPLE FIRST

J. Gauthier: Hi. My name is Jo-Anne Gauthier, and I am the president of People First. Thank you for us to be here today.

I am happy to welcome Margaux to speak on behalf of People First.

M. Wosk: Thank you for having me here today. I am here on behalf of B.C. People First Society as a member.

B.C. People First is a human rights advocacy group founded over 40 years ago by people who felt oppressed by the label society assigns us as people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. To this day, we fight for equal rights. We want the CRPD fully implemented in British Columbia, and we want others to understand that we are people first and foremost.

My name is Margaux Wosk. I am an autistic small business owner and advocate. I run retrophiliac.etsy.com.

When it comes to the needs of disabled people in our province, we are often overlooked. Many communities are fraught with problems. A main issue would be that they are still inaccessible, and those with disabilities are often excluded from accommodations.

Many people don’t realize that a lot of disabilities are invisible, and due to that, they are often overlooked and not included as part of the conversation or action plan. Just because you can’t see someone’s disability doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I encounter a plethora of barriers every time I step outside my door, and many of us are expected to cover the cost of items to increase accessibility.

Finding fair employment where the employer doesn’t exploit my disability for their own financial gain or actively chooses to be ignorant of my needs, after providing important literature, has been few and far between. I have had to create my own opportunities by becoming self-employed and running an online store, but not everyone has this option. Even then, there are very few grants for disabled small business owners, and the ones that do exist are incredibly inaccessible and hard to find.

[3:25 p.m.]

Many of us are expected to carry debt to find ways to sustain ourselves. The monthly allocated assistance is simply not enough. Due to this, many of us have found ourselves unable to make healthier decisions when it comes to our meals.

In regards to debt, this brings me to another point: fairly accessing education. Why is it that when we receive funding, we are pestered until we pay it back? Or if we receive a much-needed grant, this grant has to be declared as income, which has to then be deducted dollar for dollar from our monthly payments. This goes for any grant. Why are they not exempted from monthly earnings?

Nearly every expense we have can be seen as overwhelming, especially when you have to consider that the average housing cost for one bedroom is approximately $1,863. The current disability rate is $1,358 and change. With $500 left to spend and the monthly cost of living just over $1,000, how are we expected to be able to focus on anything else when we are seriously having to consider how we make our ends meet?

We live in one of the most expensive places in all of Canada. Why are we actively not considered as a demographic worth making positive changes for? You can’t keep disability the same amount or with very minimal increases when you are considering things like inflation and rising costs of housing and food. You are actively choosing to reduce the value of our livelihood.

Not only are there problems when it comes to the cost of housing, but the availability is shameful. Many of us are expected to stay in shelters, unsafe neighborhoods and shared residences. These accommodations are not always accessible. When you provide a roof over someone’s head and healthy financial allocation for day-to-day living, you can be giving someone the ability to dramatically change their life, a sense of community integration and a better feeling of self-worth.

Why is it that we have funding for dentistry while on disability? Why don’t we have an allocation to see mental health professionals? Why is it impossible to seek out diagnoses without having $2,500 or more to spend? Why is it so hard to apply for disability if you don’t understand the almost legal-like nonsense?

Disabled people come from all walks of life. Why are we left out of the conversation? We should be sitting on boards of organizations, profit and non-profit, and contributing. Many times, our repeated attempts are ignored. How are we supposed to create change if a large amount of the population, especially those who are in a higher financial bracket, call the shots?

Unless you are disabled, you do not have the right to dictate what we need. Please call upon us. Give us a voice, and give us a chance to have a transformative impact.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you. Now I will invite members of the committee to ask you some questions, if you are okay with that.

M. Wosk: Sure. Sounds good. Absolutely.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Jo-Anne and Margaux. I understand completely what you’re up against.

Tell me. The support that you get…. You just talked about the rent being $1,800, $1,200 and some dollars. I didn’t write that down. But anyway, the point I’m really getting at is: what do you think is at least a reasonable increase to help the community move ahead and be more independent, like you’re asking for?

M. Wosk: Sure. I’m not exactly sure what those numbers would be. I guess we’d have to do something like some kind of poll or call on our organization or many of the other disabled organizations in B.C. I don’t want to speak to that, because I simply don’t know. What I do know is that the money that I am receiving monthly is simply not enough, and I hear that from other people in our organizations.

So many of us struggle. I can’t afford to go see a mental health professional, and when I did try to access mental health assistance, I was told that they didn’t know how to handle autistic people and that I should go home. So the entire system is fraught with so many problems, and housing is really like the tip of the iceberg. But the cost is so expensive that we just need changes implemented, definitely, so that we can function at least a little bit better, so that we’re not stressed out all the time about how we’re going to pay our bills.

J. Gauthier: I think that we need $500 to $1,000 more just to make it more easy for us — to not just hope we have enough money until the end of the month. You know, the way bills keep going up — and our food too. So when everything is rising, what we get a month is not enough to cover it.

[3:30 p.m.]

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): So the amount that…. If you can work and you’re able to make some additional funds, etc., is that exclusion enough? I know that some of the people in my riding that are on support have found that that’s made a difference in helping fill that gap. But, I guess, is it current, or is it enough? And I don’t know how many people can take advantage of that.

M. Wosk: For me, working and having my own shop, I feel like there maybe should be a bit of an increase just so things are a little bit more balanced in the household. However, programs like the self-employment program, which I’m on, I wasn’t even told about.

At the beginning of this year, I had so much money that was actually business expenses that I claimed as regular income, and I didn’t find out until halfway through the year that I could have been claiming that money as my expenses, and now I’m almost at my threshold because of that.

We need more awareness in terms of the yearly allocation and the fact that the small business employment, the SEP, the self-employment program exists. It’s almost impossible to find on the website. Also, it is B.C. Disability Employment Month, and I just want to let you know that small business disabled owners are not included in the press release at all. I’m trying to get that revised. So if any of you are able to get that fixed, that would be great.

The only organization that exists currently is Accessible Employers, and I’ve been having issues with them. I just really hope that you guys notice that small business disabled people exist and that we also would like to have a little bit more help and more resources.

J. Gauthier: I’d like to say only about the rent, because I’m lucky. I just moved yesterday from here to a new…. Because my husband is in a wheelchair, we have to get somewhere that’s better for him to get around. There are so many people out there that need homes, and they need to be more affordable homes. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): There are two other members who have questions. We’re quickly running out of time, but I think we all want to be respectful of you being here.

Jagrup, if you have a quick question.

Mike has a quick question.

J. Brar: I just want to say thanks to Jo-Anne and Margaux for your powerful and passionate presentation to us. These issues are known to some extent. We have heard other people presenting to us as well. But we did make some changes in the past two years.

We have poverty reduction legislation. We have increased the rates for income assistance, for disability and all that and made some changes to where people can keep some money. I don’t know exactly what it is. That’s, of course, not enough. Housing, as you said rightly, eats everything at the end of the day.

I’m not much aware about the people, like, self-employed, which is what you are doing. I think if you can submit to us in writing, that would be really helpful, because, to me, I have quite a bit of knowledge about the income assistance system, but the self-employment category, to some extent, is new. I really appreciate you coming today, and if you can put together what will work for you, what kinds of exemptions will work for you, that will be helpful.

M. Wosk: Sounds excellent. Thank you.

M. Starchuk: Jo-Anne and Margaux, thank you for your passionate presentation. You’ve explained things that people just didn’t know. You didn’t know where they were, and those are two big themes that are here.

I would like to know more about B.C. People First, and we don’t have time for that. But if you tell us where to find it, Hansard will put it in writing. We’ll be able to read it at a later date. So if there’s a website for us to visit….

J. Gauthier: If you could go on to the B.C. People First website — I think it’s peoplefirst.com — I really would appreciate you doing that, because there are not enough people who know about People First. I really appreciate you wanting to do that. I’m very touched.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Wosk: Yeah, we really appreciate it. Thank you so much, and thank you for giving us the time to speak and listening to us.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you very much. As the Chair of the committee, I’d like to thank you on behalf of all of us.

Just finally, I think what I’d say is that we’ve now heard about 300 presentations, and there are a lot of presentations of representatives of organizations who are representing other people. That you are here representing yourself and giving us the human face of what your situation is really means a lot. I think it took some courage.

M. Wosk: Thank you so much.

J. Gauthier: It did. Thank you for giving us the time. We really appreciate it very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Stephanie Rudnisky, PacificSport Fraser Valley.

PACIFICSPORT FRASER VALLEY

S. Rudnisky: Hello. My name is Stephanie Rudnisky. My pronouns are she/her. I’m the executive director of PacificSport Fraser Valley, a member of the Regional Alliance.

I’m thankful to be able to be here today and present to you from the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Kwantlen Nations.

Before I begin, I would like to respectfully acknowledge Orange Shirt Day and the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I honour residential school survivors and recognize the lives of those who did not return.

I’d also like to mention local designer Shawn Baginski from Blackfish Design for this T-shirt I am wearing.

Thank you for being here and giving me the opportunity to speak about sport. You have heard from many of my colleagues over the past 30 days about the importance of sport and what we will accomplish with an additional $12 million investment.

PacificSport Fraser Valley is a multisport organization operating from Surrey to Hope. We work with schools, community centres, high-performance coaches and athletes and several other partners. We focus on developing physical literacy and fundamental movement skills in the hopes that we create active-for-life participants.

I have worked my entire career in sport, holding various positions for provincial, national, disability and multisport organizations. Sport has always been a huge part of my life, and I’m grateful that I get to do it as my job. I have a master’s degree in sport administration and technology, and I’m currently completing a master’s degree in social justice and community action, which has given me a new perspective on sport and the power it can have in our community.

I would like to talk about a couple of different priorities which this additional investment could be used for.

The first priority is new Canadians. In the past, we have tried to put together sport programs for new Canadians but felt we were always missing out on something. We were creating sport programs that we thought new Canadians would want, instead of going out to ask. Successful participation in sport happens when people feel welcome and included.

I have a new perspective on how we can achieve better results through a course I did in my master’s program. With additional funding, we can accomplish this. Creating co-constructed, community-based research and working with new Canadians to design sport programs will increase access and participation, which will lead to a more inclusive and welcoming sport environment. Just this morning I met with a couple students from UBC from a kinesiology class who are going to start some of this research, focusing on the city of Surrey.

The second priority is accessibility and inclusion. Additional funding will allow us to be more accessible and inclusive. This means training for staff, for coaches, for volunteers. It means making sure our website and all communications, including social media, are accessible to everyone, because I know right now they are not.

It would mean being proactive and having a budget line for support services, so if we have an athlete with a disability or a participant who needs additional support in our sport program, we have that funding available and we’re not going out trying to find it. These would make our programs more accessible.

The third priority is social justice and rehabilitation work. We have a great opportunity in other areas of society. Sport is impactful and powerful.

[3:40 p.m.]

Just recently I was speaking to someone who works at an addictions centre who came to one of our physical literacy trainings. She was telling us how her centre has gyms, workout gyms, basketball courts, volleyball courts, and they are hardly ever used. She came to learn how to run a sport program for those people in that facility, and it was a bit of a lightbulb moment for me.

We have this other opportunity, with additional funding, to share sport and bring quality sport experiences into these new areas of society. Sport is a connector, a vehicle for change and something I care deeply about.

Thank you for this time to speak on some of these important topics that we as a sport sector are so passionate about.

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

Questions from the committee?

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve heard from some of your colleagues throughout the province and appreciate the written submission.

One of the things that I’ve been meaning to ask through a few of the presentations was…. Coming out of COVID, it’s been so challenging for so many athletes. Has the retention of athletes been a challenge? Did you see a lot that didn’t return? Or at this level, have you been able to keep most of your athletes engaged through the pandemic?

S. Rudnisky: Yes, we’re a little bit different, because we’re a multisport organization, doing a lot of programs in partnership with community centres and schools. We’ll go into a school and run an after-school sport program, or we’ll partner with the city of Langley to run our Xplore SportZ programs.

While registration has been down because of COVID safety issues…. Like, some camps were only 12 kids instead of…. We’re used to hosting 60 to 80. But I know my colleagues on the provincial sport side have seen a decrease, and Canadian Women and Sport also put out some research saying girls are now way less likely to return to sport after the pandemic.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. It’s always nice to see an athlete that shows up for a presentation with a finger in a splint.

S. Rudnisky: Football injury.

M. Starchuk: Football. There we go.

You made mention about something that’s happening in the city of Surrey, and as the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, I’m very interested. So could you expand?

S. Rudnisky: One of my board members is Tara Cleave. She is sports…. I’m convincing her to become my chair in a couple of weeks. We’re working really closely with them.

A couple of things we have going on is…. Unofficially, I have applied for a $30,000 grant to do girl-specific sport programming with the city of Surrey. So there will be totally free sport programs to try and encourage girls to come back and either try new sports…. We call it our Xplore SportZ program. Usually it’s eight weeks. They come, and we bring in the provincial sport organizations as partners, as coaches.

We run an eight-week program where each sport gets two weeks. Then if the athletes are interested in that sport, we’ll pass them off to a local sport organization, to KidSport, to any other supports that they’ll need. Fingers crossed that funding comes through.

Then the other program, with new Canadians. I applied to have this project done through a kinesiology class at UBC, and it got accepted. Today was the first meeting with them. But we’re really looking at doing this co-constructed, community-based research with newcomer settlement agencies, parents, on what sport programs they want, what sports they want to have, where they need to be, what time of day they need it to be — all ages, the whole family. We’re hoping that we get the start of this research done, and then in January, compile it — this project there.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Stephanie.

You mentioned a comment about young women — that they were less likely to come back after COVID. I guess my question is: what do we have to do to reverse that?

S. Rudnisky: That’s a very good question.

I think there are a lot of things. I think it’s going out into the community with positive female sport role models and mentors and coaches, encouraging them to come and have safe and inclusive sport environments for them that they want. I know that for girls and sports, it’s not always about competition. It’s about friendship and having fun and connecting with other girls. We have to find a way to create those safe spaces and get those girls back in with those female mentors with low-cost options.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m not seeing any other questions, and we’re pretty well out of time anyway.

Stephanie, I want to thank you for coming to present to the committee. Thank you for what you do.

[3:45 p.m.]

I want to say, speaking personally, I’m very intrigued and moved by the connection that you make between sport and social justice. You really got me thinking about that. Of course, sports are a connector. There is no social justice without empathy, and there is no empathy unless we are willing and able to connect with each other. Thank you for connecting those dots for me.

Our next presenter is Scott Braley, Curl B.C., on behalf of Sport B.C.

CURL B.C.

S. Braley: Thanks very much. I always seem to be last on these things. I know that you’ve been here a long time and through a whole month of these interviews and sessions. So thanks very much for doing it.

My name is Scott Braley. I’m the CEO of Curl B.C. I’ve been involved for about 50 years in the sport system, either as a volunteer or full-time for the last 36, so been around for a while. Always wonderful to hear people like Stephanie, who you just heard from, and all the great work that’s being done.

As the PSO, the provincial sport organization, responsible for the development, promotion and organization of curling in B.C., Curl B.C. oversees 85 curling centres and about 24,000 curlers. Ours is a low barrier and easy-to-learn sport allowing for a diverse mixture of players from all ages, abilities and incomes.

Today, on this first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, I am particularly grateful and honoured to be speaking here on the traditional and unceded lands of the Coast Salish people.

When the provincial government released Pathways to Sport, which is a strategic framework for sport in B.C., the sport sector made a commitment to the document’s five-year road map for making amateur sports more accessible, safe, welcoming and inclusive. We are also committed to supporting our high-performance athletes and coaches, and creating dynamic and exciting hosting opportunities.

Over the past month, you have heard some amazing stories from many of my colleagues in the amateur sport sector, and you’ve learned of their sincere efforts to help B.C.’s citizens thrive through sport and exercise. You’ve also heard that we as a sector are asking for an additional $12 million base investment from the province of B.C. over three years. This will allow for an effective implementation of Pathways to Sport, and help to advance affordability, accessibility, inclusion, diversity and reconciliation through sport.

It will also allow for increased safety and ethics training, and provide much-needed capital for a next generation of high-performance athletes as they compete in multisport games such as the Canada Games, the North American Indigenous Games, the Paralympics and the Olympics.

Obviously, COVID-19 has been the major focus for all of us during the past year-and-a-half. While most sports have lost one season, others have lost two, resulting in a drain on income, volunteers, participants and even public interest.

As an indoor activity, curling was particularly hard-hit by COVID-19, and it will take considerable time for our sport to return to pre-COVID levels. Many of our clubs have felt a severe economic pinch due to the loss of the 2021 season, with most events and championships having to be cancelled. It’s a similar story across all sport.

[3:50 p.m.]

While Curl B.C. greatly and very genuinely appreciates the funding it and other PSOs have already received from the province, it is essential that continued long-term funding is available to sustain our valuable coalition of sport bodies and the vital work which we all do.

With over 60 accredited provincial sport organizations and more than 800,000 participants, our sector plays a vital role in the physical and mental health of our province. We believe the additional $12 million investment in Pathways to Sport will help get British Columbians back out onto the ice, fields, courts and tracks and help balance the availability of opportunities for those of all diverse backgrounds.

If anything, the pandemic and the absence of sport has helped us all realize that sport is more important than ever. On behalf of Sport B.C. and its member organizations and all the athletes, coaches, officials and volunteers, I thank you for recognizing the importance of additional funding and for considering the B.C. sport sector’s collective request.

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

I would invite members of the committee to ask questions.

M. Dykeman: I don’t have any questions, but I do want to thank you for your presentation today and for the attached letter. As you know, you’re part of a larger request, with the $12 million funding, and I want to let you know that we have heard you and your colleagues.

I just want to say thank you for taking the time to also share with the committee the impact that the pandemic has had on sports and how much it’s impacted a wide range of people. I do want to thank you for this presentation.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation, Scott.

I’m just curious. Did all of your 85 organizations survive?

S. Braley: Almost. We’ve had a couple…. This actually links over to the aging infrastructure challenge that I think goes well beyond sport. We have a couple of clubs that are down at the moment. We’re hoping to help them get back up, but running an ice plant is fairly expensive, especially if they’re on their own.

Other than that, yes, they survived. Not all of them opened last year. About 60 of the 85 opened for at least part of the season, so it was a really good effort. About 13,000 of the 24,000 actually curled, so it was actually quite a success story, given all the obstacles that they faced.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, I’m not seeing other questions. That could be in part because it’s late in the day and you’re about our 300th presentation but also because there are others who have come before you to make a similar presentation, to whom there were many questions.

I’d just like to wrap it up, on behalf of the committee, by thanking you for coming and being part of that, to add your voice. Your ask, your goals, make so much sense and fit into our overall goals as a government, to make things affordable, accessible and inclusive. Thank you.

S. Braley: Thanks very much. Really appreciate you doing this, on behalf of everybody.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Ted van der Gulik, who is representing Partnership for Water Sustainability in British Columbia.

PARTNERSHIP FOR
WATER SUSTAINABILITY IN B.C.

T. van der Gulik: My name is Ted van der Gulik. I am a former senior engineer with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, retiring in 2014 after 35 years of service. I am currently president of the Partnership for Water Sustainability in B.C., a not-for-profit organization established to assist and work with the province and others to promote strategies that deliver results under the Water Sustainability Act.

[3:55 p.m.]

In that capacity, the partnership is here today to urge commitment of $30 million over the next ten years, annually, to deal with a looming crisis — the less-than-successful launch of the groundwater licensing system in the province. There have been a number of written submissions made by former government staff that support this verbal presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Finance Committee.

When the Water Sustainability Act was passed on February 29, 2016, all new non-domestic wells were required to obtain a provincial water licence prior to use. Historical groundwater users, wells constructed prior to 2016 — of which there are approximately 20,000 in B.C. — have been given until March 1, 2022, to apply for their licences and, therefore, grandfather their historical right to use groundwater.

The issue is that, a mere five months before the deadline of next March, fewer than 25 percent of historical groundwater users have applied for their licences. Many of those who have applied are waiting three years or longer to have their applications processed, due to lack of staff and insufficient data to adjudicate the applications. Contrary to the act, there has been very little enforcement to ensure that all new groundwater users have indeed obtained their licences.

As of March 1, 2022, historical users that have not applied will join unlicensed wells and become illegal. The social, economic and political costs of government being forced to shut down businesses of 15,000 current groundwater users in the province — most of them farmers, ranchers and small businesses throughout rural B.C. — are too severe to contemplate.

We are here to say, however, that government’s headaches on this issue will be far greater than what may be anticipated. New applicants will put others out of business that haven’t applied. There are also applicants on new wells that have applied for a licence and have been turned down, as there is insufficient water available, even though hundreds of other wells in that same aquifer continue to operate without a licence.

In one case, a new applicant has been turned down in an aquifer that contains 272 other wells. Only two users have applied for a licence. What does that mean for the other 270 wells in that aquifer that have not yet applied when March 1, 2022 arrives? Also, if that new applicant that was turned down applies again, as of March 1, 2022, the province will likely have to issue a licence and force those that have not applied to stop using water. Whether they like it or not, they are going to have to enforce as outlined under the act.

To rectify this chaotic situation will require a dedicated budget to get back on track and achieve water sustainability as envisioned by the act. The partnership has determined that an annual budget of $30 million per year will be required for ten years, comprising of $11 million for additional, dedicated staff to adjudicate licences — that urgency is now, but it will be compounded after March 1, 2022 — and $4.5 million for enforcement.

This is an issue of fairness. Government will have no credibility with those who have done the right thing and applied for their water licence if nothing is down about those who flaunt the legislation and continue to use water illegally.

Then $13 million for investment in science. We need more knowledge about aquifer condition and capability. Provincial databases need to be updated to enable fair and timely adjudication of licence applications. Finally, $1.5 million for leadership. We need a designated water champion. To achieve water sustainability, there needs to be a dedicated minister with staff to support coordinated actions across ministries and communicate a clear and compelling message to British Columbians.

In closing, I want to leave the committee with this thought. The economic losses experienced by raging forest fires this past year have brought climate change to top of mind for British Columbians. Climate change is about water, and we know that many of our groundwater aquifers are at risk. In our professional judgment and experience, $30 million for each of the next ten years dedicated to achieving the objectives of the WSA is key to building provincial resilience in the face of climate change impacts already upon us and, with certainty, to increase in the future.

[4:00 p.m.]

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

We have a few minutes for some questions. Megan is first up.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation and your submission.

The question I have is one that probably will be asked in a million other applications and has been asked as long as I have been elected at different levels. What do you think the barrier has been to reaching the affected people to have them registered?

As you can imagine, this is a question that gets asked a lot, in so many different ways. You’re dealing with something. It’s not for lack of awareness. It’s not for lack of information. I’ve watched this happen in other situations, and it doesn’t seem to be a situation even that has to correlate directly with money being put at the problem. So what do you think the challenge has been?

T. van der Gulik: We have looked into that and have been very adamant about sending information out to every…. I think it’s not a lack of information. Not everybody gets the information, though. We know that’s a problem. We’re talking about rural B.C. They don’t get the same information as the newspapers and everything else that you get locally. That’s part of the problem.

I would like to correct one thing. It’s not about registration. Everybody has to register their well, and usually the groundwater driller will do that for them. It’s about a licence, and that’s the first step of confusion right there. “My well is registered.” Yes, but it’s not licensed, and there’s a really big difference. You used the word registration. I’m saying that is one of the problems right there. Articles in the newspaper talk about registration. “Well, my well is registered.” But not licensed. That’s the key part.

The other really key part…. I’ve talked to lots of, in this case, farmers. They think it’s a tax grab. “Government’s just asking for money. I’m going to just sit here and wait.” But they don’t realize that the power of an act could come at them at any time, and they could lose the farm, so to speak.

M. Dykeman: Yeah. It’s very serious.

Well, thank you, and thank you for your submission.

Just in follow up — I know we are very short on time, Madam Chair — you’ve looked at the issue. What’s your recommendation in that area, in getting that information about licensing and motivating people to take the step?

T. van der Gulik: Well, the province is trying, and they’ve put out a number of bulletins in the last few months. It kind of falls on deaf ears.

I have seen lots of emails coming back to us from the partnerships outreach saying what I just said. “It’s a tax grab. I’ll just keep going. They’ll never find me. I’m way out in the hinterlands.” Whatever. You just need to go into the water well registration database to see how many wells there are. They’re all over the place, and very few are licensed. Very few are in the correct place. They’re not even what the database says, hence my claim about how we’ve got to improve our database.

I go in and do a licence, and a guy says: “Well, there are three wells on my farm. That’s not mine, and that’s not mine. This one’s mine, but it’s over here.” It’s a mess.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Ted, good to see you again. I didn’t recognize you when you came in with your mask.

I told the committee, when we were getting other presentations about water shortages up in the Cariboo and places like that, about…. I know that your work would easily answer some of the questions. There were similar requests for money to look at dams and other things like that to make certain there were adequate resources. Anyway, I liked the presentation.

Well, I know I have my own personal question about a licensed well on my property. I know I’m paying a licence fee. I think I’m licensed, but I’m a bit worried now that I’ve heard your presentation. But anyway, I appreciate you coming out to talk to us.

I guess I’m not really certain that the $30 million just to deal with the Water Act is enough to deal with some of the things we were dealing with in the Cariboo, where ranchers are…. They may run out of water again, because of either climate change or the fact that the dams they have are not necessarily in the state that they should be and stuff like that.

Is what your presentation talking about, the Water Act and registration of these wells, and the issues that we’re talking about inF the Cariboo and other places in central B.C., connected?

T. van der Gulik: May I respond to that?

Yeah, I’m talking specifically about groundwater legislation. We have issues with surface water legislation, and we have issues with dams. Certainly, most of the dams in the province are licensed to farmers.

[4:05 p.m.]

There are big issues around dams. The Ministry of Agriculture is trying to get a program to help on that, but we’ve been lacking on that. A dam owned by a rancher and licensed by a rancher and fees paid by the rancher is used for fisheries, trails, parks by forestry. Everybody gets it for free; the rancher pays. So there are issues like you just mentioned around that.

Another issue is the livestock regulation, which people in the north have been clamouring about for a long time. We are working on a livestock water regulation in the province, but we’ve delayed it for a year — after March 1, 2022. In the meantime, by March, you have to license your well. Well, it might come under the legislation that we’re talking about, a year from now.

Again, a confusing thing about what should we be doing now might answer your question about why I am not applying for a licence: the livestock regulation is coming, and I can deal with my livestock at that point in time. Well, it may not be that simple.

I could go on for a long time.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): All I can tell you is that Ted is the expert.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Ted. We are out of time.

I’m an urban MLA. I’ve learned a lot more about water in this series of presentations than I ever knew before. We have had other presentations, but I do want to say that your expertise, your passion, your knowledge about this…. You are a very powerful voice, and you’ve managed to kind of scare me about what needs to be done.

I don’t want to pre-empt what our deliberations will be, but I’m pretty sure that what you’ve raised will be a big part of our conversations, in terms of the message we want to give to the Legislature. So thank you very much.

You’re our last presenter.

T. van der Gulik: I know. You guys should be excited.

M. Dykeman: Thank you. It was a great presentation to end off with.

J. Routledge (Chair): It is a great presentation to end on.

M. Dykeman: I’ll move a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:07 p.m.