The committee met at 8:30 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Janet Routledge. I am 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.

We would like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather today is on the territories of the Coast Salish people, the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

Welcome to everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meeting on the Budget 2023 consultation.

Our committee is currently seeking input on the next provincial budget. British Columbians can share their views by making written comments or by filling out the online survey. Details are available on our website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The deadline for input is 3 p.m. on Friday, June 24, 2022.

We will carefully consider all input to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be included in Budget 2023. The committee intends to release its report in August.

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

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

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

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Hi. I’m Karin Kirkpatrick. I’m the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

B. Bailey: I’m Brenda Bailey. I’m the MLA for Vancouver–​False Creek.

B. Stewart: Good morning. I’m Ben Stewart, the MLA for Kelowna West.

H. Yao: Henry Yao, MLA for Richmond South Centre.

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

R. Merrifield: Good morning. Renee Merrifield, MLA for Kelowna-Mission.

J. Routledge (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Jennifer Arril and Emma Curtis from the Parliamen­tary Committees Office, and Dwight Schmidt and Simon DeLaat from Hansard Services.

I’d like to now invite our first presenter to come to the table. That’s Gord Miller, Public Health Association of B.C.

Welcome, Gord.

Budget Consultation Presentations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

G. Miller: Thank you. It’s an honour to be here today and to speak with you. I know that within your position, you’re always faced with decisions pertaining to policy and just general decision-making. So thank you for your contribution.

My name is Gord Miller, and I’m representing the Public Health Association of B.C. It’s one of the hats that I actually wear, as past president of that association. Another hat, long-standing prof at the University of Victoria, where I’ve taught for so many years and researched in the area of public health and population health. I’ve consulted all over the world.

I’m at the stage now where I’m thinking about retirement. I don’t know how many…. Anyway, I’m just saying that I’m supposed to be semi-retired. As Brenda knows….

Actually, good to see you, Brenda.

We presented to Brenda some of the research that we’re doing on assistive technology for older adults. We all know where that demographic is going. So what can we be doing to be supporting older adults and their caregivers as far as living independently and living in place? I’m free to answer any questions about that particular research.

I think we need to have a follow-up, also, Brenda, pertaining to that.

Anyway, to get to it, what we’d like to be able to do, as an association, is to present what we call the 6 percent solution, which promises to have a lasting legacy in the health of residents of B.C. Let me explain. Currently, in public health, the investment has been around 3 percent, as far as the health care budget.

[8:35 a.m.]

What happens in a…. I saw this happen quite often, as a longtime employee within the Ministry of Health working in the area of policy and strategies. The funding dedicated to public health often was used to cover overruns within the health authorities. This happened when the budgets got tight, which every year seemed to happen. What we do know is that this is a short-term gain for long-term losses.

In other words, there’s been considerable research that has been done in this area — and systematic reviews, extensive ones — that shows that for every $1 spent in public health, our province stands to save $7 in mental health and addiction treatment, also approximately $7 in this whole aspect pertaining to all the different types of social costs and loss of productivity. Often that value can go right up to $30. So we can’t forget about the indirect costs.

Immunizing children with the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine saves about $16 per person in health care costs. Investment in early childhood, something that’s really dear to my heart, saves approximately $9 in future spending on health, social and justice services.

Notwithstanding this, investment in public health has been eroded over the years. Its workforce has not increased over the last decade, in spite of growing demands. This is particularly noted with respect to these professional roles like public health nursing, epidemiologists and environmental health officers.

Let’s talk a little bit about COVID, our favourite topic. Again, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of a robust public health system that includes not just treatment services but also careful disease surveillance. We need more surveillance, in that respect, in the whole area of non-communicable disease. Also, more needs to happen on evidence-informed policy.

I really like…. I’ve read this report over and over again, and I’ve actually taught parts of it to my students. It’s by Theresa Tam. It was a report that she called A Vision to Transform Canada’s Public Health System.

J. Routledge (Chair): Gord, you’re closing in on five minutes.

G. Miller: Okay.

It’s something that I’d like to be able just to talk to you about. We need to look at it in the sense of where we need to be going as far as valuing public health. This means a social shift in how we view our health system.

I want to get right to what we’d like see as far as…. Getting back to a recommendation, we’d really like to see increased investment in public health to that 6 percent of health care expenditure. It needs to be earmarked in a way that can be protected.

The other aspect is that we need investment in human resources and education strategies — that remains one of the biggest challenges for us as far as delivery of good services — and for the government to partner with post-secondary education institutions to strengthen opportunities for careers in public health and an emphasis on updating the curriculum to face the complex issues that are out there in the 21st century.

Something that I want to bring up, and something I’ve even conducted research in, is this whole area that we call Health in All Policies. We’ve done it before in this province. We need to be taking a whole-of-government approach when we’re looking at these complex issues.

Yeah. That was pretty well what we wanted to be able to see.

Thank you for your time.

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

Now I’ll invite members of the committee to ask you some questions and give you an opportunity to explore some of your suggestions in more detail.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for the presentation.

I have a question about some of the numbers that you used, the spend $1, save $7 in mental health. What is that relative to? What is the spend of the $1 on? Is that specific to mental health, and what would that look like inside of public health?

G. Miller: What it would mean is looking at spending more money pertaining to strategies. So service provision and policy development in this whole area of mental health. Of course, it has benefits as far as addiction services and the whole aspect around addiction. That’s what we’re talking about.

[8:40 a.m.]

It’s hard to actually separate. We see so much concurrent disorder happening as far as mental health and addiction.

R. Merrifield: Okay. Thank you.

I’ll reserve my second question.

J. Routledge (Chair): Additional questions?

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I’m not sure that I heard all of this, but you were talking about the need for more health surveillance. Was that the term that you used?

G. Miller: Yes.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): What does that mean?

G. Miller: This is actually to do with things that we’ve looked at in the past. We have our provincial observatory pertaining to non-communicable disease, etc. My colleague and I, from the University of Victoria, went around the province. We spent about a year collecting information. What really came through our data and the data analysis is that people working within the health authorities are crying for data. They’re crying for local data.

Yes, we have Canadian surveys, etc. We do have the odd provincial population health…. But they need actual community data within their community. That’s what’s really missing — so the need for that.

There are some really good examples out of Richmond. They’re doing a really good job in their community as far as being able to get that local data. That is specific to population health and public health.

B. Bailey: Hi. Nice to see you. I’m wondering if you can just help me understand that 6 percent a little bit more. I was under the impression that we’re spending more than 3 percent. It’s not 6 percent of budget, right? Was it 6 percent of…?

G. Miller: Yeah. I’m not including what we’re spending as far as the pandemic is concerned. I’m talking about public health and where it’s been prior to the pandemic. So it has really tipped the cart in that respect. It is a good question.

It’s always been around 3 percent that we have spent within our total budget, and less. Any of the research that we see, any of the provinces that we know are doing well, end up putting at least close to that 6 percent. I’m just challenging the committee to look at us getting past that 3 percent and making sure that the amount is dedicated, so it’s not going to be gobbled up — sorry to use that term — during budget pressures.

J. Routledge (Chair): Henry, we’re running out of time, but if it’s a quick question.

H. Yao: It’s a quick question.

Can you give me some examples of other provinces or other jurisdictions that it’s 6 percent instead of 3 percent?

G. Miller: Yes. What we have happening in Manitoba, for example, is closer to about 4.5 percent to 5 percent. They have really quite active public health in the way of surveillance.

Saskatchewan is actually close behind, and we see pockets within there that have put more into the public health sector.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Gord. We’re out of time, unfortunately. I know there are probably a lot more questions. Thank you for your leadership in this area.

I’ve written down for myself, and I hope you don’t mind if I use it again: “short-term gain for long-term loss.” It says a lot. Thank you for quantifying the consequences of not heeding that.

G. Miller: Any other questions…. I’ll just leave my card.

J. Routledge (Chair): Great. Thank you.

Our next presenter is Chris Lam with B.C. Lung Foundation.

Welcome, Chris. We have a timer set up. You have five minutes for your presentation and then another five minutes for questions and answers.

B.C. LUNG FOUNDATION

C. Lam: Thank you again for inviting us to do this in person and having me put on a tie and a jacket. It feels really good. It’s nice to see familiar faces and, of course, new faces.

Being a kid with Richmond and Burnaby roots, Janet and Henry, it’s nice to see representation that I understand.

Thank you, guys, again. My name is Chris Lam. I am the president and CEO of the B.C. Lung Foundation. Our organization represents the one in five British Columbians who are living with some sort of lung disease. We offer them help, hope and a voice. In order for us to do that, we need people to listen, so thank you. This helps us do exactly that.

As per your guidelines, I’m here to advocate for three very specific things.

[8:45 a.m.]

The first thing that I’m advocating for is continued support of funding that the province already does. That’s in our QuitNow program, which is the province’s smoking cessation program, as well as the wood stove exchange program, which we’ve recently renamed to the wood smoke reduction program — two important things.

The second thing that I’m going to advocate for is an investment in our seniors with COPD with a post-clinical care program. That’s going to be an important part as our province starts to age well. I’ll go into a little more detail about that shortly.

The third thing that I’m going to advocate for is an investment in a comprehensive, unified provincial air quality strategy, preparing all regions and the people who live in those regions for the impending wildfire, wood smoke and, of course, heat dome seasons. So those are things that I’m going to talk about today.

On the QuitNow program, in brief, I know it might be familiar for a lot of you. It has dramatically cut the rates of smoking in our province over the last two decades that it’s been in existence. It remains an important piece of us cutting those numbers, which represent the number one reason of lung cancer in our province. We need to continue to invest in this program, particularly with the rise of vaping and particularly around the rise of vaping with our youth. The QuitNow program offers a fantastic way for cessation to happen in those territories.

The wood stove exchange program, or the wood smoke reduction program, offers rebates to British Columbians who want to switch out their dirty, wood-burning stoves for cleaner burning alternatives. We want to continue to advocate for that. It is one single way that citizens of British Columbia can really make an impact on climate change. It becomes a significant part of how we can help British Columbians breathe easier.

I’m going to move on to this post-clinical care COPD program. This is something that I think is quite innovative, and it’s something that is so dramatically important to our province. COPD affects about 150,000 seniors in our province. It’s a dramatic number. For those of you who are unaware of what COPD is, that’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It’s a debilitating degenerative lung disease that creates hospitalizations that are quite dramatic.

The average hospitalization for someone with a COPD exacerbation is about ten days. I’m sure you have your own metrics on what that costs our system and the impact on our system, but, roughly, that’s about $10,000 a day in the hospital at ten days. That is an insane amount that we can really claw back on if we’re able to provide a post-clinical care program.

We’ve piloted this program in British Columbia, and we have found that we can keep at least 85 percent of them out of hospital in the next year. That represents a significant release of the burden on our health care system that will be quite dramatic, as our province has done well and continues to age, hopefully, a little bit better as well. So an investment in seniors is what I’m asking for in this case.

The third thing I’m going to ask for here is that unified comprehensive strategy around air quality. I think it goes without saying that this affects all of us, no matter where we live in the province. Heat and climate change are becoming an ongoing, very dramatic issue. What happens is you can’t breathe. We have an old adage: when you can’t breathe, nothing else matters. It may be cliché, but it is so incredibly true.

So in order for us to have a unified strategy, we can bring together health authorities, NGOs and other stakeholders to come up with a unified plan. Whether that’s around clean air centres in different regions, whether that’s a strategy that can be rolled out through hospitals or whether that’s the involvement of NGOs in having individual programing that’s unified and led by the province, I think it would be extremely important.

That’s basically the three elements I want to talk about. I want to thank you all again for helping us see that vision of a British Columbia that can breathe easier.

Look how we did on the time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Very good. Thank you, Chris.

Henry, then Renee and then Mike have questions, and Ben.

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Chris. To be honest, I have so many questions right now.

I’m going to start very quickly. The most important one for me is air quality improvement. As soon as we hear it, it’s overwhelming. Air quality centres, as you mentioned earlier, are a temporary solution. People still have to go home. We have a large population.

Is there anything else that’s possible for the provincial government to actually envision that doesn’t feel like it’s overwhelming or unrealistic?

C. Lam: Absolutely. I think it starts at a really ground level, and that ground level is educating citizens around how to take care of themselves during heat season and poor air quality.

There are a lot of myths out there around what to do during wildfire season or smog season. You see people covering their face with wet clothes, thinking they can do that, or going out for jogs. It’s basically an education process that needs to be invested in, about how to take care of yourself.

[8:50 a.m.]

You’re right. There’s a larger problem around climate change and what that means for the wildfires, but we have to recognize that that’s not going away. That is something that we have to adapt to, and that’s what we’re advocating for. It’s for a unified strategy around exactly that.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for being here. It’s great to see you again. My questions are also on your third recommendation, on the provincial strategy. Will part of that strategy also be data collection? Having been a health authority board member, I know that one of the issues that we had is that there just wasn’t enough data collected around those wildfire seasons to know even how to prepare for them. Will that be part of what that third strategy will entail.

C. Lam: For the record, Renee — I did not plan this — this is a great question. It allows me to expand on it. What we want to do is…. We’ve recently commissioned a study that was just published by the BCCDC that talked exactly about this, about better data collection. One of the ways that we can do that is that we support citizen science. This is a way we also get each of our constituents in our municipalities really involved in what air quality means, as part of that education process.

What that is…. We would arm citizens in targeted communities with personal air-quality monitors that they can put in their own backyards. It gives us the right data collection that really does prove whether air quality is bad at certain times and what they can do about it, in real time. That makes it significant. It would also make British Columbia a leader in that category, in the world. It’s something that we would really push for.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to talk about the post-clinical care with the COPD. You talked about 150,000 seniors that are involved with that, but there’s also a segment of society that are not seniors that suffer from it as well. My hope is that they’re included in it. You said there was a pilot program that was done. I’d just be curious as to where that was done and what kind of data came out of it.

C. Lam: Absolutely. Fantastic. Again, I did not set that up with Mike.

The first part of that is around expanding that population. We know that COPD occurs in adults as young as 35. It would definitely include them as well. But without a doubt, the overwhelming majority of COPD patients are seniors. Part and parcel of us needing to help our province age better is taking care of our seniors.

The second part of your question is about the pilot program. We ran the pilot program across the province. We tried to get a cross-section of 24 patients. We tried to follow them, and we tried to map their journeys, based on different socioeconomic status, different regions of the province, both rural and urban and both male and female. The results were astounding. What we recognized is that that pilot sample is quite small, given the entire scope.

So what we’re hoping to do this year, on our own accord, is…. We’re actually going to target a community. We’re going to try to get Vernon this year, and what we’re going to do is to have a larger sample size in one specific region, with similar circumstances, and we’ll be able to produce more data around this. Without a doubt, it has proven that there is going to be a way that you can keep them out of hospital, simply by providing intermediate care.

B. Stewart: Really, you raise so many questions, as was mentioned. The disconnect I kind of see is…. Having gone through wildfire seasons, not just last year and the year before and on and on, how do you deal with air quality on the scale and the size of the province, where to prevent wildfires, we have to do either additional burning of slash or a reduction of fuel loads, etc.? Some of it can be turned into other things.

You’re talking about wood fireplaces. I can imagine that there are many improvements on that, but it’s just kind of the magnitude of the issue and trying to deal with it at your level. How do we find a way forward to deal with wildfire prevention?

C. Lam: That’s a fantastic question, and I wish I had more than minus 20 seconds to discuss how to deal with climate change. What I’m here to really advocate, though, is that at the ground level, at the individual citizen level, there are things that we can do that make improvements. We are all aware of what some of those things are, from electric vehicles all the way up to: should you or should you not burn wood, and what does that do to your neighbour? Those are things that cause immediate exacerbations. That would be our focus right now.

[8:55 a.m.]

For example, somebody with a wood-burning stove who burns their stove all year long is exacerbating their neighbour with COPD. That causes, unfortunately for them, a potentially fatal situation. That is the critical situation we need to deal with. It’s not that climate change isn’t critical, but that requires a completely different strategy. With our focus on the patient, this is what needs to be dealt with now.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for your attention to the timer. We are out of time, Chris. But as you can tell, the committee is quite engaged in what you’re presenting. On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for your very crisp presentation and your emphasis on prevention that underlines your recommendations.

What I’m left with is that it is a combination of prevention that has to do with individual choices but prevention that is systemwide as well. So thank you very much for framing it for us.

C. Lam: Thank you, everybody.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Jeff Sommers, Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Welcome, Jeff.

HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION

J. Sommers: Thanks for inviting me to speak to you today. I’m Jeff Sommers. I’m presenting on behalf of the Heart and Stroke Foundation, where I’m the director of health policy and systems for B.C. and Yukon.

For over 60 years, Heart and Stroke has been one of Canada’s largest and most effective health charities. Our work has contributed to a 75 percent decline in deaths from heart disease and stroke over that time. The three recommendations that we’re putting forth today, I think, if adopted, could advance that even further — that decline.

The recommendations are all fiscal measures that will contribute to public health. The first two address two of, really, the most pernicious substances that people freely ingest in British Columbia and Canada and around the world: tobacco and sugar. The third one is really a small measure that could contribute to improving survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Our first recommendation is that the B.C. government introduce a levy on sugary drinks. This is a measure that has been adopted in a number of jurisdictions very successfully. Sugary drinks are…. We’re talking not just about carbonated sugary drinks, which the province withdrew the exemption of PST from one or two budget cycles ago, but all sugary drinks, ranging from not just pop but also sport and energy drinks, sweet hot and cold beverages, iced tea, cold coffee, sweetened milks, plant-based beverages, etc. There’s a huge range.

Sugary drinks are the single largest source of sugar in Canadians’ diets. Canadians already ingest too much sugar. We know that, based on the experience in Mexico, in the U.K. — also Chile, France, other jurisdictions like Philadelphia and Berkeley in the States — a levy on sugary drinks, over and above any basic consumer sales tax, works.

The second recommendation is to introduce an annual regulatory fee, based on market share in B.C., on tobacco manufacturers that can be used to fully recover the costs of the government’s tobacco control and smoking cessation program.

B.C. did introduce a bill to that effect in the 1990s that was never enacted and was subsequently repealed. Since that time, similar measures, regulatory fees to recover costs from the companies rather than from the consumers, have been introduced in Finland, California, Vietnam, France, Ireland and — most notably, of course — our neighbours in the U.S., where $700 million is generated annually through such a fee imposed on tobacco manufacturers and importers.

[9:00 a.m.]

The reason we suggest this is because despite the progress B.C. has made — it has got the best numbers of smokers — still around 600,000 people smoke every year. It contributes directly to COPD among other things, and it’s the leading cause of preventable mortality in British Columbia.

Then finally, the third recommendation, which is a small part of our overall out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy. We believe strongly that the province should exempt the purchase of automated external defibrillators from the provincial sales tax to encourage more purchases of AEDs.

Automated external defibrillators, if you don’t know, are small portable devices that are used in combination with CPR when somebody has a cardiac arrest. They’re actually vital for reviving that person. For every minute that a person who has a cardiac arrest doesn’t have CPR and/or an AED, their chances of survival decrease by 7 to 10 percent. So in ten minutes, for most people, it’s gone. There are 7,000 cardiac arrests every year in B.C., and the chances of survival are between 5 and 10 percent. We can do better than that. This is a small measure to contribute to that.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you. As you know, we already have a question.

H. Yao: Again, I have so many questions for you. Having been, in the past, a first-aid instructor, I have a lot of ideas for making sure that there are PST exemptions for AEDs.

I want to talk about sugar. You talk about having a levy added on sugar, but we all know that the sugar-drinking, beverage-drinking habit starts young. We’re wondering: is there anything else you would like to recommend, other than simply adding a levy? I don’t want to generalize, but the reality is that a lot of kids have access to more money than earlier, but they don’t think about preferences. I want to have a little bit of a conversation about sugar. It’s a very damaging substance that we ingest.

J. Sommers: Heart and Stroke is one of the leading partners in the Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition. As you know, Quebec does have legislation against marketing to kids. It’s possible at the provincial level. It’s complicated, simply because we live in the Internet age. Quebec’s laws were introduced before the Internet was as widespread as it is. However, they are in the process of updating them. We almost had the federal government pass it; in fact, parliament did pass it. It died in the Senate, unfortunately, but we are pushing to revive that.

Regulating marketing to kids, of food and beverages, is really important. It could be seen as a companion piece to a levy on sugary drinks. I didn’t mention this. I just want to say that Newfoundland has enacted a 20 percent levy on sugary drinks. That’s coming into effect in September.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for the presentation. I will echo my colleague Henry. I love the ideas on the PST exemption and on tobacco recovery, absolutely.

My question is actually on No. 1. I have a particular interest in feeding programs, having been involved for the last 15 years in different feeding programs across Canada. I know that sometimes the only meal that a lower socioeconomic–level child will receive is their breakfast. To put something like orange juice in the same category as a Coke seems to me to be maybe taking too broad of a brush stroke with that. Is there any thought about this, rather than labelling all of them under one umbrella?

J. Sommers: This is something that folks have gone back and forth with for a number of years. The problem with fruit juice is that it’s not the same as fruit. If you take a piece of fruit, the sugars are bound with the other molecules. I don’t want to get all science-y on this, because I’m not a scientist. As soon as you make juice, particularly if it’s from concentrate but even if it’s combined with other elements, the sugars come free. That’s why we talk about free or added sugars.

This is one of the things with a lot of processed…. Well, ultra-processed foods are another story. One of the problems with processed foods is that they often…. The sugars come free. They have the same effect as added sugars on the body. They’re essentially stored as fat.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for that.

[9:05 a.m.]

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Jeff. It’s been a while since I’ve purchased an AED, but I have purchased them years ago. Rather than just say, “Yeah, it’s a really good thing,” I’d like to know…. Your examples are of safety equipment, which is already exempt from PST. So largely, I don’t see the big impact. I don’t know whether or not you’ve done the financial impact of what it would be to the government. To me, this is symbolic. This is showing that it really cares.

J. Sommers: Well, I think the symbolism is important. The financial impact is minimal. It would be, we calculated…. I believe the number we’ve heard from the distributors is about 880 of these sales a year in B.C. That would be around, maybe even a little under, $100,000 financial impact. It’s a minimal impact on revenues. It just removes one more obstacle to purchase. It also does signify the government’s commitment to this.

Just so you know, on October 17, Victoria will be doing an MLA luncheon. You’ll be getting invitations. We will be launching our out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation strategy. I hope you can make that. It’ll be at the Empress.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, on that note and that generous invitation, we are out of time. I want to thank you for your presentation. Personally, I learned a lot. Your recommendations are very clear. I really appreciate that you anchored your recommendations in so many international examples, which kind of underscores that what you’re recommending is doable.

Our next presenter is Dr. Erika Penner, representing the B.C. Psychological Association.

Welcome, Erika.

B.C. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

E. Penner: Thank you very much. I am honoured to speak to your committee today.

Last year my colleague Dr. Lesley Lutes, also a psychologist, presented to you and talked to you about the role that psychologists can play in family care and primary care. That need for psychologists in primary care becomes more pressing every single day.

We are all well aware that our primary care system is collapsing before our eyes in this province, and while we know that government is working with GPs to find financial solutions, the truth is that it’s not just the way that doctors are compensated in primary care that needs to change. Ask any GP, and they will tell you that more than half of the patient visits they see are related to psychosocial factors: mental and behavioural health.

A recent study right here in Canada found that anxiety and depression are among the top three reasons for a visit to primary care. And this study was before the pandemic started, so I shudder to think what it is now. Mental health concerns are only the half of it. Countless physical issues that family doctors see every day are related to our lifestyle behaviours, like pain, weight gain, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and stroke. The list goes on.

These are physical problems that GPs are left to try to treat on their own and that are actually best addressed with lifestyle modifications, but lifestyle change is hard. Telling people to eat well and exercise more just doesn’t work. How can psychologists be part of the solution? We have an average of seven years of graduate training. We are regulated mental and behavioural health specialists with competencies in assessment, diagnosis and evidence-based treatment.

The primary care psychologist model provides brief 15- to 30-minute appointments, where we quickly assess patients of any age, and can often provide targeted treatments in just two to four brief appointments right there in the family doctor’s office. We can treat mental health concerns — depression, anxiety, addiction and trauma — but also those behavioural health concerns: weight gain, pain, smoking cessation and so on. We provide on-site, same-day help, with seamless integration between physicians and psychologists.

When we do this, when we place psychologists in primary care, we start to treat mental and behavioural health with the same care and precision that we do with physical health. In medicine, there’s an entire team that treats your physical health: nurses, nurse practitioners, MOAs, family doctors, specialists. We need that same kind of team working in mental and behavioural health, including different professionals with different scopes of practice and ability.

Psychologists are the only non-physician, regulated, mental health professionals who assess, diagnose and treat, and then we measure changes in symptoms and functioning. Absolutely, other professionals like counsellors need to be part of that team, too, but just as nurses cannot replace family doctors, counsellors cannot replace psychologists. We’re trained to do things differently. We want to help stabilize family care. We want to meaningfully change family doctors’ level of stress, their level of burnout, their job satisfaction, their ability to effectively treat their patients.

[9:10 a.m.]

While this idea of primary care psychology may feel new and unfamiliar here in B.C., the truth is that it’s the standard of care in many places, many developed countries around the world — New Zealand, the U.K., others — and, in fact, just across the border to Alberta and down to the United States. These models of care are used widely in those places as well and, in fact, even here in B.C. In Vancouver in 2018 and, even more recently, in Burnaby in 2020, we’ve implemented these types of programs.

Right now some of you may be aware of the B Well program running in the Burnaby Division of Family Practice. It’s a smaller version of primary care psychology, where psychologists are supervising health coaches who are unlicensed. We are able to supervise them to provide a high level of service. Despite the ongoing pandemic, where in general our physical and mental health has declined in B.C., patients in the B Well program have significantly reduced their anxiety and depression, improved their physical activity, lost weight. It has been a resounding success, and physicians in that program have described it as a life-changing experience.

The problem is that we are struggling to retain our psychologists in that program. They are paid through the health authority, and there are significant disparities between those wages and even the wages that other government-approved psychologist reimbursement programs provide, like WorkSafe and ICBC. So we are losing the ability to retain psychologists, even in this one program.

We know that paying outside of the health authority in some ways costs more, but I’m happy to talk about cost. We know that for every $1 spent on psychologists, we can expect anywhere from $2 to $7 in terms of the return on investment, and we see those cost savings in many places. We see those in our health care system, in decreased health care utilization and decreased reliance on medications, and in our economy, in reduced disability and sick leave, which are leading drivers of cost locally.

We are both scientists and practitioners. As psychologists, we want to make things better, but we also want to be able to demonstrate that things are better. Now, last year we submitted a formal proposal to the government: the primary care psychologist program that asks for 50 psychologists to be placed into primary care. We’ve asked for three years, and in those three years, if our outcomes don’t show improved mental health, improved physical health, decreased ER visits, decreased family doctor visits and high levels of patient and provider satisfaction, you can pull our funding. But we don’t think you will.

Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much, Dr. Penner.

Lots of questions.

B. Bailey: Thank you, Dr. Penner, for your presentation. I’m just going to admit my ignorance on this question, so please don’t interpret it as being barbed. I just don’t know.

E. Penner: No. That’s okay.

B. Bailey: I’m trying to understand the model of seeing a patient for 20 or 30 minutes. My impression of psychology is that the long-term relationship is where change happens. So I wonder if you could just help me understand that, please.

E. Penner: Absolutely. That’s, I think, in psychology right now in our province, the specialist model. So it’s not a primary care model. It’s: “My problems have become more severe, and I need to see someone for longer-term care.”

Certainly, having psychologists in primary care doesn’t eliminate that need for specialty care. Some folks will need those eight or 12 sessions of one hour, for people with more severe mental health or physical health conditions. But this model is really looking at a more targeted treatment, so it’s an entirely different model. We’re catching people when their problems are mild and acute, when it’s easy to treat. So it’s just an entirely different model.

We actually do train psychologists specifically in this model because it does look so different. If you decided to go and find a psychologist because you said, “I have this long-term, quite severe social anxiety,” you would receive a different model of care.

Now, the nice thing is that we have tons of research from around the world showing that we can be extremely effective in these two to four sessions. Even here in Vancouver, when the pilot was set in Vancouver, in 2½ sessions, on average, of 15 to 30 minutes, we saw decreases in anxiety and depression and increases in quality of life, and that decreased health care utilization.

It is a different model, and it’s not surprising that you’re not familiar with it, because we just don’t largely have it here.

B. Bailey: Thank you very much.

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Erika, for your presentation.

You talk about having 50 psychologists doing the research throughout British Columbia. Obviously, we always want to measure based upon actual data itself too. So is there any other jurisdiction that’s outside of British Columbia so far that has tried something you suggested so far and actually has this hard data that can demonstrate a reduction of cost and reduction of visitation to family doctors that we could use to support your argument?

E. Penner: Yes, there are tons. We have Alberta. They’ve been doing this for over ten years. But we also have a lot of places in the United States. They, of course, track their outcomes closely because, as we know, insurance companies in the U.S. don’t do something unless it’s going to ultimately improve their bottom line. They’re not providing psychologists in primary care out of the kindness of their hearts, from what I understand.

I certainly can pull countless research studies. There’s actually a group in the United States that continually summarizes that data and actually has it in a table format. I’d be happy to share that with the committee if that would be helpful.

H. Yao: That would be great.

[9:15 a.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation. I’m a big advocate for mental health, so thank you for bringing this to our attention again. Dr. Lutes is one of my constituents, so I get to have lots of time with her.

I love the model. I love what it brings. My question is on recommendation No. 2, which is more the money side of it, so forgive my business background.

Looking at…. It kind of looks like it’s a both/and. It’s both ways — you know, the desire to be paid as an independent contractor at current market rates, which is $150 an hour, approximately, but then also have the overhead covered. In my world, when it’s an independent contractor, they’re also using their own resources, etc. Could you just explain that with the model a little bit better?

E. Penner: Absolutely. That’s a great question. I’m glad you brought it up, because cost really matters. We actually are off market rates, still, with that. In private practice, a psychologist would charge around $225. It’s going to go up to $250 an hour. So it is quite a bit below that. We try to be…. We’re still actually lower than WorkSafeBC and ICBC on an hourly basis with this rate. So even though they’re being paid as independent contractors, it is still quite a bit lower than what they would receive in their own private practices.

When we were determining those rates, what we used were the NP contracts and the GP contracts which are currently in place for PCNs, and the pharmacists’ model. Those were the contracts that we based our model off of — trying to have rates that were both still competitive enough to retain psychologists, to bring them in, but obviously not trying to meet those standard market rates, because we know that’s not feasible for our government.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you so much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Henry.

H. Yao: Renee can go, if you prefer.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. The clock’s a-tickin’.

R. Merrifield: My next question is just on the 7½ hours. My understanding of mental health supports, etc., is that it’s quite taxing to the practitioner. Is a 7½-hour workday actually a practical aspect?

E. Penner: Absolutely. What we now…. A lot of places, especially in the United States, do track how many patients folks can see in a day. In a 7½-hour day, we can see about ten to 12 patients, somewhere around there.

The nice thing is that we’re working with doctors, so we’re collaborating. We’re doing curbside consults. We’re having team meetings. Because that model allows us to do those other things, it takes the pressure off. We’re not seeing patients every single minute of the day, just the way family doctors aren’t. They’re having breaks, and they’re talking to their colleagues.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you, Dr. Penner, and thank you for such a hopeful, upbeat presentation. I think not a day goes by when we are not reminded that the health care system is in crisis and that we have to do something. You’ve given us a pretty concrete idea about what that something could look like.

E. Penner: It’s my pleasure. We’re available any time to chat.

J. Routledge (Chair): And thanks for the shout-out to Burnaby.

Our next presenter is Faydra Aldridge, representing the B.C. Schizophrenia Society.

Welcome. You know the drill.

F. Aldridge: I have a lot to say, so I’m going to do my best to get this done in five minutes.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay.

B.C. SCHIZOPHRENIA SOCIETY

F. Aldridge: Welcome, and thank you so much for having me, to have this opportunity. My name is Faydra Ald­ridge. I am the CEO of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society.

BCSS is a long-standing, community-based, provincial non-profit organization. BCSS provides vital front-line education and support for families right across B.C. impacted by schizophrenia and serious mental illnesses, including, obviously, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and severe depression.

BCSS is truly grateful for the provincial government’s commitment to improving access to and quality of mental health and addiction services for all British Columbians. The following recommendations outline ways to further improve the quality of life for at-risk youth, for families, caregivers and those living with severe and persistent mental illness.

Recommendation 1: increase support for community-based serious mental illness services and supports for B.C. families. In our province, schizophrenian psychosis create more social challenges than any other medical condition. It plays a disproportionate role in a person’s involvement with the criminal justice system, unemployment, homelessness, poverty and suicide rates.

Research shows that effective education and supports within the community for family members, caregivers and people with lived experience can do the following: help fill the gaps when shifting from psychiatric hospitals to out-patient community services, decrease the need for frequent ER visits and very costly hospital stays, help reduce and decrease the burden on front-line medical staff, decrease incarceration rates with those with serious mental illness, and help to reduce stigma.

[9:20 a.m.]

To help ensure that families continue to play this very vital role in assisting those with serious mental illness, BCSS is calling on the provincial government to continue prioritizing community support programs and services for family members. BCSS programs and services have been designed specifically to help family members within B.C., including those in the more rural and underserved areas of our province, and help them better cope and support loved ones living with a serious mental illness. The continued support and increase of community resources and education for serious mental illness will mean a reduced burden on both B.C.’s health and criminal justice systems.

Recommendation 2: increase awareness of the role that involuntary treatment and protections play in a person’s successful disease management, as well as developed services to minimize the need for involuntary admissions by improving community and hospital services. The stance of BCSS is that involuntary treatment is an integral part of the B.C. Mental Health Act and is essential for people who have a mental illness that requires treatment, pose a risk to themselves and/or to others and cannot be admitted voluntarily.

People who meet the above criteria are often those living with schizophrenia, bipolar and/or severe depression. BCSS prefers voluntary admissions where possible, but involuntary treatment under the B.C. Mental Health Act can help prevent the ongoing suffering, criminalization, homelessness, violence and family disruption that affects so many people living with severe and persistent mental illness.

Schizophrenia is not rare. One in 100 people have this illness, which means that approximately 50,000 British Columbians suffer from this illness, and 150,000 people suffer from psychosis. Many people living with this experience anosognosia, which is a brain-based inability to recognize that they are, in fact, ill. Anosognosia is a key factor that prevents people from seeking treatment, and when someone is too ill to be admitted voluntarily, others must step in to support them.

In addition to the need for improved community services to help prevent hospital admission, when that is not possible, the need for improved hospital services for the approximately 15,000 people that are admitted each year is very important. Patients are often kept in ER departments because of a shortage of beds, or discharged prematurely. The shortage of psychiatrists, nurses and beds in our province needs to be addressed.

Recommendation 3: increase mental health literacy about schizophrenia and serious mental illness. Stigma is one of the most prominent social challenges affecting people with serious mental illness. Common public attitudes and beliefs, which are often based in fear and misunderstandings, stereotype individuals and expose them to discrimination. Stigma plays a major role in limiting access to care and creating barriers in accessing employment, housing, etc.

Together, community organizations such as BCSS and the provincial government can improve the understanding and empathy of people living with mental illness by investing in more public education programs and awareness-raising campaigns. These actions will serve to increase awareness and help reduce stigma, leading to a province where those affected by severe and persistent mental illness receive effective treatment and support.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Faydra. I have so many questions. I’ll limit it to this one.The support for involuntary treatment — that’s one piece of it. But are there enough supported residential beds or treatment centres to help support someone after that first piece of the involuntary treatment?

F. Aldridge: Are you referring to within the hospital system…?

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Just in general, I guess. Once you’ve got somebody within the hospital system, the ability to move them, rather than a release back into community or to family. What’s the next step?

F. Aldridge: Well, that is a problem. There is a shortage of psychiatric beds within our province. Absolutely, that is an issue that does need to be addressed. Just as we heard with Erika, with our previous presentation, there is a shortage of psychiatrists, psychologists and nurses within our province as well.

[9:25 a.m.]

That is something that BCSS regularly hears from our families: that once somebody is taken into treatment and requires treatment, what happens next? That is something that we consistently hear from our families across the province.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for your advocacy work on this really important issue. It touches many of our lives. I have a question, actually, on the same as Karin, and that is on the involuntary treatment. But I’m going to go on at a different angle. I would love further clarification of how involuntary treatment, under the Mental Health Act, helps prevent the unnecessary ongoing suffering, criminalization, homelessness, violence and family disruption.

F. Aldridge: It’s a really good question, Renee, and absolutely it does. When somebody has a serious mental illness…. Like I said, anosognosia is a big word, but up to 90 percent of people experience anosognosia. What it means is that you no longer have the ability to recognize that you’re ill. If you lose that ability, you’re not going to be able to put up your hand and say: “I require treatment.” Same thing with Alzheimer’s or dementia. We do that for other people that are incapacitated in some other way. That’s where others must step in to support that person.

If a person is not supported and doesn’t receive effective treatment in a timely manner, then that’s what does lead to — let’s face it — violence, homelessness and family disruption. That’s what we are seeing more and more within the media, right now, in terms of violence. That’s where involuntary treatment is such an essential part of our Mental Health Act for that very reason.

H. Yao: I’m going to be talking ad nauseum here. I guess my two questions…. You’re talking about the importance of involuntary treatment. How often, when involuntary treatment is actually implemented, are the stress and financial burden for the family members alleviated? Do you have any data to show or support how the families are able to function?

We understand sometimes that when an individual is suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, their behaviour could be erratic, could be unpredictable and cause chaos among family members. That actually creates, unfortunately, liability for family to spend extra time to work and look after them. Does any data support how this is actually going to help other family members to continue on with normal daily life so they can continue functioning and supporting their own individual lives as well?

F. Aldridge: I just want to be clear on your question. You’re wondering if there’s any data to support the need for family involvement with somebody.

H. Yao: I apologize. My question is: when a person is involuntarily sent to treatment…. Obviously, we’re talking about how the family members surrounding the individual are now released to live their own lives, so we’re talking about more of the social equity level. How much social return are they actually able to accumulate, being able to go back to work? Are they able to continue with their lives, able to go back to their families?

It’s just supporting the individual who requires additional professional medical treatment. Now, through involuntary treatment, the family is able to return back to their own lives for momentary relief. Hopefully, with the proper medication, everything can be resuming to normal.

F. Aldridge: Right, yeah. Thanks for that clarification. That is the hope: that once a person receives treatment…. Research consistently demonstrates that the faster an individual can receive treatment, the better the outcomes. Not only the better outcomes for the individual, but also for the family members that are surrounding that individual. That’s where involuntary treatment is so critical. Once they receive treatment, then, yes, they can perhaps go on to lead a normal life — whatever normal means to that individual. Like you said, whether that means having a job or leading that life….

But that’s where an individual having the option, and the family and the B.C. Mental Health Act protecting those individuals…. That’s why it’s so essential. We need to have those services in place for the people that are no longer able to care for themselves and can be harm to them or to other people within our society.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Faydra. We are out of time, but there are more questions. People are very interested and engaged in what you’re saying. Thank you for introducing us to the concept of anosognosia. That’s a new one for me, but it so explains and provides a context for what you’re recommending and the passion with which you’re recommending it.

F. Aldridge: Absolutely, and I’m happy to answer any other questions, so please do not hesitate to ever reach out to me. We have a very strong medical advisory board and policy. Happy to answer any other questions.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Mike Klassen, representing the B.C. Care Providers Association.

Welcome.

[9:30 a.m.]

B.C. CARE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION

M. Klassen: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the select standing committee for inviting B.C. Care Providers and EngAge B.C. to present to you today.

My name is Mike Klassen. I’m the vice-president of public affairs for the organization. Our CEO, Terry Lake, sends his regrets, as he was called away to Vancouver Island today on some important business, including the marriage of one of his three daughters.

Through our association, we speak for the majority of organizations that provide seniors health care and support services in care homes and at home. BCCPA presents to this committee each year, and we are always appreciative of the acknowledgment we receive in the committee’s final report.

Members of the committee will already know what statisticians have told us for decades: that Canada’s society is aging. Furthermore, in little more than 12 years from now, by the mid-2030s, we face a potential future whereby our system can no longer keep up with the demands of an aging population. A report published by the Royal Bank chief economist in 2020 identified our aging demographic as one of Canada’s two existential threats. The other was climate change.

Long waiting lists reveal that we are already short thousands of long-term-care beds. As we reach our elderly years, just under two out of ten of us will need some level of round-the-clock nursing care, while the rest of us will live comfortably while being supported at home.

To build one long-term-care bed today costs approximately $350,000 when you include the price of land, which fluctuates depending upon the community. Once approved for construction, it’ll be no less than five years and often closer to seven years before that bed is occupied. No government, regardless of the resources it has available, can immediately bring new care beds on stream. Everyone, including private and not-for-profit operators, has a role to play in addressing the demand.

According to the research conducted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, British Columbia alone needs to build another 2,250 care beds per year until 2040 to meet demand. The Ministry of Health is well aware of what is on the horizon and is taking steps toward addressing the demands of new infrastructure and labour shortages.

The standing committee, in its final report, could provide its own full-throated support by backing key measures to support our older adults and keep our public health care system strong and sustainable under immense pressure. We ask the committee to throw their support behind five initiatives that, in the long run, will make the system more resilient for B.C.’s older adults as well as their families and the people that care for them.

Our first recommendation is to support the establishment of a new funding formula for long-term care. Its key principle should be that it is timely, sustainable, equitable and transparent. Funding must reflect the true cost of labour and benefits for care staff, food, support services, construction, debt-servicing, building operations and account for inflation.

Recommendation No. 2 is to support initiatives to grow the health care workforce, including apprenticeship programs, training, college tuition, bursaries for internationally trained health care workers, funding to allow workers to ladder up their careers as well as support for mental health in the workplace. To meet rising demand, it is estimated that B.C. needs another net new 19,000 health care aides and nurses at the bedside by next decade.

Recommendation No. 3 is funding for climate mitigation. This includes retrofitting care homes with systems to address heat and air quality issues relating to wildfires and other impacts relating to our changing climate.

Recommendation No. 4 is to support quality of life for older adults. These important initiatives may include funding for supporting national standards for long-term care or for culturally appropriate food and programs.

Finally, recommendation No. 5 is to support the replenishment of the EquipCare B.C. infrastructure funding after 2022. These dollars, which support assisted living and LTC operators with new equipment, improve quality of life for seniors and keep workers safe.

BCCPA will provide more background in its follow-up written submission. Thank you for your time today.

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

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

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Mike. It’s great to see you this morning.

[9:35 a.m.]

I have a lot of questions, but I’ll start with one. How far off are we on the funding formula today? What’s the differential between what we fund today and where we need to go?

M. Klassen: The funding formula, as it stands today, is actually a bit of mystery, because it has evolved over years and through different governments, in different health authorities. As a result, we have a patchwork of different application of how we fund long-term care right across the system.

What is being undertaken right now, and as we saw recently in the news, is there has been a lot of investment into trying to understand how the system currently works and bringing together new ideas on how to fund that. I was listening very closely to budget estimates, and the Health Minister said that that process will begin to open up this fall. We’re waiting for that invitation to meet with the sector, and we have been doing our own preparations on trying to really clearly understand how the funding should work for long-term care.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I really appreciate your presentation.

I guess the challenge right now that I am having is: what can we also do to encourage seniors to be able to stay home longer as well?

Obviously, you guys are providing a perspective from B.C. Care Providers, so you focus more on long-term care. I guess from your angle, when the person stays longer and has spent more time at home as a senior, does it somehow alleviate the stress from the long-term-care-bed shortage? Or is it something that sooner or later is going to be an issue, whether we like it or not?

M. Klassen: I don’t think we can build our way out of this problem, so it’s a really good question. Just to be clear, our members include home health operators that support people at home, provide everything from medication to support to cleaning their kitchen and that sort of work, as well, through a number of private agencies, which are under-accounted for. They actually do provide a significant amount of care for older adults at home.

The question is a complex one, because I do agree that we do…. By and large, people hold to the idea that they will live out their years in their home. But what that home is, is sort of changing and evolving as well. Living at home isolated — we can see what happened last year during the heat dome. Social isolation brings with it serious health consequences, some of which were described by your previous speaker. We do have cognitive decline that comes from that kind of isolated living.

We need to really, I think, support how we create age-friendly communities. That’s not something that this committee can wave a magic wand and make happen. But I do believe that it requires all levels of government, particularly local government, to start thinking about how they can make communities provide housing in the right place, around where people can maintain their connections to community. That’s going to keep people healthier longer.

The problem that we face right now is that people are getting so old living in their homes that by the time they go into care, they have very complex health issues. What we need to do is to try and find ways for people to maintain both their mental health and their physical health for as long as possible.

J. Routledge (Chair): Before I go back to Renee for a second question, anyone who has a first question?

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

My question is around the comment that you made about five to six years to get that concept into a reality where there’s a door and a doorknob to get inside of that room. What are the barriers or what are the issues that are there that makes it so long? We know that if you go into an area with an OCP and you want to build a house, you can build a house in probably six months.

M. Klassen: Well, just to give you one example, the most recent RFP put out by Interior Health was in September 2020. Of those five RFPs, only one has been formally announced. There are no shovels in the ground. We’re almost two years into that process. There are delays around decision-making, but there are also the construction materials, permits at the local level. It is, unfortunately, a very exacting process to get those kinds of care homes built to standard. It does take a long time, unfortunately. It’s just the way things are here.

It would be nice if we could turn around something in six months. We see how some…. Overseas, they’ve been able to put up hospitals in a matter of weeks. The fact is that it takes a long time to try and build that kind of infrastructure in our community.

R. Merrifield: I get round two.

What would be your suggestion for the 2,250 a year that we require through the rest of this decade? How do we actually get to that place?

[9:40 a.m.]

M. Klassen: It’s a really daunting number. I think we also have to listen to people like the seniors advocate who think that we need kind of a mixture of solutions. Some of that will be investment in care at home. Some of it will be re-evaluating how assisted living works.

Also, I think it is going to involve a lot more of the private sector. I realize that whenever that comes up, there is always this initial anxiety around whether we are undermining our public health care system. But the fact is that we are a mixed system. Currently, in British Columbia, about one-third of our care homes are government owned and operated. One-third are non-profit, and one-third are for-profit.

Of the most recent RFPs that the government has issued, they’ve gone to for-profit companies. The reason is that they’re fantastic companies. They deliver fantastic services. They have excellent teams that provide the care for operators.

We’re living in an environment where that becomes controversial. But the fact is…. The decisions are being made to include all operators, including private operators in the sector.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Mike. Thank you for alerting us to a potential health care crisis and quality-of-life crisis in the future. Thank you for thinking ahead and offering some solutions that could help us avoid that crisis.

Our next presenter is Alison Silgardo, representing the Seniors Services Society of B.C.

Welcome, Alison. You have five minutes to make your presentation — we’ve got a timer there — followed by five minutes for questions and answers.

SENIORS SERVICES SOCIETY OF B.C.

A. Silgardo: Wonderful. Thank you so much for having me here. My reason for being here is around homelessness prevention for older adults. Having heard the previous two speakers, I can’t reiterate enough how critical that is.

Government has been gracious and has funded us with the SHINE funding, which is Seniors Housing Information and Navigation Ease, for the past two years. As a result of that, we’ve been able to drill down to some of the reasons for the homelessness. While there may be many, I just wanted to bring three and flag three here that we need support on quickly to prevent, in a way, system abuse.

In the last three years that we’ve had SHINE and we’ve been identifying the reasons for homelessness, 22 percent of the seniors we served were homeless as a result of the disconnect between provincial funding and federal funding. On their 65th birthday, they were kicked off provincial funding, as they should. They weren’t kicked into federal funding, as a result of which, they were made homeless and were in critical shape. After about six or eight months, federal funding kicked in, because they were eligible. In the meantime, they were homeless, sometimes violated, and then they got a lump sum of about $12,000 to $15,000.

With SHINE, we’ve been able to identify the problem. That’s 22 percent of seniors who don’t need to be homeless. Small bridge funding to be able to hold that. Then, when they get their funding instated, actually take it back, retroactively. So it would cost the government a third less, potentially more, and it would prevent the homelessness of 22 percent of the seniors we serve. So that’s one big ask.

The other problem is around a systems piece that we don’t have a solution for directly. It’s housing related. If there was a way we could bridge, meeting with the Ministry of Housing….

It’s around the old models of housing. We see, on average, three seniors a week, who come to us, that are pushed out of co-op housing because they no longer can participate, which is what defrays their costs. On average, their monthly charges go up between $500 to $1,000 a month. They can’t pay it, and they’re forced out. There is no option for them, other than going to court. These are low-income senior renters. That’s not an option.

The system is causing a lot of homelessness for seniors. The number, just in the Lower Mainland, has gone up five times in ten years. Fifty percent are people who do not have English as a first language, which adds its own complexity.

My request today is to see…. We’ve heard the costs from B.C.’s care home providers and from complex care, and we know it is more cost-effective for seniors to be staying in their own homes.

Our request is to have SHINE funding reinstated for five years, with an expansion to 15 nodes. Right now we have it at eight nodes across the province. We see the effect of it. If we can have it with 15 nodes across the province…. Each node would handle three municipalities — there are 52, approximately, in the province — with funding that is underlying so that they can bridge that gap.

[9:45 a.m.]

Then, of course, once it is reinstated by the federal government…. So it’s more of a bridge funding.

That’s my request. Nothing too complex. I mean, there are lots of problems and lots of system pieces. I think that would be, at least, a low-hanging fruit, from our perspective, that would prevent homelessness.

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

Yes, we have a lot of questions.

Karin, Brenda and then Henry.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I find it very troubling, this 22 percent of seniors, and this is just a process issue.

Is there value to having the province support just the senior in the application for…? I don’t know what triggers that federal funding. But something that can be done prior to the 65th birthday that would help to bridge that gap. As well, what makes sense is this bridge funding, if it comes to that.

A. Silgardo: Absolutely. I mean, with technology and, particularly, computers being able to help us get to the moon, God knows we can do that.

I’m sure there is funding infrastructure that needs to be invested in to connect the dots. Currently provincial funding is funded to the landlord. Federal funding is provided to the individual. So I’m sure there’s a technical piece there.

Also, mindful that the provincially funded individuals are quite often low-income senior renters and, in this current environment, are moving from home to home, government may not have their current address for the last year to reach out to them before their 65th birthday. It may go to the wrong place. A lot of them are couch-surfing with friends and family. So there’s that piece.

In the most recent past, in the last year…. On average, we get a call at least once or twice a month about mobile parks being sold for highest and best value. They’re mostly seniors. We have 140, 150 seniors a month that are becoming homeless. Their current rent is $545. Anything in the market is about $1,200. Even SAFER doesn’t meet it. So it’s problematic.

Prevention…. Yeah, this is just one step. I mean, there’s a much bigger problem. We know that. I don’t expect to boil the whole sea, but if we can do one thing towards this, it would be fantastic.

B. Bailey: Thank you very much for your presentation. I’m wondering if I could just understand the nodes a little bit more. I think you said that each one supports three municipalities. Is that right?

A. Silgardo: Yes. When we reached out to government about four years ago and asked for the SHINE funding, recognizing there was a navigation problem in the system, we were given funding to establish one node in each region of the province. So there was a person or an agency that supported homeless seniors, that was equipped with training and technology to be able to support a senior and to be able to report it.

There’s no real seniors homelessness report for the province yet. We have it for the Lower Mainland annually, but we don’t have one for the province. In the absence of that data, this group, then, developed that.

Some of the outer regions are quite widespread. So having a node in three areas of the region that could kind of be mobile. When they had the fire in Lytton…. They had the North Van fire recently. An entire building of 37, 47 people, who were seniors, were homeless. So being able to have a mobile navigator get there who had the skills, training and to be able to reach out in that home territory or — they were put up at UBC — go there and be able to address it without having to have all of the seniors truck into a place to do their paperwork.

From a systems piece, why that navigation is important is…. Every piece that a senior needs to access in a time of crisis is through a portal. Most of them are not tech savvy. Most of them can’t afford that technology.

If any of you have been on a call with Service Canada…. It’s not negating what Service Canada does, which is good. This is not a complaint. They’re on there, and for their security, they’ll say to the senior, with us present: “Can you give us the dollar value on line X of your last year’s tax return?” God knows, I wouldn’t remember it. I know the senior doesn’t. If the senior stumbles over it, they go: “Well, this is a security question. If you can’t answer it….” They hang up.

If the person has had a stroke and they are struggling with speaking — I’m sorry if I’m getting a bit emotional now; it’s a bit challenging — they go: “Well, if English is not your first language, get an interpreter.” All that person is doing is struggling with a stroke.

B. Bailey: I can understand why you feel emotional.

A. Silgardo: I apologize.

B. Bailey: No, that’s okay. I think you’ve got us all with you.

H. Yao: Unfortunately, I want to ask a question that might get you a bit emotional too. Sorry.

[9:50 a.m.]

First of all, I will piggyback off some of my previous questions. I’m going piggyback off what Brenda was asking earlier. Is there any way that maybe our constituency assistants for our offices could be trained by you guys to maybe provide some kind of support to help our local seniors when they come to our offices as well?

A. Silgardo: Absolutely. We’ve been doing that for years. Seniors Services has been doing training, capacity-building, for the province for years.

We’ve typically had about 15 agencies come to our training, which we run provincially. In the last year, we’ve had 37 — so much so that even private sector landlords, like LandlordBC, and the city of Vancouver have reached out to us and said: “Will you train every building manager?”

That is so critical. Even private sector landlords are going: “Well, I don’t know that I want to house a senior.” There’s that whole piece of ageism. If you go with a senior to a rental unit and there are eight other people, the senior never gets it just because of that fear that they’re going to be a problem.

We have a tremendous interest in knowledge mobilization and training and a recognition that the senior has got…. Everything is in place. They have got a stable income until they die. There’s no reason not to house them, but there is a need to get to that, yeah.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Alison. A question. The nodes. I’m wondering if you could tell us the communities….

I’m just looking online. I don’t see it. I guess when you say expand it to 15, I think you said…. Tell me. Where is it now, and where is it not? Then how much money is involved here? What does a senior get from SHINE?

A. Silgardo: Okay. Currently the SHINE funding is to provide the navigation services, the actual high touch, low tech. They do that one-on-one. They get the seniors to put their papers together, actually sit with them, go to government, get their identities.

A lot of them are in this gap. A person who has been on provincial funding had all the identities verified 25 years ago. Now, to get federal funding, they need all of that verified again. Just getting their documents, getting all of those IDs in place…. If you haven’t been through the process, it can take a little while, a few months. No fault of anybody. So just actually navigating that process with them is what takes the time.

Currently we have $60,000 a year for each of the nodes for their navigator, that we train and develop. Right now they have no underlying funding. They all navigate the hell out of everybody who comes to them, but they have no funding to actually deliver on it. This is the reason for the ask. My hope is that we can provide each node at least $100,000, which is not a lot in the grand scheme but at least gives them that bridge if they can’t get it from elsewhere.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Alison. Thank you for your very emotional and passionate advocacy for seniors and for shining a light on what should be a fixable problem and a frustration that, together, we should be able to fix.

A. Silgardo: Thank you. There is nobody in government that is…. There’s no seniors ministry. With the largest demographic of seniors here, there is no ministry.

In the absence of a person responsible, we go to Health. They go: “No, this is a Housing issue. Go to Housing.” You go to Housing. They go: “Well, this is not quite us. You should go to Health. It’s a mental health issue.” We’re getting pushed around.

If there’s anything that we can add to have a body that will actually be responsible, it would be fantastic.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you.

Our next presenter is Denise Praill, representing Canuck Place Children’s Hospice society.

Welcome, Denise. You have five minutes. There’s the timer. When you wrap up, we have up to five minutes to ask you some questions.

CANUCK PLACE CHILDREN’S HOSPICE

D. Praill: Thank you so much. My name is Denise Praill, and I’m the chief executive officer of Canuck Place Children’s Hospice. Thank you very much for inviting us again to present to the committee.

Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you today and the work of Canuck Place takes place on the traditional, unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

Today I would like to address the gap in B.C. palliative care policy, which currently excludes children aged 19 and under. Amending this policy will provide further support and resources to this segment of the medically fragile population.

Canuck Place is B.C.’s pediatric palliative care provider, offering critical services to our province’s most vulnerable children and youth. We operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year providing specialized care for children from birth until age 19 with life-limiting conditions or illnesses.

[9:55 a.m.]

More than 830 newborns, children and youth and their families received care through Canuck Place last year. With our in-patient, in-community and in-home care, virtual care and 24-hour nursing line, our families receive care no matter where they reside in the province, right where they need it.

Our approach to palliative care includes medical and nursing care; art, music and recreation therapy; counselling; bereavement services; medical respite for families; and in-home and in-community care. We operate two hospices, one in Vancouver and one in Abbotsford, and we also provide responsive, specialized care to children in homes, hospitals and communities throughout the province.

Pediatric palliative care is a recognized subspecialty, and the services and models differ significantly from that of adult palliative care. Children are cared for from the time of their diagnosis until end of life — which is an average of seven years on our program — after which point their loved ones are supported through the grief and bereavement period. Quality pediatric palliative care is whole-person, holistic care that improves quality of life, manages symptoms, alleviates suffering and respects family choice. It is relational care that is team-based, collaborative and family-centred.

Due to the complexity of providing pediatric palliative care, medical practitioners caring for adult palliative patients are not appropriately specialized to provide care to pediatric patients. Most pediatric patients have care needs — including access to medical technology, difficult symptoms and pain issues — that in adult services would typically be managed in a hospital.

In B.C., the Ministry of Health directs the provision of end-of-life care largely through regional health authorities. Especially, populations like those cared for by Canuck Place are served through the Provincial Health Services Authority. It is the Ministry of Health’s palliative and end-of-life-care policy that covers health authority–delivered palliative and end-of-life-care services in the home, community and hospital settings.

However, children and youth are currently excluded from this policy scope and, correspondingly, much of the related government support. As such, Canuck Place is encouraging the committee to advocate for the inclusion of those aged 19 and under in the palliative and end-of-life-care policy to ensure adequate specialized care for this segment of the medically fragile population.

With our expertise and extensive partnerships in the health and community sectors, Canuck Place is uniquely positioned to support the province in amending this policy in such a way that it will meet the unique needs of families in B.C. who are in need of pediatric palliative care support. We have existing partnerships focused on providing education and training to clinicians in the province in order to increase their knowledge and competencies for caring for seriously ill children. We are a training site for UBC pediatrics medical residents, and we routinely support undergraduate nursing student education through clinical placements and teaching activities by our staff.

We have recently been approved by Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons to be a full pediatric palliative medicine training program location, only the second site in the country. We also collaborate with the B.C. Centre for Palliative Care and Child Health B.C. to advance knowledge and engage in quality improvement initiatives throughout the system that improve care for children and families.

In partnership with B.C. Children’s Hospital Research Institute and UBC, Canuck Place participates in a clinical research program that creates new knowledge and innovation. Our medical director, Dr. Hal Siden, is the principal investigator of the world’s first multicentre team of pediatric palliative care researchers to study children with life-threatening conditions and their families, with an emphasis on comfort and quality of life.

In closing, on behalf of the whole team at Canuck Place, I look forward to our continued partnership with the government of B.C. Thank you all for your time today and for your consideration of our recommendation to amend the Ministry of Health’s palliative and end-of-life-care policy to include children and youth aged 19 and under.

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

We have questions.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): These may be silly questions, but why is there an exclusion for those under 19? Have you asked for this before?

D. Praill: Actually, Canuck Place was part of the Ministry of Health’s palliative care committee. That committee was divided — I’m going to say about three or four years ago — into subcommittees. PHSA and Canuck Place were relegated…. I feel like I’m on a sports team here. We were placed on a subcommittee, but Canuck Place was not invited to that committee. So we are looking for an invitation back.

We’re trying to describe the expertise that we bring to the province. We want to help correct the situation.

B. Stewart: That was my question. I can’t imagine that it’s not….

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the advocacy today and for informing us. You’ve got almost 10 percent of the entire MLA crew here, so this is a great place to start.

D. Praill: Brilliant. Thank you.

[10:00 a.m.]

R. Merrifield: You know, I’m curious. It’s not just adding the younger-than-19s to the current policy — it’s what I’m understanding from what you’re saying — because of the unique needs that children would have. Is it an augmentation of the current design of palliative care? Or is it actually almost a separate segment or a separate policy that we’d require?

D. Praill: Thank you for that question, Renee. Absolutely, pediatric palliative care is a designated specialty. We are recognized through Child Health B.C. as a tier 6 provider of that specialized care. The policy used to address us together, and we were separated out.

I think this is something I’d like to explore. If I could advocate that this committee invite us to the table, that’s really what we’re looking to do. Again, we work hand in glove with B.C. Children’s Hospital and B.C. Women’s in supporting those vulnerable populations. I just want to make sure that Canuck Place and pediatric palliative care is spoken to in that end-of-life policy.

B. Bailey: Thanks, Denise. Nice to see you. Thank you for all of the incredible work that you do.

D. Praill: Nice to see you, Brenda.

B. Bailey: I just want to understand further — I’m sorry if I missed this in your presentation; I was madly typing away — really, the implication of that exclusion. I think funding might not be the implication. Or is it? Are there financial impacts to what you’re advocating for? What might they be? If you could just help me understand that little bit, please.

D. Praill: Canuck Place is funded from the province of British Columbia. About 45 percent of our annual operating budget is funded through the Ministry of Health. Those dollars flow through PHSA to Canuck Place. The balance of our funding is donor-funded, so private corporate sponsorship. We do have a strong fundraising team. We really appreciate that partnership.

What’s limited in our funding agreement with the province is that our funding is flat. We do have a set amount that comes to Canuck Place every year. The number of referrals from B.C. Children’s and B.C. Women’s has been increasing. I believe the number is around 34 percent or 35 percent in the last few years. We’re being asked to do more with this flat funding.

Ultimately, there is a funding undercurrent to this, I guess, and my curiosity was: if we set our policy correctly, would that allow funding? There’s a great example. A couple of years ago, the federal government actually made some transfer payments to the province for adult palliative care. We were missed in that, because those funds were then directed through those health authorities. Because we sit in that provincial space, we were excluded from that funding.

There could be opportunities like that. If the policy did speak to supporting this population, we would have been a recipient of some help.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, then, we’ll wrap up this part of our day. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention and for all the work that Canuck Place does.

D. Praill: It is a wonderful team of care providers. Thank you for your kind words.

J. Routledge (Chair): It’s kind of hard to get one’s mind around, one’s heart around, as you call it, life-limiting illnesses in children. The support you provide them and their families is incredible.

Our next presenter is Tanya Fawkes, representing CAOT B.C.

Interjection.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. You’re now on record.

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS,
B.C. CHAPTER

T. Fawkes: Thank you for having me. It’s so exciting to be back in person and not just a quick five minutes on Zoom. My name is Tanya Fawkes, and I’m the regional director for the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. I’m also an occupational therapist. We represent approximately 1,700 of the around 3,000 OTs that work in B.C. in all sectors of health care and in all corners of the province.

As I’m sure you all know, we’re one of the 14 priority professions identified by the Ministry of Health that are in most need of focus for recruitment and retention to support the health care of British Columbians. Obviously, this rating sounds important and impressive, but I feel like it doesn’t boil down to the full understanding of how it actually is impacting how people are living in British Columbia and lacking the support that occupational therapists can bring to their care.

I’m going to be quick here and then follow up with specific info in our written submission. The big picture, obviously, is that we need more OTs in B.C. We know that from the Ministry of Health’s ranking.

[10:05 a.m.]

I really feel like we need to start to get into that creative space where we’re crossing ministries and really figuring out how that is going to happen. Like the B.C. care association, you can see that the five-year plan is not going to meet the demand in just that one sector of health. Now we’re piling on kids and primary care as big users as well.

We are uniquely skilled to support the primary care and family connection centres, WorkSafe and ICBC clients, as well as all the people that we help to recover and rehabilitate while in hospital and that we support in their community lives. Thankfully, our value in the care for people in their most vulnerable states is being well recognized by most ministries now and by fee-payers in B.C.

I really have to cheerlead B.C. I’m proud, when I’m sitting nationally, of how much you guys all know of what OTs are. Thank you. But there are just not enough of us to work in these innovative and renewed systems that are being developed and that we’re really needed in.

Growing the workforce to meet the demands will take some creative solutions, like I said, and some ongoing and I think increased funding in ministries, such as Advanced Ed, the Ministry of Health, MCFD and more. Specific issues of concern that we chew around often are lack of training capacity; lower wages compared to other prov­inces — that’s an embarrassing one when we’re sitting at the national level, and in both the public and private sector we’re quite a ways behind; and the inability for professionals to work to the full scope of their profession.

A more specific and pressing concern for the upcoming budget years, obviously, is that we need to ensure there’s adequate and solid funding to support the development of the family connection centres, the MCFD hub model changes that are coming. Families have been falling through the gaps in the current and past pediatric funding model for decades.

The change towards the theoretical concepts of needs-based access is something that we can solidly get behind, but it needs to be carried out well, with the workforce required. With the way that the workforce sits right now, it’s very pieced together, with gum and duct tape. It crosses public and private funding, and I don’t see how it’s going to be possible, in the next phase, to not be able to somehow include all those numbers of all the health care providers in that system.

Considering that it’s already moving forward — we have an RFP out — it will take quick and effective use of the existing mixed workforce. But we need to make sure that there’s enough funding there to really improve that situation in the coming years, leading up to 2025, when the changes are intended to be complete.

Just to give you an example, the recommended caseloads haven’t been met since the 1990s, which is also the last time that there was a change in pay for significant parts of the at-home program, for the service providers in that program. It’s a welcome change, but we’re really feeling that it needs to be done well, because it’s barely limping along right now.

Then, obviously, the other specific recommendation is to just make sure that there is good-quality access to occupational therapists in the primary care reform that’s ongoing. We’re seeing that the implementation and use of adequate complements of multidisciplinary teams is not occurring in the way that appeared to be originally intended when it was first announced.

There’s a miss happening on actual hiring of the teams and making sure that there are full complements on those teams. I think it’s related to workforce issues as well. Obviously, if there is some mandate and money coming to be able to enforce that and that needs to be met, I think it could make a difference.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you. Our first question is from Karin.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for that. You had mentioned an inability for professionals to work to their full scope of their profession. Can you explain what you mean by that?

T. Fawkes: It depends which area you’re working in. Occupational therapists are looking at the whole picture most of the time. To Henry’s question, about how do we keep them out of long-term care, that’s OT. But most of us aren’t allowed to work in that sphere. You’re working in acute care, and you’re just trying to get them out. Or you’re working in long-term care, and the only thing you’re able to do, because of your caseload, is to make sure they’re not getting pressure sores in wheelchairs.

It’s limited. The priority criteria come about because there’s a lack of bodies to provide the care. We can’t do our full meal deal and get into the space where we’re keeping people out of long-term-care beds to begin with, as an example.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for being here today and for advocating.

My question is on how we get more bodies. There’s such a huge hiring need. What would be the one or two recruitment aspects that are required for that change?

[10:10 a.m.]

T. Fawkes: For sure. There were 222 new registrants to the college last year, and only 50 were graduated out of UBC, and that’s with the growth of adding the north program. So for sure we need more training to happen. Then I think the other space…. We’re already poaching quite a few from across Canada in other schools, to be honest.

I think, internationally…. We need to make it easier for international applicants. They turn away from B.C., because it’s too hard to get…. It’s too expensive to live here with the way that the pay is. This is what we hear from people, and they go work in Saskatchewan or Ontario, where they can make a bit more money, and there’s funding to support their licensing process as international OTs.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for bringing up the importance of trying to keep allowing people to live at home right now. If you don’t mind me asking, if we are able to get a number of bodies, get a number of funding to allow occupational therapists to be able to live with full capacity, do you have any data about how much savings that would be providing for our Ministry of Health, in regard to allowing us to keep people functional, improve their quality of life and also keep a fiscally justifiable investment?

T. Fawkes: For sure. There’s definitely literature between falls and the acute revolving door that happens with seniors, which I’m going to…. We’ll include those specifics in our written. There are too many of them, I felt like, to include in here.

We do know from COVID that at least three in nine people sitting in long-term-care beds right now could be managed at home with appropriate…. Environmental changes is the biggest. The modifications to the physical space is what kicks people into long-term-care beds — and obviously, like Mike was saying, the community support and social integration around them. I would say whatever a long-term-care bed costs — three of nine.

Then we do know, from the falls related to acute care…. It’s actually, I think, the biggest savings if we make changes to keep people from even going into the system in the first place.

B. Stewart: Just to clarify, you made a comment about the wage structure, and then when you talked about At Home, you mentioned that there hadn’t been an increase or something since the 1990s, or….

T. Fawkes: The At Home program…. We’re leaving it behind, thankfully, but the last time there was a rate change for OTs and PTs in the At Home program was 1996, and they’re $80 an hour.

B. Stewart: So what do you mean that you’re leaving it behind?

T. Fawkes: Well, we, I think…. We’re moving into the hub model, and hopefully, they’re going to come with a little bit better pay structure than from the ’90s. MCFD is changing over to the family connection centres and the hub model, so I’m hopeful there’ll be an upgrade to the fee structures for the professionals.

B. Stewart: So just to follow on that, we were talking about seniors, and I’m thinking about people that are in long-term care and going home, etc. How is the hub model going to help?

T. Fawkes: Separate issue, sorry. OTs are, I think, right now…. Peds — that’s definitely a big area, where it’s being moved along by MCFD quite quickly, and OTs work strongly in pediatrics and at the senior….

B. Stewart: Okay. Thank you for clarifying.

T. Fawkes: Yes, no problem.

B. Stewart: I’m trying to think about the program we’re leaving behind. How is that going to improve getting people out of long-term care?

T. Fawkes: Totally. Peds — not the elder community.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, that wraps up our time, Tanya. Thank you very much for your presentation and the energy that you put into it. It made it very accessible.

You’ve made it very clear that a lack of OTs can be a real barrier to our vision of team-based, community-based health care. I hope you find it reassuring when I tell you that a strong theme throughout a lot of the presentations has been to address recruitment and retention in a number of things, so we need a systemwide response to that.

We are now on recess until 10:20. So it’s a short recess.

The committee recessed from 10:14 a.m. to 10:21 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Meena Brisard, representing the Hospital Employees Union.

Welcome, Meena. You have five minutes to make your presentation — we have a timer — and then up to five minutes for follow-up questions and discussion. So over to you.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION

M. Brisard: Great. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.

We’re on the traditional lands of the Coast Salish people, the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

My name is Meena Brisard, and I am the secretary–business manager for the Hospital Employees Union. I’m recovering from COVID, 18 days in, so I may be a little bit coughy. HEU represents approximately 50,000 members in all areas of the health care system, such as acute care hospitals, residential care facilities, community group homes, outpatient critics and medical labs — just to name a few.

Today I want to share three recommendations that HEU believes will improve the working and care conditions in B.C.’s health care system.

Our first recommendation focuses on the accountability of public funding for long-term care. HEU wants to ensure that public dollars are used to deliver quality care to seniors by strengthening accountability measure for funding to long-term-care operators. To do so, we need to standardize wages and benefits and funding approaches across health authorities, and the reporting and monitoring of staffing levels, hours of work and staff turnover rates.

Privatization and contracting out has resulted in deteriorating working conditions, lower wages and substandard benefits for our members. Introducing a standard wage across this sector will reduce the incentive that has attracted for-profit operators who suppress wage levels to generate profits for stakeholders in the current system.

The equitable approach, including standardized compensation across this sector, will reduce the constant churn of staff moving from employment with private contractors to health authority–owned and –operated sites, where better working conditions are found. Better working conditions are essential to better care for our seniors.

As you are all aware, B.C.’s health care system has experienced a chronic staffing shortage, and it’s a crisis. This situation has gotten worse during the pandemic. Our second recommendation focuses on investing and recruitment and retention of health care workers through an approach that offers career paths to existing workers and is underpinned by solid diversity, equity and inclusion principles.

We need to offer career mobility and education opportunities to all workers regardless of whether they work for health authorities or for private employers. We must reduce the reliance on casual, part-time and temporary positions and create more permanent full-time positions that can support workers and support their families.

[10:25 a.m.]

It’s critical that we create inclusive work environments, with staff teams reflecting the diversity of the patients and residents our health care system serves. We must work with cultural service providers and Indigenous organizations to recruit new entrants to the health care workforce. Equally as important, we must work with these organizations to support new entrants through their education experiences and introduction to the health care workforce.

Our third and final recommendation really encourages the government to ensure that all newly built long-term-care facilities be non-profit. It’s time for government to develop a capital plan for seniors care, one that rebalances the ownership patterns in this sector.

For the past 19 years, the majority of new beds in the long-term-care sector have been funded through per-diem payments from health authorities to facility operators. This model results in higher capital costs. Operators divide the per-diem payments between care costs, including staffing, food, activities and supplies, as well as capital costs, administrative costs and profits. Under this model, care home chains have emerged and hold a larger share of the available long-term-care bed stock. This undermines the government’s ability to control access to care for seniors and to ensure high quality of care.

Health authorities and non-profit groups have limited access to capital to develop or expand long-term-care and assisted-living facilities. HEU believes that it’s critical for this government to develop a capital building program that can help non-commercial service providers build more seniors care facilities.

In closing, for this round of budget submissions, HEU recommends that the government of British Columbia focus on the accountability of public funds in the long-term-care sector, on the recruitment and retention of health care workers to address staffing shortages and on ensuring that all newly built long-term-care facilities be non-profit.

Over the course of this pandemic, we have seen health care workers support all residents of British Columbia. It’s now time to support our health care workers, and we believe that our recommendations offer key ways to do that.

Thank you for your time.

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

I’ll entertain questions.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Meena. Could you just expand…? When you talked about recruitment and retention, you talked about career mobility.

M. Brisard: Correct. Right now…. I’ll explain a program that’s in place. It came into place in September 2020. It’s called the health career access program. It was initiated by government to expand the health care assistant or care aide program, because we know that there is a shortage of care aides in the health care sector.

What it does is it takes other health care workers — workers that are, say, in dietary or housekeeping — and gives them an opportunity to train at public sector colleges and universities and on-site training, and they continue to keep their wages. Currently we have partnered with HEABC and the Ministry of Health. This HCAP program has trained 3,000 new health care aide workers — so care aides — and they have put in another $25,000 in the 2022 budget to train another 2,000.

So it’s workers that are currently in the system that continue to get paid and to expand on their career. We hope to have more classifications that we’re in need of that can benefit from programs like that.

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Meena. Bear with me in my naiveness. I will now piggyback on Mike’s comment earlier.

Is there any potential career mobility between care aides, LN and RN? Is there any way we can actually always…? We need to rethink this education system. If my memory serves me correctly, there’s potential continuation of career development if there’s proper training, proper education, proper testing to go through instead of our current diploma and bachelor degree structure.

M. Brisard: Absolutely. We would totally support that. Whether it’s a care aide training to be an LPN…. They do work really closely together, especially in long-term-care facilities. But we can look at other….

[10:30 a.m.]

This HCAP program is really benefiting our members plus the health care system, because we can identify where there’s a real need for skilled health care workers and then build programs like this, where workers can continue to work, continue to be able to support themselves and their families, and build on their career and advancement.

H. Yao: Actually, if you don’t mind me piggybacking off of my previous question right now…. If we do have a career path established with Advanced Ed — if we’re going to create care aide, LP and RN — would that also create greater flexibility of foreign credentials to be able to move in through proper training, proper opportunity to actually get that certification so that we can take advantage of a lot of foreign credentials, allowing them to enter the profession that they’re trained to be part of?

M. Brisard: Yeah, I think that’s a bigger question than I probably can answer — about foreign credentials and everything else.

H. Yao: I apologize. I’m just excited about it.

M. Brisard: But absolutely, I think we just really need to be mindful and be thoughtful and think about other opportunities where we can advance careers for all members, whether they’re in our union or other health care unions. We’re willing to continue to work together with them, with health employers and the Ministry of Health.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for being here today and for your advocacy work. I wanted to focus on, actually, your third recommendation, which recommended that the government invest in new long-term beds and make them government-run facilities.

We’ve heard that there are 2,250 required every single year from now until 2040. That’s $1 billion of investment dollars every single year. How would you propose the government actually afford to do that kind of investment — just capital? So all of the other things that you had mentioned, in terms of the care and the dollars that are run through the health authorities, outside of those capital dollars….

M. Brisard: Well, I think we really…. I know the government’s going to be doing a review on long-term-care facilities and the funding. We would like to be active in that. But when we look at the funding model right now, we’re seeing that the money that’s being put forward isn’t for the for-profits…. They are also spending that money in capital and administrative and profits.

We look at some of the reports that have been reported out by the seniors advocate that show that the number of funding hours that go into not-for-profits are not reflective of how many hours are actually on the floor. In their 2020 study, the funding hours were actually less than for the non-profits. So there’s 207,000 less hours of direct care in the for-profit than there were for the non-profit.

So we’d like to see…. The funding is there, we believe. But it shouldn’t be going into the hands of the stakeholders. It should be for direct care for non-profits and health authorities.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you, Meena. Our time is up.

Thank you for your very thorough, detailed presentation, and thank you for your advocacy on behalf of front-line workers in the health care system. I hope you find it reassuring to know that you are not the first presenter who’s highlighted the importance of standardizing pay rates in the system.

Our next presenter is Yvonne Jeffreys, representing prosthetics and orthotists.

PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

Y. Jeffreys: Okay. This will be a bit more of a show and tell.

Yes, my name is Yvonne Jeffreys. Thank you for the opportunity to present here. I’m representing the Prosthetics and Orthotics Association of B.C., prosthetists and orthotists.

Our first recommendation is to implement a funding strategy so that all B.C. adults with disabilities or physical impairments can access orthotic coverage. This would help eliminate the funding cliff so that B.C. children can continue with their orthotic care after their 19th birthday.

[10:35 a.m.]

This would improve the quality of life for adults living each day with acquired disabilities. That could be that maybe they had a sudden stroke or developed multiple sclerosis or arthritis. These kinds of events or progressive situations can really drastically change how someone is able to lead their life.

This device is a brace that supports someone’s leg and their foot. It prevents their foot from dropping. Maybe from their stroke, they’re not able to lift their foot anymore, so this causes them to trip and fall. However, if someone suddenly has a stroke and they don’t have extended health care, because B.C. is the only province in Canada that doesn’t support adult orthotic coverage, they may not be able to afford this brace.

I recently saw a fellow who was an electrician, 45 years old — suddenly had a stroke. He was self-employed. He wanted to get back to work, but he needed to be able to carry things and to walk without tripping. He wasn’t able to afford this brace, so he ended up quitting his job. This simple brace could’ve allowed him to walk and do his job and be safe without falling.

Another story I have along that is that I often see children that age out of the PharmaCare program and the orthotics. I have a 25-year-old SFU student who is going to school. He wears a custom spinal brace to support a spinal deformity that he’s had his entire life. This relieves his pain, but as a student and working part-time, he has no extended health benefits, and suddenly his PharmaCare coverage dried up at 19. He’s now put on a little bit of weight. He needs a new brace.

These young adults ask me: “I’ve always had this brace. It’s always worked great. There’s nothing wrong with me. Why is it suddenly now that I’m 25 years old, I don’t have any coverage?” This really doesn’t seem very fair. These people are asking me these questions all the time.

Our second recommendation is that Social Development and Poverty Reduction increase funding to meet the 2023 costs for orthotic care for people living with disabilities. There’s a difference now between what is covered, funded and what the service costs. This creates a funding shortfall, which the ministry clients have to pay. Because of this financial burden, they often go without or they prolong getting something because they can’t afford the difference.

I have a patient that wears this kind of a device. This locks his knee. He has a completely flail leg from polio. This brace gives him stability by locking his knee and gives him support around his ankle. He relies on this brace every single second of the day, and he works part-time in different service industry jobs. He’s on disability for medical benefits. He really struggles to find the resources to pay for a new brace.

One time, in fact, he fell while he was waiting, because he had worn out his knee joints, and they wouldn’t lock anymore. He broke his femur, and then he couldn’t work for six months, because he had an osteopenic leg. This funding gap puts people at risk for falls or adverse injuries, whether it’s back pain or ending up in the hospital.

Our third recommendation is that PharmaCare increase the daily funding allowance for emergency and emergency repairs for prosthetic and orthotic devices to get people back to their normal activities and prevent untimely delays that can be catastrophic.

A patient wears this prothesis, and maybe there’s a change in their residual limb, so now they drop into this a little bit more. They get pressure on the bottom of their residual limb. They come in, and we have to do some adjustments. But at the same time, maybe they’ve worn out their gel liner. This actually stops the prosthesis from falling off. Now they need a new one of these, but we’re only allowed $400 before we have to ask for extra permission.

Now this guy has to go home. I can’t solve the bottom problem. I can’t give him a new liner until we get an approval. This doesn’t actually cost PharmaCare any more, because it’s already a benefit. But the delay in waiting for that service is problematic.

The other thing is that sometimes I see families that come in to go to Children’s Hospital. They grow; they need adjustments. It costs more than $400. They have to go home; they may live several hours away. The burden on that family to come back just because of a timing issue to get this is a problem.

We would like to see some increase — these recommendations — to try and improve the access and care for our patients.

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

Our first question is from Karin, followed by Brenda.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Yvonne. Ten years ago, when I had to buy a leg brace, it was about $900. What is the cost to an individual now for something like this?

Y. Jeffreys: This is about $2,000 to get a custom one. We could get off-the-shelf ones, which fit 80 percent of the people 80 percent of the time.

[10:40 a.m.]

But we have people that have a lot of tone and spasticity. They need something custom. They may have deformities in their leg, so then they need to wear something that’s custom for them.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): It’s significant.

Y. Jeffreys: It’s significant. To go on disability, which is the only way adults can get it in B.C., they have to sell everything in their houses — everything they saved. If they were working normally, they can’t get it.

B. Bailey: Thank you, Yvonne, for sharing those stories with us. They’re very profound and affecting and quite, quite shocking, actually.

My question is in regards to technology. I’m a huge fan, and I think it brings us lots of solutions. When I look at the devices that you have, it strikes me that 3D printing could help be a solution that brings down costs for some of these devices. Do you see that happening in your sector? Is there an opportunity for that?

Y. Jeffreys: So 3D printing is just another way to make the device. It’s the patient interaction. What I do for the patient and how I do that is what takes the time. Although the plastic doesn’t cost very much, and the 3D printing doesn’t cost very much, to actually be able to diagnose that with the patient in that clinical aspect is what takes time and understanding with the patient — to be able to use that.

So 3D printing is great. It’s another option to make, whether you laminate or mould or 3D print — totally a great idea. But we still…. It doesn’t eliminate the need to work with the patient. Why your special…. Whatever you need…. I need to address your issues so you can use something for your life.

B. Bailey: May I ask a follow-up? It’s not really a follow-up. It’s kind of a second question. Can I get away with that, Chair?

J. Routledge (Chair): Yeah.

B. Bailey: I just heard you say that there’s a delay sometimes when you have to go over that $400, and sometimes it can mean that families have to go back to their hometowns — lots of travel and all of that. I wonder if you could let me know what kinds of delays you’re looking at. Are we talking a couple of days? Is it a month?

Y. Jeffreys: Oh, you know what? I had somebody on the ministry funding that I was applying for. He fell in February, and his knee was so swollen, he couldn’t wear this brace. If your knee is swollen, of course you can’t put this on. I just got his approval last week from Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

B. Bailey: These are serious delays.

Y. Jeffreys: He lives in 100 Mile House. They wanted him to come down during the winter. It’s like, I need to be…. I know what he needs. He can talk to me. I know. He’s had this for 28 years. It’s shocking.

B. Bailey: Thank you for that.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. Technically, I have a prosthetic knee as well. It just happens to be on the other side of everything.

In looking at your talk about going from a $400 daily limit to $650, is that really reflective of what the real cost is? When that person who’s working can no longer walk, or they can’t touch their gas pedal, or they can’t touch their brake — whatever the case may be — is it really reflective? How do we speed it up?

Y. Jeffreys: Well, I think those are two different things. We’re trying to put a reasonable expectation. We would also like it per limb. If someone has bilateral, if they’re wearing two legs, then it’s half because of that limit. So we would like, at minimum, $650 per limb, per day. Some people have three amputations, and they come in, and they’re still at $400.

So I think that we need to…. It isn’t, especially when this is already funded…. The fact that the delay…. There really shouldn’t be…. Obviously, there has to be some fiscal responsibility. I don’t think $650 is enough, but it’s something, and it’s better than what we have now, so we were asking for that.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for your advocacy work. This is awesome.

I have a question of clarification. I don’t totally understand the difference between recommendation 1 and recommendation 2, because if everything is covered — if all adults are covered, with disabilities — then does the second still factor in? Wouldn’t that be…?

Y. Jeffreys: You’re only covered through Social Development and Poverty Reduction if you’re a person with disabilities, you’re not working, and you have an annual income of less than $18,000 a year. Once you make more than $18,000 a year, you cannot be on Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

PharmaCare is…. For adults for prosthetics, they cover every age. But in orthotics, as soon as you turn 19, there is no orthotic coverage. So every person in this room would not be eligible for any orthotic coverage once you’re over 19.

R. Merrifield: So if we extend that coverage, then wouldn’t it be over everyone, including those that are on social assistance?

[10:45 a.m.]

Y. Jeffreys: Yes. Well, ideally, Social Development and Poverty Reduction shouldn’t be covering these. It should be a Health issue. This should be covered under Health. PharmaCare should cover all ages for all these devices.

R. Merrifield: Right. Okay.

Y. Jeffreys: But we’re not there yet, so in between…. The band-aid is No. 2.

R. Merrifield: Okay. The band-aid is No. 2. Thank you. That helps me.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you so much for your presentation, Yvonne. It was very enlightening. Your props were very helpful. Thank you for making it real for us, the individual impact and social impact of these funding gaps.

You say your clients ask you: how come? Well, those are good questions. How come? We should all be asking how come.

Our next presenter is Dr. Jabeen Jussa, representing the B.C. Chiropractic Association.

Welcome.

B.C. CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION

J. Jussa: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I’m Dr. Jabeen Jussa, and I’m the vice-chair for the B.C. Chiropractic Association. We represent more than 1,100 doctors of chiropractic, the majority of chiropractors in the province.

Chiropractors diagnose and treat the causes of pain related to the spine, joints, muscles and nervous system with a non-invasive approach. The kinds of pain chiropractors treat include back and neck strains and sprains, arthritis and some types of headaches and migraines. We are evidence-based experts who help people lead healthier, more active lives by relieving pain, restoring function and preventing pain from returning.

Approximately one million British Columbians per year seek chiropractic treatment. With seven years of university-level training and countless hours focusing on biomechanical disorders, B.C. chiropractors have the skills to help with two of the biggest challenges facing our health care system: limited access to family physicians and the opioid crisis.

The recently released B.C. guidelines on managing patients with pain in primary care recognized that the best practices for acute and chronic pain involve working closely with allied health providers, including chiropractors.

Chiropractic treatments complement those provided by physicians, nurses and other professionals, offer patients a broader range of less-invasive treatments and free up the resources of family physicians. For example, during a B.C. Chiropractic Association–supported partnership between chiropractors and family physicians that focused on treating patients with low back pain, we saw that 92 percent of patients had reduced pain levels, and 62 percent had improved levels of function.

Complaints related to pain from the muscular and skeletal systems are the second-highest cause of short- and long-term disability claims. Just imagine what would happen if the average family physician could refer a segment of their caseload to a partner chiropractor to treat and reduce pain, as up to 30 percent of primary care appointments are for musculoskeletal complaints. Having chiropractors that deliver pain management as part of a team can free up resources and allow family physicians, nurse practitioners and others on the team to treat more patients with different health conditions.

We are all aware that untreated chronic pain is a common driver of substance abuse, and pain management provided by chiropractors also has the potential to make a positive impact on the growing opioid epidemic facing our province. A 2018 B.C. coroners report on the opioid crisis found that 79 percent of people who died as a result of illicit drug toxicity that year sought help from the health care system in the year that they died, and 56 percent of those people were seeking help for pain. Chiropractors effectively treat patients who might otherwise seek pain management through self-medication and can help those who face barriers in accessing care.

[10:50 a.m.]

At the New Hope clinic in Chilliwack, a team of care providers focuses on delivering low-barrier and culturally safe primary care health services to those managing poverty, homelessness and addiction. Since 2019, chiropractors at New Hope clinic have provided more than 500 patient visits, with about half of those seen being from Indigenous communities. Only some of those seeking care at New Hope qualify for the MSP supplementary benefit, and many suffer from chronic pain conditions that exhaust the ten-visit limit, leaving the practitioner to cover the shortfall themselves.

For those patients who do not have access to MSP, the chiropractors at New Hope have provided care to patients one half-day per week, pro bono. The impact of this care has been tangible and significant in the lives of these patients, but without changes, the program will not be sustainable long term.

The profession has demonstrated that we can significantly improve the quality of life for patients living with pain. The chiropractors of B.C. are perfectly positioned to make a difference in this province. That is why we recommend that the province fund pilot projects to include chiropractors in primary care as part of the province’s team-based-care approach.

We have a great opportunity in front of us as British Columbians. Including and funding chiropractors as part of the primary health care teams can help ease some of the pressure on physicians and deliver another path to tackling the opiate crisis.

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

Our first question is from Karin.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for that. I’m a big fan of chiropractors. You had said a doctor could refer a patient to a partner chiropractor. Is that what you had suggested as part of the model? Did I understand that?

J. Jussa: Right. If we were working in the primary care teams, they can refer patients within that model. Currently many of us do get referrals from our local physicians.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): You do already?

J. Jussa: We do currently work in that.

H. Yao: You talked about how being part of the primary care team will help alleviate the loads. Do you have any dollar figure we can also look at to see how we can actually alleviate the costs as well, so we can actually return money back to the health care system?

J. Jussa: We think this pilot project…. We’re estimating that the cost of this would be over ten sites and approximately $2.7 million over three years. I can definitely have the staff at the office follow up with more details for you on that.

H. Yao: When you talk about ten sites, are they ten experimental sites? Talking about provincewide-wise, that would amplify the number by ten times, a hundred times — the savings?

J. Jussa: I don’t have that information on me.

The hope is that we would have sites in each of the health regions, so ideally, two of these pilot projects in each of the five health regions.

R. Merrifield: I’m a big advocate of pain reduction in other forms than pharmaceuticals, so I really appreciate the advocacy work.

You gave us the statistics from the coroner’s reports, and one of the statistics also is how many are involved in the construction industry. If you look at the construction industry, the wear and tear on physical bodies, etc., and then you look at how many of them sought help within the system that isn’t providing for them care yet — so a big advocate of this.

It would be a good idea, in a written submission, to see not only what it would cost to do the pilot projects but how much it would save within each of those pilot projects to not be having to use a general practice physician for that care as well.

B. Stewart: I think that the integration of it would be a good idea. I just wonder. Are the doctors that are GPs and the other ones that should be referring over supportive of this idea?

J. Jussa: We have talked with the Doctors of B.C., and they’ve asked us to get support locally from the divisions of family practice. Our hope is that…. We do, currently. Chiropractors in the community all do receive referrals from family physicians, but the integration would definitely help, especially to reach out to the patients who don’t have access to our services.

Did that help answer your question?

[10:55 a.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, no. I know, from my own doctor, years ago, that he wasn’t really a believer in that. I think that….

R. Merrifield: New doctors might be.

B. Stewart: Well, I know. That’s the point. I’m just saying…. Let’s get the new doctors to…. I understand that. Anyways, thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Doctor. I don’t see any other questions, so on behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for coming and making your presentation and engaging with us. This is a big theme that we’re hearing — shifting towards a more team-based approach. You introducing the incidence of pain, the role of pain, is really important.

J. Jussa: It’s critical.

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

J. Jussa: Thank you so much for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Roland Orfaly, representing the B.C. Anesthesiologists Society.

B.C. ANESTHESIOLOGISTS SOCIETY

R. Orfaly: Good morning. Thanks for inviting me again this year to participate in the budget consultation. As I was introduced, I’m here to speak on behalf of the B.C. Anesthesiologists Society. It’s an association of 500 specialist physician anaesthesiologists as well as over 100 family practice anaesthetists. Those are actually our family doctors who have completed enough training to safely provide anaesthetic care to their patients. Together, between the specialists and the family physician anaesthesiologists, we provide care to over 400,000 British Columbians every year. It’s quite a privilege.

What we do when we present to this committee every year is try to bring forward solutions that will help improve the care that our patients can receive. In particular, we focus on ways to improve surgical capacity and to reduce wait times. I’m sure that you all hear from your constituents how important that is, and we’re very pleased to be able to provide some solutions to consider there.

In recent years, we have provided solutions that this committee has actually hoped to advocate for: improving the efficiency of the operating room departments in the province, training more anaesthesia assistants, family practice anaesthetists, specialist anaesthesiologists. Last year we presented a proposal to increase by 16,000 surgeries, using currently available but unused operating rooms in rural and smaller hospitals in the province. Meaningful progress has been made, but I don’t think it’s a secret that we need to continue on that road.

This year all three of our recommendations are solutions to what we feel is the biggest challenge to surgical capacity and, in fact, the entire health care system, and that is the nursing workforce. Right now there is a nursing shortage affecting every part of the health care system and, in particular, affecting surgical capacity and throughput every single day. While there definitely have been efforts made to acknowledge and address the nursing workforce challenges, we’d like to offer three recommendations to expedite the gains in terms of training, recruiting and retaining our valuable nurses.

I think you all know that a nurse is not a nurse is not a nurse. There are many specializations within that profession, and you can’t just interchange one nurse for another when you’re short in a particular field. That’s particularly true for the nurses that we need to look after surgical patients. In particular, we’re going to focus on our operating room, OR, nurses; our post-anaesthetic care unit, PACU, nurses; as well as our intensive care unit, ICU, nurses.

We need to immediately train, as our first recommendation, hundreds more of each of these nursing specializations — OR, PACU and ICU nurses. That is also a long-term solution. We need to maintain that increased training capacity for the long term so that we don’t get into the ebbs and flows of capacity that we’ve seen over and over again.

We also need to do a better job recruiting. The government has focused on recruiting of nurses both nationally and internationally. But the government has also committed to creating thousands of new child care spaces, and what we’d propose is combining those objectives to create new child care spaces specifically for our health care workers, including nurses, and to locate those child care spaces convenient to where health care workers are providing care. This would immediately make nursing jobs in B.C. more attractive and would attract nurses who are currently outside of the workforce but qualified to provide patient care.

[11:00 a.m.]

Finally, in addition to training and recruitment, we need to retain our nurses. We have tens of thousands of nurses in this province. We need each and every one of them. We can’t lose them.

While health care is a 24-7-365 activity, not every health service needs to be running, full speed, at all hours of the nights, weekends and holidays. We submit that we’ll be much more successful in retaining our current nursing workforce if we maintain as much of the workload as possible during weekday daytime hours. It’s just a better work-life balance for them. It’s safer for our patients. That’s been proven scientifically. It’s also safer for our nurses and our other health care workers.

In summary, by focusing our attention very specifically on these solutions to the nursing workforce crisis, we can avert the worst of our shortages that we’re seeing across the province. By training, recruiting and retaining nurses — in particular, doing so for our OR, PACU and ICU nurses, we’ll be making the biggest difference to all British Columbians, especially those waiting for surgery.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate it. I had a few conversations with a child care service provider. There are a lot of challenges when it comes to providing seven-days-a-week child care support. Plus now we’re talking about 24-7, with nurses working evening shifts. It’s really hard to make sure that there are enough registration numbers to justify the hiring of the staff to make it all work.

Secondly, they often talk about some parents who are shift workers and who prefer to actually have their kids sleeping in their own beds. They like to put their kids in bed before they go to work, and then they come back. Obviously, that still creates a challenging barrier there.

I would love to hear what kinds of creative solutions you might like to propose in helping us to really bridge that gap so that we can provide child care for our nurses.

R. Orfaly: Yeah, that’s an excellent point. This is where…. We give three different recommendations, because that’s the structure of what we’ve been asked to do, but really, there’s a lot of interplay between those solutions.

I think the more we can have a regular daytime workday, just like the rest of society, the more easily we can find solutions for their recruitment and retention, and find child care spaces that are during the daytime, because that’s where more of the nursing work is being done. There is a lot of interconnection between the solutions. You can’t just look at them in an isolated way.

But I mean, I grant…. The health care system has to run 24-7. There are going to be challenges in terms the shift worker situation. We can talk more about it — we have some more ideas — but maybe not within the time limits of this committee.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation and for your advocacy work. I wanted to look at your third recommendation — that it be mostly in the daytime hours.

I know that one of the frustrations I’ve heard from surgeons is that oftentimes, if they have a scheduled surgery at 1:30 and it gets pushed to 1:45 or 1:50, all of a sudden, they’re shut down, and that surgery will go home, because they don’t have nursing staff that stays after 3 p.m.

How could you suggest efficiency measures that would maximize the use of the OR space that we have while still, actually, confining it to those workday hours that we have?

R. Orfaly: This is where every part of that pathway for the patient needs to be there and available at the right time.

When I talk about our PACU nurses, they work in the recovery room, right after surgery. They are short-staffed across the province, but particularly, actually, here in Vancouver. We’re seeing that where that third out of four patients of the day is done with their surgery, they’re in the operating room, waiting to go to the recovery room, but there’s no nurse in that unit. The overtime is actually being wasted in holding that patient waiting for a recovery room, and the recovery room is waiting for the ICU or the ward, to move another patient.

The whole system needs to be working at full capacity for any part of it to be working at full capacity. You really need to take that wholesome view of it.

B. Stewart: If we moved to the model that you were suggesting — more weekdays, rather than this 24-7 operation — for which, obviously, you have to have everybody there — do we have enough operating room capacity to improve the outcomes, where we’re still finding that there are wait times?

R. Orfaly: The short answer, on a provincial basis, is yes.

First, let me just qualify. About a quarter of surgeries are emergencies, in the province. Those are going to be done whenever they’re needed — daytime, nighttime, middle of the night, weekends, holidays, Christmas. It doesn’t matter. They’re going to get done.

[11:05 a.m.]

For the other 75 percent, that was actually our proposal last year. We could increase, by 16,000, the number of weekday daytime scheduled surgeries just by using currently unused operating rooms. It might not be every hospital in the province, but if you have patients getting more care in those hospitals, there are fewer of those patients going to the other hospitals for surgery. So it will make a huge difference for the province.

J. Routledge (Chair): Henry has the last question.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I really appreciate your explanation. I’m really actually interested about shifting nurses’ workload to the weekday, during the regular office hours that many of us have come to appreciate.

I’m looking for a quick answer. What percentage of nurses are you thinking will be able to benefit from this transition, where you can actually shift them from the 24-hour shifts to Monday to Friday?

R. Orfaly: Again, this builds on the last question. They’re both good questions.

So 25 percent of the surgeries are emergencies. We’re going to have the nurses and the whole team available 24-7 for those surgeries. What we’re saying is that for the other 75 percent that are scheduled, as much as possible, let’s do those during normal societal hours, where you have child care, where you have all the other resources.

It’s actually been shown to be safer for the patients. There are more resources available at the hospital — the lab, the X-ray. Everything else is there, when needed. So there is capacity that we can build there. Let’s focus on that, because it’s also going to help us retain the nurses.

J. Routledge (Chair): On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for coming back again this year and sharing your observations and your concrete recommendations.

I find it helpful and useful that you build on previous recommendations and monitor how we’re responding on that front and what we need to do next.

R. Orfaly: There’s progress, but there needs to be more progress. Keep working on it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Dr. Anita Gartner, representing the B.C. Dental Association.

Welcome.

B.C. DENTAL ASSOCIATION

A. Gartner: Thank you very much, and good morning. Thank you so much for having us here.

As you know, my name’s Anita. I happen to be the secretary treasurer of the B.C. Dental Association. I’m also the chair of the Access to Care Committee. I’ve practised as a certified specialist in pediatric dentistry in Burnaby and Vancouver for over 25 years.

As the voice of dentistry in B.C., BCDA represents over 3,500 dentists who are committed to oral and the overall health of British Columbians. With recent grants from the Ministries of Health and Social Development and Poverty Reduction, totalling $3.1 million, this will assist oral cancer patients and not-for-profit clinics. In fact, last year alone, there were over 46,000 dental visits at these not-for-profit clinics, aiding over 22,000 persons.

We would like to thank the government for it’s ongoing support in improving oral health care of British Columbians, especially to the vulnerable patients. However we have three recommendations that would improve the care and access to care for British Columbians.

Our first recommendations is to ask the B.C. government to work in collaboration with the federal government, the BCDA and other stakeholders to ensure that the up-and-coming national dental care plan is sustainable and that it meets the needs of low-income British Columbians and includes these that are covered under the current Ministry of Health dental health care plans.

The ministry dental plan coverage is limited. Patients often still occur additional costs, as the fees are only 44 percent of the B.C. Dental Association’s suggested general dentist fee guide. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been an increase in fees in over 15 years. Coverage for persons with disabilities is limited to $1,000 and, for healthy kids, to $2,000, if treated under general anaesthesia. These limits are only eligible for a two-year period in which they can only receive emergency care if those limits have already been used up.

This situation puts a strain on the health care system. Patients present to emergency rooms for pain and serious infections, and this could be avoided if these limits were increased or eliminated entirely. The new federal plan must properly be coordinated between existing private and provincial plans to eliminate inequities in treatment and in access. Part of that is recognizing the suggested fee guide to ensure sustainability and make sure that this is adequately funded.

[11:10 a.m.]

Our second recommendation is to develop and implement a strategy to alleviate the shortage of certified dental assistants and hygienists to ensure that patients have uninterrupted access to dental care. As you are well aware, the pandemic has only worsened the shortage of staff, and in particular, we experienced dental staff.

When surveyed, more than 50 percent of our members are seeking either dental assistants or hygienists. The situation, in particular, is critical for certified dental assistants, as the licensed CDAs fell by 1 percent in 2021.

Amongst the measures is to increase educational funding to expand the current CDA and dental hygiene seats. For example, the Vancouver Community College has a two-year wait-list. There’s overwhelming demand and interest in this program, but in a lucky year, we only graduate 250 certified dental assistants. The up-and-coming federal dental care plan will trigger a tidal wave of dental care needs, and we need more well-trained assistants to maintain service levels. It’s in the best interest to access care for our patients.

Thirdly, our last recommendation is to establish a hospital-based, remote oral cancer assessment program to expedite and triage potential oral cancer patients in remote areas. Unfortunately, patients in these remote areas have often experienced between six and 30 months of delays in order to get their diagnosis done.

The rate of oral cancer unfortunately continues to increase. The average cost for a head-and-neck patient is approximately $23,000, and this increases to $68,000 if a patient does not survive. With a high mortality rate, oral cancer survivors often suffer partial loss of their jaw, tongue, roof of their mouth and require significant surgical repair and prostheses.

Early diagnosis can significantly improve the survival rates and obviously reduce the loss of facial structures. The proposed assessment program will allow oral medicine specialists to work virtually with dentists and physicians to confer on patients’ suspected lesions and history to determine whether or not a biopsy is even required.

B.C.’s oral biopsy offers centralized pathology and a review of the service with physicians and dentists. However, there are very few pathologists in the province. On average, over Canada and the U.S., there are 4,500 specimens that have to be reviewed by pathologists, but in B.C., that number is 6,700. We were asking for a full-time-equivalent within the program to ensure continuity of service.

The BCDA values our working relationship with the B.C. government. We look forward to continuing the collaborative relationship that we have so that we can provide British Columbians with the best oral health care.

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

B. Bailey: Thank you very much, Dr. Gartner. It was a really interesting presentation with many things that I hadn’t been aware of.

I heard you mention, if I understood correctly, that there has been an increase in oral cancer diagnoses. Is that because we’re diagnosing it better. or are we actually seeing an increase in the population of these types of cancers? If so, do we know why?

A. Gartner: I don’t have that complete answer. I know that there has been an increase in diagnoses, and it’s very significant, obviously, because nobody wants to have cancer.

Also, what’s very interesting is that some of these lesions are often misdiagnosed, because we don’t have an oral pathologist that is available. Up to 5 percent of these lesions don’t even need to have a biopsy, which is a huge cost savings as well — that we don’t have to biopsy everything that we see. Having this kind of remote service would be very helpful.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. My question is pretty quick. How long does it take a dental assistant to actually complete the course?

A. Gartner: It’s ten months.

H. Yao: Ten months.

My question is: how many seats do we need to create to be able to be anticipating the fulfilment of federal…?

A. Gartner: Currently there are 250 in the publicly funded, in which there’s a two-year wait-list. The publicly funded programs cost somewhere between $5,000 and $9,000 for these students.

[11:15 a.m.]

The private sector — there are private colleges — produces another 130 seats, but the price of those seats is about $25,000. Even if we were to increase it, we’re still at a far loss or a significant decrease, with 50 percent of people looking.

My own clinic…. If I have somebody that’s sick or somebody that moves on, we have to cancel patients, basically. It’s come down to that, because we don’t have that capacity.

H. Yao: If you don’t mind me just following up on the same question. How many seats do you think we need to increase, publicly, to be able to keep up with the demand?

A. Gartner: It needs to increase at least four to fivefold.

M. Starchuk: This follows in with the question that’s there. How many people are on the wait-list?

A. Gartner: For…?

M. Starchuk: You just said we’d have to increase four to fivefold.

A. Gartner: Right now the community college in Vancouver has a two-year wait-list. So there are over 500 people waiting.

J. Routledge (Chair): I’m not seeing other questions. I want to thank you, Dr. Gartner, for your time and for your recommendations.

Speaking for myself, a lot of the calls my office gets are from people who are desperate and who are facing financial ruin to actually deal with their teeth.

Our next presenter is Joan Rush, representing the Canadian association for disability and oral health.

CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR
DISABILITY AND ORAL HEALTH

J. Rush: Good morning. Thank you. As mentioned, my name is Joan Rush. I am the advocacy chair for the Canadian Society for Disability and Oral Health.

To follow on Dr. Gartner’s comments about the B.C. plan for persons with disabilities, B.C. residents with disabilities have the worst oral health outcomes in the province. However, oral health is essential to overall health.

The B.C. government has a legal obligation to safeguard the health of B.C. residents with disabilities. The federal government has announced it will provide a national dental plan for persons with disabilities in 2023. But that plan will only be effective if B.C. ensures access to suitable facilities for treatment of those residents with disabilities who are unable to receive care in typical dental clinics in the community.

To meet its obligation to safeguard the health of B.C. residents with disabilities, the B.C. government should follow the following three recommendations. One, replace the inadequate and antiquated B.C. dental plan for persons with disabilities with the proposed federal dental plan, which is based on a modern, comprehensive dental plan. Two, create specialized dental operating rooms at B.C. hospitals so that people who are medically complex and who require treatment at hospitals can access dental care in a suitable operatory.

Finally, fund community-based dental anaesthesia clinics outside of hospitals to provide dental treatment for persons with disabilities who are not medically complex and who do not require treatment in hospital but do need general anaesthesia in order to accommodate safe treatment.

Two of these three recommendations are cost-effective for British Columbia. Terminating the unsuitable persons-with-disabilities dental plan — which the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction administers — will save the government money. Ensuring that persons with disabilities do not require treatment in hospital and that they can access care in community-based anaesthesia clinics will save the government money.

Creating specialized suites in hospitals will require funds. But using specialized dental suites will free up operating time in the day surgeries which B.C. hospitals currently inefficiently use for dental treatments and also will reduce demand on hospital emergency rooms — probably what you were referring to — which frequently attend to dental crises. Dental treatments completed in the specialized dental suites will be efficient.

[11:20 a.m.]

B.C. would be wrong to insist on maintaining the provincial dental plan for persons with disabilities. The treatment guide, as Dr. Gartner mentioned, is over 30 years old. The fees are less than half of the B.C. recommended fees, and the terrible oral health outcomes of B.C. residents with disabilities are really a direct result of the inadequate dental plan.

B.C. should instead work with the federal government and the other Canadian jurisdictions to ensure that a pan-Canadian federal plan for persons with disabilities actually meets their needs. Many people with disabilities need general anaesthesia for dental treatment. For those who are medically complex, the government should provide access to treatment in hospital-based dental clinics. For people with disabilities who are not medically complex and who do not require treatment in hospital, the government should provide access to anaesthesia in community anaesthesia clinics.

Now, government created, a number of years ago, 2005, the community dental partners program to fund dental anaesthesia in clinics across the province but failed to support the program. They didn’t increase fees, just as they didn’t increase these fees, so the clinics have fallen away. There’s only one left now. B.C. should revitalize the community dental partners program to allow access.

To conclude, B.C. can meet its obligation to safeguard the health of British Columbia residents with disabilities if it adopts the federal dental plan and creates access to general anaesthesia for persons with disabilities, both inside and outside of hospitals.

Please review my written submission for more information, and I thank you for your attention.

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

I’ll now invite the committee to ask you questions.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I don’t know that this is a question so much as just to say that I’ve only just recently become aware of the need for anaesthesia with children with autism. Pacific Autism is now installing or recruiting dentists to come in who have this kind of expertise. So very interesting. This has just been very educational for me, so I just wanted to thank you for that. It wasn’t a question.

J. Rush: You’re welcome, although I’d like to respond to it. The Pacific…. I’ve worked with them for a long time. My son has autism. The clinic they’re trying to set up is not equipped for general anaesthesia. It is very difficult in the province to set it up only because of the approvals required, so that’s where you can come in as recommending that change.

But the individuals with autism who could be seen and treated, especially to receive preventive care, at the Pacific dental association clinic are not those individuals who have exceptionally high anxiety or are profoundly intellectually challenged. That’s a group of individuals who would not accommodate dental treatment. They just don’t understand why someone wants to put a metal tool in their mouth, and they’re not about to put up with it. And it’s dangerous for them and for the dentist.

The dentists want to do this work — Dr. Gartner has made that clear — but there’s nowhere. There’s no ability. And the dental surgeries that…. There’s one excellent one, but it’s the only remaining anaesthesia clinic in the province still funded by the province, and I think he does it at a loss to help the individuals.

But the day surgeries, where a lot of treatment is completed, are not set up for dental work. Everything, including the X-ray machine, is rolled into a day surgery. The dentist has to bring their tools. The equipment, the cleaning materials — everything is brought in. Some of it is out of date sometimes. We’ve experienced that and heard complaints about it, where replacement materials are needed in a hurry. So it’s inefficient. It often stops, then, other day surgeries from going ahead at the required times. That’s why we need to be specific about creating places where they can go efficiently.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next question is from Brenda, followed by Renee, and probably that will be all our time.

B. Bailey: Thank you very much for the presentation. I’m curious about the recommendation about the specialized dental hospital rooms. It’s just coming from a place of not being experienced. I wonder if you could just help me understand that a little bit more — the need for it. Is it a situation where those rooms, when not in use, could be used for something else, or would they be quite specific and used only for that?

Attached to that, depending on your answer, would there be demand to keep those rooms busy and justify the expense, do you think?

[11:25 a.m.]

J. Rush: Well, to follow on, I think, Dr. Orfaly’s recommendation, the nine to five…. Probably eight to four may be more likely, because of GA being what it is. It strikes me that they would be used just as they are in Children’s Hospital, where we have two dental suites for general anaesthesia, and I think they actually built a third not so long ago. They’re used flat-out.

There is such demand for them for children at B.C. Children’s Hospital — because the most common surgery provided to children is dental surgery — that they now limit their access to very young children. So by the time you’re four or five, they’re often saying that you can’t be seen here any longer, which means that very young people are being sent either to the sole anaesthesia clinic in Vancouver or they’re being sent to hospital.

They’re being sent, usually…. There’s no anaesthesia at the Diamond Centre dental clinic. It’s not zoned for it. It’s not set up for it. So they go to UBC Hospital, or else, if they’re complex care, they go to VGH. Once again, the hospitals aren’t set up for it.

In Ontario and in Quebec…. And now, just at this moment, Nova Scotia is building the specialized dental suites in hospitals. They’re doing several, I think, at Dalhousie so that dental students can be trained.

There’s enormous demand. Like I say, emergency rooms see it, and it’s costly, and there’s little they can do. Persons who need the care lose their teeth because there’s little that can be done, so we are not meeting the needs of the population.

Would it be used for other purposes? No. They are set up for dental care. Just as when you walk into your dental clinic, it doesn’t look like a doctor’s office, and probably your doctor’s office would not meet the needs of dental care. But it has all the same equipment, the proper X-ray equipment, etc. That’s the kind of treatment we need.

It would also serve the needs of the patients Dr. Gartner was speaking about — the oral cancer patients, the patients with orofacial problems, the trauma patients. We have enormous need for dental care, and it’s bizarre that it’s not part of our medical health care system. So I’m saying that this is a step towards at least being able to provide access to care for people who truly need it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much, Joan. Your presentation has been very enlightening. I think there’s probably not a person in the room who can’t relate to the trauma of going to the dentist, and you’ve given us some insight into the supports we need to give to people who don’t necessarily deal well with that trauma.

J. Rush: You’re welcome. As mentioned, there’s more detail in my submission.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Great.

Our next presenter is Christine Bradstock, representing the Physiotherapy Association of B.C.

Welcome, Christine. You have five minutes to make your presentation. We have a timer set up to help you focus. Then we’ll follow it up with up to five minutes of questions from us.

PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

C. Bradstock: Excellent. Thank you very much.

I’m very grateful to be able to address you on the traditional and unceded territory of the Coast Salish people.

I also wish to thank you for being on this committee, for representing your area of the province, and for providing the opportunity here today. We submitted written information, and certainly, I’ll talk very quickly to that.

I really want to highlight the shortage of physiotherapists here in the province. We have addressed you for a number of years and seen some movement a few years ago with an increase in training seats and, in September, highlighted that again — our first request for there to be an increase in training seats. But I also want to refer you back to the information that we provided last fall.

Currently we have 100 graduating, 20 more going in, in September, and those are going into the Fraser Valley. Those have a focus on public practice, and we’re requesting more training seats to be cohorts in the Okanagan and on Vancouver Island. With a graduation of 120 anticipated next year, we could easily double that and still not fill all the empty spots in the province.

[11:30 a.m.]

We really need a focus on seniors care, because right now about 566,000 access physiotherapy, and we anticipate that will be 1.5 million across Canada in 2035. We anticipate a huge increase.

We also see a maldistribution of physiotherapists in the province: a very heavy concentration in the Lower Mainland, in the main areas, and the rural areas are really lacking physios. And deficiencies for Indigenous people as well.

With the changes happening at MCFD, you’ll probably recognize that there’s going to be an increased need for physios in pediatric care. We can see that the demand is going to be increasing. That’s our request for increased training seats.

The second request is for internationally trained physiotherapists to have easier access to be able to work here in British Columbia. We do draw on a number of internationally trained, and we’re a very attractive province to live in. We’re probably one of the more successful provinces in that area. We also have a tendency to draw physios from other provinces, who have been trained in other provinces, but we need to make it easier for them to come and work here.

We’re asking for a supportive system that makes application easier and maybe a course of study at UBC, so support for that so that they can become physios faster here in British Columbia. Also, the immigration process for those that maybe are coming from another country and need to immigrate — relocation assistance and language training for those that may need it. So internationally trained assistance.

The third request is to provide greater support for physiotherapists in public practice. I know that you were addressed by HSA B.C. a few days ago and support their information and application for support for physiotherapists working in public practice.

It used to be about half of our physios worked in public practice. Now it’s about a third. We see the number decreasing. There are a number of reasons why, a variety of factors: heavy workloads, less pay, no schedule flexibility, inability to balance part-time work and lack of advanced opportunities into management roles within hospitals and health authorities. We want to make that more attractive. The 20 seats that are starting in the Fraser Valley in September are a great start, but if we provide opportunity for them to be attracted into that….

Those are our three requests.

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

Our first question is from Renee.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for your presentation. I want to just explore the last recommendation a little bit more. You said that it used to be half worked in public practice, and now only a third. Has the overall number, though, increased, and we’re only seeing them being added to private practice, or is the overall number shrinking from…?

C. Bradstock: It’s a combination of the two. So yes, we do have more physios in the province. That number is increasing. But also the number that work in public practice is decreasing. So it’s a combination.

R. Merrifield: It is actually decreasing. Not just the percentage but the absolute number is decreasing. Okay. Thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Is part of that related to compensation? Is it more attractive to go into private versus public?

C. Bradstock: Yes. It’s a significant factor.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Is it a significant pay differential then?

C. Bradstock: Yes. Being employed in the public sector, you’re paid more of an hourly wage. When you work in the private sector, you have that flexibility to take on patients and increase the number, and you do get paid more per hour, if you were to look at the hourly wage. Most of them that work in private practice are contractors, so they have a little bit more flexibility and control over that.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): You have not made a recommendation to deal with the wage inequity. Is that something that needs to be…?

C. Bradstock: Well, that’s part of No. 3.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Oh, I guess, of No. 3. Okay. That would be one of the levers that could be used. Okay. Thank you very much.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. Earlier on this morning we had Tanya Fawkes here, and she referred to it as poaching from other areas to bring them here. You’ve laid it out that the accreditation process is lengthy. Is that because of the college? What is the factor that makes it lengthy?

C. Bradstock: The accreditation process prior to about two years ago, so we’re talking pre-pandemic situation…. If they’re trained in Canada, then they can work anywhere in Canada. So that was easy. There’s been a bit of a hiccup with getting the exams done properly over the last couple of years, so we’ve had a bit of a problem there. But B.C. is very good at being able to move our interims to fully licensed. So yes, there’s some movement from other provinces to B.C.

But with the internationally trained, it’s more those from outside of Canada that need that assistance to be able to come and work. A lot of that has to do with being able to come in, become fully licensed — so understanding the process, what they need to do to be fully licensed — and also the immigration piece and moving in. So making it more seamless for the internationally trained to be able to be licensed and live here in British Columbia.

J. Routledge (Chair): I’m not seeing any other questions, so thank you so much, Christine, for coming and presenting to us and for highlighting what could be a crisis in a very critical service. As someone who got my mobility back as a result of physiotherapy, the thought of not having access to that is kind of frightening.

Our next presenter is Jasmine Bradley, E-Comm 9-1-1. Welcome.

E-COMM 9-1-1

J. Bradley: Hello, everyone. Thank you for your time today. I’m representing E-Comm 9-1-1, the organization that’s responsible for answering the front-end portion of 99 percent of British Columbia’s 911 calls. We also provide dispatch services to 73 police and fire agencies across the province.

I’d like to focus my time today on two recommendations we’d like to put forward to this committee, the first being a new provincial mandate and structure for 911 services, including governance, operations and funding.

Simply put, 911 services in B.C. face considerable challenges. Service is inconsistent across the province as a result of service gaps and lack of cell coverage in some areas. B.C.’s 911 emergency communications infrastructure is also more than 30 years old, aging and in need of upgrades. Call volume is growing. Adding further strain to this are the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid crisis and extreme weather events like we saw in 2021.

Within the context of these challenges that I briefly touched on, the federally mandated rollout of next generation 911 across Canada over the next three years, which essentially involves the transition of our current 911 infrastructure to IP or digital-based infrastructure, will require significant additional funding and consistent, provincewide 911 standards and protocols. Currently 911 standards vary across the different regional districts, and it is simply not possible to implement these NG911 improvements in a way that is fair and equitable for all B.C. residents under the current model.

We believe the time has come to establish a new provincial mandate and structure for 911 services in B.C. Eight provinces across Canada now have some form of provincial legislation governing 911 service delivery and standards. B.C. and Ontario are the only two remaining provinces that do not. We believe a new provincial agency with an improved governance, funding and operational model and strong local government representation is the most effective way to implement these improvements and provide the best level of service for 911 for British Columbians.

The second recommendation I would like to put forward to this committee is the implementation of a provincial wireless call answer levy as a means to ensure sustainable, equitable funding for 911 services in B.C.

[11:40 a.m.]

Local governments are currently only able to fund 911 services through either property taxes or by collecting a 911 call answer levy from land-line subscriptions. E-Comm provides 911 services to 25 out of the 27 regional districts, and this is currently funded either through property taxes or through the land-line call answer levies.

Local governments have not been granted the legal or regulatory authority to collect a 911 call answer levy from wireless customers — which, quite frankly, has become the dominant funding mechanism to support 911 services in other provinces. As a result, municipal revenues to fund 911 services have decreased significantly, as the number of land-line subscriptions have plummeted. I’m a public safety nerd. I have a land line still, but I’m not sure how many of you do. That number is dwindling.

The municipally funded base funding model for 911 service has become increasingly inequitable, with close to 80 percent of 911 calls now being made by cellular users. Last year, E-Comm answered more than two million 911 calls. With 80 percent of those calls coming from mobile users, it is not currently funding the system that is coming from our land-line users.

We believe the time has come to act on the UBCM recommendations that have been put forward in the past and that continue to have strong support, in implementing a standardized wireless call answer levy to fund 911 services and next generation 911 improvements. While the costing around the next generation is still in the works, we know this will be a significant cost, and local governments will simply not be able to afford that.

B. Stewart: It’s interesting. The police chiefs were in Victoria, and they raised this question too. What’s the transition — the national plan? Is it over to an IP-based system? Is that what you said?

J. Bradley: That’s correct, yes.

B. Stewart: Is that not going to require…? These rural and remote areas that don’t have connectivity — how are they going to get access?

J. Bradley: It’s a great question. Next gen 911 is a bit of a beast, but it is federally mandated. It’s not a matter of if B.C. wants to move to this system. It’s mandated, and we need to, because our current system is also aging. I’m not sure how many of you have heard of this in the news lately, but there have been several 911 network disruptions. That’s because the technology is aging. It’s more than 30 years old. Those sorts of disruptions will continue to happen more and more frequently until we do move to the new, next generation 911 model.

In terms of opportunities that we see with next gen 911, it includes exactly what you just mentioned. With the move to an IP-based digital network, it would allow us, when the province is ready and able, to expand the infrastructure into areas that currently don’t have 911 service, which is quite a few. The ability to take the next gen 911 platform and expand it will provide B.C. with a more equitable level of access for its communities.

B. Stewart: Very interesting.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): The Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act made a clear recommendation that they’d like mental health to be one of the options when you call 911. Is that a concern for you at 911, or do you anticipate that that would just give you one more tool to be able to triage to crisis prevention or something? Really, what are your thoughts on that recommendation?

J. Bradley: We believe strongly in the opportunities to evolve the current response model to some of those calls you just mentioned, including the mental health calls, including the addictions calls, overdose, opioid issues — which I just spoke to the Health Committee about. With next generation 911, it creates an opportunity for us, as a province, to really look at the model we want to offer. We could look at alternate response models.

Currently today, if you pick up your phone and call 911, you’ll be asked: “Do you need police, fire or ambulance?” Those are the three options to send those calls. With the transition to next generation 911, the possibility of offering a fourth option, a more community-based option, exists, and that does not exist today.

M. Starchuk: There are a couple of things that you said, and I’m just wondering where it’s leading to, because you talked about NG 911. It’s not fair to implement. Then you talked about a new, provincial agency. I’m also one of those people that doesn’t have a land line any longer.

I’m just curious: how does this come into play with other regional dispatch centres that are outside of E-Comm? I know that there are certain regional centres. Coming from the city of Surrey, I understand what they dispatch for, and I know that they’re budgeting for the NG 911. How does this come into play? When you said a new provincial agency, I wondered what that involved.

[11:45 a.m.]

J. Bradley: Yes, and that requires further discussion with government. E-Comm is the current provider for 99 percent of answering the front-end portion of the 911 calls. We do see ourselves as a very strong candidate for that model.

What we’re looking at…. If we use Surrey and use the opioid issue as an example — it’s on my mind from the Health Committee — from a 911 perspective, the 911 calls from Surrey and from Vancouver, the two cities that are dealing with the opioid crisis the most right now, the 911 call will come to E-Comm, but then for Surrey, we transfer it to outside agencies to manage from there. For Vancouver, we transfer it to internal E-Comm police and fire call-takers, because we dispatch for Vancouver police and for Vancouver fire.

Even within the two municipalities, which are Metro Vancouver–specific, that then causes a lack of standardization in terms of how those calls are handled and how the response is provided as well. There are different health authorities between the two municipalities. There are different policing — the RCMP in Surrey and a municipal police force in Vancouver — and different response methods in how those overdose calls are being responded to and what resources are available.

Part of our advocacy efforts on the provincial model, and having the entity that’s created to do that, is to really look at standardizing that across the province, so that no matter if you’re in Surrey, Vancouver, Prince George or other areas, that level of access and service is equitable across all communities.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation. I strongly support the provincial wireless call levy. I haven’t had a land line for years, so I totally understand and believe that that should be moved forward. I appreciate your advocacy on that particular use.

Moving to an IP system, what happens when the Internet goes down? I mean, right now, our power goes down. I know from my former business that, operating on an IP system, if the power went out, the only thing that was still running were our cell phones.

I assume there are backup systems that would take over at that place and offer more accessibility.

J. Bradley: Absolutely. Ensuring that the new system is resilient, and that it’s secure as well, are top priorities. Similar to the system today that operates on the analogue telephony system, it’s separate, a dedicated network for 911. So the IP-based next gen 911 system would also be operating separately. Lots of levels of redundancy, much more than I could speak to in terms of the technical knowledge, but it is a huge priority for everyone as we move to that rollout.

R. Merrifield: In your presentation, what is the ask, the dollar figure for the infrastructure that’s required?

J. Bradley: In terms of the next generation, the number is still being worked through. We don’t have a dollar amount right now. What I can tell you is that, last year, for the 25 regional districts that we do currently provide 911 call answer services to, the amount was around $7 million for the year, for our service area.

This will increase significantly, by the tens of millions of dollars, for next generation 911. It’s a cost that a lot of the smaller centres that are needing to operate or that currently operate their own emergency communication centre are going to have to figure out how to attribute as well.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, Jasmine. I want to thank you for your very enlightening presentation. I think that most British Columbians take 911 for granted. We don’t think about it; we shouldn’t have to think about it. Thank you for thinking about it on our behalf and alerting us to what could be a much better system and what we need to do.

Our final presentation for the morning is Trevor Hargreaves, representing the B.C. Real Estate Association.

Welcome, Trevor.

B.C. REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

T. Hargreaves: Thank you very much. As mentioned, I come to you from the B.C. Real Estate Association. We are the professional association, operating in a non-partisan manner, representing the 25,000 realtors across the province.

Amidst COVID-19’s economic volatility, real estate has really, as a sector, been one of the most stable sectors within the province. Indeed, in many ways, it has prospered under a sudden boom in housing and housing focus.

[11:50 a.m.]

The sector itself is a significant contributor to the provincial economic stability by way of property and land transfer taxation. Accordingly, the stability of this sector should be a strategic priority for the provincial government. Current political pressures around housing affordability and consumer protection, at the federal and provincial level, are really a risk to the stability of our sector if policy change to address issues associated is not handled in a very careful and evidence-based manner.

When it comes to issues of affordability and consumer protection mechanisms, really, no one needs quick, badly researched, hastily put into practice, perceived solutions. What we really endorse — and we, ourselves, within the sector are very happy to partner in on when trying to address issues of consumer protection and issues of affordability — is carefully researched, evidence-based change.

When you look at the election promises within the federal government, and then trickling down to the pressures that are provincial, heavily within British Columbia, that pressure really exists at the political level, that pressure to make a quick fixes, get it done, do these things fast. We really see that as a strong perceived risk moving forward.

Our sector is, again, firmly in support of addressing these issues. There is a dramatic supply drought when it comes to housing across this country. That makes life very difficult for realtors across the province. They find themselves often putting forward nine offers for one offer to go through. It’s a lot of circuitous work. At the end of the day, a balanced market is as much of a benefit to our sector as it is to the consumer.

Because of this great deal of pressure that is put upon the government, where we are really focused, moving forward, is on process. What we have seen in terms of the public dialogue in recent months, as I’m sure you’re all very aware, is the announcement and then the implementation of the cooling-off period. The cooling-off period was announced by the Minister of Finance, Minister Robinson, and by our discernment, done so with absolutely no advance research, no policy evidence. It was simply hastily announced and then tasked to our regulator to decide how to implement it.

In that topic, in terms of forward movement and forward policy, I put it to you today that that is really not a sound, careful governance model. What we want to see is much more of a process of careful, evidence-based decision-making.

The B.C. real estate sector has a newly empowered provincial regulator, the B.C. Financial Services Authority, otherwise known as the BCFSA. They came into being this past August. What we would like to see is the BCFSA to be better empowered to act independently of government, to allow them to do their policy research away from undue government influence and pressure. They are often referred to as an independent regulator. We would like to see them empowered to act increasingly independently.

Amidst the cooling-off period, the BCFSA have only ever been tasked with drafting a report on how to implement this policy. Literally no research has ever been done as to whether or not that policy is the best path forward. I suggest to you that there are better ways to look at policy moving forward.

There are currently multiple other consumer protection mechanisms under review. This includes blind bidding, multiple offer situations, mandatory subjects, property disclosure statements and increased strata transparency. Again, what we would like to see is the empowerment and decision-making process around these potential policy mechanisms solely given to the BCFSA to decide how and what to implement.

If policy change at the provincial and also the federal government continues in the manner that we’ve just seen, without careful research, it really will endanger and give us a high likelihood of undue consequences when policy is being hastily implemented.

In terms of our three recommendations that I leave you with today…. One, as mentioned, empower our regulator to act independently for future policy recommendations.

Two, when considering policy change within our sector, increasingly draw from the policy and economic expertise of the sector itself to help inform policy direction. The expertise often does not lie within hived-off ministries. These are complex issues. They take teams of public and governmental combinations to really come up with a sound policy, moving forward.

And three, when we get to issues of affordability, really, trying to affect affordability at the end of the day. The best way to move the dial on that is around housing supply. That evidence continues to go in that direction.

[11:55 a.m.]

Minister Eby has been doing excellent work, focusing around putting pressure on municipalities, but really stay in that direction and put extra focus on it in years to come when trying to deal with affordability.

That concludes my presentation.

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

Now I’ll invite questions from the committee.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I know we can’t get into specific policy conversations because it’s still a little unclear as to what the cooling-off period is going to look like. When you’ve got a rapidly changing market, as I believe we do today….

I’ve heard that we’re…. Sales are down 22 percent since this time last year. I’ve been speaking to people in the sector. They say they’ve never seen anything change this quickly. Perhaps when we talk about unintended consequences….

Is that change in the market going to make yesterday’s solution even more difficult to where we are today?

T. Hargreaves: Our concern right from the get-go…. This was put into place to really protect the buyer. “Oh, it’s bad for the buyer. We have to really protect the buyer.” As soon as it switches and the market conditions change, that’s exactly it. The careful balance and analysis in advance has not really been given the due process.

We made our recommendation, essentially, to front-load the process. Rather than do it at the end, do it at the beginning. What the BCFSA has come out with in their recommendation, if you’ve studied it, is actually a pre-offer and a post-offer period at this point in time.

It’s a bit of a jigsaw, and that’s exactly our concern. This is one policy. Well, now if the provincial government moves forward with four or five more over the next few years — plus, the federal government has its mandate — we’re just becoming a jigsaw of hackneyed policy. It really takes that…. Let’s take our foot off the gas pedal, put the right minds together in a very careful, holistic analysis of policy and make these decisions much more carefully.

Again, as a sector, we’re very concerned with these issues. We’re also very concerned with the process, at the end of the day. I think that’s a good example of where political pressure has been put ahead of evidential-based policies. We just want to really make sure that, moving forward, we take a more careful path.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for your work on this. I really appreciate it. The superintendent just came under the BCFSA. So that’s probably not going to shift a whole lot, in terms of independence. I know that work, moving FICOM and superintendents and all that, has been over time. So I don’t see a lot of movement on that.

I do ask the question on your…. I think it was the second recommendation — on more stakeholder engagement. What would that look like? What does a seat for BCREA at the table actually look like?

T. Hargreaves: To clarify around an independent regulator, what we’re stating there is…. When a policy change is to be made, it should be based on the regulator being empowered to do the research and say: “This is what our research shows. This is what we should do.” That is a process that was just skipped, at the end of the day.

For us, in terms of what we have advocated since the BCFSA came into being, which was last August…. Just for everyone’s edification, we used to have two regulators. They were kind of built together, with the newly empowered and sized up regulator, the BCFSA.

What we would like to see is a professional standing committee. Internally, they have pre-existing expertise that they can draw upon. You’ve got on-the-ground managing broker representation. You’ve got a variety of different realtors, both long in the career and short in the career — you have new entrants as well as seasoned veterans — and then representation from across the province.

That’s the other policy issue. Solutions for Metro Vancouver are very different than housing solutions in northern B.C., for example. The pressures are really different. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you.

B. Bailey: I’m challenged by some of the things you’ve shared with us today. I think the sense of urgency is warranted. To make a suggestion of a policy and have follow-up afterwards and work collaboratively to fill in the blanks around that seems to me an appropriate way to behave when it’s such an urgent situation.

I’m also challenged because I think that self-regulation in your industry has been problematic historically. I think it’s really important that we find ways to do a much better job at protecting consumers.

I just want to say that for the record. I disagree with much of what you’ve shared today.

I think that there’s definitely room, and it’s appropriate, to be one of the collaborators on this. There is a very serious crisis, and acting with expediency is a completely appropriate driver, in my view.

T. Hargreaves: Let me both, if I may, agree and counter some of your points.

Our regulator is independent. The BCFSA is a Crown corporation. They’re an independent body. That’s who we are asking to be empowered, not our sector. I’m asking for the regulator to act as a regulator.

[12:00 p.m.]

In terms of speed and trying to deal with the issues…. Full disclosure. We were working with our regulator, under a non-disclosure agreement, doing careful policy research in these avenues when the governmental announcement was made. That’s a skip of due process. The change would’ve been put into place. The homework would’ve been done. The political pressure got in the way.

At the end of the day, I agree. Expedient things do need to be done with the right voices around the table and the right homework to be done, in advance. That can still be done quickly, rather than simply making announcements and trying to clean it up in the aftermath.

B. Bailey: I agree.

J. Routledge (Chair): I think we’re out of time. I’d like to thank you for coming and making your presentation. Thank you for putting it in the context of the reality of political pressure.

As my colleague has pointed out, there are many B.C.’ers who are experiencing a housing crisis. It’s a crisis that defines their lives and a crisis that defines their futures. What they’re saying to us is: “Do something. Do something in a hurry.” There is a sense of urgency.

Thank you for suggesting to us that there can be some checks and balances in the system.

T. Hargreaves: I’ll just close it in terms of our own policy direction. I operate in a public mandate. I don’t ever recommend policy simply because it helps our sector. I try to represent balanced process, and that’s certainly what I’m trying to echo today.

Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): We will recess for lunch.

The committee recessed from 12:01 p.m. to 1:04 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

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

Welcome, Christian. We have a timer set up. You have five minutes to make your presentation, and then we have five minutes to ask questions, for a total of ten minutes.

NATIONAL ELEVATOR
AND ESCALATOR ASSOCIATION

C. von Donat: This is a much more intimate space than last year, I have to say. People are a little bit closer together.

J. Routledge (Chair): It’s a good thing.

[1:05 p.m.]

C. von Donat: I will confess that I took the stairs down here today. Don’t hold that against me.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and hon. members of the committee. I’d like to say good afternoon before I begin and express my thanks for the opportunity to be here before you today.

My name is Christian von Donat. I’m the executive director for the National Elevator and Escalator Association. We’re also known as NEEA.

NEEA represents the four largest manufacturers and service providers of escalating and elevating devices globally. Those four members are Kone, Otis, Schindler and TK Elevator. NEEA has been an association in Canada since 1977. We were the successor to the Canadian Elevator Manufacturers Association.

Over the past five decades, our industry has undergone tremendous advances, innovation and modernization. Safety remains the number one priority for our members.

NEEA members continue to drive innovation and technological advances within the elevating industry which reduce energy consumption for buildings, incorporate sustainable materials and improve the overall user experience. Our members have been a key component of British Columbia, as the province’s growth is tied to the products our members supply, as well as through our expert workforce.

For Budget ’23, I’d like to focus on three key themes: first, accessibility for all British Columbians; second, reducing barriers in the built environment; and third, investing in infrastructure modernization.

It’s important, as more individuals and families move into highrises, that we consider the needs of individuals with disabilities. Individuals and families could be excluded from access to housing due to the limited access to elevators.

Outdated transportation systems and an inadequate number of elevators are leading causes of barriers for accessibility. It limits economic participation and societal interactions. Private and public buildings should meet modern accessibility standards. This includes transit stations, service locations and other facilities.

We recommend the government undertake a review to ensure that people with disabilities are not unduly facing barriers to access. For example, no new residential buildings should ever be constructed with just one elevator. It will be out for maintenance and eventual replacement, which could strand people with disabilities for weeks or longer.

On the topic of reducing barriers in the built environment, another major challenge overall is that B.C. has seen new buildings going up every day that are fundamentally under-elevatored. As buildings are taller and taller in order to accommodate more housing, appropriate consideration must be given to ensure that the adequate number of elevators is installed to service the public in these buildings.

Unfortunately, we do see instances of residential buildings going up that have more than 20 storeys, with just two elevators that service the building. The needs of residents and the riding public must be anticipated — for those with accessibility concerns, for people moving in and out, for recurring preventative maintenance and normal elevator maintenance operations — to ensure the continued safe operation of these units.

With this in mind, we strongly recommend the government bring 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 on this, new buildings will continue to go up that are under-elevatored. There is an ISO guide detailing exact mathematical formulas that would calculate how many elevators each type of building should have, based on users, floors and the application of the building.

Lastly, on the topic of modernization for public infrastructure, we recommend that government ensure that elevators are included in government infrastructure modernization efforts. New elevators are more energy-efficient, incorporate sustainable building materials and provide a better overall user experience for the public. Government facilities like hospitals, schools, universities and public offices that deliver services should have a plan in place, and the investment, to replace their older elevators. Oftentimes when we see government infrastructure announcements for buildings, they specifically do not include elevator modernization.

NEEA, as an association, looks forward to working with the government to develop these frameworks. We have very strong working relationships with TSBC and other officials across Canada and in British Columbia.

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

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

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Christian, for bringing this to our attention. One of the delicate issues that we are always trying to balance is the modernization and accessibility aspects, which I’m very passionate about, as well as housing affordability.

[1:10 p.m.]

I know that within the housing industry, most of the accessible units are located on the first floor, specifically for that reason. In smaller buildings, which are less expensive to build and which are more affordable for people to purchase, putting in two elevators — a redundancy which totally makes sense from an accessibility point — is oftentimes difficult.

Are there any sorts of initiatives or aspects of affordability that the elevator association could take on to make elevators less expensive to actually build? Especially in a wood-frame structure, they’re one of the most expensive parts of a whole structure to do.

C. von Donat: It’s a good question, and you’re right. Depending on how specialized the building is and what the requirements are, there is no off-the-shelf elevator. They’re mostly custom designs that have to be built for the application.

Back in the ’70s and ’80s, we had single-speed elevators. There are still hundreds of those that are in operation in B.C. Those were built to be affordable and cheap, and people could put them in.

The problem is that they’re the most prone to have faults, because they’re those elevators that go really, really slowly, just one speed, and the way that they were built is that changes in the humidity of the elevator shaft can mislevel that elevator by a foot. Then you can fix it tomorrow, and the next day it would have the same problem again. So when you look at people who slip and fall or trip, or are in a wheelchair and can’t get onto the elevator cab, those are the ones that cause the problems.

It’s kind of about…. I think you have to…. It’s a difficult question to answer. We need things that will be reliable, elevators that won’t cause those types of issues and whatnot. I think that’s good homework for us to take back and look at whether or not there’s something that we can do to suggest how we can minimize costs involved in that process.

I would say, as well, that modernization is one of those factors that we need to do more work to encourage, especially residential building owners, to think about in advance. They often will defer the idea of spending a lot of money on a new elevator and just keep trying to service something for 30, 40 years, and those are the ones that are prone to having more issues. It’s because they didn’t budget for the cost to replace an elevator.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I think you have answered it. This is more about building code as opposed to provincial legislation. Rather than the legislation, which is what you’ve recommended, are you working with municipalities to educate in terms of what these mathematical formulas are that they should be implementing in their building codes?

C. von Donat: It’s a good question. Vancouver city council, last year, had a study that they commissioned that looked into what they could possibly do around improving some of the availability issues around elevators. They came to the conclusion that legally, this is the responsibility of the province. So this would have to go back to the province to look at how they could change the building code to bring this in.

Ultimately, it’s frustrating when we know that there are new buildings going up every day that, for the next 60, 100-plus years, are going to have elevator issues. Unfortunately, the standard that’s set by fire code and the standard that’s the ideal operating conditions for the public…. It’s a very different chasm between the two.

There are jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere that follow this ISO standard. It’s a big book that says: “You’re a hospital. You have this many storeys. If you’re a residential building, how many people are you moving?” You know exactly how many elevators you should be building.

Unfortunately, as the price per square foot of places to live is higher and higher, the developer makes a decision on how many elevators they want to run through their whole building. Especially in Metro Vancouver, that’s becoming more and more of a decision for them that they have to make.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I’d like us to look at that mathematical model with respect to the Legislative Assembly. I just wanted to put that on record. We do not have enough elevators in that building.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Christian. I think you and I are probably the only two people in this room who know what a lunar key is. With that in mind, when you talk about elevator traffic and you talk about the difference between B.C. building code and B.C. fire code and that there have been some changes…. I think, back in 2012 or something, the panels got lowered down so a person in a wheelchair could actually reach the floor that they’re living on.

When you do the traffic analysis or traffic study, do you take into consideration the evacuation of the building — that typically, someone is going to show up and take control of all of the elevators and bring them down to the ground floor? Does that come into play? What needs to be done to allow for the evacuation of persons with disabilities that have mobility issues?

C. von Donat: It’s a good question. There are a lot of jurisdictions that haven’t actually gone through the effort to make sure that there’s universal key access, things like that. B.C. is further along in that than other jurisdictions, even in Canada, which is great.

[1:15 p.m.]

The traffic analysis document the ISO developed in concert with some of the officials who are technical experts that are based in Canada who really understand the jurisdiction…. They would be able to implement something, understanding that it would work here. This is designed for the normal operating conditions. For the emergency situations, that is more so contained in what the current emergency requirements would be for something like that. But I’d have to go back and check if they account for people with disabilities and whether that changes the factor in evacuations and whatnot.

What I’m speaking more so about is the optimal conditions. If you’re looking to move into a building, are you waiting for five minutes? Are you waiting 30 seconds longer for an elevator? Most people don’t think about that until they move in, and then they realize how frustrating it can be.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Christian. Unfortunately, our time with you has come to an end. Thank you for engaging us.

I want to say, in conclusion, that your term you used several times, “under-elevatored,” says a lot. As we try to address our housing crisis with more density, it will become a bigger and bigger issue. Thank you for framing it as an issue of equality and accessibility as well.

C. von Donat: I appreciate your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Laird Cronk, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Welcome, Laird.

B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR

L. Cronk: Afternoon. That takes me back to my electrical trade roots, but I’m not going to do that. Five minutes is a short time. Emergency lighting, firefighters….

Anyway, thanks for having me. This is year 4, I think. It’s great to be here.

In brief, as Fed president, I’m bringing these comments on behalf of our half-million workers who belong to the affiliated unions of the federation. If you can think of it, in the province, as work, one of our members likely is doing it somewhere in the province today. We are everywhere, and this is a cumulative voice of those workers and those affiliate unions. Three topics in five minutes for a Fed president is impossible, so I’m going to go as quickly but as thoroughly as I can.

The first one, I talked about last year, and I’m sad that I’m back here. In fact, I’m kind of angry that I’m back here talking about it again. That’s the employment standards backlog in this province. In 2001-2002, there were about 2.1 million workers in B.C., and the budget for the employment standards branch was $18 million. Here we are in 2022. We’re up to 2.7 million workers, and the budget in the employment standards branch is down from $18 million to $14 million. Not good enough.

We have a problem in this province with workers who…. These are the minimum standards. Whether they didn’t get paid for the work they did or they didn’t get overtime or they didn’t get vacation pay, whether they got improperly terminated from their job, often, and disproportionately represented with women and workers of colour at low-wage jobs in this province, they are facing “justice delayed is justice denied.”

It’s hard for me to understand why I’m back here another year, saying: “We need more money for the employment standards branch. We need more officers. We need to clear the backlog.” The backlog is over a year. It shouldn’t be more than 90 days.

I’m here, today, on that topic, to say that we need to fix this. You haven’t heard me publicly yelling from the rooftops on this because I really don’t want to tell the entire employer community in British Columbia that there’s a one-year wait if they don’t fulfil the Employment Standards Act. I think the vast, vast majority of employers are going to live up to the act, because they’re good. Some will not, and I don’t want them to have that knowledge. I just want it fixed for these workers.

I’m saying double it from $14 million to $28 million. This will bring it into modern times in terms of funding, and it needs to shift from reactive to proactive. Of course, a backlog was built up when the self-help kits were eliminated and real officers are going to listen to every complaint. People came back and said: “We have some faith now. There’s a system that will listen to our complaint.” Unfortunately, they’re in a major backlog. The $14 million extra will go to getting rid of the backlog and getting down to a reasonable 90-day maximum time frame to deal with cases. But it also helps the branch to be proactive.

[1:20 p.m.]

Misclassification is my second topic, and the employment standards branch is the group that needs to take on misclassification of workers in the gig and precarious economy. B.C. Building Trades recently put out a report that said that in the construction industry, in addition to underground economy, there is misclassification of workers as contractors far too often. We see it in places like Abbotsford in home-building. They’re incredibly over-the-top numbers. They estimate about $300 million in revenue lost to government every year because of this.

I’m here to tell you that in food services, in ride-hailing, in other areas, workers — again, who have a hard time finding the agency to fight their new employer that they’re actually an employee, on day one, and then find out that if they do want to fight, it’s a year wait at the employment standards branch — don’t get WCB coverage and, in fact, don’t even have WCB rules in the workplace if they’re not a worker. It doesn’t apply to them.

They don’t get employment standards coverage at all — minimum standards. They don’t get any funds into EI when they are between jobs. They don’t get, obviously, the WCB. They don’t get CPP. They don’t get any of these things that you and I take for granted every day.

But the government also loses. As employers opt out of the system — I’m going to say, cheating other employers with an unfair competitive advantage, misclassifying their workers — the government doesn’t get the employer’s side of the tax. You don’t get the WCB premiums. You don’t get the employer health tax. The federal government doesn’t get CPP and EI, and our social fabric unravels economically. We need the employment standards branch, with the extra money, to be proactive.

A very, very quick anecdote. Back in the ’90s, when I was an employment standards officer, a federal team, an employment standards team, went out into — I believe it was — Abbotsford and checked job sites and gave immunity to workers who had been misclassified. I worked at the branch at the time. I can’t verify this, but the running line was that in a week of work, we paid for a month of wages at the branch.

We need to get out there and proactively find out what’s happening. I’m seeing it in telecommunications. I’m seeing it in industrial settings. I’m seeing employers emboldened to say: “If they can do it, I can do it.” It’s not the way our system will work. We lose the economies of scale. We need to fix this.

The very last one is inequality and inequity. This feeds from the other two. We know — and how many times have we said this; and it’s true — COVID has exacerbated the inequities and the inequalities in our social fabric, in our system, in our workplaces. Look, there are a lot of community groups that do tremendous work around gender-based violence, around inequity and race-based violence — things like the Battered Women’s Support Services, the WISH Drop-in Centre, Living in Community.

These are good programs that the government invests in. I’m simply here to say to you that they’re crying for more money because they’re seeing an uptick. If we want this to really work, instead of reinventing the wheel, let’s do the things government can do up front. Let’s make sure we continue to fund and increase the funding to these folks, who are really good at what they do, to make sure that we’re actually putting the money where we’re putting the platitudes.

That’s it.

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

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

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Laird, for the presentation. I couldn’t agree more that the backlog with employment standards is just simply unacceptable. Thank you, again, for just drawing attention. You’re right. All we need is for that message to get out into the corporate entities, and it could be devastating.

My question to you, though, is this. You made a comment in the presentation that once we move from the self-help kits to the real, in-person, live, it will give a sense of relief. “Someone’s going to guide me through the process.”

Could it not be a combination or some sort of a hybrid of systems by which we could actually allow someone to go through the process unaided, with a little bit more technology or bolstered help or someone who is monitoring things, etc.? Are there any suggestions that you could make by way of that, that wouldn’t just be an extra $4 million into an abyss of who knows what but, rather, strategically placed money.

L. Cronk: With respect, and I appreciate the question, it’s really difficult to do an automated replication of a human being that knows the Employment Standards Act, as an officer, and could walk you through the different options and try to find solutions you and the employer, which don’t always come down to the exact act. It may be a different solution that’s worked out between the two parties.

R. Merrifield: Mediated. Okay.

L. Cronk: I’d just say this. This government and government’s across Canada have been really good when businesses have been closed down; funding has flowed. When workers are not getting a week’s wages and they can’t pay the rent, they wait a year. We need people there to guide them.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for that.

[1:25 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. I really appreciate it, especially when we had so many different presentations from our education sector saying: “Well, we have progressive values coming forward. We need money to back it up.” Actually, right now we have such a stronger emphasis on supporting people with a disability, discrimination, that we should have the financials backing it up.

First of all, thank you for drawing attention to it. I almost feel like the $28 million might actually not be enough. I would love to see a bit more sometimes. I guess I would say it that way because one more challenge I had lately was with Chinese-Canadian communities. There are a lot of people — especially youth, as well — who don’t even know of the existence of the Employment Standards Act, and we definitely want to make sure, when someone starts working, to really engage.

If you don’t mind me putting a little challenge in for you, if we also had to put in an outreach component into it, to ensure that our communities are fairly well aware of their rights and their appropriate relationships to employers, what’s a dollar figure, maybe, you can throw at us, so we can have a better understanding to really strengthen our support of our labourers?

L. Cronk: Thanks for that. In the additional 14 — which brings us back up to what it was 20 years ago, and then a little bit more money — I actually built in what we believe gives the government the ability to be proactive. It used to be, in the old days, my old days, that the act said you had to put a poster up, as an employer, in a workplace in a prominent location, that had the basic rights.

We used to go, proactively, as officers, as part of our job, and make sure it was there. It also gave us an opportunity to say to the employer, “by the way, here’s a few things that we just want to make sure you’re doing,” and talk to some of the workers. It really resonated throughout the community.

We’re not doing the proactive work any more. Granted, with technology, we can do things some different ways, as was mentioned on another front. But I think we need to be proactive in whatever that looks like. This additional money allows people to actually understand what’s happening to them.

There are workers out there right now with a foil box on the back of their bike that don’t realize they should be employees. They don’t have any of these coverages, and the government’s not getting the funds, because they just don’t know. We need to get it to them as opposed to them going and searching for it. They’re just trying to make a living.

M. Starchuk: To that point, it’s like this is the perfect segue. When you talk about that person with the foil bag on the back of their chair, there was a specific…. I cook at home all the time, so I’ve never used the service, but I do know somebody that used the service last winter, and that person slipped and fell on their front steps, and there was no coverage for that person. They considered actually suing the person that they delivered the food to.

I’m not sure what needs to be done to push it in that way, but when I heard that, it was kind of like I don’t even want to use the service for fear of what I might be responsible for.

L. Cronk: I would say this: I don’t want anybody to think that the Federation of Labour is anti–new businesses or anti-services that keep us safe. What we want is the workers to be respected.

If the business model is that these workers don’t have any minimum standards and employment standards for that business to make a profit, it’s not a business model; it’s slavery. So let’s give them their rights and build that into the model, and then we’ll be okay.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Laird. Our time with you is concluded. I note that you made the same case last year and that you’re not happy you have to be back here again this year, making the same case. I’m not happy about that, either.

I also want to draw attention to the fact that these workers’ rights you’re addressing in this presentation are non-union and that you’re here advocating on behalf of all working people. I appreciate that.

L. Cronk: That’s correct. Thank you for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Dennis Donnelly, representing CUPE Local 1004.

CUPE LOCAL 1004

D. Donnelly: Thank you to the Finance Committee in allowing me to speak here today. I’m Dennis Donnelly, and I’m the communications officer for Local 1004 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, more commonly known as CUPE.

Local 1004 represents over 4,000 members. Our members are the outside workforce in the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver park board. We also represent workers at Pacific National Exhibition, EasyPark, PHS Community Services Society, Bowen Island outside workers and Co-Development Canada and many faculty associations at post-secondary schools throughout British Columbia.

My objective here today is to address the funding for some occupational health and safety concerns.

Our first recommendation is that you fund the Ministry of Labour to develop a plan for the full implementation of the recommendations made through extensive reviews at WorkSafeBC in British Columbia’s worker compensation system.

[1:30 p.m.]

Over the last number of years, the government of British Columbia has conducted a number of reviews of the province’s worker compensation system. These reviews contain many recommendations that seek to strengthen the system. The recommendations lay out a path towards a system that better supports the needs of injured workers, and restores the confidence of both workers and employers.

While important changes were made through the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, Bill 23 in 2020, the vast majority of recommendations have yet to be implemented. These various reports were developed after thorough consultation with workers and employers across the province and took pains to ensure a wide diversity of perspectives were heard. Among other things, these reviews highlighted deep concerns about the experiences of workers navigating the claims system, especially workers with severe or complex injuries and workers for whom English is not their first language.

Given the gravity of the concerns highlighted through­out the extensive studies, there is no question that the remaining recommendations should be implemented as quickly as possible. The province has to restore confidence in the WCB among workers and employers. Further, you must ensure that workers are treated with respect and dignity while they access their financial assistance and medical care which they require.

Our second recommendation to the 2023 budget is to provide funding to local governments, post-secondary institutions and school districts to fund replacement of unsafe, aging equipment with clean energy equipment and vehicles. Local governments and school districts and post-secondary institutions are struggling with aging vehicles and equipment that are powered by carbon-based fuels. The evergreening of fleets is already a challenge for all of these institutions. The need to move to carbon-neutral technology adds additional cost and complexity.

The move away from carbon-based fuels is key to addressing climate change, and all the available science indicates that the action is needed now. Without financial assistance from the provincial government, these local governments and institutions will not have the resources to move away from these vehicles and equipment and quickly contribute to the province’s emission targets.

The positive benefits of converting to zero-emission vehicles and equipment goes beyond the environment. It impacts the health and safety of workers in the community. Exposure to these fuels and exhausts represents health risk to all workers and to the general public. A case in point would be the things like leaf blowers and other portable devices. These risks have so far been tolerated, but we know that it’s going to get worse and worse, and if we make these improvements, it’s going to get better.

CUPE Local 1004 knows all too well that local governments and other such public entities need support to replace aging equipment and vehicles. Our members have directly experienced the negative outcomes of equipment left in service beyond its safe operational life. The consequences of this can be fatal. In 2019, a CUPE Local 1004 member, Mo Cerra, was killed while dealing with a malfunctioning vehicle that should have been unfit for service. While we know this never should be allowed to happen, we cannot allow it to happen again.

We know there’s a path forward, and we ask the committee to take this route. By supporting public bodies to replace aging equipment and vehicles with clean power alternates, the province can help meet our climate change targets and enhance worker and community health and safety.

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

I’ll invite the committee to ask some questions.

H. Yao: You talked about extensive research with WCB in this process too. Do you have any stories or some kind of challenge that maybe some of your members actually experienced in the process relating to WCB? It would give us a better, more concrete, relatable story.

D. Donnelly: Honestly, I wish I did. I know it just hearing stories from our members at different times. I don’t have the details on them. But yeah, it’s extensive, and it’s frustrating. Like I say, it’s frustrating because usually they’re injured, but it’s not just the physical injury that affects them. It’s the emotional and mental health that affects them. So they can’t deal with those kinds of issues on their own. They need things that the provincial advocates…. And we need more of it.

H. Yao: That’s fair.

[1:35 p.m.]

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. Mine is more of a comment and maybe a small question, because I do know how difficult it becomes to navigate the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal or the review division, and it often scares people from even filing a claim. They know if they, maybe, don’t have the documentation, it’s just hopeless. That’s there.

With your comments that are inside here in these reports — and I’m not aware of the reports that you’re speaking to other than the fact that there was pretty intensive consultation between labour and employers that are out there — do you know what the stumbling block is, or is there a stumbling block? Is it money, or is it just will?

D. Donnelly: I’m not going to guess on both. I think one of the ones that the labour groups will draw the attention to are the Patterson report, in particular, or the Petrie report.

H. Yao: You used an example of a gas leaf blower, if I remember correctly. I think that’s just when we’re talking about pollution being put into the air. It has almost become quite a common concern regarding noise-level pollution, and also, the vibration actually causes a certain amount of discomfort, I’ve heard, from individuals too.

So if we’re talking about solutions involving gas or electrifying, we’re not just talking about removal of GHG, greenhouse gas, from the environment. Really, we’re looking for ways to actually improve the working environment for many labourers too.

D. Donnelly: It would. I can give you a personal story on that, because one of my best friends did work for the Vancouver Parks Board for years, and one of their jobs in the winter was to run the leaf blower, and they would end up taking either time off for discomfort for back. More so, they would have headaches at the end of the day. Especially if they were doing it for a week at a time, they would actually have to take sick time.

If you walk by anybody using one, you can smell it pretty good, because they’re usually pretty darn inefficient.

B. Stewart: I was going to ask the first question that Mike asked about the reviews. Maybe if you don’t have the information, you could direct us to where we might just understand what it is that, you know, has been….

D. Donnelly: Are you talking about the reports, or are you talking about the examples?

B. Stewart: No. The reviews. He asked about examples. You mentioned in your message to fund the Ministry of Labour to develop a plan for the full implementation of the recommendations made through extensive reviews.

D. Donnelly: I actually have those. The three main ones are the Bogyo, Petrie and Patterson reviews.

B. Stewart: Good. Thank you.

Secondly, on the replacement vehicles or equipment, is there any standard that you’re aware of in terms of…? Like, I’m surprised that there’s a vehicle — that the groups that CUPE works for would have an unsafe vehicle or something that’s not maintained or up to that standard. It seems unusual that they would. Is there not a standard? I mean, even….

D. Donnelly: There are standards, and a lot of it falls though the cracks. I actually worked for the Pacific National Exhibition, and worse than that, we ended up buying old city vehicles to use at one time. Actually, we were lucky that all of them got burned up in a fire last winter, because they can be replaced with real vehicles.

Yeah. We fight about the condition of the vehicles every week kind of thing.

J. Routledge (Chair): Renee, quick question?

R. Merrifield: Yeah. It’s more of a comment than anything else.

Thank you for advocating for clean energy, especially with those small devices, because you’re right. They produce a tremendous amount of GHGs. So very excellent advocacy. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, that’s our time, Dennis. Thank you very much for making this presentation and concentrating on issues of health and safety. I think that many of us in this room who are MLAs experience what you’re talking about, because often we get calls. Our offices get calls from people who are just feeling desperate in terms of lack of response from WorkSafe. So thank you for keeping that on our agenda.

Our next presenter is Quinn Newcomb, representing Genome B.C.

Welcome. You’ve got five minutes to make your presentation.

[1:40 p.m.]

GENOME B.C.

Q. Newcomb: All right. Good afternoon. My name is Quinn Newcomb, and I’m the vice-president of corporate development for Genome B.C. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about how Genome B.C. is positively contributing to British Columbia’s future through genomics research and innovation.

While our work is done in all parts of the province, I’d like to acknowledge that Genome B.C.’s office is located on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish Nations, who have been stewards of the land since time immemorial.

For 22 years, Genome B.C. has been dedicated to applying the power of genomics to pressing societal, environmental and economic challenges. We are a not-for-profit organization supporting world-class genomics research and innovation with the aim of growing a globally competitive life sciences sector and delivering sustainable benefits for B.C., Canada and beyond.

We manage a cumulative portfolio of some 500 B.C.-based research projects and innovation initiatives. Through over 1,100 collaborations in 42 countries, we’ve advanced more than 150 B.C.-based companies and generated 767 patent applications.

Our work has attracted almost $970 million in co-funding to B.C., which has helped to grow, attract and retain top talent in our province. These figures are significant, but the real value of our work is demonstrated through the impacts these projects have on the lives of British Columbians, including through advancements in health care, environmental stewardship, food security, climate change adaptation and enabling sustainable economic growth.

Genomics, or the study of the complete set of DNA in an organism, is always evolving and has established itself as a key technology to address global, national and even regional challenges. This was recently validated by the federal government’s selection of genomics as one of three key technologies of the future, alongside artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

There’s no doubt that the unique challenges of our time demand innovative solutions. With continuing existential global threats to human health and increasingly dangerous environmental crises, genomics has emerged as one of the most relevant technologies that science has to offer hope.

Of course, genomics is recognized as an important tool in health care, informing the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and rare diseases, and is foundational for precision medicine. Its power was also demonstrated by allowing scientists to understand the virus that causes COVID-19 faster than any other disease-causing organism in history. This, in turn, enabled the surveillance of variants and the production of effective vaccines at record speed.

However, the utility of genomics goes well beyond human health, from building solutions that enhance food security to supporting the remediation of mine sites, from adapting to the effects of our changing climate to monitoring species at risk.

Genomic tools are helping tree breeders know which trees are most resilient to heat, drought and disease in our province. Likewise, researchers can identify and manage invasive pests such as the Asian longhorned beetle and gypsy moth that threaten not only our forests but our fruit crops. Genomics is providing new and transformative ways of advancing B.C.’s economically important natural resource and agrifood sectors.

Given that genomics is one of the most rapidly advancing areas of science, it’s even more important to engage young people early. Our Geneskool program supports teachers throughout B.C. — and also now in Quebec — by providing them with tools to deliver classroom workshops and summer camps for students in grades 9 to 12. Last year alone we engaged nearly 2,400 students and trained over 100 teachers to make learning about genomics fun.

The impacts from our work are made possible only through the continued support from the B.C. government. We are grateful for the $78 million we received as part of Budget 2022, which will enable us to continue delivering initiatives and improve the lives of British Columbians every day.

The health of B.C.’s people, environment and economy will increasingly benefit from genomics research and innovation. We look forward to continuing to advance B.C.’s life sciences sector and drive the adoption of genomic technologies today and well into the future.

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

[1:45 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I just loved the presentation. What an incredible step towards the right direction in innovation.

My concern right now is that we often lose our talent to other jurisdictions. Obviously, we want our talent to stay behind. Based upon your observations, based on your experience, what can we do as a provincial government to encourage educated British Columbians to want to stay behind and invest their energy and time into building a stronger British Columbia?

Q. Newcomb: Thank you very much for the question. I think there are, in our view, three main ways to grow, attract and retain talent in British Columbia. We see that as part of our mandate of investing in academic researchers and supporting research within industry in our province.

As part of our mandate, we provide funding and support teams to compete for funding outside the province to attract that funding into B.C. so that we make sure that the best researchers want to come to B.C., stay in B.C. once they’re here, and continue to grow their talent so that we can advance areas of strategic importance for our province.

H. Yao: You mentioned three, right?

Q. Newcomb: Yes. That’s grow, attract and retain talent.

H. Yao: Oh, my apologies. Thank you.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Quinn. I was interested to hear you talk about the future of genomics.

Just having seen the damage from the winter in the Okanagan valley this year and the fruit crops, is it at a stage where industry could, perhaps, do work with Genome B.C. where they could, I guess, understand how to submit samples of the genetic material and have it identified as to which ones stood out? I know that there are different ways of doing it, but is it at a grassroots level that industry can benefit from the work that you’re doing?

Q. Newcomb: Absolutely. We do quite a bit of work with industry and academic researchers in the field who are also connected with the various associations and industry directly. In fact, we’ve just launched a program called genomics innovation for agriculture, food and fisheries in partnership with the Investment Agriculture Foundation of B.C.

That is a program that will offer funding to both researchers and industry partners who are looking to advance genomic solutions to challenges they’re facing in the field, in the industry. That’s something we’re promoting to advance both sustainability and crop yield, especially in a changing climate. We believe that genomics is one of the keys to solving that particular issue and allowing our economy to continue to grow sustainably.

B. Bailey: Thank you. Nice to see you again. I really appreciate the work that you do and the contributions that you make to our life sciences sector. I have the impression that we really have quite an extraordinary organization, but I know that one of the risks you run in doing this kind of work is not putting your head up and looking around at what else is happening, both in Canada and beyond.

I wonder if you can just help me get a picture of that. Where do we sit in our genomics work provincially compared to other places in Canada and, perhaps, even compared globally?

Q. Newcomb: It’s an excellent question. British Columbia and our region is very well situated to advance genomics in terms of our life sciences cluster. We have a very strong life sciences ecosystem in our province already. We’ve seen tremendous growth among industry, companies that are growing in agritech and technology in general.

We’ve been also able to show that we’re effective at competing for funds at the federal level. So Genome B.C. supports researchers in competing for those funds through Genome Canada and through other federal entities. We usually capture about 30 percent of those federal funds, hitting well above our weight in terms of our per capita.

We’re also sharing our knowledge broadly outside of Canada with other countries. We’re continuously looking to partner with foundations at the international level so that we can fund programs and bring that funding back to B.C. for academic researchers. But then the results of that research can be used not only in B.C. but across Canada and even globally to help advance and solve some of those major challenges that we’re seeing.

B. Bailey: So to say that we’re kind of hitting a bit above our weight would be empirically supported?

Q. Newcomb: I’d say well above our weight.

B. Bailey: Okay. Thank you.

[1:50 p.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, we’re going to have to draw it to a conclusion.

Thank you very much for what is a very hopeful presentation. I think a lot of British Columbians, perhaps particularly young British Columbians, are feeling very worried about their future. You have offered some very exciting hope.

Q. Newcomb: Thank you so much for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Sue Paish, Digital Supercluster.

Welcome.

S. Paish: Thank you for allowing me to come. It’s an honour to be here. It’s my first time, so if I break some rules, tell me.

J. Routledge (Chair): Because we have so many presenters, one of the things we’re really focused on is time. So five minutes for your presentation — we have a timer — and then five minutes for questions and answers.

DIGITAL SUPERCLUSTER

S. Paish: Perfect. Thank you so much.

It’s nice to see some familiar faces and nice to meet those of you that I don’t know.

I am here on behalf of the digital supercluster. I’m going to talk about three things. Who are we, and what do we do? A lot of times people go: “You’re a super what?” Secondly, what have we done? Thirdly, how are we going to help B.C.?

For those of you that don’t know me, I’m the very proud mom of three amazing young Canadian women. I’m the grandmother of 3½ — one is on the way — tiny British Columbia girls. My entire family lives in British Columbia. Everything I’ve done for the past 40 years has been to build a better British Columbia for my children and future generations.

That’s why I chose to leave an exciting role as the CEO of LifeLabs to lead the supercluster. Why? The policy which came out of the government of Canada is some of the most ambitious, novel and potentially successful public policy, in economics and industrial growth, that I’ve seen in decades.

Why is it that different? What’s so different about it? First of all, let me tell you that it is so different that it has a high chance of failing and a small chance of working. If it works, it’s going to change the trajectory for this country. Having the digital supercluster in British Columbia, as our home base and our primary area of focus, is going to change the potential and the success of British Columbia from an economic perspective, a social perspective and a people perspective.

That’s the rough intro.

Who are we, what do we do, and why is it so different? Historically, innovation policy and economic policy in Canada have been very much built on what I call a slingshot model and a supply model. Supply innovation is a well-known principle; i.e., we help individual companies sell their stuff. Data for the past ten years has shown that that has had marginal success. Canada has slipped on the innovation scorecard to the point where we were in the bottom quartile for the OECD. That’s not a place we want to be.

How are we different? We are different in that the model has three elements. First of all, we’re demand-driven. We don’t focus on selling people stuff. We focus on solving some of society’s and industry’s biggest problems. Secondly, we don’t invest in individual companies. The model is based on bringing organizations around the table — organizations who might not normally sit together or even want to sit together — to solve some of these big problems, with the theory that you solve problems better together than you do on your own.

The third element. We drive results. We co-invest. We don’t fund projects. If you are a consortia that has gone through the obstacle course that we put you through to get approved, we then require that you deliver results in accordance with the business plan that you’ve created. Once you deliver those results, we co-invest, with taxpayer dollars, about 30 cents on the dollar. We’re stewards of taxpayer dollars. We want results. No results, no investment.

That’s who we are and what we do.

What are the impacts? We’ve had tremendous results. When you say that you’re digital, you can sound like you’re all things to all people. We focus on three areas: health, natural resources and talent. Those are issues that we identified in 2018. We feel a little bit clairvoyant in some ways but not necessarily because they’re not new issues. I’m going to give you an example of a couple of projects that we have that have produced results for British Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

The World Health Organization has identified an issue called AMR, antimicrobial resistance, as one of the top-ten killers in the world. It kills over three million people a year. You all know what it is. You’ve lived through COVID. Pathogens, viruses, microbes evolve to become resistant to treatment and vaccines.

A little company came to us and said, “Hey, we think we can do this in a better way than we do right now,” which is that front-line health care workers look at binders of guidance. If you’re in Vancouver, it’s easier. You can get on your phone or you can phone a friend or go on a website. If you’re in Sub-Saharan Africa or northern British Columbia, it’s harder.

We’ve, through this project, created a platform where health care workers around the world — as long as they have a phone connection — can get the most up-to-date treatment on any of the millions of viruses, within 15 minutes of accuracy. Later this fall, this is going to be announced by the World Health Organization, jointly with the government of Canada, as the new world standard.

What does that mean? Everybody in the world has to buy from Firstline, just up the street. What does that mean for Firstline? You can do the math.

I realize I’m out of time. I’ve got another example I can give you, but I’m mindful of the time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for that. Maybe one of the questions that someone would be willing to ask is to give your second example.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I’ll ask that question.

Hi, Sue. Nice to see you. What’s your second example?

S. Paish: That Firstline example was an example in health care. We’ve got about 35 more I could give you, but that would take too much time.

The second example comes in the context of natural resources. Decarbonization, moving to net zero, is an imperative for all of us, and it’s very prominent in British Columbians’ minds. When we talk about net zero and decarbonization, we talk about electronic vehicles. EVs are in everybody’s lexicon. What we don’t talk about when we talk about EVs is that in order to produce an EV, you need rare earth minerals — lithium, cobalt and other rare earth minerals.

Canada is one of the ten producers in the world of these rare earth minerals. Most of our rare earth minerals that are close to the surface have already been extracted. They currently exist somewhere between 200 metres and a kilometre beneath the surface. How do you get them out of the ground? How do you identify them without disrupting the environment and having a huge environmental impact?

A little company called Ideon, in Richmond, said: “Hey. There’s an old telescope sitting out at TRIUMF that was being developed for deep Earth exploration for different reasons. We think, if we get some other people around the table, we can make it useful.” We now have, in Ideon, the world’s first Earth X-ray that can X-ray one kilometre into the earth and identify the presence, the quality and the size of rare earth minerals needed to decarbonize our societies and our economy.

This is functional. When it was announced, it got worldwide attention. To give you a sense of what the industry thinks about it, the major investor that’s working with them now is BHP, the world’s largest mining company.

These are two examples of the 80 projects that we have in play.

B. Bailey: Hi, Sue. Nice to see you. Thank you for those great examples, and congratulations. That’s really exciting — the WHO piece.

Sometimes folks don’t really understand the supercluster — where it came from and what it is. I’m going to ask a couple clarifying pieces. I sometimes hear people using the word “supercluster” as though it means a cluster of technology that exists somewhere. So I wonder if you could just maybe help us be precise with that word. Then secondly, a little bit of evolution of where it came from and what you’re hoping from in terms of this group.

S. Paish: We didn’t choose the word supercluster. We are the product, I mentioned, of public policy. Public policy from the government in Canada, in 2017, created a program called the innovation superclusters initiative. It identified five centres across the country. In Atlantic Canada, there’s an ocean supercluster. We tell them we have one too. In Montreal, artificial intelligence. In Ontario, manufacturing. In the prairies, agriculture. And in British Columbia, digital technologies.

[2:00 p.m.]

We are the product of the government of Canada. We’re a five-year program. It’s to end March 31, 2023. We all are directed to have our own business models, our own plans of approaches, our own programs and metrics and approaches to driving to increasing the success of Canadian industry. If you can increase the success of Canadian industry, grow Canadian companies, and keep IP in Canada, you will build a healthier economy.

We’re in British Columbia. British Columbia is our home province, and 50 percent of the organizations that we work with are in B.C. I’m very proud to say that we met or exceeded almost all — all but one — of the five-year metrics that Ottawa set for us in 2½ years, so much so that we did get a phone call at one point asking us to slow down. It didn’t go well. I don’t know if that answers that question No. 1.

Question No. 2: why am I here? I’m a British Columbian. I want to amplify the opportunity that we have to bring our experience and our success over the last four years to British Columbia, with a focus on British Columbia. There’s a reason we haven’t been here the last three years. We were setting up ourselves. We were testing the program model. We were building. We now have a membership group of 1,100 companies; half are British Columbian. We work with 57 universities across the country, all the universities in British Columbia, as well as academic and research institutions, like Genome B.C.

What do we want from British Columbia? We think that with an investment from the government of British Columbia, focused on work that we’re doing in British Columbia and specifically requiring us to focus on the imperatives in this province — health care, climate change, supply chain, talent; those are what we do already — with a mandate to drive the results in British Columbia, we can do a lot. Right now our mandate from the government of Canada is Canada. That’s quite understandable.

That’s what we are looking for, and we are looking for investment at that level. We’ve been very grateful to have received some investment, from the province of B.C., targeted to specific projects. That has been helpful, but when we see the alignment between our priorities and the priorities of the province of B.C. and of the people of B.C., they’re absolutely aligned. We’d like to work with the province on the best way to use the infrastructure and the organization that we already have set up. We’re ready to go.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Sue, for coming, and thank you for clarifying the digital supercluster.

S. Paish: You know what? There’s going to be a new name. It will be coming.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. It is an unusual model, and your excitement for it is very clear and kind of infectious. Thank you for that.

S. Paish: Thank you for what you’re all doing. I appreciate all the work that you do, not just in this committee but in your day jobs.

R. Merrifield: Sue, you said, “Health care, climate change, supply chain…”

S. Paish: …and talent. One of our projects is the single largest investment that Microsoft has made in talent in the country, so we’ve got a few there.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Walt Judas, representing our Tourism Industry Association of B.C.

Welcome.

TOURISM INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

W. Judas: Good afternoon. Thanks for having me. There are probably a dozen things that I can talk to you about this afternoon, but I’ll focus on three.

I want to begin by acknowledging the committee’s recommendations for this year’s budget and the province’s commitment to supporting the tourism industry with relief measures, over the past couple of years, such as the small and medium-sized business recovery grant, the large operators grant and many others to help businesses stay afloat and, ultimately, recover and rebuild after the ravaging effects of the pandemic.

I’m pleased to say that while many businesses have a long way to go to recoup losses over the past couple of years, we have seen a rebound this year in visitation revenue and other key performance measures akin to some pre-COVID-19 levels. So we’re on track for recovery.

[2:05 p.m.]

The three things I want to focus on today, though, are funding support for tourism emergency management, the municipal and regional district tax, and expansion of the resort municipality initiative. A couple of those I’ve brought to this committee’s attention before.

Starting with the regional destination management organizations and funding for emergency management, notwithstanding the pandemic, the tourism industry has dealt with and been at the forefront of many crises in recent years, ranging from wildfires and heat domes to flooding and resource disasters. Each time, tourism operators have stepped up to source or provide residents, visitors and first responders with accommodation and food, transportation, communication services and, in some cases, have been involved in rescue operations.

These roles and responsibilities, we think, will continue for the foreseeable future, given our industry’s intimate knowledge of each area of the province, not to mention the nature of tourism and hospitality and looking out for and after people. While we’ve made great strides in integrating the tourism industry into the provincial emergency management system, we need provincial funding to help our sector execute on the key tenets of the new tourism emergency management framework that focuses on preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery.

For us, it’s not a matter of if the next crisis hits but of when it hits, either at a regional level or provincially. Nominal funding has been provided — and appreciated — in recent years, but it’s nowhere near enough to support the execution of emergency plans, training and response that’s needed on an annual basis at the regional level, let alone some of the basics of updating databases and securing technology requirements.

The second thing is that for many years, B.C.’s community destination marketing organizations have enjoyed a clear and predictable funding program through the municipal and regional district tax, which is an up-to-3-percent tax applied on short-term accommodation. MRDT was introduced to provide funding for local tourism marketing programs and projects. The tax is intended to help grow B.C. revenues, visitation and jobs, and to amplify B.C.’s tourism marketing efforts in an increasingly competitive marketplace. There are currently 64 jurisdictions that collect MRDT, and it’s jointly administered by the Finance Ministry, the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport, as well as Destination B.C.

Earlier this year the district of Tofino submitted an application to use a portion of MRDT to debt-service a new wastewater treatment plant. Notwithstanding Tofino’s circumstances — we agree on the need for the plant — this type of infrastructure exceeds the scope and parameters of the intended MRDT legislation. It also has the very real potential of jeopardizing multi-year marketing investments critical for tourism recovery, not to mention setting a precedent for other MRDT communities to follow suit with similar projects of their own. We’re certainly aware of that.

The MRDT system needs to be retained for its original intended purpose: tourism marketing projects and programs. As an aside, online accommodation platforms are not compelled to collect MRDT. They’re asked to do it voluntarily. Most don’t; I think Airbnb does. We need it to be legislated that they collect MRDT. That can also help contribute to tourism marketing projects and programs, notwithstanding affordable housing.

I see I don’t have time to talk about RMI funding. So I’ll park it there.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much. I’ll invite members of the committee to ask you questions.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for the presentation. Are you doing a written submission as well?

W. Judas: Yes.

R. Merrifield: Perfect. So we will get to read about it.

What are the modest funds that you’re looking for on EMBC and regional emergency?

W. Judas: It’s $500,000 a year for the five regions. That excludes Vancouver, Coast and Mountains, which is kind of separate from the other regions. They’re under the aegis of Destination B.C. That would be Cariboo Chilcotin Coast, Kootenay Rockies, Thompson Okanagan, Vancouver Island and the North. There’s also some catch-up that we need to do for initial funding of $250,000.

[2:10 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Okay, so catch up the 250, then. Perfect. Thank you.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. We heard earlier on, from another agency, about how the MRDT was required for Airbnb and VRBO and that there need to be tools that are inside there to level the playing field. It’s one thing to collect it; it’s another thing to remit it so that it goes to the right places that are there. Have you given any thought as to how to make that happen?

W. Judas: Well, we know too, I think, that some of the revenues that Airbnb collects and remits are used for affordable housing initiatives. We certainly support that, particularly as it relates to the visitor economy, because so many of our businesses, our operators, are challenged with workforce challenges, and one of the problems associated with that is for these workers to be able to find affordable housing. If online accommodation platforms are remitting and that money is being used by communities for affordable housing for tourism workers, we’re certainly in support.

The remainder, though, are benefiting, to be sure, from the marketing that many of the destination marketing and management organizations are doing. By rights, they should also be providing money towards those marketing initiatives, projects and programs related to tourism.

B. Stewart: Good to see you again. I want clarity on the RMI. You’re talking about the 14 communities that currently fall under it. What changes are needed, and where do you see it expanding? Not so much the communities, but where do you see limitations?

W. Judas: That program works extremely well, and I’m not suggesting that we take anything away from that program. In fact, it should be cemented for the foreseeable future, for those 14 resort communities that have come to rely on RMI. What I’m proposing is a parallel program that speaks to or that services some of the other communities that currently don’t benefit but are turning very much from resource communities to tourism.

By way of example, Parksville-Qualicum. Squamish. I even have heard from Terrace. There are a number of smaller communities in the Kootenay Lakes area that could benefit. They are seeing, year over year, an influx of tourists that obviously taxes the system’s infrastructure and otherwise. That’s really what we’re looking at: a parallel program, without taking anything away from the existing RMI communities.

B. Bailey: I think you just were starting to answer my question, actually. Thank you for the presentation. This is new information for me.

I don’t have an opinion about it, but I’m kind of curious in regard to the Tofino example. I could foresee an argument that could be made that a town like Tofino might not need marketing. It’s so well known now, and very often oversubscribed — that’s my impression — whereas infrastructure, of course, is very challenging, given the tax base and, really, that the population is largely tourism. Having flexibility in that program might be a benefit, but I think you’re seeing that differently. Help me understand why that’s not a strong argument.

W. Judas: Tofino is an anomaly, to be sure. You’re right. It has enjoyed record-setting numbers, even in spite of the pandemic, so I think they felt that some of that money was not necessary.

I guess where the concern lies is just the principle or the precedent that it sets for altering MRDT usage for purposes other than its original intent. As I mentioned, there are other communities that have seen what Tofino was able to do and what cabinet approved, and there is a concern amongst the destination marketing organization community and the hotels, etc., that now there will be a run from other communities looking at options beyond, as I say, the intended use.

Again, there are multi-year investments that are needed, and certainty for funds. Many of those communities were absent of those funds during the pandemic. That’s part of the concern.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for meeting with us, Walt. Probably most British Columbians know intuitively that tourism is essential to our economy. I think that what’s probably less obvious is the role that your industry plays when it comes to emergency management.

Thank you for sharing those insights with us and reminding us of that key role.

Our next presenter is Eric Chene with RUNVAN.

[2:15 p.m.]

RUNVAN

E. Chene: I would first like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the opportunity to present on behalf of event organizers in the province. I also want to thank the province, who provide significant support — through the B.C. fairs, festivals and events recovery fund as well as tourism grants — to our organization and various other organizations, pre-pandemic and even post-pandemic, to recover.

As you are probably aware, organizations like us were the first ones to be shut down, and the last ones to be reopened. During this time, our local non-profit had deficits of approximately $200,000 during the pandemic.

As an organization, we basically put on four events a year for 26,000 participants and 4,000 volunteers; raise approximately $450,000 for local and national charities; and provide tens of millions of dollars of economic impact through sport tourism every year. Although we’re tremendously happy to have events return, we did face many challenges and hurdles that a lot of our colleagues have probably seen across different industries. I’ll list a few here just to give you an example of some of the challenges we face not only this year but in years moving ahead.

One is that in 2020, the Traffic Management Manual for Work on Roadways produced by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure mandated that all events create these new traffic management plans. The cost to produce these four traffic management plans for our four races exceeded approximately $100,000. Newly in 2022, we’ve found that WorkSafe is implementing new traffic personnel requirements. We still do not know the impact and what the cost will be to us. As I hope you can appreciate, we’re not in the business of traffic management. We’re in the business of putting on events and sports.

What has also been interesting during the pandemic is that many of our suppliers unfortunately went bankrupt because their main means of revenue is supporting events like ours, events like the Vancouver Sun Run, Gran Fondo and many large events. The main traffic management suppliers in the Lower Mainland merged as one mega-company, meaning there are no competitors. Unfortunately, the cost went up from — I believe we paid approximately this — $300,000 the last time we hosted an in-person event to $530,000.

Since I’ve been working with the society…. We used to pay approximately $100,000 for traffic management. This year, if you count all four of our events, we exceeded $600,000. And over a course of ten years.

Inflation wasn’t only in this area. It’s across many suppliers. Many of our suppliers are facing bankruptcies. A lot of them cannot find staff. Also, supply chain issues. On average, suppliers have gone up by 25 percent. I’ll give you an example. For the Vancouver marathon, our operational budget is typically $850,000. This past year we paid $1.1 million, an increase of over 20 percent.

In order to reduce costs, we’ve been actually working with the city of Vancouver to help them acquire equipment such as barricades and signage, which we could then not only use for ourselves but also all other events in the industry, whether it’s Vancouver Pride, running events, cycling events, and so on. We’re looking at doing a contribution of about $25,000, because on equipment alone during the last marathon, I paid over $65,000. Unfortunately, the city doesn’t have the resources or the equipment to support events of our scale and of our size, even though they are very supportive overall of our events.

When I’ve asked our suppliers, “What are the main reasons for the staffing shortage?” the two main reasons were that…. Staff left during the pandemic and never came back. As we say in the industry, they found a “real job” — not that event work is not a real job, but unfortunately, they had to move on to something else to support their families.

The other one is foreign workers. A lot of our suppliers that put up temporary infrastructure like fencing, tents and other roles rely heavily on foreign workers. These are the same foreign workers that support our tourism industry and our ski hills in the winter months. These are young people that are energetic and obviously willing to do a bit of manual labour, which is difficult to find these days.

[2:20 p.m.]

The way we’ve been able to sustain ourselves this year was really through increasing our prices, which means that our events are now less accessible. We continue to support various initiatives, through youth programs and also Indigenous youth, by providing free entries or, also, complementary entries to different groups. Unfortunately, with the rising costs, it is something that we’re not sure we can keep doing, moving forward.

Collectively, as our sector, we’re looking for an additional base investment of approximately $15 million to invest in the initiatives that will improve the affordability of sport, inclusion, reconciliation, sport safety and support for communities to contribute to their local economy through sport hosting.

I believe my time is up.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much.

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

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. Just on your final comment about the $15 million. Is that one time, or is that spread out or annualized? How do you foresee that?

E. Chene: It’s spread out over three years.

To be clear, it’s the industry at large. I think there are other colleagues of mine, from MSOs to PSOs to Sport B.C…. We’re all working together on this ask.

B. Bailey: Thank you very much, Eric, for the presentation. I wasn’t aware of so much of what you’ve shared with us. These are events that I’ve enjoyed in the past and really appreciate and think are such an important contribution. I’m sad and surprised to hear about the challenges that you’re facing. It’s really unfortunate.

Is there any hope on the horizon for some of these costs to shift? Do you think the types of increases that you’re seeing are going to continue being challenges? Do you think that they might shift as time goes forward, or do we see ourselves stuck here for a while?

E. Chene: I do feel that, unfortunately, we’re stuck here for a while.

The biggest issue is that many of these suppliers rely on human resources. With the increasing wage and what people want to be paid to work for these types of organizations, the costs keep going up and up. The other big one is, obviously, fuel costs. They drive large trucks. They transport the equipment. Obviously, with fuel prices doubling…. I would say, in the short term…. I’d say, probably, the next two years. I don’t see the prices going down. I’m hoping that they stagnate to a certain level, by 5 or 10 percent.

Right now what we’re looking at doing, as an organization, is raising our prices by somewhere between 10 to 20 percent, unfortunately further spreading that gap of affordability. We’ve always tried to mitigate…. We’re a local non-profit. Our end goal is not to be profitable, but we also can’t be in the red.

Even for us, recruiting staff has been extremely challenging because of the uncertainty of…. Could we commit to a long-term contract with people when we weren’t sure, during the pandemic…? Obviously, it looks like we are seeing better days ahead, I think, for all of us. So we are working diligently to find new people to train and work in the event industry.

B. Bailey: I’ll save my question, if we have time after.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I’m not going to ask questions….

Do you guys only host events in Vancouver, or do you host in any other municipalities?

I do apologize. It’s just the first time I ever heard your organization’s name, but it sounds like you guys are doing some really great work.

E. Chene: We’re RUNVAN. We put on the BMO Vancouver Marathon, the Granville Island Turkey Trot, the Great Trek and the First Half. They’re all locally here.

We’ve been asked by various communities — whether it be Kelowna, Surrey, Squamish — to also host. Unfortunately, when I’ve done a business case for them, we would probably lose a lot of money to actually try and go in these other markets. I believe a lot of these communities that are hosting events will likely not be able to host events this year because of the increased costs. That’s what I’m seeing.

That’s why some groups have been asking us to host, but then when I look at their business plan and their business case, we would lose money putting on their events. Even though I want to put on more events, it doesn’t make fiscal sense.

For me, personally…. I’m a private consultant. I work various events. I also work for GranFondo Whistler. I work for Americas Masters Games.

I came to B.C. because of the Olympics back in 2010 and never left. I was married here, and I’ve never left. Now I work for events in the city. Unfortunately, a lot of my colleagues have left the industry during the pandemic and will likely never come back.

B. Stewart: Eric, I’m assuming, pre-COVID, this was a sustainable model. It was on its own. It didn’t require funding from the provincial government or the city. Is that correct?

E. Chene: Since 2017…. We used to get money from Destination B.C., with a goal to increase our registrations from out of province and to bring significantly more tourism to the province. Since funding it, we received, I think….

In 2017, ’18 and ’19, our registration used to be around 15,500 for the marathon. Last year we set a record year of 18,500, despite international travel being down by 40 percent. We’re able to use the moneys from, in part, the B.C. fairs and events to attract people from the Pacific Northwest, Alberta and Ontario.

[2:25 p.m.]

We hope to rebound, with international travel being reopened next year. Ultimately, the money that they were putting in was going back and bringing more tourists into the city.

For example, a lot of our hotel partners, during this year’s Vancouver Marathon, were sold out for the first time since the pandemic. Basically, all hotels in the city were completely sold out. We brought in about 6,000 guests from out of the city to stay in the hotels, which is a great story, as I know that industry has been really battered through COVID.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Eric. We’re out of time.

This has been very enlightening. I think a lot of the events that you put on are a big part of the lives of people who live in this area. They would miss them if they were either no longer held or they could no longer afford to participate.

Thank you very much for letting us know what your challenges are.

E. Chene: Perfect. Thank you for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have one more presentation before we break for coffee, and that’s Brian Gisel, representing the B.C. Ultimate Society.

Welcome.

B.C. ULTIMATE SOCIETY

B. Gisel: Thank you, everybody. I’d like to thank the committee for hearing our presentation and the presentations of everybody here today on sport.

I’d like to acknowledge the traditional lands of the Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam and Squamish First Nations on which this meeting takes place today.

My name is Brian Gisel. My pronouns are he and him, and I’m the general manager of B.C. Ultimate. As a PSO, we work with local organizations to bring disc sports to over 8,000 members.

When we talk about growth and development in sport and the creation of meaningful sporting activities, this needs to happen at the grassroots level, where programs can impact hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Participants enjoy physical and mental health benefits and are given pathways to higher levels in sport but also gain access beyond just the physical activities into coaching, organizing, volunteering and other areas, hopefully creating a lifelong connection with sport.

Luckily, British Columbia has a wealth of organizations in place, such as B.C. Ultimate, who are able to create and run these programs and who are more than willing, with increased funding, to expand their reach.

B.C. Ultimate’s Ultimate Spirit is one such program. As we are all aware, Indigenous communities are often underrepresented in sport, with youth especially lacking in opportunities to take place. Rather than simply looking to teach kids another sport, we wanted to work with communities to build a program that has a long-term vision to give youth not only the opportunity to play and learn from sport but also to connect with other communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, and create a network of youth throughout the province connected by both sport and culture.

Recently we’ve had an incredible connection with the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council and their school on the Saanich Peninsula. Over the last 12 months, we have moved from the introduction of our program to engagement with an ever-increasing number of youth and created a wider connection with the community as a whole.

Led by the participants of the program, a culture was starting to emerge. On their own initiative, they created the W̱SÁNEĆ wolf pack, their very own ultimate team. The youth of the community, even those who are not yet involved in the athletic activity, came together to create artwork which morphed into logos and, eventually, jerseys for that team. Recently the initial group of students moved from playing to teaching and are starting to teach the younger kids in the community about ultimate and that culture.

On June 21, we are excited that six of the W̱SÁNEĆ wolf pack team members will attend the National Indigenous Peoples Day at Royal Roads with Ultimate Spirit. This will be the third time that we’ve attended NIPD but the first where the outreach will be done by students of this program for other younger students. All of them will be very proudly wearing their wolf pack jerseys.

Here are some comments that we have collected from the program participants to speak to the impact.

“I can’t wait to see where ultimate will take me. I’m interested in coaching youth in the future and being as involved in ultimate and Ultimate Spirit as possible. I feel connected to the culture and the game, and I have found my voice in the past year, on and off the field.” That’s from Jake, who’s one of our participants.

“It’s been such a pleasure to see our school come together again. The long-term impact that ultimate will have at our school will benefit our physical health and feelings of belonging and leadership.” Cora McGuire, a math teacher at W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership School.

[2:30 p.m.]

“I have found my voice and confidence from playing ultimate. When we first started playing, I had never even heard of ultimate frisbee. Now, heck, here I am, and I absolutely love it. I can’t wait to become a coach and teach other kids how to play.” Miracle is another Ultimate Spirit participant.

“Ultimate is a great vehicle for empowerment, encouragement and building a connectedness with others. There is always a space within the sport for coming together and sharing in laughter and playing with good feelings, good mind and good heart, which is essential in many Indigenous communities” — Mataya Jim, senior coordinator of Indigenous Initiatives, Sport for Life.

Ultimate Spirit is a great program, but it’s just one program run by one PSO. There are countless others, either being delivered or on the drawing boards or even in the minds of PSO staff, which can positively impact this province. The structure is in place, as are the people who can make these things happen. Our hope is that we can thaw the freeze in core provincial sport funding and help expand existing programs and turn others into reality.

We are joining with Sport B.C. in asking that $15 million be added to the sport sector’s core budget over the next three years. While grant funding or other targeted revenue streams have their place, it is core funding which allows organizations to push forward with certainty and implement programs which can benefit so many for so long. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you.

Henry, and then Brenda. That’s it so far.

H. Yao: Hi. I’m just going to put on the record that I hate ultimate, because my staff always takes time off to go play, and then I have the empty office.

I’m just so glad you are here to talk about ultimate. It’s one of the few large team sports that all genders can participate in. Everyone can feel included. It’s great for promoting communication and mental wellness.

When you talk about $15 million, I think you were talking about three years?

B. Gisel: Yes, over the course of three years.

H. Yao: Have you ever thought about having a conversation, even, with the Ministry of Education to allow ultimate to be part of a curriculum, to be able to be part of physical education?

B. Gisel: Well, we’re actually very well placed in most schools. B.C. ultimate is recognized and part of B.C. School Sports. We’ve recently, actually, just had our provincial championship, where I believe the numbers…. I believe 134 schools registered rosters with B.C. School Sports across the province.

We have a curriculum we have developed for schools to use. That is being implemented in many schools, typically in the fall, because in the spring, it becomes ultimate season, and school teams are coming out of nowhere and being there.

When you say, “I hate ultimate,” I smile because that’s, early on, a lot of the ways athletic directors speak to it, because ultimate is pulling kids from other sports. I will always say that we should follow the demand for sport, and if kids want to do it — and we know kids want to do it — they should be supported and allowed to.

H. Yao: I just want to add one last comment. Young adults love it too. We don’t need to also focus on kids.

B. Gisel: Yeah, I know.

B. Bailey: Thanks very much, Brian, for this presentation. Ultimados Montreal 1989.

B. Gisel: We’re everywhere.

B. Bailey: I’m really struck by, and I’ve never turned my mind to this before, the alignment with many of the views of ultimate that would fit quite well with what I understand to be traditional First Nations thinking. I wonder if you might share a bit more about that.

When I think back to my very small connection with ultimate, it’s very different than many other sports, in terms of how people compete and the reliance on self-regulation and camaraderie, and everyone plays. There are a lot of really positive aspects about ultimate that I think could align very well with First Nations traditional teaching. Also, your opportunity to reach a sport into communities that might not have playing fields for sports…. But ultimate has many different ways you can play. I wondered if you could just expand on that a little bit for us.

B. Gisel: Certainly, yes. We have found, as we’ve developed the Ultimate Spirit program, just as you’ve said, that the culture of ultimate and the culture of Indigenous communities mesh very well. The idea of healthy hearts, healthy minds, healthy spirit is something we learn from as well as teach when we do this.

The sport overall is a community sport. It is self-officiated. There are no referees. Among the many benefits of such a system, it creates a community not just between your own team but between teams that are playing. We have a saying in ultimate that you don’t play against another team; you play with another team.

[2:35 p.m.]

Another thing we talk about is…. My son played hockey. My son played soccer and baseball. We often say that when you’re playing hockey, you’re told not…. You’re demanded by your coaches not to speak to the other team. If you have a problem, you speak to your coach. Your coach speaks to the other coach. The other coach maybe talks to their players.

Our sport demands that you talk to the other team. If something happens on the field between two players, they have to work it out. It teaches social and emotional learning. It teaches advocacy. It teaches communication skills. All these things are huge learning points for, especially, youth, and it’s one of the reasons why it is so popular.

It’s a sport that, as I say, also, like soccer, has a very low economic barrier to entry. All you need is a $10 frisbee and one friend, and you can throw the disc back and forth. There are umpteen…. Early on in our program, we don’t actually teach ultimate. We teach fun with frisbees. Our first module is called “Fun with Frisbees,” and it’s engaging people in the fun of having two kids or more having a frisbee and throwing it. You give anybody a frisbee, and they throw it, and something magical happens.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have time for a quick question.

B. Stewart: Just: where’s the $15 million to go? We had Eric ask that last. Is it $15 million to a broader group?

B. Gisel: Yeah. It’s $15 million overall to core sport funding, particularly through…. We, along with most other PSOs, receive core sport funding through viaSport. That funding has been stagnant since that system was set up, roughly around the time of the last Olympics. As per inflationary systems, we are kind of starting to lose out, especially to other provinces and other jurisdictions now.

I say that we are just one. We are part of a community. We hope, obviously, if there’s increased funding into core sports, that B.C. Ultimate will be part of the recipients of that. But this is something that needs to be broadly based to create these kinds of programs, like Ultimate Spirit, across British Columbia.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Brian, and thank you for sharing the quotes from some of the players, some of the students whose lives you’ve affected. One of the things I’m really struck by is that often when we talk about the benefits of sport, we talk about the benefits to individuals and how it makes them better than other individuals. You’ve really framed the benefits of ultimate in terms of what’s good for society and us working together in society. So thank you for that.

B. Gisel: Thank you very much. I hope anybody, if you’re in the area, can get out to National Indigenous Peoples Day on the 21st of June at Royal Roads. That would be great. You can see what it’s all about.

J. Routledge (Chair): We’ll take a recess now until 2:55. That’s a nice, good chunk of time.

The committee recessed from 2:38 pm. to 2:55 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Welcome, Gemma Martini, representing the Motion Picture Production Industry Association.

You have five minutes to make your presentation, and then we have five minutes to ask you questions, for a total of ten. Okay. Over to you.

MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

G. Martini: Fantastic. Thank you. As mentioned, I am Gemma Martini, of Martini Film Studios in Langley.

I would like to begin by recognizing that I’m presenting to you here on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.

It is my privilege to be in front of you today on behalf of B.C.’s film and television production industry. Our collaboration with government partners is central to our success, and we are proud of what we have all accomplished together. The thriving $3.9 billion production industry is at the heart of the province’s creative economy. We have more than 60,000 quality jobs around the spectrum of production and ancillary businesses. We have a respected and skilled talent pool.

There’s infrastructure investment of more than 2.5 million square feet of studio space, matched by a top-tier supply chain. We have one of the world’s most sophisticated animation and VFX digital entertainment clusters. There are many layered economic benefits and spinoffs with evolving industry hubs in B.C. regions, and we are considered global leaders on environmental sustainability and best practices relative to green production. We look forward to building on our progress with a shared vision for B.C.’s film and television industry as an important economic driver.

To this end, we would like to recommend the following. First, continued stable and dependable tax credits are integral to B.C.’s key position in the global market. Second, increased funding for Creative B.C. and B.C. Film Commission to match their vital and expanding role in managed, sustainable growth strategy. And third, collaboration in workforce development and labour market strategies that embrace our priority to grow a diverse, equitable and inclusive industry.

Workforce development strategies that address impending labour market shortages and skill gaps in the production sector are among our most pressing priorities as the industry thrives and the workforce retires. B.C. is known internationally as home to some of the industry’s most skilled and expert crews and talent. Likewise, our animation and visual effects sector is globally respected, and our workforce in this space also depends on adequate and timely training, recruitment and retention of talent.

These realities, coupled with the industry’s priority to build a diverse and inclusive workforce that better reflects our community and the world around us are together emerging as a compelling opportunity to deliberately build B.C.’s future industry today.

Mobilization to address labour gaps and shortages is converging with diversity and inclusion initiatives on all fronts. Canadian and U.S. producers, labour organizations, educators, industry associations and partners are all leading in steps for change. Our work ahead is to harness and build on these respective efforts to realize measurable outcomes and a meaningful shift. As always, collaboration is key.

On a personal note, I am a relative newcomer to the industry, having crossed over from construction five years ago, and I have quickly become invested in building a strong future for this industry. I’m especially passionate about workforce development, as I see firsthand B.C.’s amazing talent and crews and where we are stretched. This was my own impetus to partner with North Island College on micro-credential training at Martini Film Studios earlier this year and to host another training program partnered with Warner Bros. global access Canada program.

Both programs were focused on creating opportunities for underrepresented groups, and we graduated a total of 80 students over those two sessions, many of whom have since had experience on films sets around our province.

B.C.’s production industry’s ongoing pursuit of this work remains central to our values as an industry and to our collective responsibility to model the industry we envision, particularly for newcomers experiencing this unique business in the early stages of their careers.

In closing, following the uniquely challenging circumstances of the past couple of years, it’s never been more clear where we excel as an industry but, equally, where we need to improve and where we want to change. We look forward to working together for healthy and thoughtfully managed growth for our industry.

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

We have a number of questions. The first one is Megan.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Dykeman: Thank you for the presentation. It’s just wonderful to see you here, and I have really enjoyed the education I receive from you in film and the tours and the events that you’ve held and the work that’s being done in film, especially out in the valley area.

I was wondering. When I was at the…. With the micro-credentials, you talked a little bit about inclusivity and about the diversity of the workforce and initiatives that are going on. I was wondering if you could tell us a bit about that.

G. Martini: I will tell you that at every table I sit at, there is focus on the demand to bring forward underrepresented groups. That really comes through the mandates of training. We’re all mobilizing in the same way, but the key is that we now need to harness that and move in the direction of workforce micro-credential training so that we can get that workforce up to the same skill level that we have now and bring them to set.

M. Dykeman: Wonderful.

G. Martini: Just more, too, on that. There are specific programs that Creative Pathways has created, WarnerMedia has created and others — the labour unions, etc. — who are working towards that as well.

M. Dykeman: I just want to say, quickly, thank you for the entire industry coming together during COVID, because you were able to get back so quickly and keep going.

G. Martini: Thank you. It was a very big collaborative effort.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have quite a few questions, so everyone should just pace themselves accordingly, please.

H. Yao: I will make it quick. Yesterday we actually had a presenter talking about inequality. Sometimes it felt like there is a disconnect when it comes to representation of the creative industry, especially the film industry, versus the actual population reflected by British Columbians.

I would love to hear your company’s…. Regarding your hiring practice, how do you ensure that you are trying to reflect, as much as possible, the inclusivity, making sure that the population that works for your company reflects British Columbia?

G. Martini: For clarity, are you asking specifically for my company or the MP association I represent, or for our industry in general?

H. Yao: How about whatever works easiest for you.

G. Martini: Yes. I can speak on behalf of our own company. We are a facilities company. We support film that is on our site, and we are 50 percent diverse represented. That’s just a mandate that we had and that we’ve been able to achieve.

Further, if I can expand — I see we have a bit more time — into the industry itself, again, there are those programs that are being created from all of these different groups, and we’re all being brought together by the program of Creative Pathways, which is a Creative B.C. mandate.

H. Yao: Perfect. Thank you.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Gemma. Likewise, there are all sorts of great things about the film industry. Why is it important for additional funding for Creative B.C. and the B.C. Film Commission? Why is it necessary when they have all this success? What’s happening?

G. Martini: Thank you, and I’ll tell you. This industry is a compilation of many parts. Production will come in. They start a company. They film, and then they go, and that particular business, let’s say, kind of gets closed.

I’m in facilities. There are the labour unions. When you sit at the MPPIA table, there are many different parts that have to come together in order for the industry to grow and be successful.

Creative B.C. is the overriding body or agency that is always there. They’re the ones that are there to become the thread throughout the industry and are consistent. They’re the ones who helped us become global leaders when it came to sustainability. They’re the ones now who are leading us with the Creative Pathways program. We can always refer to them. Otherwise, we’d be quite scattered. Their growth is crucial, in step with ours.

B. Bailey: Thanks for your presentation. We had a presenter come forward with the suggestion that the tax credit should be tied to an EDI. Of course, I very much support EDI efforts, and I know you do as well, as does MPPIA.

Is there any risk that we should be considering in tying those so tightly? Is there a way, perhaps, to go gradually? What would be your thinking on behalf of MPPIA in regards to that linkage?

G. Martini: That’s a great question. I think what you said there is that there definitely needs to be a measured approach. If that’s the way that we decide that we’re going to go forward with it, there needs to be steps in order for us to get there.

That’s why we feel that the training is the biggest part of that. Let’s welcome underrepresented groups in for training. Let’s make sure that they’re skilled for the workforce, and they will get to set. The demand is there for production to hire. There is a need for it. We just need to make sure that there are those people that are available for them to hire.

There are many different ways to go about it, and it’s a very layered approach. We feel it’s necessary to have strong conversation in collaboration with all the groups that are involved.

[3:05 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation, Gemma.

I am going to piggyback a little bit on what Brenda just asked and say: is there some rejuvenation, then? Should we be looking at the tax credit itself and saying: “Okay, it’s been 20 years”? Are there things that we should be doing to change this to modernize it and move it forward?

G. Martini: One of the most important factors in the growth of our industry and the stability of our industry here is the stability of the tax credit. The fact that it hasn’t changed in 20 years I don’t think is necessarily a negative or a detriment. It is what has actually helped us with our growth.

What is fantastic about our tax credit is it is directly related to labour — the local labour, British Columbia labour. That’s one of the magical things about it.

I’m going to reinforce again: the stability is the most important part. If we start to change it, it might create unrest and therefore not make us as attractive in some way. Now, if it were related somewhere and paralleled with the demands of the industry, relative to something like EDI, and we came together as a group and we had a substantial workforce to support it, then I don’t think there would be any negative effect in that respect. It’s about timing, yes.

J. Routledge (Chair): Speaking of timing, that’s all the time we have this afternoon. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for engaging with us and for the work that you do.

A lot of my neighbours in Burnaby North have good jobs in the motion picture industry, either directly or indirectly. Almost everyone delights when they see their neighbourhood masquerading as some other part of the world. They love it.

G. Martini: Great. It’s fun. I will say that.

Thank you for all your work.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Tracey Friesen, Canadian Media Producers Association, B.C. branch.

Welcome.

CANADIAN MEDIA PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION, B.C. BRANCH

T. Friesen: We did not exactly compare notes, but some of this is going to get reinforced.

Hi. My name is Tracey Friesen. I’ve been in the Vancouver film and television sector for 30 years. I’m the managing vice-president right now of the Canadian Media Producers Association, B.C. branch. We’re an industry association that serves 150 B.C.-owned production companies. These are independent businesses of all sizes, producing all types of projects throughout the province.

I am here today with my three topics for the committee’s consideration. Number one is about tax credits and the importance of maintaining the stability of the program. Number two is about Creative B.C. and the need for permanent annual funding of $5 million to be directed at the domestic motion picture sector. Number three is about social and environmental justice and a request for a one-time injection of roughly $1 million to accelerate the measurable impact of equity initiatives.

B.C.’s film and television sector is a cornerstone of the province’s creative industries, and stable tax credits have been an indispensable component for about 25 years. These are, as mentioned, labour-based incentives, triggered only when hiring British Columbians, and they’ve led to a direct workforce of around 30,000 people or double that when you look at the spin-off jobs. The production services tax credit is a key driver in bringing big business to B.C. in what is an extremely competitive international landscape. And Film Incentive B.C. is essential in fostering the growth of domestic production — B.C. stories owned by B.C. storytellers.

While B.C.’s production volume is well over $3 billion — the highest in the country — again, less than a half of $1 billion of that is domestic content, where the copyright is owned and controlled by British Columbians. The balance is foreign location and service production. This service work is core to our industry, and many of our members happily engage in both models.

It’s the ratio that’s striking here in B.C. For instance, in Ontario, the production volume is roughly half and half service and Canadian-owned content. That’s because of Ontario’s long history of investing in producers and attracting head offices. In B.C., it’s just 12 percent domestic.

So what can we do about that? That brings me to Creative B.C. In 2020, government introduced the $2 million domestic motion picture fund.

[3:10 p.m.]

Creative B.C. then opened development programs for both emerging and seasoned producers, plus now is investing directly in feature films, the first such support here in nearly two decades. It’s too soon to measure the direct impact of the fund, but we’re confident this economic stimulus will help attract more international partners and federal funding. Right now B.C. is still not getting its fair share.

The potential leveraging effect is strong. Both Ontario and Quebec commit tens of millions of dollars per year each into motion pictures. These provinces now benefit from thriving homegrown production sectors, whereas B.C.’s domestic volumes have stagnated. We hope to level the playing field.

Finally, and crucially, social and environmental justice. The motion picture sector here is aligned with the province’s own mandates around sustainability, reconciliation, anti-racism and equity, more broadly. We have been involved in this work for years, yet there is still so much more to be done and inevitable costs associated with scaling delivery.

We’re grateful the province wisely invested in Creative Pathways, a newly launched hub for diverse workforce development. Our industry can stimulate thousands of well-paying, often-unionized and green jobs, but we know we need to make opportunities more visible and to a wider range of people.

Then there’s Reel Green, started here back in 2006 — real leaders. This climate action catalyst is punching above its weight with the tools and training it offers to B.C. and beyond. Given the climate emergency we all face, CMPA believes that industry and government should work closely together to deliver on ambitious goals.

With financial support for these kinds of innovative programs, B.C.’s motion picture community, in partnership with the province, can co-create a more just and sustainable workforce and industry for our society’s collective benefit.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you.

Henry, then Brenda, then Karin.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I just want to go back to your comment talking about how Ontario and Quebec have already invested tens of millions into building a thriving film and media industry.

You were talking about Creative B.C. asking for about $5 million annually. Will that be enough for us to catch up, or is $5 million actually just the sort of bare minimum you think we need at this point, and we actually need more to catch up?

T. Friesen: We would need more to catch up, but I don’t think it’s something that we would ever expect to happen immediately. I’m very happy with a graduated approach there. That $2 million domestic motion picture fund has been an amazing opportunity to pilot programs, see what’s working and begin to track the impact of that investment.

I think with knowing that there was something as healthy as a $5 million annual contribution or program, we would be able to structure programs and production and development initiatives farther into the future and begin to build that. That begins to build larger companies, which takes emerging companies to mid-level and takes mid-level companies to big ones.

B. Bailey: Thank you for your presentation, Tracey. I know you’re really not here speaking on behalf of Creative B.C., but you know a lot about them and have worked with them closely, so I want to go there a little bit. I’ve just been so impressed by the work that they’ve done. I have a friend, an Indigenous film-maker, who had his film at Cannes. That’s because of Creative B.C.’s work — and his.

I wonder if you can just help us understand, though, a bit more about the landscape in Canada and, sadly, the reality that we often are competing province to province. Similar to Henry’s question, I wonder if you could just give us a snapshot of how our funding for Creative B.C. compares to other similar organizations, in, let’s look at…. Well, you decide where to compare it to. Could you help us understand that a bit?

T. Friesen: Sure. The province of Ontario, through Ontario Creates and through their Northern Heritage Fund…. Ontario puts $5 million a year just in feature dramas. The Northern Fund, for work outside of the core of Toronto, it puts up to $10 million a year into dramatic series and features.

What that allows is for those production companies to approach our other federal funders like the Canada Media Fund and Telefilm already with their province’s support and knowing that a part of the budget….

[3:15 p.m.]

Drama is costly if you want to play at the big table and be able to compete globally. What we’re having a challenge doing here…. Right now there’s one domestic drama series being shot in the province of B.C. That’s owned by a B.C.-owned production company, of a large scale, and it’s Family Law by Lark, which is co-producing with an Alberta co-producer.

We need more of that. What that does is that stimulates more people in the writers room. It stimulates more apprentices and the opportunity for other partners to be able to see the model, be inspired by it and follow it.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): That is the second time Brenda asked my question. I’m going to ask another one.

Reel Green and the work that it’s doing…. I just want to understand. What is a sustainable production goal? What does that look like in the way you change the way you’re working?

T. Friesen: So many little pieces. It is the conversation that’s happening now. I just came back from Banff. On the stage were experts from across the country, including from here in B.C., that were looking across the range of elements that contribute to high-carbon production.

Relative to other sectors…. The industry is okay, but relative to what it can be, we can do so much. Energy consumption and transportation are among the highest. Some of the more obvious are around catering and sets and whatnot. We have a lot of work that we have been doing.

Reel Green has been around for 17 years. There’s an opportunity, and it takes it, to work with the municipal government. Now, federally, across the provinces, Reel Green has…. There’s Ontario Green Screen, and there are other entities that are meeting together now, nationally, putting our heads together and trying to figure out how to make this a carbon-neutral industry as fast as we can.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I have a lot of production done on my street. I know that there’s a lot of heavy equipment that goes in there and a lot of generators. So thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): I think we’re just about out of time. I want to thank you, on behalf of the committee, for coming and engaging with us about this and for your enthusiasm and your energy.

It’s really clear that this industry…. This is a good place to work. Thank you for your leadership in making it possible for more British Columbians to have this opportunity.

T. Friesen: Thank you very much for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Tracy Redies, here on behalf of Science World.

Welcome.

SCIENCE WORLD

T. Redies: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the standing committee for the work you’re doing on behalf of British Columbians and for meeting with me today. It’s nice to see some familiar faces as well. As you said, I’m Tracy Redies, president and CEO of Science World.

I’d also like to gratefully acknowledge that Science World is located on the traditional, unceded territory of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish peoples.

In the past year, we’ve worked with many First Nations communities across B.C. I’m delighted to let you know that we now have three very talented directors on our board who are of Indigenous heritage.

Science World is a provincial charitable organization focused on scaling STEAMD literacy. STEAMD stands for science, technology, engineering, art, math and design. Our aim is to ensure a STEAMD education is accessible for all. We believe the world needs more nerds, and Science World has a pivotal role to play in this regard.

While the pandemic has been hard on our sector, Science World has successfully navigated the storm and is looking forward to supporting a stronger B.C. We’d like to thank government, also, for its support during this time. In 2021, Science World served over three million visitors through online and in-person programming and on-site visits. Throughout the pandemic, we continued to provide STEAMD programming to classrooms and homes throughout B.C. and trained thousands of educators.

Over our 33 year history, we’ve helped millions of British Columbians gain an understanding of science. Studies show that science centres are vital for creating that lifelong passion and curiosity for STEAMD that leads people to pursue careers in these fields. With StrongerBC’s focus on the green economy, truth and reconciliation, biomanufacturing and life sciences, our core programs are very much aligned with the government’s aspirations for B.C.

To continue to provide vital STEAMD education to every corner of our province, we need support from government in two areas. First, we need backing for our infrastructure renewal to not only ensure continued operations but to substantially reduce our carbon footprint. Second, we need sustainable core program funding. STEAMD education must include everyone. We must ensure that all students have access to the skills training they need for the jobs of tomorrow.

Since I last presented to the committee in 2021, Science World has undertaken a number of third-party audits to clearly understand the infrastructure challenges facing our iconic facility. Simply put, we’re facing a critical infrastructure challenge. In the next three to five years, we require almost $80 million to save the dome. An additional $30 million is required to add classroom and meeting space and improve accessibility.

[3:20 p.m.]

The dome is leaking and currently unusable. Our chillers may fail if we face another heat dome. The heavy decking and the electrical distribution system need replacement. The list goes on and on.

As you know, Science World leases the building and the land from the city through the province. We’re not the owners; we’re the lessee. The physical remediation, unfortunately, is well beyond our financial capacity to rectify.

But every crisis has an opportunity. We’re using this pivotal time to chart a new path forward, to imagine a green and inclusive building, accessible to all and serving the entire province, to look at how we might expand the building to meet the needs of StrongerBC. We’re currently completing an extensive stakeholder engagement process to inform our future building plans, and we look forward to sharing that with you publicly, in the next few months.

Funding support from the province for infrastructure repairs is critical if Science World is to survive, meet the growing talent need as well as substantially reduce our carbon footprint. Early indications from our climate audit suggest that we can reduce energy consumption by over 30 percent. We’ve asked the provincial and federal governments to each provide $35 million in funding, with Science World fundraising the balance. We believe this is a fair request, especially as we don’t own the building or land.

Our second ask is around sustainable core funding to build the talent pipeline. Many arts and culture and science centres within Canada are partially or substantially funded by provincial, local and federal governments. In the case of science centres, governments fund 49 percent of all Canadian science centres. While grateful for the $1 million in emergency funding last year, by contrast, in 2019, Science World received less than 1 percent from the province of the 137,500 community gaming grant.

If we’re to ensure that everyone has access to STEAM education — including barriered groups like LGBTQ, women and girls, rural and remote communities, and Indigenous peoples — we need sustainable core funding. Less than 2 percent of the STEM jobs are held by Indigenous people, and it’s the fastest-growing population. Increased funding would allow our organization to better invest in education and promote deeper relationships with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples in reconciliation, environmental stewardship and education.

In closing, if StrongerBC is to be realized, we need to develop our diverse talent pool for the jobs of tomorrow. No child should be left behind. As a complementary partner to the K-to-12 and post-secondary education systems, Science World is a vital part of that ecosystem and has the capacity to do more. Together, we can ensure that the world has more nerds, especially in B.C.

I’d like to thank the committee for having me here today and, again, for all your work. I’d also like to acknowledge the staff, because I know a lot of work goes into these consultation exercises.

I’m now happy to take questions.

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

M. Dykeman: It’s lovely to see you here again.

I notice that there isn’t a written submission put in. I believe you’ll be putting one in.

T. Redies: We’ll be putting it in, yes.

M. Dykeman: Awesome.

I’m wondering. From your presentation last year, I remember you went into quite a bit of detail on the pieces that need to be upgraded or repaired. Has any of the infrastructure work been done since last year, or are you in a position now where there’s what needed to be done last year and it’s now further deteriorating? Where is it at from last year?

T. Redies: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, there has been no progress made. The challenge is that as we look at the different components of this, each component is typically in the several millions of dollars. Going though the pandemic, while we’ve been able to recover substantially — I’m happy to share with you that we’re getting close to 65 to 70 percent of normal attendance — unfortunately, we just don’t have the financial wherewithal to do this at this point in time.

The problem is that as this keeps going, the problem gets compounded, probably, by increasing and escalating costs. In fact, actually, when we did the original VFA study on our infrastructure last October, the anticipated cost to fix the critical systems — like electrical, HVAC and that — was around $25 million. It’s now at $30 million. This is a problem that I hope we can solve quickly, because the costs keep escalating.

[3:25 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Tracy, for your presentation. You talked a lot about Science World’s contribution to education, empowerment and inclusivity. Do you mind also shedding some light on how Science World contributes to tourism in the Vancouver area and how its iconic presence also benefits the local economy as well?

T. Redies: Yes. Thank you for asking that. We are the fourth-largest attraction in B.C. We were also the fastest-growing attraction prior to the pandemic. We do contribute a tremendous amount. Typically, in good years, we get close to one million visitors to the dome.

Actually, one of the great things that I think the team has been able to accomplish is that we’ve also pivoted online, which is why we’re also reaching so many more visitors across the province and, indeed, probably across Canada. Once our physical, on-site traffic comes back, we’ll be able to, again, continue to support education but also support that tourism piece. It’s really, really important.

B. Bailey: Thanks, Tracy.

T. Redies: Nice to see you.

B. Bailey: Nice to see you.

Similar to Henry’s question, I wanted to create an opportunity for you to tell us a little bit about the implications of Science World in the province. Sometimes people perceive Science World as a Vancouver thing, but in my experience with Science World, it has been broader than that. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to tell us a little bit more about that, please.

T. Redies: Sure. Thank you for asking that. Science World, of course, has been around for, well, almost 35 years now, out of our current location. In that, we’ve served 340 communities.

In addition to the people that come to Science World on an annual basis, we also do outreach to almost 140,000 children annually, in typical years. One of the great things about this year is that we’ve been able to start that outreach again and have already been into Haida Gwaii and a number of communities around the province.

It’s a very important point. We feel that we’re a resource for the entire province. We believe we should be helping every community in B.C. make sure that their children are able to access the necessary STEAM skills that they need to participate in the 21st century. I think, again, if we can get through some of these core infrastructure issues, the best years of Science World are still to come.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Tracy. It’s great to see you today. I love how you took crisis and moved it into opportunity and have really expanded and grown throughout the entire province.

My question is on the actual infrastructure spending and dollars that are required and the complexity of the contract. It’s owned by the province, and you lease it through the city?

T. Redies: No, it’s actually the other way around. The land and the buildings are owned by the city, and the city has leased it to the province, who subleases it to us. This was what was set up in the late ’80s, so that’s what we’re living with today.

R. Merrifield: Okay. Are all parties around the table in the negotiation of the infrastructure dollars?

T. Redies: We have been speaking to all parts of government. We’ve been mostly concentrating on the province and the federal government but also speaking to the municipality. We’re hoping that the municipality also comes to the table.

Again, in total, between the remediation and the expansion of classroom space, it’s about $110 million. That’s why we’ve broken it down: $35 million, $35 million, and then $35 million would be some combination of us fundraising and potential help from the city. But more to come, I guess, on that.

R. Merrifield: Fantastic. I absolutely love it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Tracy. Thank you for coming to see us. Good to see you again.

T. Redies: Very nice to see you, yes.

J. Routledge (Chair): I guess I’ll just wrap it up by saying that I noted you referred to the dome as iconic. I think that’s so important, and it is such a sad contradiction. It’s iconic in terms of our skyline but also in terms of our vision of the future. How symbolic would that be if we lose it?

T. Redies: Well, there’s a lot to come in the False Creek Flats, with the building of St. Paul’s. We would like to be at the forefront of helping that transformation and, most importantly, again, helping educate British Columbian kids to be successful in the 21st century.

Thank you very much for letting me speak today, and good luck with the rest of your discussions.

R. Merrifield: Tracy, just as you’re walking out, just by clarification…. I didn’t want to slow down the whole thing. But can it stay open while you’re doing the repairs?

T. Redies: Yes. That’s what our intention is.

R. Merrifield: Okay. Thank you.

[3:30 p.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Kelly Scott, B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association.

Welcome, Kelly.

Interjections.

B.C. ROAD BUILDERS AND
HEAVY CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION

K. Scott: Well, it was refreshing to hear Tracy talk about infrastructure — a nice lead-in for us. We’ve become the flavour of the month. A year ago we didn’t talk too much about what was going on out there. But come November 14, the world changed — or as my mother calls it, WTF day. It has changed everything. Certainly, the outlook of our government and where you’re going and what our recommendations are going forward.

I’ll get kicked into it. I’m Kelly Scott. I’m the head of the B.C. Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association. We represent contractors, builders and maintainers, as well as all the suppliers who are industry throughout British Columbia. We are, and have been deemed by the government, an essential service. We’ve continued to run all through COVID, making sure our workers were safe, and we’re very excited about how that happened.

We’re also very pleased. One of the things we look at is worker safety. Going back to what happened during the Coquihalla, we reopened it, with government, in 35 days, and we had zero lost-time accidents. So it’s a cap off to our industry and to the ministry for the leadership we had there. Worker safety is a non-negotiable with us, and when it came to COVID, we were very clear that we had to protect that.

One of the things we want to talk to you about and, certainly, encourage you to look at after what’s happened here is continued investment in infrastructure. Climate change is real. The heat dome was only a year ago. Three months later, we got hammered up in the Coke. Our infrastructure needs to be looked at.

We built it well — and we have built it, as we did in the Coke years ago — but there needs to be a sustained investment in infrastructure from the government, not only for keeping the roads safe and transportation corridors open but for contractors to invest in people and efficiencies. They need to see what’s going on down the road, and their bankers need to see that.

It’s important that there’s a sustained investment in infrastructure. I think now, more than ever, with what we’ve just had with climate change, governments of every ilk need to be looking at this. Bridges that we built 60, 70 years ago were great then, but there’s a reality check going on out there. I think you’re aware of that. Certainly, the public is aware of it. We’re very keenly aware of what’s going on.

We also need to be looking at investing in infrastructure outside of the Coke, if you will. The side roads need to be looked at. We have the Indigenous communities that rely on those roads. It’s their artery to get health care, to get out for the socializing and that. We always focus on the big projects, but we have a lot of gravel roads up north. The side-road improvements need to be continued. We can’t lose focus on that.

As much as everybody talks about what’s going on, on the Coke and the rebuild, we have communities through­out British Columbia that need these side roads — to get them opened up, to maintain but also to get people going back and forth. As roadbuilders, we’re in all four corners of the province. We know what’s going on there.

Also, you need to continue with the improvements that you’re doing on the side roads. Outside of the Lower Mainland, you don’t realize that, but once you get out of here — for those of us who have been out there — you realize that that is very critical to us. One thing we find, as we invest in roads…. We have a saying in our association and our businesses: “Good roads cost less.” The more we invest in them, the more we make the roads efficient, the more people can travel more efficiently, the less GHGs that we’re emitting.

We need to invest in these roads. We need to make them more efficient for people to travel and not be sitting, as we used to sit, on the Port Mann, running up our GHG bill. The sustained investment in core infrastructure and maintaining of the core infrastructure we have will ultimately take us forward as we’re going there.

One of the other areas we’re suggesting that you need to be looking at is procurement. Low bid is not the best bid. There are better-value bids out there. There are innovative bids out there that are not being considered. You never get fired for giving a contract to a low bidder, but there are some better bids out there.

We’re pushing government to start looking at different procurement models. We know there are. We are meeting with government. You need to be looking at why we are doing it this way. Is it delivering what you need for results? In the long term, we sense that no, there’s a better way of doing it. Working with Infrastructure B.C., we’re saying that, but we’re certainly encouraging your committee to start looking at other bidding procurement models.

[3:35 p.m.]

Third, but not last, is people. We talk about it a lot. We talk about aligning capacity. Our industry, like every other industry, is looking for people. We’ve been very, very lucky. We attract people. The meltdown in the Alberta oil patch brought a lot of operators back to us. Kids kept coming back to B.C. for us. That continues to be a real focus for us. We are concerned sometimes when we see government put out contracts for union-only contractors, as 75 percent of our industry is open-shop.

The slap to our face was when the province was on its knees in the Coquihalla rebuild. Our contractors came from all four corners of the province to work on that. Nobody asked them what union they belonged to. They just needed the work done. Yet when you go out for bids on it now, you’re asking for union-only contractors. So it’s a mixed message to us on that.

It’s tough enough finding people, yet when we have to put them through a union, it just constrains the supply of labour. It’s something that we think, as an industry, you should be looking at. We know your models are changing. You’ve gone from your CBA to a BCIB or a special project needs agreement model. But it is something for the future that we should be looking at.

Those are our big three: continued, growing investment in infrastructure; looking at your procurement; and helping us with people. We want to get out to Jane in grade 3, and her mother, to say that there’s a career in our industry — a good-paying career — and that you can live in Smithers your whole life. You don’t have to move to the Big Smoke, if you will, to get that. We continue to look for government to help us with that. It’s a very good message, and we’ve got a very good career path for these people from all walks of life.

Last but not least is our Indigenous engagement. We’re very proud of one of our members, YRB, one of your larger maintenance contractors. Some 27 percent of their senior management is Indigenous. We like to hire local. It’s in our DNA. Why bring people out of Vancouver when you can hire in the Smithers or the Fort St. James of the world? Those are our asks, and I’m open for any questions.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation, Kelly. When we look at increased and sustained investment in core infrastructure roads, there’s a lot of priority, obviously, on the Coke, because everybody uses it.

What about places like Cariboo North and some of these places where the road infrastructure is really critical. Are there areas…? Is Cariboo North a place that needs to be prioritized? Are there other areas that need to be prioritized?

K. Scott: I think they all should be looked at. I think Cariboo North was obviously prioritized by the prior government, and we saw a lot of action going up there. You saw the four-laning going on. Much more efficient. There are not as many deaths on that road anymore. Traffic is flowing. I think the province needs to be looking everywhere. Your Hope-Princeton will be another big focus — it was hammered during the Coquihalla, because all that traffic was diverted down there — everywhere. We know you’re moving four-laning out to Golden.

That’s good, but going up north, there’s that run from Prince George to Prince Rupert, with the traffic that’s going along that road now — and will continue, as Rupert becomes a port of destination going to the gateway to Asia. That will be a big investment for us as well. Yes, we see it everywhere. Maintaining all the roads we do in British Columbia, we have an intimate knowledge of where and what needs to be spent and how it’s going to be done.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation, Kelly. Just one question. It’s a bit more complex. I really appreciate you talking about good roads causing less GHGs and costing less gas. Can you give me a bit more description about good roads and good infrastructure? Is it by design or material, or is it by the size of it?

The second thing I would like to add to that same question is…. We’ve had a presentation talking about animal biodiversity around British Columbia. Could you maybe help us appreciate how good roads will also incorporate, maybe, animal travelling paths underneath or through highways to allow animals to have a proper migration area within the geography of British Columbia?

K. Scott: First, on how good roads will reduce the emissions: there’s a coefficient of traction on wheels. When they’re driving over pavement versus gravel, you don’t burn as much fuel. You’ve also got the design of the roads now, where you used to have curves and bends.

[3:40 p.m.]

If you’ve done the Hope-Princeton versus the Coquihalla, you’ll know what I’m referring to. Right there you’re burning less fuel. You’re more efficient, and you’re safer. When we look on the roads going out from Prince George to Prince Rupert, there’s a lot of work that could be done. Those of us that have driven the Cariboo North roads know it’s much more efficient, and we also look at the safety records there. So our sense is that it’s more efficient.

When we talk to the truckers, they’re not burning as much fuel. Same destination. They’re not burning as much fuel. That Coke opened up significant reduction in fuel consumption for those on-highway truckers.

J. Routledge (Chair): Ben, a quick question.

B. Stewart: A quick question.

Kelly, how much money do we need to spend over the next ten years to get good roads? Just give us a ballpark number, because to be honest it’s not….

K. Scott: Oh boy. Good question. I think you need to assess every road right now, and I know you’ve done it. You need money. I know it’s going to be my grandchildren’s money. But you need to….

B. Stewart: Give us an order of magnitude.

K. Scott: I wish I could say that. You’ve got your budget now. I think as you assess…. There’s an assessment going on. You’ve done an inventory of all your bridges. I think there are 600 bridges in this province, and you’ve assessed that. So somebody has a number for you. They never tell us, as contractors, because once they tell us a big number, we want more.

But in our view, it’s significant, and it’s here now. If we don’t, we’ll have another disaster like we saw up at the Coke here last November.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, Kelly, on behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for coming and engaging with us and sharing what you referred to as a reality check. I think many British Columbians have a particular relationship with roads and highways and the way they connect us to the rest of Canada, the rest of North America. Then November 14 happened, and it changed our relationship with roads and highways. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention and making us face up to what needs to be done.

R. Merrifield: Thanks for fixing our roads.

K. Scott: Our pleasure.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Laura Guzman, representing Hydra Energy Canada Corp.

Welcome, Laura. You have five minutes to make your presentation, then we have another five minutes to ask you questions and hear your answers.

HYDRA ENERGY CANADA

L. Guzman: Okay. Thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to present today. My name is Laura Guzman. I represent Hydra Energy.

Hydra Energy is a clean technology company based in Delta. Last year we were the first company in the world delivering a converted hydrogen co-combustion truck to a paid fleet. This truck is running in Prince George. By the end of this year, we’re hoping to have at least five vehicles running in Canada on hydrogen co-combustion.

Last year, in this venue, we were also making a case for technology neutrality in tax policy. We are very grateful with the B.C. government — that you heard our recommendation and expanded the exemption of a motor-fuel tax for all hydrogen-powered vehicles, not only fuel cell vehicles.

Today I’m here with three recommendations that also relate to technology neutrality. The B.C. government has also done a great job supporting adopting of zero-emission passenger vehicles. However, there is still a big challenge in the case of the heavy-duty sector. The majority of the commercial transportation industry in B.C. is small companies with four to five employees, with an average of 20 to a maximum of 30 trucks. They are not able to afford $600,000 fuel cell vehicles, and they cannot wait. Many of them want a solution now.

Our first recommendation is to expand incentives for zero-emission vehicles and heavy-duty trucks to be inclusive of hydrogen internal combustion engine technology. Hydra Energy is, at the moment, able to reduce 40 percent of emissions, but we’re working towards a 100 percent reduction by the end of 2024. Other OEMs, such as Cummins or Westport Innovations, are working on similar hydrogen internal combustion engine solutions. The European Union, for example, is already recognizing this technology in legislation as a zero-emission vehicle.

[3:45 p.m.]

The second and third recommendations are to allocate incentives, as well, to a category of vehicles known as lower-emission vehicles or reduced-emission vehicles, also to retrofit technologies. Lower-emission vehicles are diverse technologies that enable emissions reductions compared to a diesel vehicle.

There is a report released by the Transition Accelerator at the end of 2020 that I’ve referenced in the presentations that we shared previously. This report compares the cost of reducing 1 tonne of CO₂ emissions by replacing a diesel vehicle with a fuel cell vehicle. It is $310 per tonne of emissions reduction per year, compared to reducing the same tonne by retrofitting a diesel vehicle with a hydrogen internal combustion. It will cost only $85 per tonne per year.

The main recommendation to the B.C. government is to support the transition of our industry now rather than waiting for a wide availability of electric and fuel cell vehicles in 2030. We can start reducing emissions now. To give you an example, with this comparison, the investment of the B.C. government in incentives could reduce 3.6 times more emissions now with the same investment than waiting until 2030.

I still have a few minutes, but those were my three recommendations.

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

H. Yao: Bear with me. I’m actually not very scientific — or nerdy, like the Science World lady mentioned earlier. Is hydrogen combustion more powerful, able to deliver more of a burst of energy than a typical electric cell from, I guess, a Tesla cell?

L. Guzman: No. You can compare hydrogen internal combustion with diesel operation.

H. Yao: Okay.

L. Guzman: From a scientific perspective, it’s almost a one-to-one comparison. In terms of power, you could maybe notice a little bit more power with hydrogen internal combustion. But it’s a comparison…. The testimonial that we receive from fleets is that the experience is the same with a little bit of boost in power.

H. Yao: Okay. Thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. When you talk about duel-fuel and co-combustion vehicles, is that the equivalent to what we call a hybrid, but we’re talking about hydrogen and something else?

L. Guzman: The only difference is co-combustion happens at the same time. The engine is literally combusting hydrogen, air and diesel at the same time. With hybrids, it’s mostly one or the other, but the effect is the same. At the moment, we’re displacing 40 percent of emissions, 50 percent next year — displacing diesel and associated emissions.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): That’s the transition piece — that you would also like to have that expanded.

L. Guzman: Exactly. The benefit for the environment is reducing 50 percent of emissions.

B. Bailey: Thanks for your presentation. I read a lot about hydrogen, and I haven’t actually come across this co-combustion model before. So this is new to me, and I’m interested.

I wonder. Is it…? I’m just going to make an argument, and then I’m going to ask you to counter it, if you don’t mind. Asking folks to transition to something that’s going to cost them money and then transition again to something that’s lower emission…. Are we not asking quite a lot of these providers? We know we’ll want them to move off this transition model at some point. Are we asking them to pay twice, perhaps?

L. Guzman: Not exactly. Something that I didn’t mention is…. This is not only Hydra. This is any hydrogen internal combustion and new technology. It works with software. The intelligence of the system is software.

With software, we are able to elevate that 50 percent to be 90 percent, and 100 percent requires an engine. But you can continue using the same vehicle, and maybe in the next three years, you can go from 50 to 70 percent displacement of diesel. By the end of 2024, you simply need a new engine, not a new truck.

[3:50 p.m.]

We believe that there is space in the market for, definitely, electric vehicles, fuel cells. There are companies who can afford that, but there are other companies, smaller, that cannot afford that. So this is a great solution, and at some point, they can bridge to that 100 percent.

B. Bailey: I appreciate that. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?

B. Stewart: Just further on to Brenda’s point, two questions. One is…. Electric. It doesn’t deliver the torque that diesel or hydrogen…. That’s part of the issue with electric in these large-scale…. But it may be a solution for bigger things like heavy equipment, locomotives, all sorts of things. I just wanted you to comment. Is that correct?

L. Guzman: That is correct. We believe that, for example, electric is a great solution for buses. Definitely for passenger vehicles. But specifically, we’re talking about class A.

Very heavy-duty vehicles and even bigger vehicles, which would be class 9 — for example, mining equipment — operate great with combustion. We still need that boost of combustion in these types of heavy-duty vehicles.

B. Stewart: I guess the second part of that was: in the vehicle that you’re testing in Prince George, what’s the lifespan of that motor normally? How many hundreds of thousands of kilometres? Do you have an idea?

L. Guzman: The system has a life expectancy between 15 to 20 years. This is mostly related to the hydrogen tanks. The way the system works is that you can remove it from one truck and put it into a different truck. Fleets usually lease new trucks every three or five years, so the system can be removed and allocated into another truck and work for three different trucks.

B. Stewart: Okay. I think I’m buying one.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for the presentation. I actually was in Prince George when the big announcement was made, so it was very exciting. I had the opportunity to meet the CEO. Kudos to having a female CEO as well.

I’m also very interested. We know that our GHG emissions from essential travel are far greater than our non-essential travel, and heavy-duty trucks are the largest emitter. But we also know — and we just had the road builders — that our supply chain is dependent on actually moving through our road infrastructure. Kudos to trying to tackle this really difficult problem that we have.

On the cost of the truck itself, you said that you can pull the component and put it into a different truck. How much of that $600,000, then, would be realized in that?

L. Guzman: So $600,000 is the cost of a fuel cell vehicle, approximately. The cost of a retrofit is $50,000.

R. Merrifield: Is $50,000.

L. Guzman: Is $50,000.

R. Merrifield: Okay, I missed that.

L. Guzman: The business model that Hydra offers is not charging any capital up front for the retrofit at the moment in Prince George. However, for us to expand in other regions, we will need a different model. This is a demonstration project in Prince George.

For other jurisdictions in B.C. and across Canada, we will be working through licensing. Most likely, licensees will need to charge something for the retrofit, but it’s $50,000 only.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Laura, for coming and sharing this information with us. I remember when we first started to explore the concepts of CleanBC, which is only a few years ago, and the idea of zero-emission trucks, at that point, seemed so far away. It’s amazing how it’s caught up. So thank you for your leadership on this and for creating some hope.

Blair, you’re our last presenter for the day.

NEW CAR DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

B. Qualey: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. It’s tremendous to be here. I note I am the last speaker, so I’ll try and go through my remarks as quickly as I can.

I’m privileged to serve as the president and CEO of the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia and, of course, to be gathered here with you on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Coast Salish people.

[3:55 p.m.]

The NCDA is the provincial association that represents over 400 franchise new car and truck dealers in 55 communities around the province. I’m pleased to advise that we’ve just released a report by MNP on the economic impact of the members of the association, who are responsible, according to the report, for $15.6 billion in retail activity, providing 27,000 family-supporting jobs for British Columbians.

Moreover, of interest to government would be that they provide $260 million of direct tax revenue, $610 million of total tax revenue for all three levels of government, along with an estimated $1.2 billion in total tax revenue to all levels of government when you factor in the federal and provincial sales taxes paid by consumers on purchases of new cars and trucks.

The New Car Dealers of B.C. want to be part of keeping B.C.’s economy moving, but I’m here to suggest that we need government’s attention to three priorities, which are the following: firstly, the negative impact of the B.C. luxury tax on vehicles, in particular on pickup trucks; two, a critical labour shortage facing the sector; and three, the need for ongoing funding to maintain B.C.’s leadership position in zero-emission vehicle adoption in Canada and North America.

Our submission is focused on building on the areas in which we’ve enjoyed collective success with government but also ensuring that we’re identifying those areas that require attention because of their impact on consumers and the economy. Members of the committee familiar with my submissions in previous years will likely recognize all three of these.

Firstly, the B.C. luxury tax on vehicles. As a reminder, it kicks in at a $55,000 purchase price, but this threshold hasn’t been adjusted for inflation for many, many years. As a result, many standard vehicles of today are captured by the luxury tax, including vans and larger SUVs that families rely on to shuttle their kids around and pickup trucks that are required by many businesses and individuals, such as those who live and work in resource communities. This presents another layer of taxation on B.C. residents who already face considerable cost-of-living challenges.

The association is recommending that the luxury tax threshold be raised right away, especially in light of the fact that the average price of a new vehicle in Canada has now reached $54,000 in May of this year, only slightly below the present luxury tax threshold. Further compounding this issue is the pending introduction of the federal luxury tax in September, which will create a double whammy for consumers while also putting B.C. companies and family-supporting jobs at risk. It’s time to fix this.

As our second priority, the B.C. automobile sector faces a critical labour shortage, with industry predicting the need for up to 20,000 workers over the next decade. We currently work with the Industry Training Authority, WorkBC and other labour agencies, and we suggest that further funding and efforts be added to support apprentice and jobs training programs that are critical to the industry and the consumers our members serve.

Finally, we’re also recommending an ongoing funding commitment to support the CleanBC go electric vehicle purchase rebate program, along with critical and key investments in charging infrastructure where people live, work and play.

Now, we’re privileged to administer the CleanBC go electric vehicle rebate program on behalf of the provincial government, through which B.C. has taken a leadership role in electric vehicle adoption not just in Canada but in North America. Despite the pandemic and supply chain issues we faced last year — and that we continue to face — more than 1,800 rebate transactions were processed last year. Today there are more than 70,000 zero-emission vehicles travelling our highways, and in the first quarter of this year, more than 17 percent of new vehicle sales were zero-emission vehicles.

In conclusion, our members want to be part of the solution in keeping the economy moving in the right direction while working toward our collective environmental goals. Our recommendations will help encourage consumer spending and increase jobs by removing or adjusting tax barriers such as the luxury tax and the luxury surtaxes; incentivizing consumers through EV purchases and charging rebates; and ongoing investments in skills training, which is central to the future success for our sector and the broader economy but also to the lives of a new generation of young people who are exploring career opportunities.

Thank you all for the opportunity to present these thoughts today and your kind attention at the end of your day. I look forward to your questions.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thanks, Blair.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for your presentation. It’s wonderful to see you again.

[4:00 p.m.]

I have a question related to the luxury tax recommendation. I know your presentation last year also talked about these challenges. As a farmer, I hear, within the farm circles, many challenges related to the luxury tax with pickup trucks. With that, a three-quarter-ton would be under a luxury tax, but a one-ton, because of being heavy-duty machinery, is not, forcing a lot of farmers and other people who work in this industry to pick a larger truck than they maybe, originally, would go with, because of that imbalance.

Now, what I’m wondering…. I looked through your written presentation. When I saw the watch comparison, that really does drive it home.

B. Qualey: Or a boat or an RV or….

M. Dykeman: Anything like that. Yeah. What are your…? I know you talked a little bit about just raising the bar, but are there any other things that can be done? Even if you raise the bar, maybe, with the truck challenge we were talking about there, that might not even address it. Are there a wider range of things that could be done to help address that effect of the luxury tax on people like farmers and other people that work in industry that are affected by those rules?

B. Qualey: Well, thank you for the question. This issue has come up before, around pickup trucks and the fact that the current structure of the tax forces people into more truck than they need. This, in the bigger picture — having just been here, listening to the roadbuilders — puts heavier, more-emitting vehicles on the road than perhaps is necessary to meet the needs of the individuals, families and businesses.

It’s problematic, and I’ve sat here at previous sessions, saying that it’s time to get it off pickup trucks. Today I’m happy to say, “it’s time to get it off pickup trucks,” because we’re taxing people for something that’s not a luxury item, particularly when the threshold hasn’t been adjusted for years and years. The average price of a vehicle now, at $54,000, is pushing right on the door of being…. That’s the average vehicle. It is a big challenge, and I would encourage government to seriously take a look at restructuring this whole luxury tax.

H. Yao: I’ll keep my question short. You talked about the threshold currently running at $55,000 right now. Based on your membership’s recommendation, what would you raise it up to?

B. Qualey: Well, my recommendation is to take the whole thing away. However, assuming that that may not be a possibility…. Government has recently made an adjustment on electric vehicles, suggesting the threshold of $75,000 or $76,000 to take off the GST and luxury tax on electric vehicles. Clearly, somebody has determined what a luxury vehicle value is in government. So there you go.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Hi, Blair. Thank you for this. These all make sense to me. I have a question that’s related and not related. With the supply chain issues that your dealers are having right now, going in and trying to find an electric vehicle…. I’m being told it’s 18 months or 24 months before I can even get one. How is this impacting the sector?

B. Qualey: Well, it’s difficult. It’s everything. The inventory challenges face everything — gas and electric vehicles — so it’s a challenge for everybody in their…. You go to a dealer today, and in their parking lot, you could have a big dance there. There’s so much space. Fortunately, dealers are a pretty entrepreneurial group and try and help their customers as much as possible. We encourage everybody to have as much patience as you can.

You may not get your first choice of vehicle right away. It’s just the nature of what we’re all facing as far as the supply chain challenges right now. I encourage people to get in and talk to your dealer. For a lot of folks, they are purchasing a used vehicle to bridge to the time when they are able to…. Now there are used electric vehicles out there, so that may be an opportunity for some folks, and others may have to just wait a while. I know that all manufacturers are working tremendously hard, and all the parts suppliers and everybody down the supply chain, to make sure we move as quickly as we can.

I know there are some folks around this table who have an interest in pickup trucks and are anxious to hear when those electric ones will be coming. We’re seeing them rolling out of the factories in the United States and being delivered to customers down there. Our fingers crossed that next year, at a certain point, we’ll start to see those here in Canada and British Columbia.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. Bailey: Thanks, Blair, for the presentation. Nice to see you again. Thanks for that wonderful EV day you recently had over at the Legislature. That was fantastic.

B. Qualey: You’re welcome.

B. Bailey: I’m interested in asking a little bit about the talent gap. Intuitively, it strikes me that those people are going to be mechanics, and some of them are learning what they’ll need to know to work on electric vehicles. Who else is in that category? What is the labour shortage? Is it primarily mechanics, or is it beyond that as well?

B. Qualey: Well, I think it’s beyond that. I mean, the skilled-trades side of…. Anybody that’s looked under the hood of a vehicle, whether it’s gas or electric…. It’s a pretty complex place to be these days. You need a lot of training to be able to do that. We just do not seem to have the volumes of folks coming through the K-to-12 system into the other educational institutions afterwards to help get those people trained and into dealerships. Many of our members are having to look offshore to find folks to deal with that.

But it’s just not that. The automotive business is very much a high-tech business these days. That extends to the online sales and marketing and systems beyond the servicing of vehicles. There are many layers of this, and I think most industries are facing a lot of the same kinds of challenges. We don’t feel special in that regard. I think that, collectively, there is a big gap in the availability of skilled people, and I think that we all need to be leaning in harder to try and solve that together.

J. Routledge (Chair): We’re out of time, but because it’s the last presentation of the day, we’re going to take a question from Ben.

B. Qualey: Don’t blame me.

B. Stewart: So just on the tax, in addition to the provincial tax, the federal government is going to add 10 percent on vehicles under $100,000. Is that correct?

B. Qualey: No, over $100,000. It will be over $100,000. At the high end of vehicles, you’ll be in an effective tax rate of about 38 percent.

B. Stewart: Okay. Second, the government recently brought in…. Like, on the used vehicle market you’re dealing with, is that in place where you’re seeing used vehicles trading and there’s this assessment, wherever it is, if you didn’t pay enough tax? I’m wondering how that affects new car dealers. They’re trading in used cars all the time.

B. Qualey: This is true. I think the adjustments were made mostly around the private vehicle sales market, where some folks may have undervalued the vehicle in the transaction.

B. Stewart: That’s the target.

B. Qualey: Yeah, and I think that our members, of course, pay all of the taxes they’re supposed to pay.

B. Stewart: Okay, all right.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Blair, thank you very much for coming and presenting to us. I noted, when you were summing up, that you made the observation that the new car dealers want to be part of helping the economy move in the right direction — pun intended, perhaps.

B. Qualey: I hope you were all charged-up by the presentation. Thank you for staying awake at the end of your day for it. Appreciate that.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for engaging with us, and thank you for leaving us laughing and for your leadership in moving us to a more sustainable economy with low carbon.

B. Qualey: Well, thanks for your service.

J. Routledge (Chair): Motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:08 p.m.