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 are grateful to be meeting today on the territories of the Coast Salish people, the Musqueam, the Squamish and the 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’ll now ask 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: Good morning. I’m Brenda Bailey. I’m the MLA for Vancouver–False Creek.

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

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

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

R. Merrifield: Good morning. Renee Merrifield, 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.

We are prepared and ready to call our first presenter. That is Matea Kulić, the Association of Book Publishers of B.C.

Welcome. We have a timer to help you keep track of how much time you have. So whenever you’re ready.

Budget Consultation Presentations

ASSOCIATION OF BOOK PUBLISHERS OF B.C.

M. Kulić: Thank you, Chair and committee members, for having me here this morning.

My name is Matea Kulić, and I’m the executive director of the Association of Book Publishers of B.C.

I’m a first generation immigrant of Slavic descent, living and working on the traditional, unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples, where the association’s head office is located — just down the street, actually. I’m privileged to live and work on these beautiful territories.

My predecessor, Heidi Waechtler, appeared before this committee last year. I appreciate the opportunity to update you on how the book publishing industry is faring two years into the COVID-19 pandemic and how Budget 2023 can continue to support publishers and the art sector’s recovery.

We want to convey our gratitude to the province for renewing the B.C. book publishing tax credit in the 2021 budget for five years. The tax credit is a critical support measure for our sector that allows publishers to make the large, upfront investments required for the development of new books and to make the necessary adaptations to continue to evolve alongside a rapidly changing marketplace.

The financial well-being of our province’s book publishers coming out of the pandemic has also been greatly bolstered by support measures such as the StrongerBC plan and supplementary funding through the B.C. Arts Council.

[8:35 a.m.]

In 2020, industry reports predicted a 40 percent contraction of publishers’ operating revenue. Instead, as a result of increased provincial support, book publishers’ operating revenue contracted by an average of 10 percent in 2020, and publishers were able to bounce back, adapting to direct sales and other measures to recoup losses from cancelled in-person events, which, as we all know, had a huge impact on the arts sector.

I really want to underscore the gratitude from publishers. That provincial support really made the difference between…. Many publishers probably faced the prospect of closing down. I’m pleased to report that all of our member publishers are still in operation and have retained their staff. However, of course, 10 percent is still 10 percent.

We all know the arts sector was hugely impacted by the pandemic. Recovery is ongoing, and new challenges have popped up, of course.

While COVID-19 restrictions have now begun to ease and in-person events are back on, we have new issues with the global supply chain disruptions, soaring costs of paper — the cost of paper has more than doubled in the past year — and increasing freight costs. While publishers and distributors are working hard to mitigate these increased costs through possible efficiencies, the measures can only go so far, given the realities of supply chain pressures.

I’ll just give you a small example. I was talking to a publisher the other day. The shipping cost for a book from Vancouver to Toronto is at $18.95. You can imagine what that means. Probably, many of you shop online. If you have a book that you’re trying to purchase for $16.95 and the shipping is $18.95, you’re probably going to make a choice as a consumer, right?

B.C. creators and publishers also continue to experience a significant loss in licensing revenue. It’s estimated at 16 percent of annual revenue by a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, owing to the education sector’s uncompensated use of their works in classrooms under self-defined fair dealing guidelines. This has been an issue that I know publishers have been bringing up here for many years.

To assist B.C. publishers in navigating these ongoing challenges, our association has three recommendations to submit to the committee.

One, we recommend that the province allocate $5 million in Budget 2023 to support the long-term recovery of the arts sector, as recommended by the B.C. Arts Alliance, and to address the realities of ongoing pandemic-related challenges and a realistic timeline for recovery.

Two, we ask that the Ministry of Education recommit to fairly remunerating creators by paying the royalty rate set by the Copyright Board for the use of their copyrighted materials in the classrooms. The rate is $2.41 per K-to-12 student, and payments should be made from 2020 onwards.

Three, we ask that the province increase its investment in Creative B.C. and the B.C. Arts Council and commit to predictable funding increases so that these provincial agencies, which provide crucial support to our sector, can commit to multi-year funding and other capacity-building supports.

I’ll just let you know, from my own experience…. I actually now have crossed over from working…. I had been working at a publisher for the past six years and now have crossed over to the advocacy side. So I can just say, from my experience of working in publishing, the difference of the last two years.

Publisher profit margins are always razor thin. It’s always a challenging situation in the arts. But the way that funding was released over the last two years was extremely significant. There were streamlined application processes, flexible funding delivery models. Funding packages weren’t necessarily tied to a specific project but were released for operational funding to support staff.

All of this showed us that funding can, indeed, be structured to support small, independent publishers, as well as our industry associations, who very much need this capacity-building support, not just in crisis times but in an ongoing way.

B.C. publishers are small and medium-sized businesses that typically employ two to 20 staff members. Notably, women make up 70 percent of our sector. They provide an outsized cultural contribution through an exciting and diverse range of publications, while connecting….

J. Routledge (Chair): Are you ready to wrap it up? You’ve gone over.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): It’s going up now, instead of down.

M. Kulić: Oh, it’s going up. Okay.

Support is appreciated, basically, just to champion our local authors and continue to share our provincial story.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you. We’ll ask you some questions. If there are other things that you wanted to say in your presentation…. If you want to work them into the answers to the questions, that’s just fine.

M. Kulić: No. That’s okay. It was just a summary of the publishers, which I think you probably have heard before. So it’s perfect.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. I’m glad to hear the collaboration and the request for the $5 million across the sector. I think that’s good. We are hearing it, over and over.

[8:40 a.m.]

My question is about the Ministry of Education. I used to work in post-secondary. We had to pay for everything that we were using. How is that working in education, and why isn’t that money getting passed on to you?

M. Kulić: There was a fairly significant federal court case, Access Copyright versus York University. Basically, what happened in that case is…. The court case found that the Copyright Act does, in fact, stipulate that these copyright tariffs need to be paid, but there’s no way to enforce them. Basically, post-secondary education institutions said: “Okay. Well, if no one is going to enforce this, we’re going to, one by one, stop paying these tariffs.” A similar thing happened provincially.

We’re waiting on the federal level now for the Copyright Act to be amended, and it is sort of coming down the pipe. They have already made a commitment to do that in 2023 — in their words, to work towards a sustainable education sector and a situation where publishers and creators will be compensated again. We’re asking for the province to get ahead of that legislation, which is when you’ll be forced to do that, and start doing that as a good example of what should be done to support creators and publishers.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you. I find that surprising. I hadn’t realized that.

H. Yao: Yeah. Actually, Karin asked the same question that I was about to ask. You mentioned something about post-secondary. This is not just an issue with Ministry of Education; it’s also an issue with Ministry of Advanced Education?

M. Kulić: Yes. Our specific recommendation is for K to 12, because I understand that for the post-secondary institutions, it would be the institutions themselves paying that. But we’re asking…. Our recommendation is for K to 12.

B. Bailey: I’m sorry. This is on the same topic. I’m just trying to understand this as well.

I think of these books being largely textbooks, which I don’t think are generally created by small, independent publishers. It’s usually big American companies. I think it must have impact on the trade books as well. I wonder if you could just help me understand that a bit more, please.

M. Kulić: For sure. I’m happy to share that report that I referenced afterwards, because the Pricewaterhouse report talked a lot about the economic impact.

One is that the publishers in Canada that are dedicated to educational content…. That sector is shrinking and in decline in a really concerning way. So we will be in a situation where most of the content is coming out of the U.S. if we don’t address this.

There is the point of textbooks. But you’re right that small independent publishers…. What they’re publishing are primarily books of poetry, plays, fiction, non-fiction. However, these are still being used in the classroom. Often a whole chapter is being copied — ten poems, a play, etc. So we know that this copying is happening, but there isn’t any compensation to publishers for that work.

B. Stewart: Matea, I just wanted to thank you. Recently we got a bag of books delivered to us at the Leg. I’m sure everybody…. Mine was personalized.

I have to just say that having gone through COVID, seeing the importance of having domestically sourced and produced product here is really important. We do want to make certain that the book publishers here and the people that are involved in that continue. I just wanted to thank you for that. It was really well received by myself and the other MLAs.

M. Kulić: Thank you so much, Ben. I will pass that on to the publishers. Yes, B.C. Book Day is a highlight for all of us as well. I completely agree. I have a three-year-old daughter, and it’s just such a beautiful feeling to be able to read to her books from local authors about Indigenous history and culture, about so many things — history of our province. I absolutely agree with you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Matea, we’re out of time now, but thank you very much for your advocacy. Thank you for coming and presenting to us and giving us a picture of the challenges of what’s happening in the book publishing industry.

I think a lot of us depend on books. We love our books. We want our families to read books, and we want local books. So thank you for highlighting what could be at risk here.

M. Kulić: Absolutely. Thank you for having me.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Sarah Bjorknas, representing CUPE Metro Vancouver District Council.

Hi, Sarah. Nice to see you.

CUPE METRO VANCOUVER
DISTRICT COUNCIL

S. Bjorknas: Good morning.

I’m here this morning with gratitude to do advocacy for public services on the ancestral and stolen land of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

[8:45 a.m.]

My name is Sarah Bjorknas. I’m a library worker. I’m a CUPE member, Canadian Union of Public Employees. One of my roles as a CUPE member is as the president of the CUPE Metro Vancouver District Council, which is a council that brings together CUPE members and leaders from a variety of sectors across the Lower Mainland. I’ve worked at the Burnaby Public Library for 29 years, and I’ve been a settler resident of the Strathcona neighbourhood for 24 years.

I’m here today to advocate that the provincial government spend money to support and sustain the vital public service that public libraries provide in every community. It’s a nice segue to be talking more about books this morning, after the previous presenter. As well, I want to comment on the need for a response, in a substantial and meaningful way, to the overdose crisis and the toxic drug issue. The last two years have shown us the critical need for and value of universal community supports, both in literacy, especially digital literacy, and in health care interventions.

You’ll see, in my written submission, three recommendations. The first is a request for an increase to provincial funding for public libraries in the amount of $22 million per year to fund service expansion and delivery and reduce precarity in library staffing.

The second recommendation is for funding for a program specific to small, rural and remote libraries and regional library systems and funding specific to Indigenous communities for accessible and reliable library and technology services.

Third, funding of up to $100 million for an emergency response to the overdose crisis. That could look like supporting existing clinics and programs as well as the expansion of programs in urban centres.

Now, these three recommendations are in two distinct areas, but for me, they’re very much connected. They represent our desire for collective community good, and they represent a strong need in every community in the province. Libraries are seen as the last free public safe space, and in those libraries, we see the effects of the toxic drug and overdose crisis.

B.C. continues to be a leader in approaches to addressing drug use as a health issue. There’s no greater issue than preventing death from toxic drugs in order to be able to provide further services. We need to build on things like the good work of facilities like SAFER, the Safer Alternative for Emergency Response, as an example.

Moving to the library world, I’ll just say that the need for reformed municipal finance options would be somebody else’s presentation, because I don’t have time for that. But it’s an issue, and it results in things like the vulnerability of public library funding. Often it’s a struggle to achieve stature and priority in municipal budgets for public libraries.

As the last free public safe space and the greatest literacy resource in our communities, libraries require extended hours for accessibility. When you don’t have those hours, you don’t have accessibility. That is represented in staffing. It results in piecemeal shiftwork and precarity in staffing. It results in a lack of regular employee status, predictable schedules and benefits for employees.

Over time, provincial funding has decreased for public libraries, and usage has increased. Libraries have very much become a place where everyone can access tech help for free — the only place, in fact. Whether folks are bringing their own devices or using library hardware, Internet access and access to printing are vital. It’s something that gets the most use that we see.

In conclusion, healthy people, safe spaces and supported learning will build strong communities.

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

[8:50 a.m.]

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Sarah. I know we’ve heard this before, but libraries…. It’s surprising how little of an increase they’ve had. It’s funny, having gone through the dependency that we’ve had with the technology and people coming in to use that, to have the help that you provide…. It is important.

Do you know the level of funding that the province has provided? When was the last time there was an increase in funding to the library sector?

S. Bjorknas: I believe that it’s been at least 12 years, with the exception of the one-time funding that was received this year. But in terms of the sustained funding, I believe it’s at least 12 years.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. I do want to say that you’re absolutely correct about public libraries being the final equalizer that we still have kept in our community.

We often see libraries as centres of literacy, but the reality is that they’re not just centres of literacy. It’s where people go to escape heat when there’s a heat dome. When people need to escape the cold, it’s where they go hide. It’s where, I think, we see community members utilizing the space. That’s where there’s cross-culture communication. It’s where a lot of different projects actually find space and time in there.

I’m looking at your written submission right now. We can look at 2002; it was 5.9. In 2012, it was 4.4. In 2020, it was 3.9. So the numbers are definitely disappointing, in my opinion.

I don’t really have a question for you. I actually just want to thank you for bringing this to my attention, to our attention. I know from the community of Richmond, I’ve seen the great benefit the library has provided, and I would love to see your continued efficacy. Hopefully, our provincial government will respond in a positive manner. Thank you for your time.

S. Bjorknas: Thanks very much. The issue of funding is a tricky one because of the way that libraries and library boards are formed. There’s the municipal piece, the provincial piece.

I just see that the provincial piece can be the more stable one and more equalizing. In urban libraries…. We all struggle, but we don’t struggle as much in urban libraries because, of course, the larger municipalities have the larger budgets. But we all need that access, and we’ve seen how important it is.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): You referenced investment in digital. I just had a question. This may relate back to book licensing. Is the inability to…? When you purchase e-books for people, the licensing issue, the expiration times — is that an issue across all libraries for the ability to provide digital copies to constituents?

S. Bjorknas: Certainly, yeah. When you can get the licences, they’re limited. I mean, it might be mind-blowing to think that you can purchase the use of a digital book for a library, but you can only have so many uses. But if you purchase it just personally, you could use it as many times as you want.

Plus just the increase in the amount of digital. Obviously, when we all closed, we tried to open that more and shift budgets.

J. Routledge (Chair): Renee, and then Mike if we have some time.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much just for your advocacy work and, like Henry said, just for drawing it to our attention. I’m wondering if there’s any provincial planning that has been done that distinguishes between the urban and the rural issues and how those issues need to be dealt with on a provincial basis, in addition to what’s happening municipally.

I would agree with and echo the comments of my colleagues — that libraries are those safe spaces and are also very critical to digital literacy, for our seniors within our communities and for those with very poor connectivity. They become these Wi-Fi hubs. So I echo that, but it would be great if there was some sort of a master plan for libraries to maybe evolve or change or shift, but take on a provincial role in greater….

S. Bjorknas: Indeed. I mean, there are avenues for some of that work. Of course, CUPE is not the only one in the…. The library directors themselves, the B.C. Libraries Co-op, have a partnership where they do work together. Then there are also the regional areas.

I don’t work in that sort of coordinated level. But I think that is one of the challenges. It’s hard to pull it all together to have a cohesive approach, which is why we’re going to the province for leadership there.

[8:55 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, Sarah. Thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today and for your advocacy. I think we’re all struck by your comment that libraries are the last free, safe public space. That resonates. That says a lot.

As you’ve been speaking, I’ve been thinking about the role of the public library in my community and how it draws people together, and it is a safe place. I know that librarians go out of their way to make sure that people who feel vulnerable come there to get a sense of belonging, as part of the community, and it’s so important. Thank you.

Our next presenter is Brynn Bourke, representing the B.C. Building Trades.

Welcome, Brynn.

B.C. BUILDING TRADES

B. Bourke: Thank you. It’s pretty humbling to follow that, with Sarah. I know her personally, and I know few other people who live their values so truly as Sarah.

Good morning. My name is Brynn Bourke, and I’m the executive director of the B.C. Building Trades. We’re a council of over 40,000 unionized construction workers. For decades, B.C. Building Trades unions have operated joint apprenticeship boards with our contractors.

We operate in more than one dozen trade-specific facilities, like the Finishing Trades Institute, UA Piping Industry College and the Sheet Metal Workers Training Centre. Collectively, our training boards invest over $31 million annually in trades training and nearly $50 million in buildings and assets. Our training system is funded by contributing dollars for every construction hour worked by our members.

I have participated in this process every year, and it’s always difficult because you have five minutes. This year feels particularly daunting because of the message I’m trying to convey about the state of trades training and the state of the construction industry. We are facing a massive skilled trades shortage in construction, with over 27,000 workers who will be needed over the next six years — 27,000 workers over the next six years — and we need a historic investment in trades training that aligns with the workforce needs in front of us.

For years, our trades training funding has gone without increases, and it has really struggled to get attention because it sits inside the Ministry of Advanced Education, which is a $2.5 billion ministry. Funding for trades training inside that ministry is miniscule.

In 2021, transfers to training providers from the Industry Training Authority were $72 million. For perspective, the earliest year that the ITA publicly reports funding transfers to trades trainers is 2006, and it was $71 million. We have not changed the transfers to trades training providers in 20 years. That funding goes to support every apprentice in B.C. We share that same pot of money with BCIT, with Camosun, with Kwantlen, with all of my union trainers.

At the same time, the workforce that funding is meant to be developing is massive. It has nearly doubled since 2006, and we now have 221,000 construction workers who work in B.C. Again, to give you context, construction is the second-largest GDP contributor in the province after real estate. The second largest. It is the economic engine driving our province. Funding is so out of step with industry needs, and our industry, my union contractors and my unions are deeply subsidizing our trades training system.

I want to give you one example, just one out of the dozen that I have, of what this looks like. The operating engineers trades training centre receives $280,000 a year from the Industry Training Authority. For that, they deliver crane, heavy-equipment operator and asphalt laydown technician apprenticeship programs — $280,000 a year.

What do they spend? It’s $120,000 on fuel alone, $90,000 on insurance, $133,000 on maintenance and property management. Never mind instructor costs or new equipment purchases. Last year the operating engineer training centre spent $3.3 million training British Columbians, and they receive $280,000 from the Industry Training Authority. That is less than 10 percent of the operating costs of the centre. This is the same across the industry.

[9:00 a.m.]

My message is not just to please increase core funding to trades training providers by 50 percent, would be $35 million and then tie it to inflation, but it is also this: you cannot expect different results if you do not fix the system. We will not train more construction workers. More seats magically will not open up if we do not have a significant change to operational funding for our trades-training centres.

The B.C. Building Trades — we are a partner. We have over 5,000 registered ITA apprentices in our system. We’re here to work with you, and we’re very solutions-focused.

I welcome your questions.

M. Dykeman: It’s wonderful to see you. One of the questions I have….

I appreciate you illustrating the shortage from the amount using the operating engineer situation as an example. In terms of training obstacles, if you had, say, an increase in budget, do you have the ability to find instructors and actually have physical spaces? Because in some of the places that I’ve toured, one of the challenges they have also highlighted is that there just isn’t even physical space.

I’m wondering. In addition to the core funding, which is very important towards providing seats, what are the other obstacles you might also be facing? Do you see those as being obstacles in actually being able to produce more trained trades?

B. Bourke: It’s a great question. I think the core funding would be the release valve. Our system is…. In every construction hour worked, depending on the collective agreement, 35 cents to over $1 go into these joint boards to fund trades training. This is how these accumulate to over $31 million. They have had to take more and more of that money and put it into apprenticeship training to subsidize the system. If they had true operational core support, they could put that funding into expanding their trades-training centres, hiring more instructors, purchasing newer equipment.

I will say that there have been little tiny increases to the ITA recently that have helped to deal with what are perceived as wait-list surges for the creation of skilled trades B.C. That’s fantastic, and it’s fantastic that there is some money going toward enforcement.

If you’re still only giving us 10 percent of what it costs for us to train an apprentice, and you’re saying, “We have more 10 percents to give you,” you’re not addressing the actual problem. That’s a huge burden to put upon sheet metal and electrical and automotive and pipefitting and steamfitting, that they still have to find 90 percent to top it off to expand trades training.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for your advocacy work. Having come from the construction industry, I am a super big advocate of the trades. I agree with you. We are so underfunded across the board.

You’re specifically representing unions and the union trades. What percentage of apprentices are outside of union trades? I know as someone who is not inside of the unions, oftentimes private companies or others are trying to pay for those apprentices, etc.

B. Bourke: I think it depends. The ITA has over 30,000, but that’s automotive. It has culinary. It has hairstyling. It’s hard to say what percentage of that is construction. For us, what I can say is we’re over 5,000 registered apprentices. For many of our union trainers…. They are the number one trainer of women apprentices, number one trainer of Indigenous apprentices. I can actually…. In my written submission, I’ll make sure that I break that down a little bit more so you have that detail.

R. Merrifield: Thank you again. Awesome work.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. Obviously, almost every industry who came and talked to us says there’s a massive labour shortage. We understand with our government now moving forward with a lot of infrastructure projects…. I almost feel like trades is obviously one area we always want to have actual attention to.

[9:05 a.m.]

I just want to double-check. You’re talking about a 50 percent increase, which, if I do my math correctly, is about $107 million for the 2023 budget. It sounds almost like that’s the bare minimum you think will be needed. If we want to catch up — as you probably know, we have a huge amount of catch-up we need to do — what’s an ideal actual increase you think is needed so, that way, for the next six to ten years, we’ll have enough trade apprentices or trade workers to actually ensure that we have a smooth and prosperous B.C. to be able to keep up with our infrastructure needs?

B. Bourke: Well, Henry, I mean, my expectations were so low, but you say the sky is the limit. What I would say is that there is a public post-secondary funding review that is taking place, but we’re not going to be captured in that. I think that there really does need to be a core assessment of trades training in B.C.

For now, we absolutely need to have a 50 percent increase to core funding, and then you should review trades trainers. Put us through our paces. Look at our completion rates. We will go toe to toe with anybody in terms of who’s delivering true red seal journeypeople for our industry — and fund people according to their success rate.

H. Yao: Thank you.

B. Bailey: Thanks for the presentation. I’m wondering how the new BCIT trades and technology centre…. I think we’ve invested $137 million, $136 million into that. How does that fit into the equation that you’re describing?

B. Bourke: I think it’s a great investment. I think we know that for certain trades in certain regions, there are wait-lists. The more that we create those opportunities and give people the advantage to access modern contemporary trades training with incredible new equipment…. I think it’s wonderful. Let’s do more of that.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Brynn, we are out of time. This is a big discussion, and you’ve given us a lot of information and raised some alarms that we need to take seriously.

I guess, just in closing, one of the things that I’ve been thinking about, as you’ve been speaking and interacting, is…. Well, let me put it this way. My father was a cabinetmaker, and he taught others to be cabinetmakers. But one thing that was very clear was he was doing this so that I could go to university and get out of the working class.

I do wonder if there are cultural barriers as well, in terms of what you’re describing. I think we need to elevate the value, the merit, of skilled trades if we’re going to attract people there — and if we’re going to put the money there. We need to understand that it’s an important place.

That’s more than I wanted to say, but it’s just really…. You’ve really triggered some thoughts here. Thank you.

Our next presenter is Dean Rear, representing Metro Vancouver.

Welcome, Dean.

METRO VANCOUVER

D. Rear: Good morning, everyone. I do apologize, both our chair and our CAO are not feeling well today, so you get the C-team, I’m afraid.

Good morning, distinguished members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I acknowledge, with much gratitude and respect, the ten local First Nation communities located within the region.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you in advance of the 2023 provincial budget. As noted, my name is Dean Rear, and I’m the chief financial officer of Metro Vancouver. Today I’d like to speak with you about three key recommendations from Metro Vancouver around co-investments in critical infrastructure, opportunities to support affordable rental housing throughout the region and the urgency of taking action on climate change.

Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities, one treaty First Nation and one unincorporated area. As the regional body responsible for providing critical services such as drinking water, wastewater treatment and solid waste management to 2.7 million residents, more than half the population of the province, Metro Vancouver oversees a combined capital and operating budget of about $2.5 billion.

Over the next five years, we’re planning over $7 billion in critical infrastructure investments to build, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure that underlies the prosperity and livability of the region, but we cannot do it alone. We need the provincial government to join us in making these crucial investments for the benefit of our shared constituents and generations to come.

[9:10 a.m.]

Our first recommendation for Budget 2023 is for the provincial government to provide predictable, long-term and equitable cost-sharing to local governments for critical infrastructure projects. This is particularly important for those projects that are driven by regulatory requirements, such as upgrading wastewater treatment plants.

The Iona Island wastewater treatment plant project, for example, is one of Canada’s most transformative and dynamic urban sustainability projects. It will enhance wastewater treatment and resource recovery and will protect the health and well-being of wildlife and globally significant ecosystems. In addition, we’re ensuring that the plant can withstand a major earthquake and sea level rise.

We are seeking equitable cost-sharing for the Iona projects with the government of Canada, with the province of B.C. and with ourselves, Metro Vancouver, starting with one-third, $250 million each, for phase 1. The provincial government’s contribution is critical to the long-term financial health of Metro Vancouver and the affordability at the household level.

Our second recommendation is for provincial support in funding towards the development of affordable rental homes. Metro Vancouver Housing is one of the largest affordable housing providers in B.C., with 49 sites across the region, including over 3,400 units — supporting nearly 9,400 residents, primarily serving families, seniors and people with disabilities. Working closely with our members, we are ready to make a meaningful impact to address the region’s housing needs. But tackling housing challenges will require significant investment, innovation and collaboration from all orders of government.

Metro Vancouver Housing currently has seven projects underway in a first tranche of development to deliver over 800 homes and has an aspirational target to deliver over 2,000 new and redeveloped units over the next decade. We’ve had successful discussions to date with the minister and with B.C. Housing and are working to confirm a provincial commitment, in the range of about $190 million over the next seven years, to deliver these projects and to support deeper affordability.

Given rising construction costs, it’s essential to take action now. We know there is strong support from the province, and we’re counting on the 2023 budget and the five-year financial plan to help deliver the first tranche of projects to make a meaningful impact in our region. Metro Vancouver Housing brings $100 million in cash equity and about $114 million in land equity for these sites, and we’re actively seeking meaningful contributions from the federal government. Working together, we can get more affordable homes on the ground sooner, to meet this crucial need.

Our third recommendation is for the provincial government to work with Metro Vancouver to achieve our shared goals of carbon neutrality by 2050, by implementing the actions set out in Metro Vancouver’s climate 2050 and clean air plan, in alignment with CleanBC and the other provincial plans. We all have a role to play in addressing climate change, and it’s critical to continue to collaborate on regulatory policies, programs and incentives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from key sources in the province and our communities.

Members of the select standing committee, thank you for your time today. Through strategic co-investments in infrastructure and affordable housing projects, we can create long-term jobs, make life more affordable for people, mitigate climate change and protect the environment. I hope that these recommendations and our formal prebudget submission will help inform your priorities as you prepare for Budget 2023.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Dean. The question I’ll ask…. I think this comes up over and over again with respect to affordable housing. Some of the primary drivers — the time to build, the cost to build, the complexity to build — come down to the municipal planning process and approval process.

As part of trying to move things forward, do you think it’s realistic that we say that is one of the issues? How can Metro Vancouver help to streamline that?

D. Rear: Thank you very much for the question. It is one of the issues, not just with respect to housing projects but to all the projects that have to go on to provide services for the region. It is a much more challenging environment, permit-wise and consultation-wise, to move projects along.

Metro Vancouver, of course, within its federation of municipalities, works fairly proactively to try and make sure that we are doing as much as we can to try and get those projects moving forward as quickly as possible, given the priorities that they are.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Dean. The numbers that you were talking about on housing…. I think that you said something like 800 were either completed or about to be completed and 2,000 over the next decade.

D. Rear: That’s correct.

[9:15 a.m.]

B. Stewart: I guess I’m thinking that for the 2.7 million people that are in Metro Vancouver, it seems like a very modest number. I’m just wondering: is there a bigger goal for Metro Vancouver? I realize there are 32 or 33 different jurisdictions that are part of Metro Vancouver. I’m just kind of thinking that this problem….

We hear about it. We hear about labour. We hear about housing. I guess the thing about it is that if they really put their minds to this issue…. I realize that every jurisdiction within Metro Vancouver controls its own thing. Is that an aspirational goal — just 2,000? Could it be more? What’s in the way of doing more?

D. Rear: What I will say is that the housing team has put a fair bit of work into understanding what is achievable within the resources that Metro Vancouver has — both the cash and the land equity. In order to move it forward, what is required is the additional input that we are seeking from higher levels of government to try and move those things along.

This is the model that we have, to try and provide it. Affordable rental housing is really achieved based on the equity that is put in by all levels of government. The only thing that might be holding that back is just that — the overall level. The more that we can derive and put into…. I’m sure the housing team would say that they could be able to do more with more.

B. Stewart: Time for a second question? In terms of that, recently the government brought in legislation to expand the authority of the Transportation Financing Authority to being able to take land at transit hubs. I’m not quite certain where Metro Vancouver fits into that, but I think that they’re very motivated to expand affordable housing, or housing of any sort, around the subway stations and transit-oriented stations throughout the city.

I guess my question is: is Metro Vancouver able to support or help in that quest to try to create more housing in these areas? Do you have any jurisdiction?

D. Rear: Thank you for the question. It’s a really good question. Being a finance guy, I’m a little bit disadvantaged to ask, but I think the short answer is yes. I think if our GM of housing and planning were here, she would tell you that she is working very hard to try and promote those ideals and trying to put more housing around those transportation hubs.

R. Merrifield: What’s the definition of “affordable housing” that you’re using? I know that it kind of fluctuates, depending on who’s using it. Is there a set definition?

D. Rear: We do have a set definition. I believe that all of our rentals are below market. Unfortunately, the terminology is just escaping me right at the moment.

R. Merrifield: So it’s set below market by a certain percentage, but that absolute value could be escalating as the absolute value of market escalates?

D. Rear: Correct.

J. Routledge (Chair): Dean, I know you were a last-minute stand-in, but you did a great job. You laid out your case very well and answered the questions very well. Thank you very much, and thank you to Metro Vancouver for having a big plan.

Our next presenter is Grace Cheng, representing the city of Vancouver.

Welcome, Grace. You have five minutes to make your presentation, and the second five minutes is question-and-answer.

CITY OF VANCOUVER

G. Cheng: Good morning. My name is Grace Cheng. I am the director of long-term financial strategy for the city of Vancouver.

I would like to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you today on the unceded, traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.

All levels of government are facing common challenges and opportunities together, such as housing affordability, climate mitigation and adaptation, and reconciliation. As local governments, we do not have the resources to address these issues on our own. While I will be highlighting three recommendations today, the city does have a much longer list of priorities that need cooperation and also a really long-term strategic partnership with all levels of government.

[9:20 a.m.]

You will notice that our requests are rather large — maybe not as large as compared to Metro Vancouver. Nonetheless, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. However, this is because, in the city of Vancouver, we do serve a very broad base that goes beyond the people who live within the city boundaries. In fact, more than half of the people who work in Vancouver commute from outside of Vancouver to our municipality every single day.

As well, we serve as an international tourist destination. Before COVID, as you all know, the Port of Vancouver actually welcomed over one million passengers every single year to the city. We’re also a hub for entertainment and cultural events that serve way above and beyond the Vancouver boundaries. We’re talking about an annual fireworks festival, a Pride parade and various sporting events.

I would like, basically, to talk about the recommendations that I’m going to present. Even though it’s on behalf of the city, all these recommendations, if adopted, can actually bring a much broader benefit to the Metro Vancouver area and also to the entire province — and, to a certain extent, it could be nationwide as a whole.

I’m going to jump to the first recommendation. Our first recommendation is that the province commit to increase funding to support complete transit-oriented neighbourhoods. As you are aware, Vancouver is a leader in transit-oriented development, with recent community plans delivering thousands and thousands of new homes near major transit infrastructure. However, a key barrier to scaling up the affordable housing stock near transit is really the high cost of infrastructure. What I mean by that is that if the province were to invest $350 million, we could develop 2,000 social housing units on city sites.

When I talk about social housing units and affordable housing, we do have a definition. We follow B.C. Housing’s definition. It is really about…. For us to define “social housing” in a building, at least 30 percent of the units have to be below HILs, and then the rest, 70 percent of the units, have to be at the lower end of the market. This is the bare minimum; we always try to exceed that.

As well as the really high costs in Vancouver, even if the city is contributing land for free for a non-profit to build, we are facing an equity gap to the tune of $175,000 per unit, even with free land from the city of Vancouver. So we are really having a challenge there.

The next point I want to talk about is that for $400 million over ten years, in partnership with all levels of government, we can end our reliance on the SRO hotels. You have all heard about them, all the horror stories, I would say, associated with SRO hotels. This $400 million is really about 40 percent of the $1 billion ask that we have been talking to the federal government about as well. The reason why we need this money is that if we can basically replace all the existing SRO units with much more dignified social housing, the vulnerable populations don’t need to continue to stay in SROs in the Downtown Eastside.

We also need to talk having enabling infrastructure and amenities to support growth. What I mean by that is that for $100 million to $110 million, we can upgrade the water and sewer infrastructure — as the utility upgrade costs could be prohibitive to deliver and scale up the delivery of affordable and rental housing along the rapid transit corridor.

We also need to have roughly around $100 million to renew and expand much-needed community facilities to support growth — in particular, for Britannia in the Grandview-Woodland area and also for Ray-Cam in the Strathcona area. These neighbourhoods do need these community facilities to help them. We’re also asking for $75 million for seismic upgrades and rehab for the two False Creek bridges, Cambie and Granville and $55 million for an active transportation initiative. That’s all under the infrastructure bit in the first recommendation.

The second recommendation: we are asking the province to advance municipal climate action by increasing your financial support for green rainwater infrastructure and the urban forest. The reason why it is important is because last year, I think it was very obvious that the effects of climate change are really undeniable. Basically, if we have your support to make some meaningful investment in our green rainwater infrastructure, it is a much more cost-effective way to create growth-enabling infrastructure, as opposed to just purely relying on the grey infrastructure like water and sewer upgrades. This is also helping Metro Vancouver as well as….

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, Grace, if you could wrap it up.

[9:25 a.m.]

G. Cheng: Yes, we’re going to end here.

For the Iona treatment plant, we don’t need to basically put a ton of blackwater going into the treatment plant.

The last one, just quickly to close up. The third recommendation is really to ask the province to increase funding for Indigenous-serving cultural infrastructure and their capacity to engage with local government to advance reconciliation.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thanks, Grace. The first question is from Renee.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation. My question is pretty simple and straightforward. Does the city of Vancouver still charge DCCs and CACs on affordable housing units?

G. Cheng: We don’t. When we talk about affordable housing, first and foremost, in the Vancouver Charter, social housing is exempt from DCL. It’s not even according to city council. It is according to the Vancouver Charter. For rental projects, we can waive their DCC if they agree to achieve a certain level of affordability. Basically, it’s linked to that.

R. Merrifield: Perfect. Thank you.

B. Bailey: Thanks very much for your presentation and all your work on behalf of the city. I’m thinking about the really worthy objective of replacing the SROs, which have been so problematic and unsafe. I wonder: were we successful and able to do that, what stops them from setting up again?

G. Cheng: I would say that if it is in the market for us, there is always a profit motive behind it. So unless there are stronger SRO regulations…. I think there will always be a profit motive in a way that if these rooms can be modified and renovated for higher rent, there is no reason for people not to do that, and then basically, maybe, drive away existing residents.

I guess as long as we basically wean off this, either having stronger regulations in terms of managing this or just purely replace them and say: “You know what? Going forward, we’re not relying on them for vulnerable populations….” We’re going to have very self-contained social housing units, sometimes with supportive housing, with support services on site, so that these vulnerable populations don’t need to stay there.

Maybe the SROs can be refurbished for something else, but the low-income folks don’t need to rely on them. I think that really is the point. But again, I’m a finance person. If the housing folks are here, I’m pretty sure they can give you more.

H. Yao: If my math is correct, your first recommendation is already close to $1.1 billion of your ask. It’s definitely a lot of long numbers to look at.

I have a question about your $350 million for 200 social housing units. That’s $1.75 million per unit. Is my math incorrect somewhere?

G. Cheng: It should be $175,000 per unit.

H. Yao: So are you talking about $35 million, or $350 million?

G. Cheng: $350 million.

H. Yao: For 200 units.

G. Cheng: For 2,000 units.

H. Yao: Two thousand. That’s what I missed. I heard 200.

G. Cheng: It’s just a zero.

H. Yao: That’s why my math didn’t work out there for a second. I’m done. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other question for Grace?

B. Bailey: Grace, the federal government, in their last budget, has prioritized some co-op funding. I know that the co-ops in South False Creek have been a challenge in regards to the lease model and what happens after the end of the lease, but in many ways, they’ve been tremendously successful. The communities there love that life. They’ve been able to thrive there. It’s a very successful model, in my opinion.

Is there any interest from the city of Vancouver, as you look at your long-term strategic plan, to support additional co-op housing in the city?

G. Cheng: Oh, definitely. This is actually one of the centrepieces in our Housing Vancouver strategy, to really support, not just replace — not just to rehab and also replace. It’s also redevelopment and expansion of co-op as well as non-market-housing sectors. This is part of our strategy. It’s embedded in our Housing Vancouver strategy.

J. Routledge (Chair): That wraps up our time. Grace, thank you so much for coming and outlining the needs of Vancouver and what’s at stake. I, for one, drive down Hastings Street to get here every day, and drive home down Hastings Street.

The challenge that you’re facing is very visible and very tragic, so thank you to the city of Vancouver and to you for trying to take this on and create a better future.

Our next presenter is Humera Jabir, representing West Coast LEAF.

[9:30 a.m.]

H. Jabir: Hello. Great to be here.

J. Routledge (Chair): You have five minutes to make your presentation. We have a timer to help you. Now, when it turns red, it means your five minutes are up. Then it will start counting up, and that’s for the question-and-answer period. So it’s a total of ten minutes.

WEST COAST LEAF

H. Jabir: Okay. Sounds great. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Thank you very much for having West Coast LEAF here to speak. My name is Humera Jabir, and I use she/her pronouns. I am a staff lawyer at West Coast LEAF.

Our office is located on the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

West Coast LEAF is a B.C.-based legal advocacy organization founded in 1985. We use legal strategies to create an equal and just society for all women and people who experience gender-based discrimination.

West Coast LEAF will be providing written submissions outlining our three recommendations. Our recommendations are focused on the priority areas of economic security, the right to parent and access to justice.

We recommend the following: (1) increasing funding to the employment standards branch by at least $14 million to ensure fair, timely and robust protections of employment standards; (2) making a transformative investment in prevention and family support services as part of MCFD’s proposed transformation; and (3) establishing new funding for legal aid services for child support matters.

Our first recommendation is to increase funding to the employment standards branch by at least $14 million. The employment standards branch is under-resourced and is failing to carry out its mandate under the Employment Standards Act.

In April of this year, the B.C. Employment Standards Coalition published the report Justice Denied, which found a systemic failure and shortcomings within the employment standards branch, such as complaints left unresolved for years, investigations not conducted thoroughly, inadequate staff and a lack of proactive investigations. This is absolutely critical for women and people who experience gender-based marginalization because they are overrepresented in low-wage, precarious and part-time work in B.C.

The ESB’s budget must be increased so it can address backlog complaints, address the increased number of complaints and expand enforcements, including proactive investigations into problem industries, including many in which women are overrepresented, such as hospitality, retail and the service sector.

Our second recommendation is that B.C. make a transformative investment in prevention and family support services for children, youth and families and dedicate funding for Indigenous communities to support existing or new promising practices that keep children out of government care and within their families and communities.

MCFD is currently engaged in a proposed transformation that has identified prevention and family support services and Indigenous reconciliation as two main goals. This goal of shifting towards prevention cannot be realized unless a significant funding commitment is made to support prevention-based programs.

Funding for prevention-based programs must be equitable, sustained and long term and cover the delivery of holistic services that are identified by communities themselves. A transformative investment is needed to support Indigenous communities and nations to care for children in accordance with their own traditions and practices.

Our third recommendation is to establish new funding for legal aid services for child support matters. Inadequate funding for legal aid and family law matters is a core access-to-justice concern in this province. While there is a need for investment in legal aid overall, investing in access to legal aid for child support matters is a funding priority that you can make that would have a tangible difference in the lives of single-parent families, which are overwhelmingly single mothers.

Because of the gender division of caregiving, access to child support is a critical issue that’s central to tackling increasingly feminized poverty and child poverty. B.C.’s current system of limited retainers provides some access to services but is ultimately inadequate to address complex matters, including those where family violence intersects.

In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that seeking child support can lead to an increased risk for women because of fear of reprisal and violence, limited financial resources and because abusive fathers may use child support applications as a way to continue to exercise dominance and control. This is an area in which increasing legal aid services can make a critical difference.

Thank you for your time.

[9:35 a.m.]

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

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate it. I would love to have some numbers for recommendation 2 and recommendation 3. You talked about transformative investments. What number are you suggesting that would actually help move towards that direction, per year?

Also, for No. 3, legal aid for children supportive matters, I would also love to have a number. So something we can work with.

H. Jabir: Something you can work with. Well, I think on the second question of how to have a transformative investment in prevention services, I’ll echo the submissions that are also being made by the Federation of Community Social Services. If you look at the MCFD’s budget line and what is allocated towards family programs and family support services, that’s an area in which you can make a concrete increase. Really look at that in comparison to other spending priorities: it is less than what is spent on children being in care.

That’s an area in which if there’s going to be the stated transformation, where the emphasis is going to be on preventing children from being placed in care, being kept within their families and communities, then there has to be that funding increase to actualize that.

With respect to the amount of funding, I can’t put a number to that for you. But what I would like to emphasize is that whatever is done must be done, I think, at this stage, with keeping communities in mind and Indigenous nations and communities in mind. That’s certainly a key aspect of addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care.

We have done work with parents to find out what sorts of prevention services actually work for them. Those are localized, community-based wraparound services where communities can actually develop the resources and supports that are needed to assist families in a way that is creative, out of the box, addresses their needs and utilizes the resources within their family setting and communities.

I won’t put a number down, but what I would ask is…. If there’s a transformation in policy, it can’t be realized without a transformation in spending.

Your second question was on the legal aid.

H. Yao: The third recommendation. Yes.

H. Jabir: Yes. Well, that’s an area where…. I have read your reports in previous years. There has been a resounding emphasis from this committee that legal aid is an important area for increase. I recognize I’m coming back to you with something very similar this year. I understand we are looking at the legal aid system as a whole.

What is available right now for child support is limited service retainers. These are contracts that are given out for very brief, simple matters. I think it’s up to eight hours of preparation or so, or for simple case conferences. For someone who is going through a complex matter or has intersecting concerns of family violence, it’s insufficient. We know that there are so many people that are not accessing coverage for child support or for the financial supports that they need.

Again, I think there has been a lot of work done to understand what the great need is. So I would hope that when you make a determination as to what number that is, it reflects the incredible need for legal aid services that exists across B.C. — and to emphasize the importance that would make to single mothers in particular, who are over 80 percent of single-parent families.

J. Routledge (Chair): Karin, Brenda and, if we have time, Renee.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. I’m excited to see what can happen in First Nations and Indigenous communities with the transfer of funds from the federal government, the $40 million, and then to give communities back responsibility for child welfare.

When you talked about prevention-based, I understand that many children are taken away for purposes of poverty as opposed to neglect. So is it investment in programs that help a parent be a parent in community? I’ve heard of a child removed from a family because their clothes were always dirty. Help somebody own a washing machine. Are those the tactical prevention kinds of things? Or is just a whole suite of different areas so that you can preserve family?

H. Jabir: Absolutely. Of course, the financial assistance…. We all know that poverty is often associated with neglect. That’s a huge pathway for what’s happening and why we’re seeing the overrepresentation of Indigenous children and what leads children into care. But there’s been great work done to identify what parents are actually seeking. I can give you some examples of the kinds of local, community-based wraparound services that parents have requested and identified.

[9:40 a.m.]

Those include in-home support; pregnancy support and baby welcoming programs; transition support programs for families after children have been removed or upon being returned to the home; supports for parents whose children are in care; providing in-home support immediately, as a tool to prevent removal; and funding for cultural programming, which we know is very important.

The communities and parents have identified what it is they need. Now we need the investment and to recognize what’s needed to really do those interventions to prevent children from being taken out of their homes and to facilitate families and kin being able to care for their children.

Last year we were here asking you to recommend funding related to kinship care givers, which is also incredibly important with the number of elderly people that are caring for children that also do not have the resources, who are doing that out of their savings and are impoverished.

It’s a whole package in terms of what can be done to stop that from happening in the first place. Parents, communities have identified what they need.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you. Do we have a written report submission from you?

H. Jabir: You will have that next week, yes.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you, Humera. We are out of time, but I want to thank you for coming and highlighting some of the things that are barriers to families and some of the things that, if we just shifted our funding, could make a difference.

Particularly, I was struck by your first recommendation about employment standards branch and thinking about the number of women who either lose their children because they don’t have a washing machine or who go back to dangerous situations. What a difference that would make if they were more secure in their jobs. Thank you so much for making those connections for us.

Our next presenter is Trevor Boudreau, representing Vancouver Airport Authority.

Welcome.

T. Boudreau: Good to see you. I think it’s been since 2018, when we had you at YVR.

J. Routledge (Chair): That’s right.

T. Boudreau: Before I begin, Renee, yes, we will have you to Kelowna on time. There are no lines at the airport. You can stay focused on the budget.

R. Merrifield: Actually, kudos. The chatter around the MLA group was that YVR did not have big lines. So it was an Air Canada only….

VANCOUVER AIRPORT AUTHORITY

T. Boudreau: Thanks so much. Good morning, everyone. Bonjour à tous.

My name is Trevor Boudreau. I’m the manager of government relations at YVR.

I’m here today to talk to you about our three recommendations for Budget 2023. They’re framed around supporting the growth of aviation cargo and logistics to support B.C.’s trade resilience, increasing funding for more air service to grow B.C.’s visitor economy and accelerating the decarbonization of air travel.

B.C.’s aviation industry, like our region, continues to grapple with the impacts of the global pandemic. As we collectively chart a course towards recovery, I’m very happy that YVR’s values reflect those of our community — that is, being a leader in innovation, Indigenous reconciliation and climate action.

We’ve been working hard to reimagine YVR, through the pandemic, and earlier this year we unveiled our strategic plan, which outlines the steps that we are taking to emerge a greener, stronger and more diversified business. We do appreciate the B.C. government’s past support, and we look forward to continued collaboration as we move forward on our shared priorities and interests.

On our first recommendation, the pandemic and recent climate-fueled weather events have only highlighted the critical role that aviation cargo and logistics play in B.C.’s supply chains. Put frankly, when our roads and rails were battered by rain and by wildfires, it was B.C.’s regional airports and YVR that were there to safeguard the flow of medical equipment, vaccines and other critical supplies.

Moreover, B.C.’s wildly popular exports, like salmon from Steveston and Okanagan cherries, all rely on ready and reliable access to air travel to get to global markets. Similarly, new and emerging sectors such as advanced biomanufacturing and green technology all depend on just-in-time delivery of small, high-value components of products. These shippers measure their supply chain in hours, not days and not weeks.

The current air cargo capacity limitations impede B.C.’s ability to support the demands of the new economy, and this will result in longer in-transit time, higher cost to our local business and increased GHG emissions. The solution requires multi-jurisdictional support.

[9:45 a.m.]

In recognizing the B.C. government’s role in providing an efficient transportation ecosystem, we are asking the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to establish a sustained funding stream over the next five years focused on building aviation cargo capacity and reliability.

This funding will complement private sector investments by addressing infrastructure deficiencies and building climate-resilient links between the airport gateway, Metro Vancouver and the U.S. border. Ideally, this funding will also be used to establish new strategic partnerships with the private sector to explore new innovations, improved traffic modelling and better-informed future infrastructure investments.

On our second recommendation, attracting and growing airline services to British Columbia and increasing capacity is critical to rebuilding our visitor economy. To maximize these opportunities and to connect more regions of the province with new markets, we are asking government to establish a new air service attraction fund, capitalized at $5 million annually. This funding should run through the 2024-2025 fiscal to align with B.C.’s strategic framework for tourism recovery.

The air service attraction fund will generate increased overnight visitor expenditure, greater hotel stays and support tourism jobs across B.C. It will ensure that the creation of new air service connections to our regions are strategically prioritized based on growth projections, sustainability and support for our tourism operators. Importantly, the air service attraction fund will improve access to the unique experiences provided by Indigenous tourism operators in B.C.

Finally, our third recommendation. In 2018, the YVR-commissioned BioPortYVR study demonstrated that British Columbia was uniquely suited to create Canada’s first domestic supply chain of sustainable aviation fuel. This year we appreciated the B.C. government’s enabling tools, created by the new Low Carbon Fuels Act and its associated regulations.

We feel we must continue this important momentum. So we are asking government to maintain B.C.’s sustainable aviation fuel leadership by creating a multi-agency task force that mirrors the complexity of this emerging market. The task force should include cross-ministry representatives from the B.C. government, alongside aviation, clean fuel, innovation and investment expertise.

The task force will be an accelerator for action through industry partnerships that will provide consistent input and contribute to knowledge building and data sharing. Importantly, this recommendation ties into the StrongerBC economic plan by creating a network of communities connected by low-carbon air travel powered by sustainable aviation fuel, battery and electric, as well as clean hydrogen.

That completes my formal remarks. I’m happy to take your questions, and like a good airport, I got you in seven seconds under the time.

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

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation, reading through your written remarks as well. My question right now is for recommendation 1. Do you have an actual dollar figure attached to it?

T. Boudreau: It can be handled under the ministry’s existing service plans. There is some provincial infrastructure that will need replacing. That is specifically for those of you….

Henry, you know this well. The Moray Bridge is a provincially owned asset. The bridge has been in operation since 1950 and probably is about 15 years past its usable life. It gets stuck open, which causes delays to the airport for people. Importantly, it also causes delays for goods and movement.

We’ve been asking and we’re working with the public service right now to explore early planning studies to get that bridge replaced. But there’s a lot of work that can be done on improving the corridor between the Massey tunnel crossing — sorry, I think we’re calling it the Fraser River crossing now — and Highway 99 to really optimize the flow of goods and people through that important trade corridor.

H. Yao: So clearly then we’re okay with the funding at this point.

T. Boudreau: Yes. The funding for the actual bridge replacement would have to be put together.

For background, on the Sea Island connector, which is the second bridge on the other side as you come in, we partnered with government, as well as the city of Richmond, back in the early 2000s to complete that bridge. That was a $30 million bridge. I would say, by today’s standards, that was a steal.

There will be suitable partnerships happening with the replacement of the new bridge, but we haven’t quite yet figured out the cost.

H. Yao: Thank you. I appreciate that.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Trevor. I’m going to recommendation 3, where you were talking about creating the task force to take a look at all of the various tools that will be there to green the things. I’m making the assumption that we’re not creating a wheel, that there is a wheel somewhere else on the planet. If that’s the case, where are those wheels coming from where you’re going to start?

T. Boudreau: Yeah, we have a tremendous opportunity. You’re right. The wheel doesn’t need to be recreated here. We are following behind, and very closely, to jurisdictions like California, like Oregon, which already have significant sustainable aviation fuel capacity. We see a vision of B.C. aligning with the entire west coast of North America to create that market.

[9:50 a.m.]

Here in British Columbia, it’s still…. The sustainable aviation fuel, in particular, supply chain is not there yet, but it can be, and it can incorporate lots of feedstock. You heard from Dean earlier, talking about the Iona wastewater treatment plant. That can be treated as a resource recovery as opposed to wastewater treatment, and we could use that as part of the sustainable aviation fuel supply chain.

The folks at Parkland refinery are already creating sustainable aviation fuel through a co-processing process. There are opportunities for us to work with the forest industry, as well, on feedstock. That’s why that task force needs to come together now — so we can figure this out and really make significant use of our first-mover advantage that we have here in Canada.

M. Starchuk: Perfect. Thank you.

B. Bailey: I do just want to begin by thanking you for having such a wonderful facility. I feel great pride towards our airport. I think, for most us, when we travel, we get to see what other airports look like, and coming home is always very welcoming. I just really want to thank you for that source of pride for all of us.

I’m not asking this question because Jill Tipping from B.C. Tech is here. I’m curious about the opportunities that exist between the tech sector in British Columbia and the airport. There’s, obviously, an incredible sector that’s thriving in British Columbia. We see so many efficiencies coming online in vertical farming, and so on.

I know that you have a pretty exceptional board and leadership. Those collaborations are probably happening, and I don’t know very much about them.

I wonder if you could just speak a little bit to that. Also, is there further opportunity?

T. Boudreau: Happy to. I love talking about our innovation portfolio. I will admit that I don’t understand it completely. I’m the GR guy, not the innovation guy.

Just coming up now to two years ago, we started our Innovation Hub at YVR, which is the umbrella. That’s how we manage our partnerships. There have been a number of excellent partnerships that have been developed out of that.

We have a really wonderful one with BCIT and their Internet of Things program. Rather than building a lab, YVR is their lab. We’ve opened up YVR to their students, and they’ve come in and done some really excellent pilot projects.

Earlier this year we publicly launched our digital twin, working with a great Vancouver-based company called GeoSim Cities as well as a gaming company called Unity, which has offices here in British Columbia. We built just what it sounds like. It’s a digital twin of YVR. I can go on to my smartphone — it’s loaded on to all of our phones, as employees — and have a complete situational awareness of what’s happening in our terminal building right now.

Renee, I’ll know if your flight is a little late. I’ll know if there’s a CATSA lineup.

We are using that right now to solve some of our immediate operational challenges — lines at security screening, for example. We know, through all the data and analytics, that that one area might get quite busy. So we’ll dispatch one of our new 100-person-strong guest experience team down to help manage the flow, answer questions, help folks get prepared for the security screening process. “Take your liquids out.” All that sort of good stuff.

That’s a very real way that we’re using the digital twin today. In the future, there are some really good opportunities as part of our net-zero plan. All the vehicles that operate on our airfield, groundside at the airport, have sensors on them. Aircraft have sensors on them where we can get data from Nav Canada. We can better inform how we are moving planes, how we are moving vehicles around the airport to really decrease the GHG emissions from our operations.

Those are some really interesting pieces. We’re very open to talking to anybody and everybody. Actually, we’re meeting with a group from JOIN, some Japanese delegates. I believe the province just signed an MOU with them yesterday.

B. Bailey: We did, yeah.

T. Boudreau: We’re meeting with those folks, as well, to explore some potential opportunities.

B. Bailey: Great answer. Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Trevor. We are out of time or over time.

T. Boudreau: Oh, I’m so sorry. I kept you longer.

J. Routledge (Chair): I’d like to thank you for your enthusiasm and for sharing with us YVR’s leadership on areas that are really challenging to us.

I just want to say that when you referred so many times to low-carbon aviation fuel, it was music to my ears. I love to travel, but I feel guilty about it. So you’re helping me get over the guilt.

T. Boudreau: Yes. For folks that have to go to Victoria, hopefully, we’ll have the electric planes through Harbour Air very soon.

[9:55 a.m.]

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

T. Boudreau: Wonderful. Thanks, all. I appreciate it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Avery Bruenjes, Retail Council of Canada.

RETAIL COUNCIL OF CANADA

A. Bruenjes: Good morning. I’m Avery Bruenjes. I’m the senior manager of government relations and regulatory affairs for the Retail Council of Canada. I’m based out of our Vancouver office.

I’m honoured to live and work on the unceded, traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

The Retail Council of Canada represents more than 21,000 British Columbian storefronts in all retail formats, including department, grocery, pharmacy, specialty, independent retailers and online merchants. Over 329,000 British Columbians work directly in the retail industry, as of 2021, and it indirectly employs thousands of others. The sector annually generates almost $12 billion in wages and employee benefits for British Columbians.

B.C. retail sales appear to be recovering after a very difficult few years, although the industry continues to be impacted by supply chain issues, severe labour shortages and violence impacting our customers and employees. B.C.’s economic future is dependent on its ability to attract and retain talented people to live and work in our province.

Today we are asking why government would, perhaps inadvertently, choose to damage the economic prospects of B.C. business.

We strongly applaud government’s efforts to provide equity in Bill 6, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, by obligating online marketplaces to collect the provincial sales tax. We have long held that e-commerce transactions should be obligated, in the same way as bricks-and-mortar stores, so as to provide a level playing field in B.C.

While government has rightly moved to close loopholes for PST collection related to the sale of goods, it has also added PST to a new service, online marketplace services. The online marketplace services tax seems to be contrary to the main thrust of tax equity and appears to be an entirely new tax. More problematic still, two aspects of this new tax will significantly disadvantage B.C.-based business.

Our primary ask here today is that these inequities be corrected as soon as possible. If government disagrees with us and is determined to tax online marketplace services for the first time, it needs to apply the same principles of equity as taxing the sale of goods. What B.C. has done, we believe unintentionally, is create obstacles and disadvantages for B.C.-based business.

First, online marketplace sellers who are based in B.C. will face a tax not faced by their competitors based elsewhere. For example, if a small retailer in Prince Rupert chooses to sell its goods on an online marketplace and the end purchaser is located in B.C., this business would be taxed on online services received from the marketplace. A retailer located outside of B.C. would not be taxed on a similar transaction. This additional cost will, in turn, raise that retailer’s prices versus competitors based elsewhere.

We can think of no good reason that B.C. would want to disadvantage B.C.-based sellers, who are typically small businesses. We question the need to bring in this new tax, which seems likely to harm local businesses that are making the move to online sales in order to stay competitive in this market.

Second, online marketplaces must collect PST on all their online marketplace services provided in B.C. This means that B.C.-based businesses are faced with a tax that their competitors elsewhere will not incur. This provision can only result in these services and the associated jobs being relocated elsewhere and serves as a strong disincentive for the creation of new jobs.

We ask that government at least consider providing the standard OEC adjustment period of at least 12 months, particularly given the extremely short time period of 29 days between June 2, when Bill 6 received royal assent, and the implementation date of July 1.

Our advice is to pause implementation of the online marketplace services provisions until government can ensure that the amendments result in the intended outcome, rather than increased inequity and negative consequences for jobs, growth and, we believe, future PST revenue.

Non-resident e-commerce entities continue to get another advantage from government. Those who sell into British Columbia, until July 1, without charging or remitting the PST, also charge and pay no eco-fees on products and packaging obligated under the Environmental Management Act, yet the packaging and products are discarded into our recycling system. RCC, again, asks government to correct this imbalance.

[10:00 a.m.]

We thank the members of the committee for their interest in the views of the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who work in retail business across B.C. We urge government to ensure that our resident businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged in comparison to those located outside of our province and country, which is clearly to the detriment of B.C. workers, B.C. jobs and our province’s economy.

Thank you. I’m happy to take questions.

J. Routledge (Chair): Questions from the committee?

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. I want to go to the last thing that you talked about, regarding eco-fees that are charged outside, but the end product ends up here for us to discard. What’s the solution to that?

A. Bruenjes: It would be taxing the products that are sold through online marketplaces or through sellers who are based outside of B.C.

M. Starchuk: I understand that, but how do you see the tool to do that?

A. Bruenjes: In terms of the tool, there could be compliance options for that. There would need to be, I guess similar to this, some sort of tax applied when the product is purchased, and then it would need to be just done through government that way.

H. Yao: Bear with me. I don’t understand the concept as much I would like. I have a similar struggle to Mike’s, as well, to understand, to comprehend the concept.

Based upon the way you describe, it sounds like any product that’s being made in B.C. already has the eco-fee is charged to it. But for any products made outside of B.C., when they’re sold to British Columbians through an online market, they don’t have to pay the eco-fee here because, so far, there’s nothing to charge them for the eco-fee. Am I correct, or am I off somewhere?

A. Bruenjes: Yes. In B.C., because of the way our extended producer responsibility programs are set up, there are eco-fees on many products — from small appliances, large appliances, batteries, etc. The consumer pays those fees at the time of purchase.

That fee is applied by the merchant and, in turn, passed down to the consumer. Whereas if you’re buying a product that is from a place that does not charge the same eco-fees, they’re not getting that same fee charged, so it could make the product cheaper, which could make the consumer more likely to purchase a product from outside of British Columbia.

H. Yao: Okay. Based upon your description, B.C. products right now…. If you buy them online, there will be a subcategory that says an eco-fee is attached to it.

A. Bruenjes: Yes.

H. Yao: But if a product is from somewhere else, there’s no eco-fee attached to it.

A. Bruenjes: Generally that’s the case.

H. Yao: Basically, we just need to apply the eco-fee to everything that comes to British Columbia. Okay. Got it. Perfect. Thank you so much.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Avery, I just want to say thank you. I think it’s really important that we understand that there are unintended consequences to policies that come in with the goal of doing a good thing. It’s important that we hear from people like yourselves and organizations so that we can truly understand and measure those impacts.

We certainly do not want to disadvantage B.C. businesses. We want to support them and grow them, so thank you very much.

B. Bailey: Here, here to that comment. Thanks very much for presenting, Avery.

I wonder. Is there a potential negative side effect if you were successful in this objective of having PST removed on online purchases? I’m thinking, for example, if I buy a pair of Fluevogs, I usually walk down to the store on Granville Street. I pay the PST there. But if I order them and have them delivered, I would then not pay the PST. Do we think there might be a consequence where brick and mortar is negatively impacted were that the case?

A. Bruenjes: So sorry. To be clear, we’re not asking for the PST on online purchases to be removed at all. We think that that’s great. We’ve been long asking government for that. This is a subsection of that. I believe, in Bill 6, it’s subsection 134.3(1). It’s specifically related to online marketplace services, so situations where you go online and do purchase an item, and it might not be from a direct seller. It might be from a seller who participates in an online marketplace that has options from many different sellers. This tax is specific to that.

B. Bailey: Oh, I misunderstood. Thank you for the clarity.

B. Stewart: Avery, I think what we’re struggling with is that we’re trying to find a solution here. One of the things that I think…. Obviously, the Retail Council of Canada wouldn’t be faced with just the jurisdiction of British Columbia, but they’d be looking at all the different marketplaces. But I think the government is looking at online marketplace activities, transactions, etc., as not being a level playing field in terms of things that are bricks and mortar, like Brenda just said.

[10:05 a.m.]

I guess my suggestion, rather than asking the questions, is…. If there are other jurisdictions that have perhaps studied this or you have examples, etc., I think that’s what would be needed to make this something that…. Otherwise, we’ll try to find a made-in-B.C. solution, which might not…. They found a solution, and they’re not happy with it. That’s my only question about if you know of other places or jurisdictions where they’ve done it differently.

A. Bruenjes: So B.C. is the first jurisdiction, to our knowledge, to implement a specific tax for online marketplace services. Because of that, I think that’s why our main recommendation is just to pause that specific aspect in order to get a better understanding of the impacts. As I said, it seems very likely to be unintentional, so it’s just that specific online marketplace services aspect of the legislation.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, we’re out of time, Avery. But thank you so much for drawing this to our attention. I think it’s clear we still need to get our heads around what you’ve identified as a problem and what we could do about it. For sure, online shopping has grown exponentially, and it changes the relationship between buyers and sellers, and we have to catch up with that and make sure that we’re not disadvantaging our economy. Thank you so much for that.

Our next presenter is Antonia Beck representing Burnaby Neighbourhood House Society.

Welcome, Antonia.

BURNABY NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE SOCIETY

A. Beck: I’m totally new to this process, because I’ve never felt the need to come and speak to the Finance Committee.

My name is Antonia. I’m the CEO of Burnaby Neighbourhood House, and I operate two neighbourhood houses there. I’m going to try to keep it quick.

The Neighbourhood House provides responsive, barrier-free programs and supports that address the local social needs of residents of all ages and diverse backgrounds. Our focus is on engaging our neighbours, building community by facilitating connections and creating a sense of belonging. Needless to say that our role in the community became part of the essential services as we responded to the health pandemic and supported our most vulnerable residents with a range of emergency programs and supports. We are the go-to storefronts for residents in need and for those who are looking to become connected.

The infrastructure cost of our operations is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain through community fundraising, as is the burden of applying for short-term grants, contracts that have really quick endings that often do not include contributions to rent or administration. We have high-cost leases associated with our two houses, and our daycare sites with the Burnaby school district…. The leases are quite high there too.

We only receive about 40 percent combined government funding with the remainder being child care fees, foundations and grants and community fundraising. I don’t think I’m alone when I say that the not-for-profit sector is struggling right now.

As I move into our next fiscal year, which is September, I worry about keeping the doors open of our North Burnaby Neighbourhood House. I worry about sustaining our child care operation. We have nine before- and after-school care sites that parents depend on and three preschools. I also worry about the seniors in our community who are vulnerable. They’re isolated, they have no family support, and they’re depending on the not-for-profit sector to help them with those needs and those connections.

My three recommendations, and I hope I can make them. First is an annual unrestricted core funding be established for not-for-profit neighbourhood houses, like ourselves, that people rely on. They just drop in, and we help them. We do whatever is needed. I heard people suggesting certain amounts, but $50,000 per neighbourhood house would go a long way to help us keep our doors open and do the work that needs to be done.

Two, increasing the child care operating fund daily rate. The CCOF has not been raised since 2014, yet inflation has gone up 17.24 percent since then. The great work has been done with the early-years sector with ECE-certified staff that are receiving $4.

[10:10 a.m.]

That’s a small part of our operation. Our school-age staff aren’t getting that $4 increase. So we’re struggling to be able to afford the increased wages to keep staff working. We have staff shortages, so we can’t take kids off the wait-lists. We have empty spots because we have no staff, because they’re not going to work for the wages that we’re able to pay. We can’t raise fees because they’re capped by government. It’s a problem. We’re a part of the plan to expand child care in Burnaby, and I don’t know how we’re going to do it.

My third recommendation — I don’t have a dollar value; I just want to put this on your radar — is the supports for seniors who don’t have any family, who are looking to community for things like the shopping program — we deliver food to them from the food bank; and community-based senior services. We have a lunch program on Fridays. I have no funding to keep that going because there’s no available funding for that particular program.

There is some funding through Health for the therapeutic activation program. Please keep that going. It’s been extended until March 31. Without that, we have no way to support the seniors that are currently relying on us for grocery delivery. And transportation for seniors…. I could go on and on and on.

Those are my three recommendations. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I feel like it’s therapy. I just like telling you what I’m dealing with.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Antonia. We have a lot of questions for you.

A. Beck: Do you? Please don’t ask me about numbers. But I’ll try.

J. Routledge (Chair): The first question comes from Karin, then Renee, then Henry and then Megan.

A. Beck: Oh, you have lots.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. I used to run non-profits, and I feel all of your pain when you were going through this.

Specific to child care, with your fee cap, I won’t say I’m surprised, but many of the non-profits haven’t been as impacted with the fee cap as some of the privately owned ones. Is it primarily your lease costs that are contributing…?

A. Beck: We’re paying…. Our lease cost went up to $80,000 annually. We’re on the school site. We’re on Burnaby school sites.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Okay. And did you apply for an increase, or is too low to…?

A. Beck: It’s too low. And it’s not fair that our ECE staff are getting $4 more an hour. I’m happy to give that to them, but then our school-age staff aren’t. We just had a wage compensation review. We have to fundraise a lot, and to fundraise for day care…. There’s only so much community fundraising we can do. There’s only so much — you know, asking corporate sponsorship. If we didn’t have to pay the $80,000 lease, then that would go towards the wages.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I get it.

A. Beck: I’m glad you get it.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for your presentation today, and know that you’re being heard.

A. Beck: Thank you.

R. Merrifield: On the increase to the child care operating funds, what would the necessary increase be for…?

A. Beck: I do have that number. We receive per child, per spot…. Right now it’s $274 a day for a four-hour slot, and then if it’s an over-four-hour slot, it’s $548 a day. The new recommended amounts…. I had our child care director add 17.24 percent, so that would be $321 a day for the short four hours and then the $643 a day for over four hours. During the summer, we do full-time care.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I promise you this time I won’t ask you a question about numbers.

A few things. One is talking about supporting isolated seniors. I know from my past experience — I came from the non-profit sector as well — there’s the Safe Seniors, Strong Communities program that’s run in different communities. Almost everywhere in B.C. has some organization doing it. They do food delivery. They do friendship connection. They do tech support. Are they not supporting Burnaby, or is there something you would like to see expanded?

[10:15 a.m.]

A. Beck: We do get some funding from that, from the safe communities…. We just recently got…. It comes through the United Way. We received $30,000 to do that work, but it cost $60,000 to do that. I just think that the need is so great.

The other aspect is the reliance on volunteers. Government can’t rely just on volunteers. If we rely on volunteers, we need to coordinate the volunteers and support them. We’re not getting enough from that fund to do the work that we’re doing.

I know that there’s the Better at Home portfolio that does some grocery shopping. In Burnaby, it went to the city of Burnaby, so they have the Better at Home contract. We’ve managed to get some of it. I think when that kind of funding sits in government, it’s so restrictive and there’s so much bureaucracy. I think the thing that neighbourhood houses have to offer — and I speak for my colleagues too — is flexibility, responsiveness. You just do what needs to be done. Somebody comes in, and you do it.

I mean, that’s my point about core funding. It’s interesting, because we have our doors open. The city comes to us. Everybody comes to us. Even the health authority comes to us, because we can respond quickly.

H. Yao: Okay. Basically, my assumption, correctly, is the service is there, but it’s insufficiently funded, so you want to see it….

A. Beck: Yeah, we’re not sufficiently funded. United Way expected us, with $30,000, to be a hub and divvy up some money in Burnaby for that service. And we’re saying that for what we’re doing alone, it’s a $60,000 cost for volunteers — and then the cost of gas, providing volunteers the gas costs. It’s kind of unwieldy, actually, right now.

J. Routledge (Chair): So Megan, we have time for a quick question and a quick answer.

M. Dykeman: Okay.

Thank you for the presentation. I was listening to your presentation, and there are a lot of moving parts in it. I’m wondering if you’re going to be putting in a written presentation so that when we get to our conversations at the end, we have that to reference.

A. Beck: I could. I wasn’t sure what other…. I was just listening to the previous speakers, and I felt a little intimidated. But yeah, I could do something. What’s the timeline?

M. Dykeman: The 24th.

B. Bailey: It’s a form that we provide. It’s quite….

A. Beck: Oh, I did that. I had to keep it to 300 words.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you, Antonia, for coming and presenting to us, and thank you for the work you do in Burnaby. I’m very familiar with the work you do in Burnaby.

A. Beck: I know you are.

J. Routledge (Chair): And I’m very proud of the work that you do in Burnaby. I guess I just want to finally say on that front that I’m not surprised that you didn’t want to talk about numbers, because the neighbourhood house deals with people. That’s so apparent. Whenever I go there, I see the interaction. You know the neighbourhoods. You know who’s in crisis and why they’re in crisis. You play such an important role in strengthening our community, so thank you for that.

A. Beck: Thanks for saying that.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Jill Tipping, B.C. Tech.

B.C. TECH

J. Tipping: Thank you all for the opportunity to share the B.C. Tech Association’s recommendations for Budget 2023. I’d just add my thanks to the committee’s for the wonderful work that Antonia and her colleagues are doing.

B.C. Tech is the largest technology non-profit in British Columbia, with over 700 members, including YVR, which you must ask me about later. I wanted to celebrate with you that last year in Canada, 16 new billion-dollar tech companies emerged. Can you guess how many came from B.C.? Thirteen, which is a pretty impressive number. I’m absolutely thrilled for the top 0.1 percent of tech companies for which life is, indeed, very good.

[10:20 a.m.]

My focus and my concern is on the other 99.9 percent. At B.C. Tech, we focus our work on growing the number of companies with 100 or more employees. There were 220 of those in the 2020 KPMG tech report card, and we aim to get that to 1,000.

I’ll focus today on three policy priorities for the 2023 budget. My first one is to embrace technology and innovation as the critical driver of economic and job growth in B.C. in the coming decade. We’re asking government to make a $10 million investment over four years in the ScaleUp B.C. education program for entrepreneurs.

My second priority is to ask you to increase the tech-savvy talent pool with greater access to and investment in education and skills training, specifically short-course credentials and reskilling programs for transitioning workers.

Third, I’d like to invite government to invest in capturing better data about B.C.’s economy today, particularly the technology and innovation sector.

First, let me talk about supporting entrepreneurs to ScaleUp. B.C.’s government has invested $500 million to create a fantastic InBC investment fund that will deploy capital and help B.C. start-ups to scale up. This is a valuable and really important step. But capital can only be deployed effectively where there is a healthy pipeline of investment-ready companies that can take maximum advantage of that capital.

In Budget 2023, we ask the province to invest in a companion program, to invest in the pipeline for InBC, the ScaleUp B.C. education program. It’s a partnership of 11 innovation organizations from every corner of British Columbia that will deliver education and mentorship programs to entrepreneurs to help accelerate their scale-up journey. A $10 million investment from the province over four years will leverage $31 million in federal and corporate funds, and it will help us support the growth of 800 companies to get us to that 1,000 number.

Second, let me talk about growing B.C.’s tech-savvy talent pool. There’s no doubt that technology is a key industry for B.C.’s future. In government’s own 2021 labour market outlook, the B.C. government projects that technology jobs will be the number one source of private sector job growth in B.C. in the coming decade. The prediction is 140,000 new jobs. Well, I have good news. Industry’s estimates are two to three times that number. We expect that between 262,000 and 362,000 tech jobs will be created in the next ten years, far above government’s number of 140,000.

I would emphasize that investing in B.C.’s tech talent pipeline is as important for B.C.’s traditional industries as it is for B.C.’s tech sector. Today every industry, from manufacturing to forestry to agriculture, is in the midst of a digital revolution and in need of the tech-savvy workers that will enable industries to remain globally competitive.

Now, post-secondary places are an important part of the mix, but not the only part and not the fastest to deploy. In Budget 2023, we ask government to double its annual investments in short-course credentials and the highly effective rapid reskilling courses that enable workers, including many from underrepresented groups and rural communities, to retrain for a career in tech. These have been a tremendous success in the last two years, and I applaud government for the investments that were made in that. It created a significant success story, addressing COVID job disruption and, I believe, should remain a key government spending priority as we go forward.

Finally, I turn to my third recommendation: to capture better data on B.C.’s economy. There’s a really clear link between the data that’s collected and government policy and investment priorities and activity. Where data is captured, policy and investment follow. Where data is not captured, there’s an absence of policy and investment. Today government captures massive amounts of data on the old economy and very little on the new. That’s a choice, and it’s actually a choice to underinvest in the future in favour of the past. I think it’s an unintended choice and one that can easily be addressed.

We’re urging government to make a modest investment of $3 million over three years in Budget 2023 to start to address this new economy data gap. I hope these three recommendations resonate. I believe we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform B.C.’s economy, and we must seize it.

Thank you for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you.

[10:25 a.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Jill. This is fantastic. Thank you for your advocacy work.

I wanted to spend just a little bit of time understanding your No. 3 recommendation on the data. I couldn’t agree with you more — what you measure you can actually impact. What you measure you will focus on, etc. What specific measurements are you looking for within the tech space?

J. Tipping: The biggest gap that we have right now is around understanding and measuring service exports. Service exports are actually greater than goods experts, but every chart you will see — ever — lists the key industries with goods exports on them. I’m a one-woman mission to focus on service exports.

Perhaps I could also just give you a story of encouragement. I’m really honoured to serve on the Climate Solutions Council for the Ministry of Environment. They were lucky enough to receive a very similar, small, modest investment in data capture. What the climate action secretariat has done with that has been really astonishing.

I’m a big fan of small investments to get started and learn — move from the place of no knowledge to some knowledge. Then once we get started, we’ll identify the best ways to invest to do even more data capture.

B. Bailey: Really, on the same topic….

Hi. Nice to see you, Jill. I agree with everything you’ve said, not surprisingly. I’ve been aware of this huge gap in how we capture data. It affects us in so many ways — how we tell our story. I mean, how can we truly tell what’s happening when we’re not measuring it correctly? We just can’t. So I’m very happy to advocate for this.

How will that $3 million be spent?

J. Tipping: What’s interesting is…. Doubtless, you know. As a committee, you see this all the time. It’s mostly people. That’s the main driver of it. It’s not very many people, actually.

The most important piece is to get started on mapping what we do have and then identifying some target areas to focus on. As I say, for me, it’s the services. It’s also doing some really structured survey work. There’s some good information available from StatsCan. We can start there. There’s fantastic work that can be done with industry surveys and then focus groups and digging deeper and starting to understand where the key gaps are.

We found that with our labour market work…. As I say, I think government’s expectation was that the tech talent pool would grow by 2.5 percent a year. I did a survey that covered about 80 percent of the tech employees in B.C. and arrived at a low of 6.9 percent a year and a high of 8.3 percent a year, in terms of job growth.

You can fairly rapidly get to an understanding of 80 percent of the problem and then, from there, make some good initial decisions.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation, Jill. It’s incredible, the number you are throwing out there.

I would like to ask you about recommendation No. 1. You’re talking about innovation with $10 million for four years. I assume that’s $2.5 million per year for the next four years. That’s sufficient for British Columbia to go from 200 to 1,000. That sounds like a very minimal amount of investment for a very substantial success.

Do you want to just maybe walk me through a bit more? How will that $2.5 million be used? How is that going to help with growing from 200 to 1,000 tech sector companies?

J. Tipping: One of the key things it will enable us to do is leverage federal investments.

The federal government invested $52 million in Ontario in 2019. Unfortunately, B.C. lost out on that scale-up investment from the federal government because we weren’t able to bring the province to the table at that time. We still have the opportunity to do so. I quite like the leverage of 3 to 1 federal money. So that’s appealing. That’s part 1 of the answer. The $10 million actually unlocks $40 million, which is fantastic.

Then the key thing is that it’s a mix of programs. There are some “one to many things” that we run and some “one to a limited number” of cohort programs.

What’s good about this program is it builds on organizations that already exist and are healthy and sustainable with great networks in communities like Prince George and Victoria and Kelowna and, of course, the Lower Mainland. It builds on work that we already do. It isn’t funding for work that we already do, but it builds on the skill sets that we already have.

[10:30 a.m.]

So we already have…. As I say, I have 700 members. I celebrated, last night, 48 of them who were nominated as finalists for Technology Impact of the year Awards, including YVR, which won for the work of their Innovation Hub, which is fantastic. Seaspan shipyards was another, which is a good example of how technology is everywhere these days.

We are already running programs where we’re educating people about what works on capital, what works on talent attraction, what works on customer access, what works on sales growth, what works on business development and what works on scale-up. We run a mentorship program that connects experienced executives, who’ve already done it, with young start-ups that are just getting started. I’ve got the head of Amazon Canada today talking to someone who has a start-up with three employees. She’s going to get to leverage his advice on how to scale her business.

One of the things that this partnership brings is feet on the street in every community in B.C., leveraging the network of organizations like ours that can ask those people to do us a favour and get a yes.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Jill, and thanks for your enthusiasm and leadership on this front. I think all of us, generally, are counting on the tech sector to blast us into a new economy that is better for the environment, reduces inequality and poverty, and is more stable. Clearly, that isn’t just going to happen because we want it to. It happens because of leadership like you’re providing. Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for your leadership.

Before we break for coffee, we have one more presentation. We’re going to hear from Andrea Welling, who’s going to tell us about Futurpreneur.

FUTURPRENEUR

A. Welling: Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me today. I’m here today to talk about how we can invest in young and diverse entrepreneurs to really continue to catalyze economic recovery and create sustainable economic impact.

At Futurpreneur, our mission is to help young entrepreneurs who are 18 to 39 to launch and build successful businesses, across a range of sectors, through a combination of free resources and business coaching, collateral-free loan financing up to $60,000, and two years of dedicated mentorship. Since 1996, we have helped over 1,950 businesses launch across B.C., investing over $52 million into the province.

Young entrepreneurs across British Columbia face a wide range of barriers, including access to capital and mentorship. This is something that our program uniquely addresses. These barriers are even greater for underserved entrepreneurs, including women, youth, racialized, newcomer and Indigenous entrepreneurs, which is why we are so supportive of the government’s commitment to supporting these entrepreneurs in the StrongerBC economic plan and the development of the small business diversity and inclusion action plan. We look forward to engaging on this important work moving forward.

Futurpreneur’s programming, including our Black entrepreneur start-up program and our Indigenous entrepreneur start-up program, directly addresses these barriers, with more than 80 percent of our clients stating that their entrepreneurial journey would have been negatively impacted without our support, and many would have not launched a business at all.

Young entrepreneurs are leading the economic recovery. I’ve seen that in our application numbers. Our team in B.C. is currently managing quite a strong amount of interest and demand. We’re looking to access more resources from you.

To ensure that B.C. realizes the full economic impact of diversity in entrepreneurs, we’re requesting an investment of $400,000 a year over three years, for $1.2 million in total. I’m just emphasizing that it’s always easier to work with multi-year funding so that we aren’t starting and stopping, which can be an issue with single-year funding.

These are to really contribute to the goals of the StrongerBC economic action plan and to help young, underrepresented entrepreneurs launch. We want to launch at least 150 new businesses next year. A multi-year investment will enable our teams to appropriately plan activities and maximize impact through our programs. This investment will be matched many times over by contributions from the federal government as well as the corporate community, creating a significant return on investment of at least 8 to 1 for the province, leading to economic growth in rural communities and urban centres alike.

[10:35 a.m.]

Now is a critical time to invest in young people and their businesses, to grow our economy and increase economic opportunity. I just want to mention one of my senior business development mangers. She’s just coming back from Prince George. She’s been up in Quesnel and Prince George, doing some workshops and presentations today. Part of what we would like to do is to have even more impact in the province and to be able to be in more places throughout this amazing, entrepreneurial province.

Thank you so much for considering our request, and just look forward to any questions you might have.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Andrea. We do have questions.

Just before I invite committee members to ask questions, I would ask everyone to keep an eye on the clock. We may get more questions in if some of the questions are shorter and some of the answers are shorter.

B. Bailey: Hi, Andrea. Very nice to see you again. When we’ve met in the past, it’s been helpful to me, and I thought it would be helpful to my colleagues, to hear how some of the other provinces have done a really good job in unlocking this funding. I wonder if you just might share with us, for example, what that looks like in Ontario or another comparable province.

A. Welling: I know that in Ontario there’s been a recent, I think, $2 million investment, and also in the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. I don’t have all the details of all the provinces, but historically, for Futurpreneur, it’s been, basically, a federal government effort, as well as all the provincial governments. We have had B.C. government funding in the past, so we are wanting to renew that relationship with you and figure out how that can work. Many other provinces are involved.

H. Yao: I’m going to be asking a quick question. Within Futurpreneur, what is your success rate for young businesses for lasting more than five years?

A. Welling: In terms of success rate, we recently did a survey of about that amount of time, about that many clients. Over, I think, about 76 percent of them said they were still in business, which is a really high success rate. Something that we are really committed to as an organization…. We have a high touch. We offer a lot of services. The reason we offer the mentorship is…. Any of you who have been entrepreneurs know that it’s really easy to fail in that first year. That’s part of the reason for the mentorship — to make sure that they succeed.

We also really work with entrepreneurs on having a good business plan. We really put a lot of resources into helping them be ready. We don’t lend money to them unless they have a good business plan and we know they’re ready for success. In terms of our repayment rate, we have an 85 percent repayment rate, so we’re really proud of that as well, that the young entrepreneurs really are finding successes.

The successes are different. Some are in the small communities, running bakeries and smaller stores. Some are tech companies, like Elastic Path. We recently had someone who created a product called SmartSweets. You may have seen them in the stores. NEON bags — she sold that company for $400 million.

Not everybody hits gold like that. I never did, when I had our business. But you never know. This is with young people. They have the passion, the skills. We never know when they’re going to hit success, and love to just support their passion and take as little risk as possible.

B. Stewart: I just want to try to imagine where the capital to start this came from. You mentioned in your presentation $52 million in loan capital. I’m assuming some of that’s come back and reinvested. But how did it get started, how much of this capital that is being used is from private, and how much is government?

A. Welling: I think it’s primarily federal government. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada was really there at the start with Futurpreneur, as well as some of the financial institutions. RBC is a big partner in our Black entrepreneur start-up programs, but it has evolved over time.

Our organization has grown quite a bit over the last 25 years. It used to be that…. The organization started in Ontario. It was a few staff, a handful of staff, servicing, and then it became a national organization. So it’s been a little bit of a development of different funders over time, but it’s been primarily a mix of federal and provincial funding with, also, the banks contributing a certain amount, and then a few corporate partners.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, Andrea, we will thank you for your presentation and thank you for Futurpreneur.

As you know, I’m pretty intrigued by what you’re doing. I’m intrigued in part because of the amount of cooperation and support in an environment that is often considered highly competitive. That you’re balancing that is really important.

We will recess for a break. I guess we’ve got five minutes.

The committee recessed from 10:40 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Welcome, Jessica. You’re speaking on behalf of AccessBC campaign for free prescription contraception.

I think I heard you say this is the first time you’ve made a presentation. You have five minutes for your presentation. The next five minutes is for question-and-answer. It’s a total of ten minutes.

ACCESSBC CAMPAIGN FOR
FREE PRESCRIPTION CONTRACEPTION

J. Jimmo: My name is Jessica Jimmo.

I’d like to start by acknowledging that I’m presenting on the unceded traditional lands of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations of the Coast Salish peoples, as it has been my privilege to live and learn in this region for my whole life.

On behalf of AccessBC, I’d like to thank the committee for inviting us to contribute to the 2023 budget consultation. AccessBC, for those who don’t know, is a grassroots, provincewide campaign that has been advocating for barrierless prescription contraception since 2017.

[10:50 a.m.]

In 2020, I joined the AccessBC team and watched during the election as all three parties did promise to make prescription contraception free for all in B.C. Today I present to you, informed by both my personal and professional experience.

I am the only daughter of a single mother who was the first of my peers to get a job, not because I wanted movie money but because it was necessary for me. If I had become pregnant, I might not be here to share that with you, because I faced barriers to my choice of contraception.

I also present to you as a youth worker who lived close and even as far below the poverty line as those that I was supporting due to low industry wages. If I had become pregnant, I might not be here to share that with you, because I faced barriers to my choice of contraception.

I also present to you as a victim services worker with grounded experience of relational violence, supporting individuals living with the outcomes of sexual and reproductive coercion. If I had become pregnant, I might not be here to share that with you, because I faced barriers to my choice of contraception.

Currently as a master of public policy candidate…. I was the first in my family to pursue an advanced education so that I could break the cycle of my socioeconomic status. I had to work over 20 hours a week during full-time classes just to keep a roof over my head, still walking away with over $50,000 in student debt.

Ultimately, I joined the fight for barrierless access to prescription contraception when I was confronted with the fragility of my place as a female student at SFU. There came a point when I could no longer afford to eat and pay for birth control, but I was denied coverage to the prescription that I had used for over 15 years. And if I had become pregnant, I might not be here to share that with you, because I faced barriers to contraception.

But the thing is, I’m not special. I’m not unique, and my experience is very common for British Columbians. Everyday people have to make impossible decisions with an outcome that’s never going to allow them to win.

The projection of savings for this policy is well documented across North America. A 2010 study from Options for Sexual Health estimated that providing coverage in B.C. would cost approximately $50 million but could save as much as $95 million a year. Also in 2010, the U.S. government invested $1.9 billion for family planning, and according to the Guttmacher Institute, for every dollar spent, the government saved $7.09 in costs associated with preventing unintended pregnancies.

In 2015, a Canadian cost model found that there are at least over 180,000 unintended pregnancies annually in Canada, which come at a cost of $320 million, and 82 percent of this is due to contraception non-adherence. Increasing access to long-acting, reversible contraception options, such as IUDs, produced the largest savings, but these are often inaccessible due to their upfront costs. By providing IUDs for free, for example, the study found that the policy produced savings in 12 months — just one year.

Unintended pregnancies come at a cost we can’t afford. The social ramifications of these costs are stark. We know unintended pregnancies disproportionately affect young adults, recent immigrants, rural residents and people of a lower economic status.

Especially now, as the pandemic has British Columbians literally struggling to decide to put food on the table or gas in their car; as the right to reproductive planning is under attack in the U.S., giving rise to the idea that for some, reproductive autonomy is not a human right; and as we continue to endure a housing crisis while trying to make room for our Ukrainian neighbours, barrierless access to birth control is a vital component of people being able to experience their full social and reproductive rights.

British Columbians cannot wait on this policy any longer. AccessBC is calling on the government to make good on its promise for free prescription contraception in next year’s budget because it is just good health, social and economic policy for everyone.

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

Our first question is Renee — was I right that I saw your hand? — followed by Karin.

[10:55 a.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for your advocacy work today. I am a huge advocate of such. I hope that you follow me on social media and have seen how many times I have stood up, both in the House and outside the House, to make sure that this actually gets done.

The one thing I want to ask is that you continue to ask for all forms of contraception. I think that’s really important, especially that it’s not a one-size-fits-all. So please make sure that that is part of your written submission to us.

The other thing I want to ask is that you dare to dream beyond contraception. What happens next, and how do we continue our pursuit of equity?

J. Jimmo: Thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. I was going to say basically what Renee just said.

I understand it is the most vulnerable and those at the lower socioeconomic part of our community that cannot afford this. It perpetuates that poverty cycle, and it hurts women. I am looking forward to government, also, following through on that policy recommendation. Thank you for your advocacy.

J. Jimmo: Thank you.

B. Bailey: Thank you, Jessica. I really appreciate your presentation. I also want to congratulate you on being a candidate for your master’s degree and the incredible career trajectory that you’ve chosen for yourself. You have a lot to be proud of.

I also don’t have a question and just really wanted to commend your work. This is an important priority. It will happen. Really, really great to hear your voice today.

J. Jimmo: Thank you.

M. Starchuk: For somebody that felt nervous, your presentation was awesome. No pressure here. From my perspective, and I hope it’s the committee’s perspective — that we put forward the recommendation that’s there. That’s the job of this committee: to take a look at what the presentations are and move it forward.

I want to just say that your story should be the postcard of what it is that we need to do. I just want to thank you for your honesty and your bravery for sitting up there, in the world of feeling nervous and stressed out, because you did a great job.

J. Jimmo: Well, what I can say. When it comes to my story — and I kind of included that in my presentation — it’s really not that unique. I’m glad it feels powerful. Magnify that and magnify that. Every single member of AccessBC comes to this campaign because of a story and the people that we know in our community whose stories we bring with us.

So yeah, I bring mine. I’m happy to share it for those who can’t sit here. I bring with me many other stories sitting in the back of the room.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Jessica. In terms of the broadness of what you talked about, in terms of the contraception choices, I guess…. You mentioned a number. I think you said $50 million and a savings of $90 million. Was that a study that was done in Canada or something like that? Is that from Canada?

J. Jimmo: That’s specific to B.C. That is B.C.

B. Stewart: I was a bit surprised by the numbers. So those are the B.C. numbers. Okay.

J. Jimmo: Well, and truth be told, the numbers are slightly dated. It is a 2010 study. The projection of unintended pregnancies has risen drastically in Canada. Previous projections that I mentioned are very modest, in my opinion. There are comfortable projections that also talk about unintended pregnancies in Canada being up to half a million a year.

Getting a perfect calculation of the cost and the projected savings is going to be impossible, just because of how we capture that very personal information. But I can assure you that the principles are the same across the board. No matter where the study has been done in North America, the answer is the same. We come back with savings — a lot.

B. Stewart: How would we ensure…? Oh, we’re out of time here. I was going to ask how we’d ensure the uptake. That’s all I’m considering. Not everybody’s going to participate.

J. Jimmo: How do you ensure that the numbers…?

B. Stewart: The uptake. If it was approved and it was available, I’m just asking how we ensure that there’s the maximum uptake so that people in your position that you’ve talked about know it’s available. I’m just asking.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): There’ll be a lineup, Ben.

J. Routledge (Chair): There’ll be a lineup.

B. Stewart: Okay. Sorry. Okay.

R. Merrifield: I was going to say. You don’t have to worry about that, Ben.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Sorry to interrupt.

B. Stewart: Okay. Don’t answer that question.

[11:00 a.m.]

J. Jimmo: Thanks, Members.

I mean, there is some truth to that question. There is stigma, especially in rural communities where even just getting to a doctor and getting to the prescription that is needed….

B. Stewart: That’s a good point.

J. Jimmo: There are still barriers, even when we take cost out of the equation and make sure everything is available. So, yeah, you’re probably not done with seeing us.

B. Stewart: Accessibility. Okay, thanks.

J. Jimmo: Barrierless.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Jessica. We are now way over time, but you have encouraged us to have an important conversation about this. Thank you so much.

Your presentation was very, very good. What you did was you made the…. You introduced us to the reality of the choices that young women need to make, in terms of income and poverty, and the implications of those choices on other parts of your life. That was very dramatic and really important.

We will keep pushing for this. There are conversations happening all the time about when we can make this happen.

J. Jimmo: I do just want to quickly add that when we think about this policy, we think about how it impacts women, but it’s a bigger population even. We have to think about folks who have uteruses — period. They are in a vulnerable position, especially those whose expression of that is in social contradiction, in some people’s eyes. The smaller the population, the more vulnerable they get.

Okay, I’m stopping.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, thank you — not for stopping, but thank you for your enthusiasm for this. Many, many more conversations should happen.

J. Jimmo: Looking forward to it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Becca Yu, Speech and Hearing B.C.

Hi, Becca. Welcome. You’ve watched a number of presentations so far, so you know you have five minutes to make your presentation. When it starts counting in red, that means it has moved into the question-and-answer part. It’s a total of ten minutes.

SPEECH AND HEARING B.C.

B. Yu: Thank you, Chair and the committee, for the invitation to speak today.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we gather today on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territories of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. As stewards of this beautiful place, we give thanks for this shared land. In partnership, we strive to enrich the lives and life chances of all British Columbians so that they may reach their fullest potential. For this, we give thanks.

I’m Becca Yu. I’m the president of Speech and Hearing B.C. Our association is the voice for British Columbians with communication health needs from birth to end of life. We are concerned about the increase of wait times and the difficulties finding speech-language pathology, or SLP, and audiology services for individuals that need support.

These difficulties accessing communication health services lead to preschool children not receiving the intervention during critical development periods, students falling behind in school and feeling socially isolated and adults and seniors with poor physical and mental health outcomes, such as increased incidents of dementia, correlated with poor hearing, or decreased social interaction and mental health due to hearing loss or the loss of ability to communicate due to stroke.

Speech and Hearing B.C. is advocating for an increase of funding for FTEs for advanced education seats and recruitment of professionals from outside of the province. Our province is falling behind almost every other province in Canada in terms of ratio of support to patients and the wait times to access services. This is unacceptable.

B.C. needs more SLPs and audiologists across the province and across different settings. For early intervention, we’re asking for 175 FTEs to address the growing wait-lists. In many areas of our province, it takes three to six months to get an initial consultation, and then families are told that the wait-list for services is over a year. If a parent has concerns with their two-year-old’s language skills, the child will be close to four years old before they could potentially receive services through public health. Or they’re told to access private services, which is not affordable to everybody.

The time spent waiting for therapy is a loss of opportunities that may never be recovered, even with later intervention, which is also not easy to access. The inability to access early intervention can have lifelong impacts.

[11:05 a.m.]

For adults in long-term care, there are currently 2.3 FTEs, one of the lowest, per capita, in the country. SLPs are trained to support individuals with cognitive decline and swallowing difficulties, and these supports improve the quality of life for adults and seniors in care. Access to audiology services helps with cognition and mental health, as hearing loss can be very isolating from loved ones.

In our current system, there are wait-lists across both public and private services right now due to a shortage of health care professionals. We recommend increasing the number of seats in the graduate program to fill the current vacancies and to improve wait times.

Currently there are 36 seats at the UBC graduate program. That’s 24 for SLPs and 12 for audiologists. This is not enough to fill the current vacancies, even though nearly 90 percent of UBC graduates stay in the province. It’s difficult to get into the program due to the small cohort size. Many people leave the province, and even the country, to study. In comparison, there are 120 seats across three campuses for physiotherapy. We’re asking for an increase of seats to the current program and adding an additional cohort outside the Lower Mainland.

Additionally, we’re asking for funding to increase the recruitment of professionals trained outside of the province and to streamline the process for licensing those professionals. Currently B.C. is known to be the place that is expensive and difficult to be licensed in. Compounded with the high living costs, many professionals interested in working in B.C. look elsewhere.

Speech and Hearing B.C. is asking the provincial government to increase funding for FTEs for our SLP and audiology services, increase the number of seats for the graduate school program and add funding to recruit SLPs and audiologists from outside of our province.

Early intervention can reduce the number of government supports needed later in life, therefore reducing overall costs to taxpayers. Increasing funding in FTEs means more manageable caseloads, therefore reducing burnout of communication health professionals, which increases retention. Overall, the essential services of speech language pathology and audiology are severely underfunded. That needs to change for the health of all British Columbians.

Thank you for your time. I’m happy to answer any questions.

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

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Becca. You talked about the increase in the seats. You didn’t give us a number.

Secondly, you said an outside…. I guess, where is the need? Should there be something outside the Lower Mainland, like Vancouver Island or UNBC? Where are you thinking that the greatest need is?

B. Yu: Absolutely. These are things that need further investigation to really pinpoint exactly where the highest need is. My best guess would be up north or in the Interior would attract those who are already in the area who may not be able to afford to come to UBC because of the high cost of living. Then that would also help with the recruitment and retention in that area.

For example, I had a colleague work up there. For my program, I actually went to Northwestern. I left the country. She went up north to work there, but she was never planning to stay. It was just an attractive position as her first position. But she had a student shadow her, in high school and in university, and that student ended up going to the UBC program. Then after she was done, she moved back home and took over that position from my friend, who decided it was time for her to leave.

That community now has a permanent SLP, who has a beautiful family. They have a more stable position there and someone that they can trust will stay in the area.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. It sounds like your in the initial thought stages about getting another campus outside of Metro Vancouver and finding a location to do that. That creates a two-part question.

Will there be the faculty to actually perform the duty to train the people that are there? Secondly, how do you ensure that it’s not somebody that comes from Saskatchewan to come to B.C. and that goes back to Saskatchewan?

B. Yu: Absolutely. We are, in ways, following our physio­therapy colleagues. Being in allied health, I’ve spoken to both the physiotherapy and occupational therapy associations, and there’s that expansion of their cohorts. We are all falling within the faculty of medicine.

The staff is there already, in the UBC program, to start building that support for another cohort. There are already universities, like the UNBC, for instance, that would be able to house that type of cohort as well. Infrastructure and staffing for that wouldn’t be the biggest barrier.

[11:10 a.m.]

In terms of having someone from Saskatchewan…. Actually, UBC has some very interesting for their program that makes it very difficult for those who study outside of the province and also those who maybe initially didn’t anticipate becoming a SLP or audiologist. It actually is quite difficult to apply to the program.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): As a parent of a deaf child, audiologists and SLPs have been a big part of our life. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate, particularly, the role of audiologists. I don’t think, unless you experience that, you really understand the important part they play in your family, really.

I did not realize that SLPs — the extent and breadth of the work they do. When you say working with seniors, helping with swallowing challenges…. I had no idea. This really isn’t a question. Just thank you very much. This has just given me an expanded understanding of the importance of these roles.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. This one comment you made was very troubling for me. I would love to hear a greater description around it.

You were talking about how, often, a two-year old child…. When a parent realizes the two-year-old child is struggling, they have a two-year wait-list, so they’ll be close to four years old. Obviously, developmental milestone–wise, those are dramatic differences between language acquisition versus language learning.

Do you mind pointing us to any research data that shows the unfortunate financial consequences due to the fact that we failed to intervene at an early, appropriate time frame, at critical ages? Therefore, the individual’s potential is limited due to delay.

B. Yu: I don’t have that information on hand, but I’m happy to send that over to you. There have definitely been many studies that have shown that early intervention helps improve those outcomes, which then needs fewer financial supports from government and everything like that in the future. Just because many of the children are able to catch up to their peers and no longer need supports later in life.

There have also been studies to show that many of those who are in incarceration actually have speech and language difficulties. I think it was upwards of 80 percent. I can send you those studies.

H. Yao: That’d be great. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Becca. We will wrap up this part of our day. On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank you for coming and presenting to us and giving us some insights into the implications of these programs not being properly staffed up with the skilled professionals that you need. I’m thinking in my own mind about what it would mean for a family, what it would mean for a child, to have to wait that long and what’s happening to them in the meantime — and to have that delayed ability to be able to communicate.

Also, you talked about seniors. It’s bad enough, at one end of one’s life, not to be able to acquire those skills to feel like they belong in society, but also at the other end of one’s life, as they’re losing those skills and finding themselves and their role in society changing as a result.

Thank you for this. We need to do something about it.

Our next presenter is Ramya Hosak, Young and T1.

YOUNG AND T1

R. Hosak: I’ll start by saying hello to the standing committee. Thank you for having me here today before you.

I’d like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam people.

I am here on behalf of Young and Type 1. I am the co-founder and executive director of this volunteer-run grassroots community organization. It’s a group that, since 2013, has brought together nearly 600 adults, 18-plus, living with type 1 diabetes and their loved ones across B.C. It’s a volunteer group. My day job is…. I work as the director of philanthropy at the Kidney Foundation.

I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at 20 years old. I began this group because I believe very strongly in the power of co-mentoring and knowledge-sharing to support us along our lifelong journey of living with a chronic disease that depends on life-sustaining treatments and devices.

Although I was diagnosed at 20, type 1 diabetes is usually diagnosed in childhood. I learned from my peers that support systems in place become even more essential during the transition from the pediatric to adult health care system. This is a really crucial time in a young person’s life, during which we can work to mitigate avoidable future complications from the disease.

[11:15 a.m.]

My recommendations today come through observations and learnings from this peer group. My personal stories I will share. But I did do an anonymous poll, so this is everyone’s thoughts — a thought hive here. It is made up of a diverse number of individuals from various backgrounds, demographics and geographic locations throughout B.C. as well as my own experiences living with type 1 and from my husband, who has type 1 as well.

My first recommendation is a medically required dental examination, covered two times a year for those living with diabetes mellitus, which is code 250 in the system, core MSP beneficiaries. Those living with diabetes are at high risk for eye disease and dental disease. For context, eye examinations are not an MSP benefit for adults but are covered two times a year for those living with diabetes. This is designated as medically required because diabetes significantly impacts eye diseases like retinopathy, cataracts and glaucoma.

I was 20 years old when diagnosed with type 1 and in university. Like most 20-year-olds, I thought I was invincible, and spending money on optional health care checkups was something I could save for later when I had more time and a real job.

At 24 I was out of university. I was at my first job making less than average income, like most graduates, and I learned that eye exams were free for diabetics. I thought: “Why not? Let’s go get tested. It’s free.” I found out that I had the beginnings of retinopathy and needed laser surgery immediately, like within that week, to stop the bad blood vessels from continuing to grow and block the oxygen to my healthy vessels. I had no symptoms, and most people don’t when they get eye disease.

I’m 34 now. So ten years later, my eyesight is perfect. I have no signs of retinopathy. I see my retinologist every year. It was deemed that I get this follow-up every year because of my history. I owe my eyesight today to that free eye exam.

Similarly, dental examinations are not an MSP benefit for individuals, nor are they covered as medically required exams for those with type 1 diabetes. However, similar to eye disease, those living with type 1 are more likely to have oral health problems like cavities and severe infections of the gum and bone because diabetes reduces the blood supply to this area as well.

Dentistry is extremely expensive, and poor oral health impacts all systems of the body, from circulatory to everything, leading to significant complications down the road, particularly for immunocompromised people living with diabetes. This impacts individuals of all ages.

I’ll also note that a risk from diabetes is facing end-stage kidney disease, kidney failure, as a complication. You’re not actually eligible to get off the kidney transplant wait-list until you have a clean bill of dental health. But I have seen that this is a real financial barrier. That comes from my experience with the Kidney Foundation — that people stay on the wait-list because they can’t avoid this dental workup.

That’s my first recommendation.

Recommendations 2 and 3 fall hand in hand. The following life-sustaining drugs and devices for the treatment of diabetes should no longer be subject to the PharmaCare deductible. That includes biosimilar insulin, continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps.

I have some facts on the handout that I sent over to you folks with regard to the deductible, which is $33.50, before those with type 1 can receive insulin, insulin pump supplies and continuous glucose monitoring systems free of cost. It also includes the breakdown of the current medical conditions that do have their life-sustaining treatments covered free of cost, to the tune of $959 million a year. To include type 1 diabetes would be a minimal and very justified increase that reduces economic burdens down the road.

Insulin is a life-saving medication, without which those who are insulin-dependent diabetics would die very quickly. I won’t go into facts and figures with you — readily available with a quick Internet search. I’m willing to find it for you folks, too, but there are countless studies proving the reduction of complications and life-threatening low blood sugars with both an insulin pump and with a continuous glucose monitoring system, including quality of life and lost wages due to disability.

Insulin pumps themselves were previously a $7,000 cost. They were declared universally covered in June 2018, something that my group, Young and T1, successfully advocated for — and were part of the announcement. However, the expensive monthly supplies are not covered, and that racks up quite a bill until you reach your deductible. Similarly, glucose monitor systems are now covered with a special authorization form that takes four months to have approved but only after you hit your deductible.

Finally, as part of recommendation 3, I implore you to consider that patients should have choice when it comes to the medical devices attached to their body doing the work of their essential organs. It’s not simply the choice of Coke versus Pepsi or Diet Coke versus Diet Pepsi but a choice that leads to a meaningful difference in a patient’s quality of life, based on lifestyle choices, biology, gender and a number of other variables.

[11:20 a.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Ramya. Well, you’ve encouraged questions, and the first one will be asked by Renee.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for your advocacy work. I completely see your points and would agree. Again, I don’t understand why some are covered and others are not, and this is quite debilitating. So I appreciate that.

Are you aware of any business cases or studies as to what the savings are once these aspects are covered? Is that something that you could provide to the committee through your written submission?

R. Hosak: I can look into that. That’s a very good question in terms of long-term economic impact on the government. There are estimates out there like, for example, lost workdays and things like that. I could probably rummage around and find it. I know Diabetes Canada has done a lot of work in this area, so I could find that and send it over for sure.

R. Merrifield: That would be awesome. Your eye example is a great one — early intervention saving sight.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. It’s just very quick. I want to make sure I’ve read it right. You’re looking at…. Eye exams are covered, so now you’re talking about a dental exam twice a year. I make the assumption that you’ve done the research that says that you need to be examined twice a year for that. Are you also including the dental work that would be required if it’s noted?

R. Hosak: That’s a very good question. At this point, I would like the first step of just encouraging people to get their dental work done. I think I would stop there. I think that’s the first step that we need. I think people aren’t even just going and getting their teeth, right now — until they have horrible symptoms and pain, and by then, it’s too late. Can they afford the root canal? Well, now you need a root canal. Do you know what I mean?

I think that would be the first step: just a step in the right direction.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Ramya. How many type 1 diabetics are in the province that would benefit from this dental exam? Do you have a number?

R. Hosak: Well, I know that 1 percent of the population is type 1 diabetic, so if we say that B.C.’s population is 7 million, 1 percent of people would qualify for that. It’s not a huge, huge number, and it would save a lot of people.

I think the kidney disease example is very important to note too — the fact that diabetics are very prone to getting kidney disease and being on dialysis wait-lists and the fact that I see, all the time, people who can’t do the expensive dental work because they weren’t taking care of it from the beginning, and they’re just stuck on that transplant list.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, I’m not seeing any other questions. Ramya, I’d like to thank you for coming and making your presentation. You’re very eloquent and forceful in your recommendations.

I guess, finally, I want to say that like a lot of people who’ve presented to us in the last few days, you’ve made a powerful case for the importance of upfront spending — that it makes a lot more sense to invest more in things that prevent further deterioration of health than wait and try to fix it after the fact. So thank you for adding your voice to that.

R. Hosak: Thank you so much for listening, and I will follow up with the research that you asked for.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Carolyn Broady, representing B.C. School Trustees Association.

Welcome.

B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION

C. Broady: I’m surrounded by a few people I know, which is really nice.

Good morning. My name is Carolyn Broady. I’m president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, which represents all 60 of B.C.’s publicly funded boards of education.

As I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we’re gathered together on the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

BCSTA canvassed our 60 board chairs to identify their funding concerns and their priorities in ensuring that financial decisions are made in the best way to support the students and staff they serve. Our three recommendations for Budget 2023 are as follows: a need for increased capital funding, funding to offset unfunded and underfunded increases, and increased funding to support inclusive education.

[11:25 a.m.]

B.C.’s schools face chronic and continued underfunding for capital projects and deferred maintenance. Seismic upgrades are desperately needed throughout much of the province to ensure that our schools remain safe and welcoming places for our staff and our students. Additional funds for deferred maintenance, which includes replacing and upgrading inefficient infrastructure in support of the government’s environmental targets, is also needed.

The majority of B.C. public schools were built in the years following World War II and have reached the end of their life cycle, which has led to increased maintenance costs to maintain the schools and ensure that they’re safe. These older buildings also require funds to address accessibility and equity concerns.

More capital funding is also needed for new projects. This extends beyond land acquisition and new buildings as districts incur increasing inflationary costs while waiting for schools to be completed. In the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school district, the estimated cost to build a new elementary school in 2020 was $29 million. The latest cost update estimates the same build to be close to $50 million. This is in less than three years. This is extremely concerning, as the project is not yet approved or tendered.

Adding to these cost pressures is the need to purchase or lease portables in districts where student population is growing — funding which must be found within current budgets. Districts also require support to offset unfunded cost increases, forming the basis of our second recommendation. These costs include absorbing the cost of administrative and exempt staff pay raises, which will be necessary once negotiations conclude for teachers and support staff and which, in a medium-sized school district, could cost around $175,000 a year.

Districts are also extremely concerned about the increased cost pressures due to the necessity of funding the provincially mandated five sick days. For example, in my school district, the financial impact is expected to be in the range of $300,000. As boards of education work to balance their budgets, districts have had to make cuts to budgets that directly impact the classroom and have been forced to pull significant funds from their reserves.

This month I actually went out to canvass all 60 of our board chairs, and I’ve spoken to 31 of them so far. Without exception, they’ve shared with me that either their approved budgets have contained, in some cases, substantial cuts or they have structural deficits and are draining down their reserves. We have a minimum threshold that we should be meeting, of about 2 percent, and we’re well under that now. This is amplified by inflation, and we’ve cited specific examples in our written submission that illustrate the impact of increasing cost pressures that affect districts.

Securing increased funding to support inclusive education is our final recommendation for Budget 2023. Boards of education have prioritized inclusive education for decades, but the current funding formula — and the collective agreement language, which is outdated and doesn’t meet the needs of today’s neurodiverse students — has prevented boards from best supporting some of our most vulnerable. For example, when a child requires a full-time support worker, the school district is responsible for all wages and benefit costs, and they are not sufficiently funded using the current formula.

In conclusion, fulfilling these three funding requests would make schools safer, allow boards to ensure that funding goes to the classroom — and directly to support students and their success — and address the shared priorities that we have with government, which include reconciliation through improved educational outcomes for Indigenous people, CleanBC initiatives, improving inclusivity and accessibility, and addressing the gender-based analysis plus process.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

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

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

M. Dykeman: It’s wonderful to see you here. Thank you for your presentation.

C. Broady: Nice to see you too.

M. Dykeman: I’m wondering. On recommendation No. 1, one of the things that I recall — at the end of being a trustee, before coming here — was that the BCSTA had quite a large capital working group that was looking at innovative ways, which I had been a part of. I’m wondering what the status of those conversations is, re-examining capital funding in partnership with the government — where that’s sitting with BCSTA right now. Is that group still going?

C. Broady: They are. Interestingly enough, we set our strategic plan for the next year last month. That was one of the major areas: the capital concerns, which I shared with you today. In that group, Mike Murray, who’s a trustee in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, is leading that work still.

We have submitted three reports to the Ministry of Education, quite extensive, around area standards, around life cycle and the needs for capital and seismic upgrades. We are working with the ADM in the ministry now to bring those concerns forward. That group is coming together again this year and has been resurrected to continue this important work.

[11:30 a.m.]

M. Dykeman: Can I just ask a very brief follow-up on that? From the first three reports, have there been meetings that have accompanied those also?

C. Broady: We have had meetings with the ministry. I’m happy to share the reports with this group, if you’re interested.

M. Dykeman: That’d be great. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Other questions?

B. Stewart: Carolyn, thanks very much. We’ve heard quite a bit about this at the Legislature. Is this across school districts throughout British Columbia? It’s not just a one-off — areas where the reserves are being drawn down. I mean, I understand the cost pressures and the things that you mentioned. Are most districts in a situation where they’re…? I don’t know if I’d call it collapsed, but they’re close to the line.

C. Broady: I’ll give you an example in my school district. We have that minimum threshold of 2 to 3 percent that we really want for healthy reserves. We were able to build that up over the last few years, partially with the help of the extra funding that the provincial government provided for COVID and pandemic funding and the federal government. We have a $72 million budget. At this point in time, in the budget we approved on Tuesday, we have $177,000 in reserve. That’s it. We say: “One windstorm and we’re done.”

This is what I’m hearing across the province, big districts and small. It’s different, in each case, how much they’ve gone in. It’s the slow cost pressures that continue. A lot of our costs are set, with wages and benefits, but we still have inflationary pressures around fuel right now — transportation and things like that, and hydro increases. When you aren’t able to generate much revenue, it really does eat into those budgets.

What I’m very proud of is that, so far, boards across the province have tried to keep any cuts that have taken place away from the classroom. I’m just not sure if that’s sustainable.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation. I really appreciate hearing from someone who has experience across all of the different boards within the province.

I’m not sure if you’re planning an additional written submission to what has already been submitted here. One of the things that I would find helpful is on recommendation No. 2. Those are funds…. If we don’t address it, it could be really devastating. That is on the operational costs and the unfunded cost increases. We know inflation is a reality. There have been unfunded employment costs added, etc.

I know that you can’t really ascertain how that affects every single budget, but even just an average: what is the percentage that we’re asking for? I know, for my own school district, what they were asking for. We’ve heard from another couple. If there was a percentage that you could give us: “We need this percentage increase to address this.”

C. Broady: I certainly can get that. We reach out to our school officials, our secretary-treasurers. I probably could give an example of, say, a large urban district, a smaller rural district and a medium-sized district. That will give you an idea. I’m happy to do that.

R. Merrifield: Perfect. It seems that some of the impact in the rural is on fuel. Some of the impact in the urban could be something different.

C. Broady: Exactly. I’m happy to give you some examples.

R. Merrifield: Great. Thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. Nice to see you. You live in a wonderful school district.

The inflationary costs…. Talk about the deferred maintenance. With the lack of capital investment…. I believe you’ve said to me that because you’ve done such a good job on maintaining your schools and keeping things in good condition, in some ways, you’ve actually not benefited from further capital investments. That’s a challenge. That’s more common.

The second piece is…. You’ve costed out the cost of the five sick days. I presume you have to wait until bargaining before you can cost out the cost of the exempt staff, if you’re trying to…. Okay.

C. Broady: Yes. All of the contractual obligations are covered by government. Admin increases or exempt staff increases are not covered and have to come out of our current funding allocations.

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

J. Routledge (Chair): I’m not seeing any other questions. With that, I’d like to thank you for coming and presenting on behalf of all school districts, so that we can see the big picture and the big pattern.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’m struck with the thought…. Part of the implication of so many of our schools being so old is that they were built at a time when the expectations on schools were quite different. Today we expect a lot more from our school system, in what our future will look like. We need to make sure that we resource our school system in such a way that it can meet the challenge of all working together to create a better future. Thank you for reminding us. You’re not the only one.

C. Broady: I’m sure I’m not.

J. Routledge (Chair): It is part of an important pattern.

Our final presenter for the morning is Nathan Davidowicz. Please come and join us. You’ve been there; you know the drill. You’ve got five minutes, and then we have five minutes for questions.

NATHAN DAVIDOWICZ

N. Davidowicz: Thank you very much, MLAs of the committee. Yes, I’ve been here before. I’d like to thank all your staff; we’ve had technical problems this week trying to send the materials and the recommendations. You have my three recommendations. They’re somewhat similar to last year’s.

The first one is to immediately order 1,000 extra electric buses to be delivered over the next three years. There have been very few buses ordered in B.C. over the last 20, 30 years. There are buses being ordered to replace buses that are retiring, but we need extra buses in order to catch up, because there haven’t been too many ordered.

If CleanBC has targets that they expect everybody — all the regional districts, cities, B.C. Transit and TransLink — to abide by for 2030, unless we start now we’ll never achieve the targets for 2030. It’s nice for CleanBC to set up the targets, but if there’s no funding, where do we go? That’s a very important recommendation, because B.C. is way behind Ontario and Quebec in public transit per capita, whichever statistics you take. You could look up the statistics on Statistics Canada and see that.

The second recommendation is proper transit governance, together with proper, equitable financing. Again, B.C. is different than the rest of the provinces in the way we govern transit, the way we fund transit, and so forth. That creates an inequity. That’s why we are behind.

I support the position of the government, which took the first step to make transit more affordable in 2021 by making it free for 12 and under. That’s a very good first step. In Washington state, they have it 18 and under. They have a budget of $16 billion that they voted this year for transit. They are way ahead of us, but the B.C. government is taking one small step at a time. It’s just a matter of trying to speed it up somehow.

It’s not just that financing is not available, but it’s a matter of using wisely what financing we have and not running, for two years, empty trains to YVR during COVID. That’s what they did. They wasted millions of dollars, even though there are no drivers on the train, but it costs money for electricity and maintenance. That’s what the Canada Line did — wasted our money sending empty trains to the airport. So it’s a matter of wisely using the money we have.

[11:40 a.m.]

The third recommendation is your recommendation from last year, recommendation No. 140, which you had in your report of last year and which I support, of course. It’s just that the B.C. government has done very little to support your own recommendation from last year. That’s a problem that we have. B.C. Transit and TransLink do not abide, also, by the new 2021 Accessibility B.C. Act or the 2019 federal accessibility act.

B.C. Rail should be reactivated to provide passenger rail service, similar to the GO rail service in Ontario. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We basically know what’s done everywhere else that’s successful.

I also wanted to say that I did send to each of the nine MLAs the transit problems in their ridings. I wrote a different brief for each one of the nine MLAs, and I sent them to them. That would give you some ideas of the problems in your own riding.

Thank you very much, again, to the committee for your excellent work of the last year and your staff that are very good.

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

I’ll now invite members of the committee to follow up.

H. Yao: Do you have any cost estimates when it comes to the extra 1,000 electric buses?

N. Davidowicz: The average cost of an electric bus right now is about $1 million, compared to a diesel bus at about $700,000 to $750,000. The cost is coming down, and the cost of electric buses will be almost the same as diesel buses. We just have to put the order in.

When COVID started, TransLink cancelled all their orders. Now they are behind in the queue to get buses. They’re two years behind. These are the kinds of decisions that these Crown corporations, B.C. Transit and TransLink, are doing without any input from the government because they are independent in the way they are set up.

Over three years, it’s not that much money — $350 million, or whatever, every year to buy new extra buses. It’s affordable, and it will help us meet our climate targets.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Nathan, for your advocacy work on really both trying to meet our goals for transit and equity and also our environmental goals, which are necessary. Very appreciative.

One of the statistics you used was the state of Washington’s transit. Was it their budget or their capital spend? And what number was that?

N. Davidowicz: So $16 billion, which they have approved….

R. Merrifield: One-six billion?

N. Davidowicz: One-six, yeah, $16 billion.

They have a transportation committee in Washington state, the Legislature there. It’s a different setup, of course, a different country, a different state than in Canada. They are very much putting lots and lots of money into transit and active transportation in Washington state, Oregon, California, really lots of money.

The federal government there, in the U.S., is helping a lot, way more than the federal government in Canada. That’s where we should push. The B.C. government should push the federal government and say: “Well, what’s going on? How come we are so far behind? Why can’t we get, at least per capita, something similar to what they are spending in the states?”

R. Merrifield: Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): The last question goes to Megan.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for the presentation.

I don’t need to ask you the question now, because I did find the things that you sent out to the MLAs.

[11:45 a.m.]

I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. I did find it. Thank you for the email.

N. Davidowicz: Well, thank you for representing Langley. Langley is a new partner in transit. It didn’t get public transit till 1988.

That’s the problem, you see. In the core municipalities of Metro Vancouver — Vancouver, Burnaby, North Shore and Richmond — we’ve had transit for 130 years. So people here are used to transit.

In Langley, it’s still taking time. They invited me, from the seniors advisory committee of the township, to come and speak to them about transit, hopefully maybe next month or whatever.

Langley is spread around and needs on-demand transit, which is a form of transit, like handyDART, that basically picks you up at home or near your home and takes you to the major station or major bus loop where you can transfer to a regional service to go farther. Again, B.C. Transit and TransLink are way behind. We are the only place where we don’t have on-demand transit.

I’m very well aware of what happened in the 1980s and how Langley got their bus service in ’88. We just have to get more and more service and give the people the alternatives of how to commute by active transportation and transit. The most from Metro Vancouver is only about 20 percent, and 80 percent is by cars. We have to bring it up.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for that background.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Nathan, for your presentation. Your knowledge of public transportation is very impressive, and your advocacy is very welcome.

Thank you very much for coming and presenting to us. This is why we have public consultation.

N. Davidowicz: Thank you very much, Chair. I hope you’re going to advocate for the West Coast Express station for North Burnaby that was promised to us 30 years ago by Mike Harcourt. We are still waiting.

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

We will now recess.

The committee recessed from 11:48 a.m. to 1:03 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Welcome, everyone. Our next presenter is Paula Fowler representing the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils.

The way it works is we’ve got a timer to help you focus. You have five minutes to give your presentation and then another five minutes for us to ask questions and for you to answer. You’ll see that this counts down, and when it gets to zero, it turns red and starts counting up. So once it’s red, we’re in the question and answer part, for a total of ten minutes. Whenever you’re ready.

B.C. CONFEDERATION OF
PARENT ADVISORY COUNCILS

P. Fowler: Good afternoon.

I acknowledge I am speaking today on the unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Stó:lō, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam Nations. I would also like to acknowledge our Métis partners and friends living in these territories.

The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, in operation since 1922, is the voice of parents of over 570,000 children attending public schools. We have three key recommendations today.

Recommendation 1 is to increase funding and accountability for resources and supports for students with diverse needs, disabilities and unique needs as well as funding to support early identification and intervention. Far too many of our students are not receiving a full day’s education. School districts repeatedly attribute this to either a lack of resources, knowledge or funding.

As noted in the report we sent to the minister and deputy minister, there are close to 2,000 students who are not receiving a full day of education. Parents often have no choice but to use section 11 of the School Act to try to have their child’s time at school increased or, in some cases, reinstated.

[1:05 p.m.]

It is imperative that this government assures parents that all children, regardless of diagnosis, designation or socioeconomic situation, have the right and should be welcomed to attend their neighbourhood school on a full-time basis and be provided with the supports necessary to ensure their success.

According to UNICEF Canada, more than one in four children starts kindergarten with developmental challenges. There is a gap in resources and supports for special needs and other vulnerable students, including early identification and programming, and long wait-times for formal assessments of students who have been identified as having a learning difference.

Parents with economic means opt for private assessments to more successfully advocate for their child’s access to supports, creating further inequity in the public education system. All students, regardless of their family’s economic situation, deserve timely early intervention and assessment.

Recommendation 2 is that this government cover down­loaded costs and net new costs to K-to-12 education as a result of both the pandemic and costs associated with recovery as it affects children and youth and the integration of child care into the Ministry of Education.

The pandemic has highlighted the additional services increasingly expected from schools, especially mental health supports. We have students facing mental health challenges and school districts lacking the expertise, knowledge, training and resources to attend to these children with a systemic, therapeutic approach. Additional funding is required to ensure appropriate professional staffing resources are in place to support all children and teachers in addressing student vulnerability, mental health challenges and behavioural issues.

While most parents do support the integration of child care into K-to-12 education, there are concerns on the impacts to students. It is non-negotiable to parents to ensure funds for child care are not siphoned off from a district’s budget intended for our children’s education.

Recommendation 3 is to safeguard stable, predictable and adequate K-to-12 education funding. Unpredictable funding and unfunded cost increases require school districts to cut programs and supports instead of strategically planning the most effective use of funding to support student success.

Parents expect that downloaded cost pressures such as provincially negotiated wage settlements and collective agreements and energy rate increases be fully funded annually as additional increases to operating funding and that the overall annual funding to public education be adjusted for inflation, increased costs due the ministry expanding to include child care and other expectations put on the districts and schools.

Adequate funding is also required for capital. All children across the province should be learning in safe buildings, but there are still students in over 250 schools rated at high seismic risk that the ministry considers future priorities. The average facility condition index of schools across the province is 0.47. The ministry’s routine capital program allocations cover less than half the annual cost of repairs and maintenance recommended by building system engineers.

We ask that the treasury increase capital funding for the Ministry of Education to continue to accelerate the seismic mitigation program and for routine capital program allocations to meet the costs to maintain our schools. We ask that operational funding be increased and that it is adequate, stable and predictable.

Parents strongly believe that public education must remain at the forefront of government’s priorities. The provincial government must act to safeguard adequate, stable and predictable funding, both operational and capital, to ensure the provision of education programs; student-focused resources, including those for mental health and well-being; wraparound services; and personnel that meet the actual needs of all our students.

Thank you for your attention today.

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

Our first question is from Karin.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Paula. You’ll feel good, I think, to know that we’ve heard many of these same recommendations, so it’s really, really impacting the importance of them.

The question I have for you is with respect to the concern around costs related to the integration of child care into the Ministry of Education. There have been folks who are concerned about increased capital costs — if there’s not capacity, the need to buy portables, those kinds of things. Did you have something specific that you’re aware of, or is it really just a general concern?

P. Fowler: Mainly just that concern to make sure that we aren’t adding something required of the district to look after without giving them the additional funding to also support it.

[1:10 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I was just following along with your write-up, as well, which is incredible. It’s really important, and I really appreciate your continued advocacy.

I really want to hit a bit harder on the mental health component. It has been one of the things that, unfortunately, due the pandemic, has been sweeping through all sectors of our community, especially hitting hard for our children.

When you guys were talking about ensuring that our children have a lot of programs…. I assume the funding you’re seeking is not just simply to address the aftermath of the pandemic but the continuation of funding to support mental health well-being and mental health prosperity for individual students. I’m going to assume that one of the components you’re probably going to incorporate in there, too, is going to be the recognition of social connection and social skill development due to the technology disconnect that we often see now. It’s including adults as well. May I assume that my assumptions are correct?

P. Fowler: Yes, absolutely. What the pandemic has done for us is it has brought mental health, I think, to the forefront of our entire society’s conversations. It’s never been more prevalent and more obvious than it has appeared with our children in the education system.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for your advocacy. My question is going to piggyback on Henry’s and that is: do you see those mental health supports inside of the schools, or do you see a referral system that would be outside of the schools?

P. Fowler: Either would work. But I think there is absolute strength in building those relationships within the school community and building that environment and helping….

If it’s referring, then you’re referring one student out, whereas if it’s a program or an availability within the school system, then it’s more encompassing. It’s a better wraparound. It connects people in a better way, and I think connection is crucial right now. We’ve been through two years of such disconnect that that connection piece is truly relevant.

R. Merrifield: That is excellent.

B. Bailey: Thanks very much for your presentation. I have two questions. One is very quick, which is… I’m sorry. I didn’t catch your last name.

P. Fowler: Fowler.

B. Bailey: Fowler. Thank you, Paula.

My question is really around…. I’ve got a very active DPAC in my riding. They do fantastic work. One of the things that they’ve highlighted for us is that there is a challenge in regards to planning for future schools in terms of how we count students. Is that something that you are working on as a larger representative of PACs, or is that something that’s unique to my riding?

P. Fowler: I would say, having been a parent of a school-aged child for 11 years, I’ve been aware of that for 11 years. It’s not something that we are specifically working on right now within BCCPAC, but we’re absolutely aware, and it’s been present for a very long time.

I’ve watched schools be planned and be built. It takes three, four or five years to build that school. By the time it’s built, they’re already putting portables outside, because they planned for the population at the start of the planning phase — not the building, but the planning phase. By the time the school was completed, there were already way more students.

I’ve always struggled to understand why they don’t plan for the growth in a neighbourhood, especially when it’s a new neighbourhood and they know people are moving into the community. They’re encouraging development. You need to plan that school accordingly, at the same time.

B. Bailey: Yeah. It’s a challenge.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Paula. We’re just about out of time and have other presenters to hear from. I want to thank you for coming and making the presentation. Thank you for your advocacy.

What keeps going through my mind is one of the first comments that you made, which is that some students are not getting a full day of education, and the implications of that. I think what you’ve pointed out to us is that there is a real disconnect between our stated values and our stated goals and our stated respect for the education system and what is becoming a rather stark reality. Thank you for connecting those dots for us.

Our next presenter is Cathy McMillan, representing Dyslexia B.C.

Welcome.

C. McMillan: Hi. Good afternoon.

[1:15 p.m.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Were you here to hear the drill? Five minutes. It’ll count down, and then it’ll turn red and start counting up. When it starts counting up, that means we’re into the second half, which is the question and answer, for a total of ten minutes.

DYSLEXIA B.C.

C. McMillan: I usually start my presentations by saying: “Hello. My name is Cathy McMillan, and I am dyslexic.”

You can’t tell by looking at me, but certainly, every day in kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2, my mom would go in and say: “She’s not reading. She has a December birthday. Can you hold her back?” We moved provinces. I was born in Ontario. I went to school in B.C. for kindergarten. I went to Alberta. Same thing: “We’re moving. Can you fail her, keep her back?” They would say: “She’s such a lovely girl. She’ll be just fine.”

So fast-forward. I take my kids into school. “They’re so nice. Don’t worry.” Both my kids are diagnosed with dyslexia — my son in grade 7, so he’s the oldest, and my youngest in grade 1.

I have moved their schools seven times, and I can honestly say there isn’t a school in B.C. that will service a severe dyslexic appropriately. I can honestly say that dyslexic people in the province of B.C. do not get equitable access. The number one reason they don’t is because the school systems — private, public — do not use the type of reading instruction that they need to get access. That is called the science of reading.

In Ontario, in January or February, the Right to Read inquiry was just released, done by the Human Rights Commission in Ontario. It was a two-year study done by Linda Siegel from UBC and another professor, in Halifax, I believe. They discovered that there isn’t a school in Ontario that uses the science of reading.

Ontario is busy responding to this inquiry that had a thick, huge number of recommendations, and they are going to be changing to the science of reading. Right now schools use balanced literacy. Balanced literacy is like: “Expose your kids to reading.” In my view, it’s the hippie version. “Expose your kids. Let them love it. They’ll like it. Just keep reading. Keep reading.” A dyslexic needs to know how it comes together, how it’s formed. They become our engineers. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs — dyslexic.

Reading is the number one indicator of how well someone will do at school. If they can’t read, how can they go to post-secondary? Our kids are underrepresented in post-secondary, and if they do get there, the only reason they got there is because they have parents who have been able to afford private tutoring and access to materials.

I’m asking for three things today. In 2002, the supplemental funding category for dyslexics…. Learning disabilities is the main, broad category. Dyslexia is 80 to 90 percent of all learning disabilities. The supplemental funding for learning disabilities was taken away in 2002. Right now, within our education system, schools do not get any funding at all to help dyslexic students — zero. Autism gets $19,000. That’s a huge difference — a huge difference.

[1:20 p.m.]

The diagnosis is done with a budget within the school system. No money is given to the school districts. They choose to do two assessments a year to diagnose dyslexia — only two per school, at all, and dyslexia is one in five.

I recommend that we take psychology services and cover them under MSP so that people can get a dyslexia diagnosis: go to the doctor, and it is paid for. I also recommend that you bring back a funded category for dyslexics.

The third thing I recommend is that you make legislation so that dyslexia screening is done in kindergarten for all kids. You lose your chance to remediate by grade 3. It’s almost impossible to get them reading by grade 3. You need to get them in kindergarten, early intervention.

Also, legislation to make sure that they change to the science of reading and get rid of that balanced literacy.

Obviously, the funding that is needed will incorporate these three asks.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for the presentation. As my daughter is dyslexic, I appreciate the advocacy work that you do and agree that often they become the engineers and the creatives. My daughter is headed down the science path herself.

I just wanted to clarify on one of your recommendations. I’m just curious. Will you be putting in a written submission? Secondly, in that, or now, could you possibly break down the funding…? You mentioned wanting to see a funded category in schools and then, also, subsequently talked about having the schools legislatively be required to switch to the science of reading.

Do you see that being a switch for all students? If you had a funded category, how do you see the supports being built into that for students that are dyslexic? I was wondering if you could just expand a bit on that, please.

C. McMillan: The average student…. Balanced literacy, what they use in schools now, gets about 60 percent of the kids. They should be able to learn with balanced literacy. The other 40 percent will not learn.

If you use structured literacy in the classroom, you should be able to get to 80 percent of the kids. Those 20 percent left will be your dyslexic kids, somewhere on the spectrum, anywhere from — because it is a spectrum — mild to…. I’m probably mild to moderate. My son is mild to moderate, and my daughter is severe. She’s 21, and she still reads at the grade 2 level, but she’s on the honour roll at UVic right now, with lots of backup.

So you get that 80 percent, which is higher than what you would get for the balanced literacy in the classroom. Then you would need extra time. The thing with dyslexia…. They just need more time and more repetition to actually learn it. Like I said, they need it broken down. They can’t just memorize, because memory is not their strong part. Working memory is a problem for dyslexic kids.

Out of the 20 percent that are left, probably 10 percent should get a bit of pull out, and they’ll be okay. The next 10 percent…. You’ll need a remediation room, like the Moore case. I don’t know if you’re aware of the Moore case. He was a dyslexic boy. His remedial centre was closed down in North Vancouver, and he had nowhere to get remediated.

That’s what severe dyslexics need. They need intense remediation for a number of months or even years, and that could mean three hours a day with reading before it’s going to make a big difference. Again, Moore was going to start that in grade 3. He should have been starting that in kindergarten. We’re way behind.

In the U.S., they’ve been making legislation for the last five years about dyslexia — early screening and the change to structured literacy.

[1:25 p.m.]

What’s lacking in the Right to Read report is the fact that all the school districts and the ministries are all saying they’re just recommendations. Without the legislation, it’s not the accountability. They need the accountability to make the change — and some funding. The ministry is going to have to change. They’re going to have to change their thinking and bring in experts.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for your advocacy on this really important topic. My mom is an early literacy specialist who has, for a long time, advocated the science of reading, so I’m a big fan. My niece is dyslexic, and my mom has been the primary one to teach her how to read, which is awesome.

I am very curious about your testing — mandatory testing for all children coming into the school system. I think that that’s brilliant. Do you have any idea of the cost of that? I know….

C. McMillan: It’s $10 per kid. So $10 per kid as opposed to a $3,000 assessment later on, right? What that gives you is a direction of where they need the remediation. It tests them for phonics. It tests them for fluency. It’s tests them for all the components. So if you know it’s a breakdown in their fluency, then you work on the fluency. If it’s the phonics, you break down the phonics.

I’m a scientist. It’s simple. For me, it’s that you don’t expose somebody. You don’t just go: “Oh, I hope it goes away.” It’s not going to go away. You have to figure out what’s wrong. It’s a diagnosable thing that we can remediate quite easily if they’re caught early.

R. Merrifield: Agree. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Sadly, we’re out of time. Part of the reason we’re out of time is because the committee has been so engaged and interested in what you’ve presented. So thank you for that. Thank you for your advocacy.

I guess one of the thoughts that I’m left with, listening, is that, if I understood you correctly, people with dyslexia have a unique set of skills and a unique way of thinking that the world needs, and it wouldn’t take much to actually open that up to us.

C. McMillan: That’s correct. That’s correct.

Let me just to say one thing. In true dyslexic fashion, I didn’t read the instructions, and I made a wonderful presentation which I posted on Twitter. So if you want to see my entire and learn a little bit more about dyslexia, just go to my Twitter.

J. Routledge (Chair): Will do.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Your Twitter page is very useful. It’s got lots of good information on it. So thank you.

C. McMillan: I’ll send all of you Dyslexia B.C. mugs. Expect that in the mail.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Tammy Murphy with CUPE 728.

Hi, Tammy. Welcome.

CUPE LOCAL 728

T. Murphy: Good afternoon. My name is Tammy Murphy. I’m an education assistant, and I’m the president of CUPE Local 728. Our local represents over 5,000 support staff in the Surrey school district, including school and community support workers, bus drivers, clerical, custodians, IT, maintenance, education assistants and student support workers. CUPE 728 works for B.C.’s largest and fastest-growing district with the most culturally diverse and historically rich communities.

I would like to speak today about two concerns. First, education assistants and student support hours. From supporting the most diverse students to providing cultural education to Indigenous learners to operating programs for students with disabilities, education assistants and student support workers are an irreplaceable component of the public school system.

The success of many students and the sustainability of the existing class sizes relies on an EA providing direct support to students with additional needs. EAs work under challenging times, with some of the district’s most vulnerable learners. To do so with limited resources and incomes that leave us struggling at the end of the day leads many to work more than one job.

The nature of an EA’s work is complex and has grown over the years, though hours have not, which has left work…. Due to lack of time, you have poor preparation, planning, reflection and professional development. Low incomes, high workloads and less than full-time hours, along with the seasonal nature of most EAs’ and support workers’ jobs, create a tremendous pressure on the workers, both at work and at home.

Both are such significant challenges to EAs that they are leaving the profession faster than they can be replaced. The districts are falling shorter, with less EAs to fill the future demands.

[1:30 p.m.]

Additional hours for EAs can make a strong contribution to the province’s shortfalls for child care. Education assistants can staff before- and after-school programs. Recent seamless day pilot projects and in-house child care programs demonstrate how this model can be successful and can provide much-needed spaces for those, with already existing workforces, classrooms and administrative structures.

This model is beneficial to parents, children, educators and communities and will help eliminate labour force shortages, as affordable school care helps parents return to the workforce full-time. We recommend that Budget 2023 include a funding increase for EAs and student support workers, including resource support and creation of in-house and after-school child care centres, staffed by EAs.

Now I’d like to discuss No. 2, which is support for custodial and grounds staff. Custodial work ensures that our schools are safe, clean and healthy. Students, staff, parents and communities have a high-level standard for custodial work. Expectations for custodians increased during COVID-19. Although the additional custodian hours have now been eliminated, the higher expectation continues. The resulting increase in workloads that custodians now have produces a high risk for physical and mental injury and, ultimately, a greater stress among the workforce.

Just as custodians ensure that indoor spaces are safe and clean, groundskeepers do the same for the outside play areas and keep them free from hazards. They clean up things like needles, excrement and garbage. Grounds staff also ensure drainage and infrastructures are clear and clean, which is the first defence against seasonal flooding of walkways, playgrounds and schools. At the worst times of the year, grounds staff are working to keep schools operating and assets protected, ensuring that students, staff and parents get home safely.

Our district has seen a 46 percent decrease in grounds staffing levels over the last 20 years, while the number of schools in Surrey has increased significantly. These cuts affect the aspects of grounds operations from aesthetics to asset protection. As well, key equipment is passing or nearing the end of its operational life. Some equipment is outdated, and technology is desperately needed to be replaced. Aging equipment poses a threat to the safety of workers and undermines the district’s ability to respond to emergent weather.

Custodian and grounds staffing shortages are a function of system underfunding. Custodial work and grounds often are cut due to direct student funding, which creates long-term facility shortfalls. In addition to funding, we need to support these two key functions.

One second recommendation for Budget 2023: introduce increased funding for school districts to support universal daytime caretakers and increase the grounds staff to address the chronic understaffing and deferred maintenance issues — which are all caused due to the fact that the pace of funding does not keep up with inflation. A lot of that is also a huge issue in the districts.

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

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate it. I would like to go back to recommendation No. 1, talking about allowing EAs to be full-time employees. I assume that you want to allow the EA, even though it’s full time, to stay at the same school, not requiring them being split to different schools. That’s why you’re recommending after-school care for children as well. Am I on the right path?

T. Murphy: With Surrey being one of the biggest districts, I know that that is a huge issue. Throughout the province, there is the issue of having care for students. I know we’ve seen that a lot during the pandemic — that there were no daycares to take kids in before and after school.

It’s the easiest and most seamless way to be able to deal with it. I realize that at high schools, it wouldn’t have the same effect. But in elementary schools, to have that same consistency, that familiar face that everybody is used to seeing at the school, and being able to carry over from morning to the day — and then, for instance, from the day into the afternoon — has been proven to be very beneficial. We’ve talked to our district about it. It’s something that districts are already doing, without YMCAs and things like that.

To have it in house would be beneficial to not only the workforce that we already have, which is very precarious, but it also brings that community in, where they have that consistency. People trust the places that they drop their kids off at all day. It’s the safest and the best way to have that consistency and that safety net for kids.

H. Yao: Absolutely. Just one final comment. I used to run an after-school program in school as well. It is a phenomenal asset for parents — to be able to focus on school — and easier for them to transition to connect to teachers for any necessary follow-ups, as well.

[1:35 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): We keep hearing that there’s not enough support for kids in school who have special requirements. Then that also translates to before- and after-school care and child care, just not having enough inclusive spaces. I think that there’s an ability to try and address all of those problems at the same time.

I am surprised — there is such a need, even within the classroom — that EAs don’t have more hours. I’d also like to see EAs get that $4-an-hour wage enhancement, too, if they’re going to be working in the before- and after-school care.

Is that also a way to help address the need for young people to actually have the ability to attend class? They need that extra….

T. Murphy: I can’t speak for all, but in our Surrey district, we have the problem that many kids are undiagnosed. You have these kids that are coming in, and they don’t have diagnoses. They have obvious difficulties with different things — things that they probably would be diagnosed with if we had the ability to do that. That would, then, get them supports.

What happens right now is that we take from Peter to pay Paul. “Johnny here has got full-time hours. He’s got a lot of things. So we’re going to stack Fred over here with Johnny just so that we can get this.” As I say, the workloads are increasing. EAs are bell to bell. They literally have no prep time. “If I’m going to work with Johnny over here, I’ve got to bring Fred in.” I’ve got to be able to process all this.

There are so many things that would be beneficial. Having the before- and after-school, and adding onto those times, you then have that ability to prep and prepare the day with what you’re doing with the kids as well. It’s just so much more beneficial.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Yeah. That’s great. It makes sense.

B. Bailey: Thanks very much for your presentation, Tammy. On the same topic. It makes perfect sense to me, what you’re describing. I think, as a parent, I can see just the great benefit of that seamless model.

We’ve heard different perspectives on it — that this is something that EAs would really find beneficial and enjoy, but also that maybe some EAs really like having the flexibility of just having part-time days. I wonder if there has been any research or surveying done to get a sense…. Is this something that EAs want — to go to a full-time model?

T. Murphy: In our district, it’s 100 percent. Our district only allows full-time work — full-time short hours. A full-time position for an elementary school is 27½ hours. Especially if there was before- and after-school daycare, they would want more hours. The problem is that right now that’s really hard to find. When school is over, they race out the door, usually to pick up their kids. In our district, yes, it is something that’s really wanted.

It also leaves the ability for someone who wants to work less hours to work in a high school, as opposed to an elementary school. An elementary school…. For Surrey, we could have 25 EAs in a school. We have big schools. I’ve heard that our schools are larger than…. We have an elementary school with 950 kids, which I’ve heard is big. We’ve got large amounts. Obviously, they would not be able to get the full-time work on the before and after.

B. Bailey: Understood. Thank you.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation, Tammy. I guess my thing — I’m acutely aware of what’s happening in Surrey, being from Surrey — is around the areas where there’s already child care in the system right now. How would that work for those EAs that would be in those areas?

T. Murphy: I’ve actually had these discussions with Christy Northway, one of our superintendents there. Right now it’s not something that we’re…. We’re not wanting to go take people’s jobs. We’re a union. We don’t want to take people’s jobs, and we encourage that. But if there are new infrastructures coming in, we would like the opportunity to do that. And as some structures leave, we’d like the opportunity to move into those positions.

M. Starchuk: Perfect.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you very much for presenting to us today. It wouldn’t come as a surprise to know that there are others who have sounded this similar kind of alarm, on what’s happening in the school system.

T. Murphy: I heard it when I was sitting here. I was like: “Yes.”

J. Routledge (Chair): One of the things, though, I think I’d like to just underline in your approach, your presentation: it’s almost like what you’re suggesting is a team-based approach to public education. A team-based approach is something that we are looking at in other parts of our society that are also under crisis.

Thank you for expanding on the important role of EAs and custodial staff.

Our next presenter is Marko Dekovic, GCT Global Container Terminals.

[1:40 p.m.]

GLOBAL CONTAINER TERMINALS

M. Dekovic: Well, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Marko Dekovic. I’m the vice-president of public affairs at GCT Global Container Terminals.

GCT operates two Green Marine–certified terminals in British Columbia — GCT Vanterm in Burrard Inlet and GCT Deltaport, which is Canada’s largest container terminal, located in Delta. Our terminals provide shipping customers and ocean carriers with a reliable and convenient access to all major Asia-Pacific trade lanes.

GCT is a majority Canadian-owned company with three major institutional shareholders — Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, British Columbia Investment Management Corp and IFM Investors. GCT provides long-term, stable jobs for the Lower Mainland, employing over 2,200 FTEs, including longshore workers, and enabling truckers, railway workers and others to keep our goods moving.

Currently our supply chain is facing challenges. We have three recommendations for immediate, near-term and long-term actions on how government can ensure that they remain resilient.

Our first recommendation is to prioritize and accelerate the goods-movement strategy and make infrastructure optimization a key component of it. The past two years have shown us how devastating it can be when our supply chains are disrupted. We began to see this in the early days of the pandemic and felt it acutely last November, when major highways and rail lines were devastated by the flooding. We commend the government for leadership in how quickly they were able to get major highways up and running, in collaboration with the industry, but we have also learned the value of a resilient supply chain.

The recently announced B.C. goods-movement strategy should be a major vehicle to help us build supply chain resiliency. We are asking government to prioritize and accelerate the strategy, and to appoint a panel of advisers from the private sector, labour, Indigenous communities and leading industry associations to develop it. I’m hopeful that this work could also inform the federal government’s Supply Chain Task Force.

The goal of the strategy should be to examine all transportation infrastructure assets, both under provincial and federal jurisdiction, and to collaboratively identify pathways to optimization. This would help government identify priority infrastructure investments that both the private sector and public sector should be making. For example, we have two large port complexes on the west coast, in Vancouver and in Prince Rupert. Each independently is developing solutions for container capacity, but without a lens on: what is the best path forward for British Columbia, and are we using those assets to their fullest potential?

Our second recommendation would be to continue investments in decarbonization of the industrial transportation sector. Sustainability is one of GCT’s core values. We have reduced our absolute emissions by 14 percent since the 2015 baseline year. We have taken several measures to reduce our emissions and make our operations more efficient — everything from reducing truck idling, investing in state-of-the-art technology, electrifying equipment, switching to full LED conversions and introducing route optimization programs on our terminals.

Supply chains are systems, and all players need to do their part to make them greener. We are asking government to continue to fund and increase programs such as the CleanBC heavy-duty vehicle efficiency program, which was launched in 2019 and funded for three years, to support us and our supply chain partners in reducing emissions.

Our third recommendation is to promote B.C.’s low-carbon advantage and remove obstacles to optimization of the transportation sector. Accelerated decarbonization in the private sector will only continue as long as the province is a safe harbour for investment and ensures predictable returns. In Budget 2023, we recommend that the province undertake measures that increase confidence and provide incentives for investors to spend capital in British Columbia. This could include a review of regulatory and tax measures that may be making it more difficult for investors to spend money on projects in B.C.

For example, we’re advancing our Deltaport berth 4 expansion project. We’re nearly two years into the environmental assessment process and likely have five more to go. We also operate two terminals in the Port of New York and New Jersey, and there we have permitted the same berth expansion of one terminal in only eight months.

To conclude, the B.C. goods-movement strategy is a generational opportunity to chart a course for a brighter and more resilient future, making B.C.’s trade transportation industry the leader in growth and generation of jobs into the future.

Thank you to the committee for taking the time to listen. I’m open to taking any questions you may have.

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

[1:45 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Thank you for the presentation. I have a question about the goods-movement strategy. Do you know which report you’re referring to? Is that the 2017 report that came out?

M. Dekovic: No. The goods movement strategy was introduced earlier this year. It’s called the B.C. goods movement. It was announced….

R. Merrifield: The B.C. one. Okay. The first one was from Metro Van, I think.

M. Dekovic: There have been a number of them. There was the 2016 or 2017 gateway strategy, and there were many before that. But I’m specifically referring to the one that was launched this year by the provincial government.

M. Starchuk: To jump on that point — my pen only writes so fast — what did you want to see as an appointed board? What were the stakeholders?

M. Dekovic: We recommend, obviously, that there’s industry representation by labour, Indigenous communities and relevant industry association experts.

M. Starchuk: And if I may, has that request been made other than right here?

M. Dekovic: Yes.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. Obviously, it’s great that we’re talking about supply chain protection. When we’re talking about a report, are we thinking about just simply funding effectively, or are we creating redundancy in case something similar to a wildfire or a flood happens again?

M. Dekovic: Yeah. Our recommendation would be for governments to look at resiliency to create redundancy. For example, we have two key areas where rail meets tidewater in the province of B.C. We saw what happens for 14 days when there was no rail service to our terminal, for example, at GCT Deltaport. You could build seven more marine terminals in that area, and guess what. All of them would be cut off from the rail. So we have to look at what role Prince Rupert and the single railway there plays in the resiliency model for British Columbia.

We have to look at things. Is there a time to look at finding a way or a path for railways to reach other parts of the province to the tidewater? So expecting an increased amount of black swan events or climate change–impacted events to increase, we have to have that resiliency in place.

H. Yao: I just have a quick follow-up. We had an earlier presenter talking about, I believe, a terminal established on Vancouver Island, too. Is this something you guys also believe is something we should be looking into so that Vancouver Island can also protect the supply chain?

M. Dekovic: I think everything needs to be looked at and what role it can play. I assume it was Port of Port Alberni, my assumption would be, that presented. It has a role to play, especially if you look at expansion or introduction of short sea shipping more into the gateway. But the challenge with Port Alberni is that ultimately it is not connected by a rail to the rest of the country, and really, this is all about where rail meets tidewater. That’s what’s driving our economy. That is what’s driving our supply chains.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Marko. I want to just clarify the…. You talked about the disconnect between Prince Rupert — I’m assuming it’s Prince Rupert — and Port Metro Vancouver. What are they doing…? They’re operating independently, so they’re not really working together and saying “This is what we should do and aspire to,” so that both ports are aligned when it comes to whatever standards are best practices. Is that what you’re saying?

M. Dekovic: Yeah. If we look at it, the Port of Prince Rupert has a container terminal operated by Dubai Ports World. They’re a friendly competitor. They also operate terminals here in the Port of Vancouver. But if we look at it from a governance perspective as two port authorities, each are sort of driving their own expansion plans. But we have to look at it holistically as a country and as a province.

Are we optimizing each one of those ports to be performing the duty in the supply chain that it is the best equipped to do? And where should the investments be made? If we know that Vancouver is congested and we have issues with resiliency, where else should we be looking? Is it perhaps Prince Rupert, and what does that mean?

I think the opportunity with the goods-movement strategy is to do that work. And yes, port authorities are federal jurisdiction, but provincial governments have appointees on their boards, and I’m sure the federal government is open to collaboration.

J. Routledge (Chair): I’m not seeing other questions, Marko. Thank you so much for taking the time to come and presenting your recommendations.

In closing, I guess I’d say that at lunch today, I took a little walk outside. Here we are, in downtown Vancouver, and the supply chain issue is pretty apparent even, and maybe especially, at the core of our shopping area.

[1:50 p.m.]

I really appreciate you talking about the supply chain as a system and the implications of that in terms of how advanced our planning must be — and that you’re open to planning. That’s really important if we’re going to get past this. Thank you very much.

M. Dekovic: Thank you for the opportunity.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Stacy Ashton, Crisis Centre B.C.

Welcome. You have five minutes to present your recommendations. We have a timer to help you track that.

S. Ashton: You’ve met me.

Sorry, I talk a lot.

J. Routledge (Chair): Then when it’s wound down, it’ll wind back up in red. That’s because you have ten minutes — five minutes for a presentation and five minutes for questions and answers.

CRISIS CENTRE OF B.C.

S. Ashton: All right. My name is Stacy Ashton. My pronouns are she/her.

I am very happy to be here on the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

I am the executive director of the Crisis Centre of B.C.

On June 7, police checked in on a 61-year-old Black immigrant named Michael, who had been talking to the sky from his apartment window. Although reports from neighbours and police differ, at the end of the incident, the mental health response included 12 officers, tear gas, an armoured truck, a K9 unit and a rubber bullet. This is one of a number of reports of police-led mental health response focused on coercing compliance over collaborative safety plans.

The Crisis Centre of B.C. is part of the B.C. crisis line network, crisis centres located across the province. We answer 1-800-SUICIDE and 310-6789 mental health. We provide 2.5 million minutes of life-saving support to British Columbians yearly. I’m here to provide three recommendations to ensure all British Columbians have the lowest-cost, most trauma-informed and most effective response to mental health emergencies.

First recommendation. Introduce a 911 levy to fund crisis line access as a 911 fourth option — mental health. The special parliamentary committee on Police Act reform recommends adding a fourth option to 911 dispatch — police, fire, ambulance and mental health. We propose B.C. crisis lines as the obvious place to send 911 mental health calls and that a 911 levy would provide funds to make this sustainable.

The 911 levies are collected by cell and landline providers in six provinces and territories. B.C. is one of the few provinces leaving this reliable and non-controversial funding mechanism on the table, an estimated value of $58 million per year. Recently we conducted a study through Leger, and 92 percent of British Columbians support adding a mental health crisis support as a 911 option, while 73 percent specifically support introducing a 911 levy to fund that mental health option.

Investing in 911 levy funds to expand crisis line services allows the province to lean into our ability to safely de-escalate crises over phone or text. B.C. crisis lines currently de-escalate 98 percent of our community-based calls through trauma-informed collaborative safety planning, saving $49 million a year in police costs alone.

In regions where crisis lines handle 911 mental health calls, crisis lines de-escalate 85 percent of calls without the need for any in-person response. We routinely prevent unnecessary dispatch of high-cost interventions — interventions that have a high likelihood of traumatizing people already in crisis. The results of underutilizing crisis lines are easy to see — long wait times for police and ambulance response, long waits for emergency room service and tragic stories of police overresponse, especially for people who are racialized or unhoused.

A 2018 study in Canada on use of police as front-line mental health workers found that half of mental health calls responded to by police end in apprehension under the Mental Health Act, and half of those that get to hospital do not meet the criteria for hospitalization.

Police arriving at hospital with apprehended people are triaged low priority next to heart attacks and injuries, leading to long wait-times with a person in crisis until a psychiatric assessment can be done. When that psychiatric assessment does not meet hospital admission, that person is left to find their way home on their own. This is a very expensive revolving door that makes people in crisis, especially those who are marginalized, far less likely to reach out for help when they need it.

During COVID, calls to the crisis lines increased by 25 percent. In our health authority, Vancouver, we have the capacity right now to answer 60,000 calls a year, but we receive 90,000.

[1:55 p.m.]

The recent provincial funding investment to the crisis line network matches what we received in COVID response funds. So it will allow us to keep answering 60,000 calls but not make a dent in those 30,000 calls we can’t answer or allow us to take on mental health calls diverted from 911.

Recommendation 2. Ensure all crisis lines can directly refer callers to crisis mobile response teams, led by mental health professionals, inclusive of peer support workers. We are able to work with callers to collaborate on safety plans that are consensual, and having a crisis line mobile response available to refer to makes that consensual intervention so much easier.

Recommendation 3. Appoint a task force drawn from crisis lines — 911, B.C. Ambulance and CMHA — with ministry support, to create 911 levy legislation that will support a mental health crisis system that works. We all have a part in this solution, and if you bring us together, we can make it happen.

That’s it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Stacy. Lots of questions.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. I’ll make it quick right now. I actually started with Chimo Community Services as a crisis line volunteer to start, and I also worked at…. Thank you so much for your presentation.

I do have a question about your recommendation 1. Introduced in that one was a mental health option. Are you expecting the mental health option that was to be selected be funnelled to local crisis lines for support? Or are you talking about 911 having their own staff dealing with mental health calls?

S. Ashton: We recommend that the response come to crisis lines because we’re the ones…. We have 50 years of experience in de-escalating crisis calls. We also have a lot of trust in the community. Our community-based callers are folks in crisis who are calling us because they trust us. Most of the time, the 911 mental health calls are not actually from the person in crisis, and 90 percent of the time, they are from third parties — neighbours, service providers or just bystanders on the street.

We have the ability to do non-invasive response to those folks that allows us to create collaborative plans instead of coming in and needing compliance to happen right away.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. Just a quick follow-up. I assume you still want to keep your regional crisis line infrastructure — Richmond has one, Vancouver has one and Burnaby has one — instead of merging them together, right?

S. Ashton: Yeah. What we’re doing is we’re all going on to the same tech call centre, which is great, because it allows us to back each others calls, but it still allows us to root locally as much as possible.

The crisis line network — we already work very closely together on standards and training and how to do this work. But we haven’t been able to back each other’s calls. It’s great to have the best of both worlds. We back each other’s calls, but we know what’s going on in our locations and can work directly with, hopefully, our own mobile crisis response teams.

H. Yao: Perfect. Thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. Well, congratulations on the shared tech platform and how that worked out. The peer assisted care teams, PACT, that Johnny from CMHA was talking to us about — is that the same model as your mobile response team or is it different?

S. Ashton: It can be. I think that’s an excellent model. There are other models that are integrated crisis response teams that include mental health professionals, social workers, settlement workers. It’s nice to have a rich team that you can draw on, because crisis comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes, and it’s great to be able to dispatch the best tools for the right job. Yeah, the PACT teams are really unique in B.C. because they do include peer support workers, and that is a really crucial way of building that trust when you’re trying to help somebody in crisis.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): And you’ve got your Island Health funding for your mobile support?

S. Ashton: I am not on the Island, but I think they did.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Oh, they did. Okay. That’s right. Thank you. I knew that.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have about a minute and a half left and two questions. I would just ask that both the questions and the answers be succinct.

M. Dykeman: If this has been answered by you already, I apologize. It’s been a long day. Is there anywhere internationally that you’ve seen the 911 fourth option for mental health work, and how long has that been implemented in other places?

S. Ashton: Throughout the United States they’re running these programs. The Arizona one, I think, has been in place for ten or 15 years now. The model that we’re proposing is the substance abuse, the SAMHSA model, that is used across the States. There’s lots of toolkits and evidence to support it being super effective.

[2:00 p.m.]

B. Bailey: Thank you very much for your presentation and your great work. I’m wondering if, in fact, this model were to go ahead, do you…? You perceive, I would imagine, expansion of the teams that you would need. There’s going to be a massive increase. Is there any perceived difficulty with hiring enough people to do this work?

S. Ashton: That’s a great…. One of my things that I really want to talk to you about is….

We train 450 volunteers on the crisis lines a year, provincially. Many, many of those become your labour force. So not only are we answering these calls right now. We are also providing you the next level of labour force that you’re going to need to have on those crisis teams. Sometimes the solutions are pretty simple. We have both.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, our time is about up.

Thank you very much, Stacy. Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the crisis lines, the service that you provide in what is an increasingly complicated society. I think we were all moved by the story you shared when you made your presentation. We’re all very aware of how the system has failed our mental health crisis. Your proposal is so succinct, so to the point. Let’s hope we can make it happen.

S. Ashton: It doesn’t have to be complicated. We can do it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Rick Barnum with the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco.

Welcome.

NATIONAL COALITION
AGAINST CONTRABAND TOBACCO

R. Barnum: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good Friday afternoon, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here. I’d like to thank you for the invitation to present to you this afternoon.

My name is Rick Barnum. I’m the executive director for the National Coalition Against Contraband Tobacco, also known as the NCACT. I joined this organization after 30 years of working in policing, where I retired as the deputy commissioner for the Ontario Provincial Police responsible for investigations and organized crime command. It’s a pleasure to be in British Columbia today.

I also come bearing some unfortunate news that I wish to make you aware of. At the NCACT, we’ve begun to see an increase in the criminal gang activity tied to contraband tobacco within the province of British Columbia, which is why we’ve increased our engagement recently in British Columbia.

Contraband tobacco is a national issue. It impacts every province inside the country. The RCMP estimates that there are over 175 organized crime groups involved in contraband tobacco. They’re also involved in other illicit activities and other illicit trades. These include the sale and distribution of illegal cannabis, cocaine, fentanyl, illegal firearms and also human trafficking.

Due to the tobacco tax increases, which total 36 percent since 2018, British Columbia has unfortunately become a more fertile ground for illegal cigarette sales. While a carton of legal cigarettes now sells for about $160, a carton of illegal cigarettes sells for as low as $40. This major price difference and the availability of contraband tobacco have allowed criminal gangs to begin selling more and more cigarettes in the province, helping to fund other illegal activities.

To address the rise in criminal gang activity, we recommend that British Columbia follow in the footsteps of other successful jurisdictions such as Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba. While the B.C. Ministry of Finance already houses 14 investigators that oversee and investigate contraband tobacco tax evasion issues, more must be done.

Through conversations with various B.C. government officials, we have determined that the best way for B.C. to more effectively address this growing issue would be to create a contraband tobacco enforcement team within the B.C. RCMP. This would allow the province to have law enforcement directly involved in combatting illegal cigarettes and criminal gangs with the support of the Ministry of Finance.

[2:05 p.m.]

It would follow the successful model found in Quebec, where a team of 60 Sûreté du Québec members make up their contraband tobacco enforcement team. That team has been able to reduce Quebec’s rate of contraband tobacco by over 50 percent. It has returned over $200 million back into their public treasury in one year alone. That is a report released by the Quebec government themselves.

The Quebec government estimates that for every dollar spent on contraband tobacco enforcement, they return approximately $14 in increased tobacco tax revenues.

To also support the fight against contraband tobacco, we are recommending that the government create a public awareness campaign highlighting the organized criminal links to contraband tobacco. For many smokers buying illegal cigarettes, they see it as a victimless crime. Well, this could not be further from the truth.

Lastly, we’re also recommending that the government maintain a prudent taxation approach until contraband tobacco action is implemented. Evidence shows that increased taxation pushes smokers to the illegal market, which, in turn, fuels organized crime.

To conclude, the time is now for the B.C. government to address this growing issue. Without some action, there is a risk that B.C. could join Ontario as the epicentre for contraband tobacco in Canada. We’re already…. One in three cigarettes sold in Ontario are illegal.

Thank you again for your time this afternoon. I’d be happy to take any questions that you may have.

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

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Rick, for your presentation. Nice to see you.

Some of the $40 cartons are actually in the Okanagan. I’ve taken those pictures and been shocked. In talking with some of our small grocers, etc., that actually sell tobacco…. I mean, they might even be right next door to some of those. They’re quite frustrated. This is a really large issue. I appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

What is the prudent taxation approach that you would take? Just a little bit more fleshing out on that one. Also, is there a way that we could neutralize taxation, across the board, with all tobacco products?

R. Barnum: First of all, I didn’t speak, in my remarks, about the impact that illegal contraband is having on small businesses, specifically community grocery stores and convenience stores. I’m actually out here next Tuesday, again, to meet with the British Columbia community stores and convenience stores association, where we’re having a summit just on this issue.

On the taxation approach, our biggest concern that we see…. Continuing to raise taxes actually results in the government having less revenue, by raising taxes, not more revenue. It does that by taking smokers and pushing them into the market where there is no taxation. It’s always something that we’re worried about from our coalition standpoint. It’s not a solution.

A prudent taxation approach, one, would begin with…. Don’t raise taxes on cigarettes again. It hasn’t worked anywhere in the country. I lived that for years in Ontario. Secondly, the equalization of taxation on other tobacco products I think is…. It’s a relatively complicated approach but not something that can’t be done. It’s one that I think would not return investments as much as creating an enforcement team would.

R. Merrifield: Excellent. Thank you.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. I guess I would have a little differing of opinion as far as taxation goes. We heard from a group that basically said that British Columbia had the lowest rate of smokers in the country. I think there’s a correlation that’s there. It’s not about revenue generation, in my mind, all the time. There is a health issue that surrounds this.

For you, when you talk about creating a team…. You’re talking that there are 14 current officers that are in there. Do you see it being a similar size as Quebec is?

R. Barnum: I don’t think you’d need that size in British Columbia. There’s a difference of, I think, probably 3½ million people in the province, in the population. So I don’t think you’d need a team as large as Quebec currently has.

Now, Quebec, in 2009, when they started that team, started with 30 officers, and they’ve continued to reinvest in the program. They also take financial seizures that they make, give it back to government. They put a process around it so that other police services can apply for funding for investigations into contraband tobacco. They access funding that way, from their seizures, maintained and regulated by the government, not by the police.

I don’t think you’d need a team that large. My thoughts would be 25 members, probably, made up from different police services and working under one umbrella.

[2:10 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. I do want to apologize. I have a very minimal understanding around what’s considered illegal tobacco. I didn’t realize people are actually contrabanding tobacco.

Are we talking about people shipping cartons from out of jurisdiction and then sneaking them in, or are they actually just somehow creating their own tobacco product and selling it in B.C. illegally?

R. Barnum: What’s happening that we see regularly is that about 80 percent to 85 percent of the illegal contraband that exists now in British Columbia comes from Ontario, where it’s manufactured on Six Nations reserve, at Grand River Enterprises, who are a legal, government-licensed manufacturer. Unfortunately, they have a midnight shift that’s not. Those cigarettes go across the country. So the illegal contraband that you have existing currently in British Columbia is from that place.

H. Yao: So from that late night, illegal…. Is there any other safety concern, as well, associated with that?

R. Barnum: There are all kinds of safety concerns with it. The groups that bring it out here are organized crime. They pick it up by tractor-trailer full, and it heads to British Columbia across the country that way.

From a policing perspective, we investigate and look at those transportation routes and the groups that are doing it. That’s where our investigations centre. We begin there. But unfortunately, when you get a truck driver, you get a truck driver. You don’t get the head of a crime organization, so we work up from there. But that’s essentially how it’s getting to British Columbia.

B. Bailey: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to confirm that when you stated, “Don’t raise taxes on cigarettes. It’s not working,” that was spoken from the perspective of criminality rather than the perspective of cessation, correct?

R. Barnum: That’s right. I know the federal government has…. By 2035, they want 5 percent of Canadians to be smoking, or less. That’s their goal. I personally believe, from what I’ve seen, they’ll never achieve that goal if they don’t take action on contraband tobacco.

The people who are using contraband tobacco nowadays…. Many are youth, because they don’t walk up to the counter at a convenience store, and they don’t get carded. They don’t have any issues that way, so they access it illegally. It’s a shame that it’s starting to grow in the youth again. That’s what’s we’re trying to avoid.

B. Bailey: That’s an interesting point.

J. Routledge (Chair): We’re out of time, Rick. Thank you very much. So you travelled from Ontario to meet with us?

R. Barnum: We’ve been out here for a couple days this week, we were out about three weeks ago, and we’ll be back out on Thursday. You can’t keep me away now.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for sharing this with us. I grew up in eastern Ontario, so I know some of what you’ve been very delicately talking about. Thank you for putting it in the context of organized crime and how this could be funding bigger crimes. You’ve given us some serious considerations.

R. Barnum: Have a good afternoon.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Margaux Wosk, B.C. People First Society.

Welcome.

B.C. PEOPLE FIRST SOCIETY

M. Wosk: My name is Margaux Wosk. I am the regional director of Lower Mainland West for B.C. People First.

I am autistic and self-employed. My business is called Retrophiliac, and I specialize in autistic, neurodiversity and disability merchandise. Currently I have over 80-plus items, and many of them were made possible by three B.C. Arts Council grants. I am in over 17 brick-and-mortar shops in both the U.S.A. and Canada.

I have been fighting for years to get adequate funding and programs put in place for disabled small business owners and self-employed people like myself. I have asked for mentorship, a caseworker for grants — not loans — and assistance with paperwork, such as income tax, sales tax, importing and exporting, among other concerns. I have asked to be able to subsidize help. I’ve spoken to people high up at WorkBC. I’ve spoken to all the independent employment organizations you can think of, and I have been sent an endless loop of emails that most certainly have not resulted in anyone being able to help me.

Did you know that the businesses that make up the accessible employers Presidents Group have earned over $57 billion together, annually? Yet you believed it was imperative to give them a share of $4.8 million to create accessible employment, when that is legally required of them.

This was on a press release from June 1, 2021, called “Grant Supports Inclusive Employment,” which was incredibly insensitive and missed the mark. You can’t expect disabled self-employed people to take on debt when taking out a loan when you hand large corporations chunks of money that they don’t need.

[2:15 p.m.]

I reached out to multiple organizations, including Small Business B.C., about this funding and was told that due to the terms of their grant, outlined by your government, they were not allowed to allocate any of those funds to create resources for disabled small business owners. I ask you to consider broadening the terms and conditions of these grants so that programs and supports can be put into place, possibly within programs that already exist.

Furthermore, the press release from that date did not include the voices of any disabled people. You cannot tout inclusivity and exclude us. Self-employment is the only accessible employment for me and many others. I have been working hard to get self-employment added to your press release for September’s B.C. Disability Employment Month.

Moving on, I’d like to talk about PWD. A year’s income at the current 2022 rate for a single person is around $16,300. The poverty rate for Canada is approximately $26,000 for the same demographic. People who use B.C. disability assistance services only receive $375 a month for shelter. This does not correlate with the average monthly rent, which is well over $2,000. Believing that $1,358, the maximum monthly provincial disability rate for a single person, is a liveable income is out of touch and unrealistic.

The monthly CERB, based on a minimum standard of living, was $2,000. This is just barely enough money to get by. Disabled people are expected to live on much less. Things like this show how little consideration is given to disabled people to ensure that our needs are being met.

This results in people on PWD disproportionately facing poverty and ongoing debt, homelessness and tenuous shelter, starvation and malnutrition, the inability to pay for much-needed medication or medical support, and the lack of resources for mental health issues, which I have not been able to access because, I was told, I’m autistic — “So we can’t help you” — just to name a few.

The Human Rights Commissioner stated that disabled people are falling through the cracks of our system and that we aren’t having our economic rights sufficiently protected. We all know that these things are happening, but nothing is changing. We all deserve a liveable income, having our needs being met without being a strain on the system or our wallets, and the right to be empowered when it comes to our choices of inclusive employment.

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

B. Bailey: It’s nice to meet you, and I really appreciate you taking time out of your day to come here and raise this really important issue. I’d like to figure out how to help, so I really, really appreciate meeting you.

I think that there’s work to be done here. I know that for myself, when I’ve worked on programs, grants that we’re rolling out, we’ve met a lot with folks from disability communities. I haven’t met folks who are entrepreneurs before.

M. Wosk: I designed all of these pins that I’m wearing.

B. Bailey: Did you? They’re great. Well, I’d really like to get some time with you, maybe offline, and we can talk about this further.

M. Wosk: I would love that. I left my business cards over there, both from the organization and my personal ones.

B. Bailey: Well, we’ll connect. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions? Mike and then Renee and then Karin.

M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation. You had made a comment about getting self-employment added to a November announcement. I’m not….

M. Wosk: September is B.C. Disability Employment Month.

M. Starchuk: Oh, okay. Sorry.

M. Wosk: I have been in touch with Vivian, the PR person, so hopefully I’ll be speaking with her in August.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Very good.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for being here today. I appreciate just the attention drawn to the importance of what you’re talking about. I would love a copy of what you read to us simply so that we can make sure that we get the verbiage and the wording correct, because I think that the omissions are really important to address. I’m very appreciative of the presentation today — great job.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I did want to just clarify one thing you said, and I may not have heard it properly — that you were unable to access mental health supports because of your autism.

M. Wosk: So one time I went to Surrey Hospital, and I was having a mental health crisis. They said: “Well, because you’re autistic, we can’t help you.” Furthermore, when I was waiting to be told that, I was put in a room with fluorescent lighting, which is a big sensory trigger for me. Even that is very concerning, and there needs to be more resources.

I do want to say that I did contribute to York University’s autism mental health literacy project. I highly encourage you all to look at that. That has a lot of wonderful resources, and my art is also on the cover.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): That’s great. Thank you very much.

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

Margaux, on behalf of the committee, I really want to thank you for taking the time to come and make this presentation and to tell us some really hard things that we need to hear. Your frustration is really apparent and really understandable.

While our committee…. As a committee, we exist to make recommendations to the Finance Minister for the next budget, I think what you’ve also heard here is a willingness and an eagerness to help you navigate the system.

M. Wosk: Wonderful. Yeah. I look forward to speaking with you, Brenda. I have a lot to say about this.

B. Bailey: We’ll connect. Okay.

M. Wosk: Thank you so much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Now we’ll take a recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:20 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Erin Seeley of YWCA Metro Vancouver.

Welcome, Erin. You have five minutes to make your presentation and explain your recommendations. We have a timing system here. You’ll find that once we start it, it will count down. When it gets to the end of the five minutes, it will start counting up in red. We’re using that to identify the five minutes that you have to field questions, so it’s a total of ten minutes.

YWCA METRO VANCOUVER

E. Seeley: Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Erin Seeley, and I am the newish CEO of YWCA Metro Vancouver. Thank you all for taking the time to hear from community members and organizations as you work toward Budget 2023. I’m sure you’ve had a long week.

The YWCA, as you may know, is a registered charity with a vision of a just and equitable world for women, families and allies. We have operated throughout the region for 125 years — this is our anniversary year — and currently focus on housing, child care, youth development, employment, single-mother support, violence prevention and advocacy. We also operate two social enterprises, the hotel and health and fitness centre, and have a strong network of donors and a track record of delivering on government funding.

Many of our services support women living on low incomes, Indigenous women, newcomer and refugee women and single mothers and their children. We serve more than 45,000 people annually through 73 programs in 178 locations across Metro Vancouver.

Over the last few years, there has been an increased demand for our services from a wider group of people, and we expect this to continue. As beautiful and prosperous as it is, this region is incredibly challenging to survive in, especially for people on lower incomes, for those with intersecting barriers to employment and for families, particularly those led by single mothers.

Our recommendations today focus on providing a solid foundation for women to not just get by but to pursue education, to attain new skills and secure well-paying jobs and to break cycles of poverty.

Our first recommendation is to build more resilient communities with post-pandemic economic recovery that focuses on better outcomes for women, especially racialized and Indigenous women. The province of B.C. has been a leader in adopting gender-based analysis plus, and now it’s time that cities across B.C. do the same. Achieving this will require resources, including training supports.

YWCA is delivering a three-year project called city shift to engage local municipalities to implement a GBA+ framework to improve outcomes for women and girls. So far what we hear from cities is that they want to make progress on equity, diversity and inclusion, but they lack the resources and the expertise to get beyond the initial commitment. Without meaningful follow-through, the inequality gap will widen, leaving behind cities’ most vulnerable people, who are already faced with increasingly difficult choices.

Our second recommendation is to immediately increase income assistance to the poverty line, as measured by the market-basket measure, and to commit to launching a full-scale review of all income-assistance programs. We see firsthand that YWCA program participants, especially single moms, are faced with impossible choices such as whether to eat or pay rent in order to survive amidst the high cost of living. While we applaud the B.C. government’s commitment to service parity, the current income-assistance model is outdated and in need of modernization.

We recommend drawing on the single-parent employment initiative, which provides a more successful model and framework and shifts from the current punitive system to one that supports meaningful employment. Easing restrictions placed on people accessing income assistance, encouraging training and upskilling and providing individuals with bridge funding will support a move toward a skilled workforce and lead to long-term economic stability.

Our final recommendation is to provide accessible employment opportunities with matching opportunities to acquire skills that attract, retain and support women workers, especially racialized and Indigenous women, in male-dominated and higher paying sectors, by expanding access to paid internships, skills training, and multi-year education pathways, including funds for transportation and child care.

[2:35 p.m.]

To build a more equitable and sustainable future economy, the province must create opportunities to attract and retain women and other underrepresented groups, especially in fast-growing sectors like technology and trades.

With provincial support, the YWCA delivers WorkBC programming and services to close to 4,000 clients a year. However, with current short-term funding cycles, we are not able to meaningfully upskill clients to meet the needs of the evolving labour market. More long-term, continuous funding must be invested to create a lasting and supportive system that keeps people skilled and employable at livable wages. Women and underrepresented groups can fill the labour market gap with the right training support and access to child care.

To conclude, we believe that investing in an inclusive economy is more critical than balancing the budget within the next decade. We need robust social investment to take bold action on poverty, affordable housing, child care and climate change and create a skills-based economy that supports all British Columbians.

Investing in women and families now will pay dividends long into the future.

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

Our first question is going to be asked by Henry.

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Erin, for your presentation. We’ve had, actually, quite a few presentations from shelter and transition house operators in the past as well.

I think one of the challenges we’re facing right now is that a lot of women who are trying to escape domestic or intimate-partner violence often were discouraged either by the lack of shelter or, once they get into a shelter, they couldn’t exit a shelter due to a lack of economic viability and, of course, child care options. Therefore, it unfortunately utilizes a threat from their partner, saying: “If you leave me, you’ll end up in poverty.”

I just would love to maybe have the opportunity of not so much ask a question but encourage, in the future…. This kind of argument almost adds a little spin to it to help us understand that by strengthening a women’s education and economic and child care options, we’re actually combatting domestic violence and allowing women to be more willing to escape violence and escape intimate-partner violence as well. I just wanted to put it out there.

E. Seeley: Absolutely. I think we were limited to three, and I would love to talk to you about housing and child care, because those are significant constraints for women leaving intimate-partner violence.

The upskilling is what gives them the confidence that they can succeed, and it’s about sustainable employment, not precarious low-wage, where you’re going to be bouncing around. You can pay rent. It’s that sustainable confidence that we want to see in empowering women.

That’s a longer-term trajectory. It’s not short term. It’s long-term upskilling.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Erin. I’m just thinking about…. We’ve had quite a few presentations. We talk about people that are maybe excluded from the workforce, like women. The presentation, I think, deals with more of the lower economic sector or people that are trapped in that. I guess if we’re to start somewhere, looking at — rather than just government — the employers out there, where is the…?

I don’t know if there’s one, but if you were to give me maybe one or two, what would you suggest that employers should be providing on site or providing for some of these things to break this cycle and then bring those people…? You said upskilling. What do we have to do as employers in the province to create those opportunities?

We’ve heard from all sorts that said that they can’t find the workers. I think they’re going to have to be prepared to train, so I think that there’s an opportunity. But where should we be focused in on — child care, housing? What are the…? I don’t want to go to where you and Henry were, but….

E. Seeley: I think there are a few elements in employer recruitment that welcome equity, diversity and inclusion, particularly removing some of the bias in hiring. You hear a lot from immigrants that they’ll even change their name just to get their résumé through to an interview stage. So getting that interview. The language skills — do you need perfect English to do a job well? Can you hire a newcomer whose English is still developing and they can learn on the job?

I think those employers who are willing to take chances on newcomers are surprised, and I’d love to see more of those stories celebrated. There are lots of them in British Columbia. But more employers outside of Metro Vancouver need to get involved in hiring newcomers.

[2:40 p.m.]

I think the other elements are around child care and flexibility. That’s where it’s not just shifting a pendulum; it’s really a new paradigm. You need support so that folks can commute to work, so that they don’t have to commute…. We have one client who’s commuting to West Vancouver to take her child to daycare to be able to go to UBC to get the training she needs, and she lives in Richmond. That’s because there are no daycare spots.

I think right away you’ve got just impossible choices every day that folks are making. This person’s in UBC. They’re going to have a bright future. But the barriers, practically — to transportation, to child care, to the cost of food and living — make it difficult.

I would advocate for the wraparound service model. That’s really been a successful model of YWCA and many social service organizations in looking at place-based housing with child care, with supports, on a transportation corridor. That’s really where you can offer the security and the comfort and enable women to feel confident and move up and provide for their families and children.

B. Stewart: Thank you.

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

Erin, I’d like to thank you so much for your presentation and for the work that you do.

I can’t help but conclude by offering the observation that you talked about…. You questioned balanced budgets. I think you’re only the second presenter who’s actually done that. It does raise the question of a choice that we have to make in order to create the kind of society that we can be proud of and how we include people who actually don’t have the option of balancing their budgets. So thank you for putting that on our radar.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Congratulations on the job.

E. Seeley: Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Sandra Smiley, UBC medicine political advocacy committee.

Welcome. We have a timer. You have five minutes to make your presentation, explain your recommendations. It will count down, and then it will start counting up in red. When it counts…. The first part is your presentation. The red part is keeping track of questions and answers. So five minutes for that too.

S. Smiley: Okay. I will keep to those categories.

J. Routledge (Chair): I feel that as the day goes by, my explanation of that just gets less and less clear.

UBC MEDICAL UNDERGRADUATE SOCIETY
POLITICAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE

S. Smiley: That was perfect. I’m glad to see that there to keep us all organized.

Hello, everyone. My name is Sandra Smiley.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to present to you today here on the traditional, unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh people.

I am speaking to you today on behalf of the University of British Columbia’s political advocacy committee. We are a medical student–led group within UBC’s Medical Undergraduate Society, which represents B.C.’s approximately 1,100 current medical students. Our mission is to bring health and social advocacy initiatives to the forefront of both the public’s attention and also that of local, provincial and federal governments.

As medical students, we are very concerned about the state of housing precarity and homelessness in this province. Your government has estimated that 23,000 people become or are homeless in a year, and in many jurisdictions, this number is on the rise. People from equity-deserving groups, as you likely know, such as Indigenous people and members of the LGBTQ2SIA communities are disproportionately impacted.

People experiencing homelessness are at an increased risk of developing acute and chronic health conditions like mental health and substance use challenges, infectious and non-communicable diseases, illnesses that are related to nutrition and traumatic brain injury, among others. Environmental exposures and stressors both create and exacerbate these problems. Homelessness presents barriers, as well, to accessing health care, leading to delays in seeking care and poorer health outcomes.

In the context of the ongoing toxic drugs crisis here in British Columbia, substance use, criminalization and homelessness coalesce to create devastating health outcomes. I think that’s illustrated by the fact that the median life expectancy for people living in British Columbia is between 40 and 49 years, which is roughly half the average for the average person who is housed, at 83 years.

[2:45 p.m.]

As medical students, we are learning to help people to achieve their best state of health. We are learning to heal people. We wonder about our ability to do that when our patients are leaving our clinics, and they’re going back into the same circumstances that made them sick in the first place. The answer is that we can’t. We can’t do that, at least not alone, which is why we are here making the following two recommendations for your consideration.

First, the mismatch between social assistance amounts and rental costs for basic living units must be addressed.

The current shelter allowance for a single individual on disability or income assistance is $375 a month. In contrast, the average rent in British Columbia exceeds $2,000 a month. In Vancouver, the average studio apartment is renting for $1,900 a month. You can understand how the current shelter allowance rate is not enough to cover the basic needs of people as well as their housing needs. Some are forced to choose between paying their housing costs and appropriately managing their health conditions, which is a choice that no one should have to make.

Second, the government should invest in affordable non-market housing, as has been recommended by many other housing advocates and groups, and provide funding to build at least 10,000 units a year, at a minimum, of social housing.

Decent affordable housing has become scarce in British Columbia, mostly in our major population centres but not limited to, due to a continued decline in low-income stock and rising market rents as well as social assistance rates that do not line up with the cost of living. Existing privately owned housing facilities are often substandard, and some government-funded and even subsidized supportive housing facilities are poorly maintained. In addition, in this environment of scarcity, a dearth of protective legislative measures has led tenants to live in a cycle of evictions and living on the street and living under the constant threat of those evictions.

We acknowledge that your government has done a lot and is working very hard on this problem, but it’s clear that much more needs to be done, and quickly. Thousands of people, as we speak, in British Columbia are currently on wait-lists for non-market housing and are forced to live with the stress of not knowing when and, indeed, even if a place will eventually open up for them.

Decades of scientific literature attest to the social, economic and public health benefits that come with making housing a priority. Housing-first policies and programs have been shown to alleviate homelessness and also to improve health outcomes and reduce health service utilization.

Providing stable, dignified and affordable housing is not just the right thing to do, from a moral and public health standpoint. It’s also a, potentially, economically rational measure. There’s a significant cost savings to be made. Analysis that we’ve done suggests that that might be something like $200 million per year.

Housing is a human right, enshrined in the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Reaping the health and social benefits of universal access to housing in British Columbia is, at this point, an aspiration only, but the province has an opportunity to make it a reality. Noting the significant health impacts of precarious housing and homelessness on people in British Columbia, our future patients, we ask the government of British Columbia to urgently address the mismatch between social assistance amounts and the cost of living and invest in accessible, affordable and dignified housing, which is so urgently needed by people in B.C.

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

H. Yao: Thank you so much. It sounds like…. This is a previous medical students campaign, right?

S. Smiley: Yes, it is.

H. Yao: I remember exactly, word by word, your presentation. I would like to ask the exact same question I asked before. Obviously, you’re….

Let’s just be clear. We’re talking about increasing affordable housing, increasing non-market rental housing as well. When you’re talking about today’s homelessness issue, it’s going to be hard to deal with something we need to build a year or two years from now. Do you have any kind of immediate recommendation that we could utilize to help individuals struggling with homelessness and house individuals in our community?

S. Smiley: Sure. I think you make a really great point that Rome wasn’t built in a day. Mobilizing resources to see through commitments that have been made on the construction or rehabilitation of housing units is a long-game issue. It’s not something that you can do very quickly.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think there are other things that can be done immediately that would help people who are currently in situations of precarious housing. Like I said, I think that mismatch between the shelter allowance and the cost of living would be one such measure. So $375 a month for a single individual does not come even close to the cost of rent in most parts of British Columbia. I think that’s something that could be urgently addressed.

One thing that you’ll probably remember, also, from the presentation that you had with some of the medical students was looking at legislation that is discriminatory and that creates situations where people are cycling in and out of housing evictions and then back on the street again. I think that’s, from a health standpoint, extremely challenging for people — for their mental health, for their physical health — to be trapped in that cycle.

It’s enabled, like I said, by the lack of legislative measures that are currently in place to protect people against those evictions. So that’s something that, immediately, you could look at as well, noting that the scarcity of units is the major problem, and it’s something that takes a while to address.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation. I firmly believe in a holistic program. This is tackling one aspect of that health measure, which would be the housing. What else could you suggest? Yes, housing first, but not housing only. So what else would you suggest within the medical context that would be beneficial?

S. Smiley: That’s an excellent question. I think one of the big nuances to the recommendations that we are making this year is that…. As you say, housing is really important, but not housing only. Some people have much more considerable needs that could be addressed through a supportive housing model, right? Some people would hugely benefit from occupational therapy if they are dealing with mental health issues or substance use troubles. Something like that being wrapped into a housing situation or a housing model could potentially be really beneficial for them.

But supportive housing is not what everyone needs, so I think one of the things that we really need to keep in mind is that people have needs all along the spectrum of supports. Some people wish to live autonomously. Other people would really benefit from other supports like occupational therapy, mental health, etc., being wrapped into their housing.

Our big recommendation is really that we obviously need more housing, but we need more housing that’s reflective of dignity and people’s choice and ability to choose how they want to live and where, and so on.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): A comment. I just wanted to thank you for going into medicine. I really appreciate it.

S. Smiley: Thank you for saying that.

J. Routledge (Chair): On that note, that’s a very, very good point. This is very impressive that medical students are taking this on in such an assertive way and linking your objectives with health.

I guess, just finally, I want to say that yesterday we heard from someone with regard to the housing crisis who recommended that we only focus on supply and not mess around with regulations and not mess around with other things. This is very refreshing that you’re also pointing out that (1) supply takes time, and (2) there are other interventions that would make that supply of housing accessible to people that have other barriers. So thank you for that.

S. Smiley: Certainly. Just FYI — I can circulate this — we did put out a report, quite an extensively researched report, earlier this year that the citations for all the information I presented here today are within. So if you’re interested to read it, I will make sure it gets to you.

R. Merrifield: Could we not have that submitted as part of a written submission?

J. Routledge (Chair): Yes, that’s what she’ll do.

R. Merrifield: We’ll make sure we read it.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Shari Monsma, who is representing Fairness for Children Raised by Relatives.

Welcome, Shari.

FAIRNESS FOR CHILDREN
RAISED BY RELATIVES

S. Monsma: Good afternoon. My name is Shari Monsma. I am one of the 13,000 kinship caregivers in B.C.

[2:55 p.m.]

As well, I am proud to be president of Fairness for Children Raised by Relatives. We are a non-profit society that formed in August 2021, and all our members, including board of directors, are kinship care givers. We have formed a society to ensure our kinship care children receive the same benefits, rights and opportunities as all other children in care in the province of B.C.

This afternoon I have three topics I’m going to address. The first one is Child in Home of Relative. CIHR is a provincial kinship support program that both time and the MCFD have forgotten. The CIHR program was discontinued in 2010, and those previous recipients were grandparented. On March 31, 2019, there were still 740 children receiving benefits, and as of November 2021, there were 353 children.

Our children have not received a single rate increase in 12 years, since the program ended in 2010, and the amounts they receive are drastically less than any other MCFD family support program. The rates range, depending on a child’s age, starting from $257.46 a month to $454.32 a month, while in comparison, the ministry’s extended family program, out-of-care and foster base rates are $1,005.32 to $1,107.96 per month. The fact that our children did not receive any increase of any kind in April 2019, while other ministry kinship care programs such as EFP had their benefits nearly doubled, is simply unfair and discriminatory.

Even though MCFD is responsible for Child in Home of Relative, our children’s benefits are being administered through the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. This means that every month our kinship care givers must fill out the same forms as those on social assistance to ensure that our benefits are mailed to us. We should not be treated any differently, compared to other programs that are administered directly through MCFD.

As a single grandparent, I have always worked hard and paid my own way, and I’m very proud of this. It is not fair that all of us CIHR kinship care givers must confirm monthly that we are still in need of assistance for our children.

We recommend that the 353 children in this program be transferred to the EFP, allowing them to receive equal benefits as those on that program. We would further recommend that you waive all regular criteria to expedite their registration into this program. Our CIHR families deserve to be directly under the administration of MCFD. Our final recommendation for this program would be to compensate those children who have aged out over the past three years.

The next thing I want to speak to you about is MCFD’s 54.01 and 54.1 family support programs. The 54 program children, especially children with disabilities, continue to be treated unfairly, compared to children in all other ministry family support services. The 54 program children are typically being raised by extended family members, often grandparents, to whom the courts have granted permanent guardianship. The ministry usually provides some financial support to assist the 54 families with raising their relatives.

Due to the ministry’s actions, the 54 families are ineligible to receive any children’s federal benefits — benefits that all other children in B.C., and most children in MCFD programs, receive. B.C. claims and receives the program from the federal government, and directs most of them into the ministry’s general revenues, rather than to the 54 families. This ministry practice hurts the lowest-income families the most, as these benefits are income-based, resulting in these families receiving as much as $802 a month less than, for example, children in EFP.

EFP children receive all of the federal benefits in addition to the same allowance from the ministry as the 54 families. It is even more unjust for the 54 families with eligible children with disabilities. They cannot claim their child’s disability tax credit, worth up to $3,000 a year, because of B.C.’s federal claims. That adds up to $1,020 a month less than similar EFP families receive.

The loss of these benefits to the 54 families causes hardship. Many of these children are Indigenous and may also have disabilities. Most have been impacted by trauma, either directly or historically, and often require additional supports and services.

Our recommendations, to ensure equality for all children in MCFD programs, are for B.C. to either stop claiming these benefits from the federal government or to increase the 54 family allowances to match the federal benefits they would receive without the ministry claims.

The B.C. Ombudsperson recently released a report highlighting the negative impacts of the ministry’s policies and supports our claims of unequal treatment of the 54 program children, echoing many of our recommendations to end MCFD’s unfair 54 policy.

The 54 program children need and deserve to receive all their federal benefits. It’s not just unfair for the ministry to continue with those benefits to be withheld from them; it’s discrimination.

[3:00 p.m.]

Youth aging out of care. A child or youth can enter into kinship age at any age, but in B.C. the majority of youth in MCFD programs age out at 19, except for those under the foster care system. When youth age out, the government services and supports they rely on are simultaneously cut off. Statistics Canada census data shows that 42 percent of young people between the ages of 20 and 29 still live with their parents.

Most kinship-care households are headed by aging and often single grandparents, on limited income when the youth in their care turns 19 and no longer receives any support, financial or otherwise. These youths — the majority of whom live with physical, emotional and/or behavioural challenges — are highly vulnerable and often leave home without adequate services. Our recommendation is that MCFD provide the same extension of benefits to kinship care as they do to youths in foster care. This requires extending their monthly support benefits from 19 years old to 27 years old, regardless of which program they are enrolled in.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate your detailed information. I’ve said it at the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth — the current as well as the past: one thing we always come to in agreement is that we want to see families staying together. I’m a bit dumbfounded by this current situation right now.

I do want to double-check. At this point, according to the information you have provided, are you saying that if a child stays in the foster care system, even after 19 — obviously they are still supported by MCFD — and if they are part of the kinship system, it gets cut off?

S. Monsma: On their 19th birthdays, they no longer receive anything.

H. Yao: So it becomes just completely the extended family’s responsibility if they need to find somewhere to live?

S. Monsma: That’s right.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that. We’ve been very aware of the kinship funding issue for quite awhile. You’re not the only person that we’ve heard from in the last few days that has addressed this issue and raised it for us — just so you’re aware of that.

The 54 families. I just wanted to clarify. The Representative for Children and Youth made a recommendation on how these funds are supposed to be going to families. Is that what we’re talking about?

S. Monsma: The Ombudsman report happened because of one of our grandparents that went to them. There was a report put out. I think it was report No. 50. It’s entitled Short-Changed: Ensuring Federal Benefits Paid to the Province Reach Caregivers of Children with Disabilities, I think. That’s the name of it.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): That was fairly recently. That is what I was thinking of. I appreciate that very much. Thank you for everything you do.

R. Merrifield: Thank you for this presentation. I am not as alive to the issues as my colleague is. I so appreciate this thorough analysis and look forward to supporting many of these matters.

J. Routledge (Chair): With that, Shari, I would like to thank you on behalf of the committee for what you do to support your family and in coming and presenting to this committee, making it very clear to us what some of the gaps are that we need to address. We really appreciate it.

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

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): We’re now moving on to the next presentation. That’s Dr. Joe McLaughlin and Cecelia Klassen, who are here on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing education for Council of Service Providers.

Welcome.

J. McLaughlin: I’m going to use sign language, so I don’t need the microphone.

J. Routledge (Chair): The presenters have eight minutes to make a presentation and then eight minutes for questions from the committee. We have a timer to help you keep track.

Welcome.

B.C. COUNCIL OF SERVICE PROVIDERS,
FAMILY NETWORK FOR DEAF CHILDREN

J. McLaughlin: Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. I’m here with Cecelia Klassen today. Thank you so much, Janet, for accommodating the committee schedule to be able to provide the sign language interpreter for today. I also want to thank Jessica Siegers for providing interpretation services.

My name is Dr. Joe McLaughlin, and I am deaf. My pronouns are he/him.

I would like to acknowledge the Indigenous lands that I live on. I’m going to do that in Indigenous sign language. The interpreter is not familiar with that, so it will be Indigenous sign language that you can watch, much like you would listen to an Indigenous person speaking in their language.

[Indigenous sign language was spoken.]

Thank you. I am a semi-retired educator and researcher. For 30 years I have worked in the educational field, in leadership, with various roles and responsibilities.

Our recommendations come from the B.C. Council of Service Providers. The first meeting happened in 2002, when the CSP was first founded. I have been the facilitator there for ten years. The proposal that we are bringing forward is by the educational committee of the B.C. Council of Service Providers, which represents virtually all deaf, deafblind and hard-of-hearing service providers in British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

The purpose of the proposal is to identify major barriers to language access for deaf and hard-of-hearing students and present recommendations and strategies to confront or remove those barriers. This really speaks to why change is needed. I have seen the broken lives of so many deaf and hard-of-hearing adults who have lived a life of language deprivation.

I have three recommendations that I am just going to briefly speak to, and I’ll share my lived experiences. The current decentralized model of deaf and hard-of-hearing education needs to be changed to a non-geographical, centralized provincial model that represents all districts and communities in British Columbia, very similar to the francophone school district. Language acquisition and development for deaf and hard-of-hearing students is a major issue across all school districts.

As you have probably read in the proposal, segregation and integration are sort of the opposite for the deaf community. I have experienced both inclusion and exclusion in my experience as an educator in K to 12 and, also, my own school experience. What most people call segregation….When a child goes to a separate classroom, with peers of their similar skills and/or abilities, it looks like segregation, for many. For deaf students, that’s integration.

Yet for many people, integration means bringing a child with disabilities or other abilities into the classroom with typical students. This is not the case for deaf students. Deaf students need access to visual language and visual cues around them throughout the day, as opposed to the neighbourhood school which may not provide visual language access, may not provide an interpreter, may not have any visual language access at all for deaf students. That brings in language deprivation at the educational level as well as the community level.

The second recommendation is that there be annual language assessments implemented for all deaf and hard-of-hearing students, from K to 12. So 90 percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing children are born to parents who have never used sign language — parents who have typical hearing. There are major communication barriers as soon as that child is born.

By about five years old, a typical child who shares a language with their parent who can hear has about 6,000 words, based on their auditory environment and incidental learning. How many words does a deaf child receive when they do not share a language with their parent? How can a student learn if they don’t have access to the language to enable them to access the curriculum?

There is currently no uniform approach to tracking the assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing students or their language acquisition throughout their school years — from school entry to graduation or school leaving. How many deaf and hard-of-hearing students even complete with their certificate of graduation or a Dogwood?

Our third recommendation is to develop both short- and long-term plans for addressing, assessing and meeting the shortage of qualified professionals in British Columbia to support the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This is where we see deaf children and students deprived of basic language access that, typically, developing students do not experience. The educational curriculum is based on what typical students have, as far as their language acquisition.

In worst-case scenarios, basic human rights are being denied to our deaf and hard-of-hearing children. This happens regularly in classrooms across the province, where interpreters and other qualified professionals are not available. There is no long-term plan in place, currently, to deal with the identified shortage of qualified professionals, yet it has been brought to the government’s attention many times.

Teachers of the deaf and interpreter shortages are not new in the history of North America, let alone in British Columbia. However, due to recent law changes here and changes in legislation in British Columbia, there is a greater demand for sign language interpreters than ever before to provide more accessibility in a variety of different places. Our supply currently cannot meet the demand that is exploding.

With the growth of video relay service, there is now a shortage of sign language interpreters for the rest of the needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. In fact, a deaf student was accepted into Langara College this fall and had to postpone their entrance for two years because of the lack of interpreter availability.

Today there are also many other professionals and consumers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing who face the shortage of interpreters in their fields — in medicine, psychology, law, education and religion as well as other disciplines I haven’t mentioned.

[3:15 p.m.]

In conclusion, the deaf and hard-of-hearing children’s lack of full and reciprocal language access and social isolation have serious implications not only on their language development but also on their cognitive and psychosocial development and also on their mental health.

Bill 6 was recently passed — the Accessible British Columbia Act — in 2021. That recognizes sign language as the primary language of communication for deaf persons in British Columbia.

My view on social justice is that a full and equitable participation of all groups in society needs society to be shaped to meet their needs. So I hope this presentation will help you to think about restructuring deaf education for language access.

Thank you so much for your time. I’m going to turn things over to Cecelia.

Thank you so much, Cecelia.

C. Klassen: Hi, there. Mine is shorter, so don’t panic.

I’m Cecelia Klassen, and I’m the mom of an adult deaf daughter. I’m also the executive director of Family Network for Deaf Children. We manage a contract from the Ministry of Children and Family Development with a focus on language development camps for kids in the summer.

Each year our summer camps have kids attend from all over B.C., and it’s always a shock to see kids arrive with no language, or lack of language, which leads to their social behaviours, world knowledge and cognitive ability. By the time parents find out, it’s too late.

The deaf education system has never changed. Language deprivation is the biggest barrier, leading to: how can a child learn if they don’t have the language? The same issues have been here for 50 years. Parent groups — we’ve got minutes from meetings from 50 years ago for the exact same issues. FNDC has written 30 years’ worth of letters to the Ministry of Education, begging for changes.

Hearing children have access to language at school, and we ask that you consider a complete overhaul of the deaf education system to ensure that deaf children have access to language. I just want to leave you with one quote here: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” That’s the whole crux of why deaf children don’t go ahead after school.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you very much. There are a number of hands — people who want to ask some questions.

Megan, why don’t you go first.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for the presentation. I just have a very quick question.

I’m glad to see that you have recommendation 3 in there about the challenges related to recruiting qualified people. In the context of the first recommendation, related to the hub, is it possible that the hub will be able to, in the interim, address the needs of people throughout the province? It sounds like there is a real lack, as you get farther, in a remote area. So will that provide enough support as people are getting trained? I’m just wondering if there are any other things that you would also recommend that would need to be done just to ensure there was equality throughout the province.

J. McLaughlin: Thank you, fantastic question. The hub recommendation would be in several regions. There used to be regional supports in place. So thinking about a hub, maybe, in Prince George for the North and then in Kamloops and then over on the Island.

Previous to the centralized school for the deaf, there were other provincial programs — one in Victoria, one in Langley. Those have all closed over time, and things have changed to the model of integrating students into their neighbourhood schools. That has not been successful. We have seen so many students fail out of the system or fall through the gaps.

What we would really like to see is that these hub systems would be bringing those children in from their local areas to a localized hub, but there would be multiple hubs that would be under one school district, as it were.

Cecelia, I’m sure you wanted to add something to that.

C. Klassen: Yes. I think that those hubs would also tend to get the resources all in specific areas that would help.

[3:20 p.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. What I would like to ask you is, and I’m going to piggyback off Megan’s comment about a hub: can we consider moving towards actually having sign language as a universal education curriculum for elementary schools? As you mentioned earlier — I loved your quote: where my language ends, my world ends.

I think that by expanding the sign language, we also open up many children’s worlds as well. Of course, one of the benefits about sign language is that it stimulates hand movement, spatial skills and language skills in a completely different category, a different culture as well. I would love to hear your feedback about that suggestion.

J. McLaughlin: First of all, I think we need to honour parents’ choices, whether they are preferring to use a spoken language or a signed language with their child. That’s one of the things — that we need to start educating parents and respecting their choices.

However, as we see children growing up…. They’ve never met each other. They don’t know there’s such a thing as a deaf adult. They don’t know…. They think their hearing is going to get better as they grow. Then we see so many youth and young adults saying: “I wish I had known there were other people like me in elementary school or when I was growing up.”

I think what we need to address is how parents view sign language before we start thinking about creating it as a curriculum. But absolutely.

Cecelia?

C. Klassen: I think Henry was referring to curriculum for hearing children in our school system, not just for deaf and hard of hearing kids.

I believe there is a very old curriculum, which is maybe 20-some years old, that probably needs to be revised and, perhaps, brought forward as an initiative to bring it into schools.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for being here today. My nephew is hard of hearing and has benefited greatly from technology. We also taught all of the cousins how to sign when they were young so that they could actually talk and converse with him.

One of my questions is: are there technological advances that we should be looking at that can…? Yes, obviously, network groups together. But are there other technological advances that we could look at to help those that are deaf and hard of hearing assimilate in a better way?

J. McLaughlin: Technological developments are a tool. You actually need a child’s cognitive development to happen, and that only comes with reciprocal language, not through a tool. Technology is an addition, but it is not a solution.

Many hard-of-hearing students are in a really grey area, where they need both. They need both language access and tools. Visual access works for everyone. I’ve had so many conversations with hard-of-hearing adults, who have learned sign language later in life, saying: “I wish I had both avenues open to me. I wish I had language and the tools of technology. Sure, I had a hearing aid. It wasn’t helpful.”

That social and emotional growth and cognitive development are lost when you’re just relying on a tool.

C. Klassen: We have to be careful with technology. We know…. Because there is a lack of sign language interpreters in B.C. and teachers of the deaf, often classroom teachers who know nothing about deaf education will give kids iPads and use that for just voice…. The teacher will talk, and it’s typed. But that’s not language.

We have to be careful. That’s why we’re proposing this model, which actually has a governing ability with all the deaf and hard-of-hearing resources — so that we can stop that and make sure that kids have social opportunities and language development, not just rely on technology all the time.

R. Merrifield: Excellent point. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): We have three more questions, and we are quickly running out of time. So if everyone would just keep that in mind.

Brenda, Karin and Mike.

B. Bailey: Thank you for being here. I have learned, through a friend who is part of the deaf community, that culture is very important in the deaf community. I didn’t know that before — that there is a specific culture that is embraced and beloved. I wonder if, perhaps, one of the benefits in going to a hub model is that cultural component. Am I interpreting this correctly?

J. McLaughlin: Correct, yes. Deaf culture is often developed through exposure and socialization with other deaf individuals and deaf role models who are adults and have that language and culture embedded in them.

J. Routledge (Chair): Karin.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): I’ll pass. It’s okay.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Doctor. If you do this as a semi-retired person, I’d hate to see what you did in your full-time employment.

[3:25 p.m.]

You talk about annual language assessments in K to 12. What about post-secondary? Is there not the need for that to take place at that time as well?

J. McLaughlin: I don’t know. Cecelia might want to answer that one.

C. Klassen: I was going to go back first and say…. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is the zero to five for deaf and hard-of-hearing kids. Then they go into the K-to-12 education system.

Currently, in zero to five, there is no mandated language assessment done on any of the children. Then in K to 12, there is no language assessment done. Often you will find a parent — this is very often — with a child in grade 10. The parent kind of figures out, through the teacher, that they don’t have the language to learn. They find out when their child is in grade 10, instead of finding out when their child is three years old or five years old or six years old. Those should be brought to their attention.

We know that parents have the right to choose sign language or speaking and listening, which is great. Myself, as a parent, I wanted to hold on to that dream of my child speaking and listening, but I had to be realistic about where she was at. Under the guise of being kind to parents, we are also not showing them assessments, where their children’s language really is at. That’s the crux of it.

With post-secondary…. I think that by the time you get to become an adult, you would be graduated from high school and would have language, and you probably wouldn’t need the assessment.

J. McLaughlin: I’ll just add on to that.

Fortunately or unfortunately…. I was the principal for the School for the Deaf in Burnaby for many years. Our students, at grade 12…. Parents could not communicate with their children. Children were coming to school and learning language at the School for the Deaf. Then parents at home had no way of communicating with their children because they didn’t make a choice to learn a language that their child could access.

Like I said, 90 percent of parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing children are hearing and don’t share that language. Being able to encourage parents to learn the language, to speak to their children in sign language, is also a key factor in all of this, but it’s not part of our proposal.

C. Klassen: If I could just add one little story on to Joe’s.

We had an Indigenous child who came to the School for the Deaf. She was in grade 10. She had no language at all. She was placed in residential care at the school. There was a deaf gentleman who had to take her around and teach her how…. “When you push the doorbell, a light will flash, and that means someone knows you’re at the door.” Then she would do this. She was in grade 10. She could have had language and been a very functioning adult, but because of language deprivation, she became disabled. Her life, at this point, is not great.

We need to, especially for the Indigenous community…. That’s a whole other topic. For Indigenous kids who are deaf or hard of hearing….

J. Routledge (Chair): I hate to wrap this up. I want to thank you so much for coming and sharing your perspective with us. I think we’ve all learned a lot. I think we’ve all been really moved by this.

The thought that I’m left with…. Early on in your presentation…. I made a note of this. In this context, segregation is integration. I’m thinking about that in the context of…. There’s been this generational move towards integrating children with disabilities into the public school system. You’ve made it very clear how that does not work in this instance.

Also, in the context of…. What we’re hearing so much from the school system is how underfunded they are and what a disadvantage that is. How terrible to put a child with a communication issue into a system that’s broken. Thank you for underlining this for us.

Our next presenter is Forrest Smith.

FORREST SMITH

F. Smith: Hello. Nice to see you all. I follow everybody on your socials.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate the incentives that are coming out through the government to be able to connect with our MLAs.

I apologize for my attire. I came directly from work and didn’t have the opportunity to change. I knew that I was going to be limited in my time.

[3:30 p.m.]

I don’t know if you remember me, Jennifer, from a couple of years ago. I came in, and there was no interpreter available for my meeting at that time, so we gestured. Jennifer held a board. It was like a little kid’s easel or something, and we were writing back and forth. I really appreciated the work that Jennifer went through for that. It was great. Everybody caught on, and we all started communicating eventually.

At that point in time, we were talking about medical interpreting services, so that’s what I have on tap for today. Can I just jump right in?

J. Routledge (Chair): Yeah.

F. Smith: This was the report on the budget from 2019, from the consultation of the government. There were many recommendations. The 47th recommendation in that….

I don’t have my glasses on. I’m going to try and read this. The interpreter is going to try and interpret it.

If you’ve had the opportunity to read through those recommendations from 2019…. You’ll have had them as well. Recommendation 47 was around medical interpreting services or MIS — that they expand the pool of medical interpreting services to include non-MSP funded services such as physiotherapy, chiropractor, eye assessments, hospice care and also training in technology for the people who need it.

Four years ago there was a concern about a shortage of interpreters. There were no community ASL courses being run. In the four years since then, many deaf adults….

I have been involved in the political arena for a long time. I even ran for Surrey council, at one point, and the Surrey school board as well. That’s my…. So congratulations to you, Mike.

Again, just wanting to see access really improve. These recommendations come forward to the government, and we don’t see them coming out.

The provincial language service has met with myself, has met with Dr. McLaughlin, has also met with Lisa Anderson, who is also deaf. We have brought forward proposals. We had really great meetings, and then nothing happened.

I do understand that PHSA is probably maxed out, so I want to ask you, as the budgetary committee…. I pick on Henry. If, Henry, you wanted to fly to Portugal for a vacation and you had a toothache, you would go in. You’d go to the dentist. Maybe you wouldn’t be able to speak whatever language they speak there. And you needed surgery. Whatever is wrong with your tooth, you needed surgery.

Think about how you would feel in that situation. You’d maybe be writing back and forth, or you’d be using some kind of translation app to finally get that information through so that you get your surgery done and know what was going to happen. That’s how deaf people feel when they go to their physiotherapist or their dentist or their eye doctor. That is where we are.

We want to see the government be proactive. Sure, the recommendation is there, as No. 47, but we’re not seeing any funding or any teeth put to those recommendations. We are seeing that there are more and more deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals moving to the province. We see that the accessibility act has been passed.

There are probably…. The number is 5,000, but I’m sure that the actual number of deaf and hard-of-hearing folks in B.C., who are not counted or not put in the census somehow, that are missing…. Oftentimes hard-of-hearing individuals aren’t counted, yet they are also using ASL.

Thinking about what Dr. Mclaughlin and Ms. Klassen have said…. There are deaf people everywhere in remote communities, and they need access to all medical services, not just the ones covered by MSP. That means increasing the pool of sign language interpreters.

I am open for questions.

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

M. Starchuk: You should consider running for mayor in 2022.

What does the programming entail to become an interpreter?

F. Smith: To become a medically qualified interpreter, first of all, you need to be an interpreter. You also need to understand the medical terminology. Most interpreters who take the medical interpreting screen are successful. However, we are still seeing a dearth of interpreters in the province. So not many are taking the medical test.

[3:35 p.m.]

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

F. Smith: Sorry, just one second. Just clarifying the question from Mike.

To become an interpreter — I think, Mike, that was the basis of your question — first of all, somebody who doesn’t know any sign language at all needs to take basic sign language courses. That’s typically a full year, maybe two, taking part-time courses, because they’re not very available.

Then going into Vancouver Community College…. Actually, Cecelia’s daughter right now is the head teacher in one of those programs. You take a ten-month immersive program of learning American Sign Language, culture, other studies. Then you transition into Douglas College — it’s already a fractured system — and take two years of an interpreting program. I’m not quite sure all of what it entails, but I know it’s two years.

Then you graduate with a diploma but not a degree, because you’ve been to too many different institutions over four or five, maybe six, years. Then you become a member of the Westcoast Association of Visual Language Interpreters, or WAVLI. We do that because people could come off the street and say they know sign language, but they’re not professionally qualified. So you have to actually go through all of those five years of education to become professionally qualified.

Then you take a couple of years of practice in the community before you can even take the medical interpreting screen. That’s five to seven, maybe eight, years before you get to become a qualified medical interpreter.

M. Starchuk: Wow. Thank you.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation, and thank you for picking on me. The funniest part about this is, being a person who came from a different country and speaks a different language, I actually knew what it felt like. Due to the language barrier, we’re often isolating ourselves and not able to access services. It creates a lot of social isolation. So thank you for helping me experience partially what kind of challenges you have experienced.

I’m going to go back to the same question I asked earlier. It sounds like…. I would encourage consideration of a curriculum for elementary school to incorporate sign language so that it can become more of an opportunity for even hearing children to be participating. It creates strength in the development of the additional language skill set, spatial skill. It could have us appreciate a different level of culture. I would love to hear your feedback about that suggestion.

F. Smith: That is a great idea. But right here in Vancouver, there are a few ASL instructors, but they can’t teach in the school, because they are not qualified teachers. So they can’t teach in the schools.

In Washington state, for example…. I am back and forth across the line quite a bit. I have a Nexus card and go to Trader Joe’s for my favourite whatevers and go to the baseball games down there. There are so many people in the area who know sign language. I ask them why they know sign language, and so many of them say they learned it in high school.

Here in British Columbia, I think there is only one high school that offers sign language, and it’s not even in the Lower Mainland. So yes, it would be great. No, it doesn’t happen. I hope that answers your question.

H. Yao: That’s perfect. Thank you.

R. Merrifield: I don’t think Forrest is following me on Twitter. I’m trying to find him.

F. Smith: Oh, sorry. I actually don’t do Twitter. I do other social media. Sorry. My own mental health needed a break from Twitter last year. But I might follow you anyway.

R. Merrifield: I was going to send a message, but….

F. Smith: I will get back on.

R. Merrifield: No, it’s okay if you follow other places. It’s better for your mental health, for sure.

J. Routledge (Chair): Well, Forrest, I really want to thank you for taking the time to come and present to us. Thank you for hanging in there and not giving up. I’m hoping that now that we have a parliamentary secretary whose main job, only job, is accessibility, you’ll see things starting to change.

I guess, finally, what I want to say is the example that you gave of going to Portugal and needing dental work — that’s a really, really good example. When we go on holiday, we know we’re kind of taking chances. We know that we have to roll with it a bit.

[3:40 p.m.]

To have to, every day of your life, interact in emergency ways or important communication ways with a community that cannot communicate with you about life and death things is very affecting. It’s very disturbing, and it’s a real motivation for us to do our bit to make sure that we can change that. So thank you for sharing that with us.

F. Smith: Thank you. I love that point. Just off topic a little bit, I would love to invite everyone to the celebration of the accessibility act being passed on June 27. We are hosting a celebration with the deaf community. This is to celebrate the passing of the accessibility act in B.C. Hopefully everyone will come. I will be sending out invitations. If I don’t see you there, have a great summer.

J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Dr. Miriam Elfert, British Columbia Association for Behaviour Analysis.

Thank you so much. I know that this is a little later than what you’d hoped that you’d presenting. I hope that hasn’t inconvenienced you too much. That did take longer than we thought it would, but it had to.

You have five minutes to make your presentation, explain your recommendations. The clock will help us. When you run out of the five minutes, it will start counting up in red. That’s the second part, which is the question-and-answer period, so a total of ten minutes. Whenever you’re ready.

B.C. ASSOCIATION
FOR BEHAVIOUR ANALYSIS

M. Elfert: Thank you, Madam Chair and hon. members of the committee. My name is Dr. Miriam Elfert. I’m here today representing the B.C. Association for Behaviour Analysis, or BC-ABA.

As a board-certified behaviour analyst, I’ve worked with differently abled children and their families for over 25 years. Today I’ll be presenting three recommendations on the new service delivery framework for children and youth with support needs, CYSN, that was announced by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, MCFD, in November 2021.

Recommendation 1. The current budget for existing CYSN services to be delivered through the family connection centres, or FCCs, is insufficient. Therefore, to meet the needs of children and families served by these programs, additional funding for FCCs is essential.

Young children with speech, language and/or motor delays often wait for several months, up to a year, for therapies that will help them communicate and perform basic physical tasks like sitting and walking. The sooner children receive individualized supports, the better the long-term outcomes.

The FCCs are supposed to provide a one-stop-shop location for these kinds of therapies and ensure that everyone has access to high-quality core services if and when they need them. However, the information provided by MCFD doesn’t indicate any additional funding for FCCs in the new framework. This is problematic for two reasons.

First, FCCs do not currently have the capacity to deal with existing wait-lists, which impacts their ability to provide timely, accessible service. Second, MCFD has proposed that the FCCs will serve an additional 8,300 children and families across the province, which is impossible without increased funding. The success of the new model depends on the availability of funding to hire the necessary professionals who will work at the FCCs and help the many children and families who will depend on FCC services.

Recommendation 2. MCFD has stated that families who live in rural and remote areas of the province will be supported through outreach and virtual services. We recommend increased funding be allocated for the timely installation of stable broadband services so all families can easily access virtual supports. Over 100,000 households in rural, remote and Indigenous communities in B.C. do not have the same high-speed digital access as those in urban centres.

The provincial government has pledged to provide high-speed Internet for all by 2027. However, the new CYSN framework is scheduled to be implemented by 2025. For families without reliable Internet, this discrepancy will severely limit their access to the virtual supports provided through FCCs. This is unacceptable.

[3:45 p.m.]

Children with support needs in remote and rural areas deserve access to the same quality and quantity of services available to those in urban areas. Therefore, additional broadband infrastructure funding must be given to service areas most in need.

Recommendation 3. As the provincial association that represents behaviour analysts, BC-ABA is highly aware of the lack of professionals with this certification.

Our final recommendation is the allocation of increased funding to post-secondary programs that provide behaviour analyst training. Behaviour analysts will play an important role in the new CYSN framework. As professionals with master’s or doctoral degrees, behaviour analysts address behaviour-related issues across families, schools and communities. Here the word “behaviour” applies to anything a person does. For example, walking, eating, playing, sleeping are all socially acceptable behaviours that a behaviour analyst might help a person to learn.

As of now, there are 420 behaviour analysts in B.C., compared to 1,200 speech-language pathologists, 1,300 occupational therapists and 2,800 physiotherapists. Students seeking to become behaviour analysts compete for a limited number of seats at the University of British Columbia, the only graduate program in B.C. that provides the necessary coursework. UBC routinely turns away qualified applicants because there isn’t enough faculty to supervise them. Allocating funding for additional faculty at B.C. universities will enable more applicants to be admitted and reduce the need for B.C. residents to seek behaviour analyst training elsewhere.

Keeping training programs local encourages greater numbers of qualified behaviour analysts to remain and work in this province. This translates directly into increased supports and services for children and youth, empowering them to live full and productive lives.

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

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

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that. I’m going to stay away from some of the political pieces of this, because you probably know my feelings on this stuff.

I wonder. With those youth who are being served or supported by the CYSN program right now who are living in the north, the expectation is that they will be provided with virtual services. Is that effective for those kiddos, or is it better for them to still be receiving that in-person, in-home support that they may or may not have now?

M. Elfert: That’s a great point and question. I would say that it certainly depends on the individual, and it depends on the family. So there are different contextual variables. Certainly, one of the things that we’ve been talking about with other groups around the FCCs and models of service delivery, the kinds of services that will be provided, is that it should fit the individual needs of that particular child and family.

In some cases, it may be that families can be adequately supported with virtual services. In other cases, certainly — and one of the things that we are advocating for — it’s to continue having in-person options available for families to have one-on-one therapy or intervention for those who need it. I think it really does depend, but certainly, we would not recommend a solely virtual service model of delivery for families in rural and remote communities.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. Is there a difference between a behaviour analyst and a behaviour intervention specialist? I assume those are two separate fields. I do apologize. I saw your name and title, and I had assumed they were the same thing. Please educate me on this so that I can understand the differences.

M. Elfert: Yeah, that’s a great question. There are different individuals who will provide services. In the case of behaviour interventionists, typically, those are the people that work directly with children and youth and who provide actual, direct intervention to them.

Typically, in the model of service delivery, you would have a behaviour interventionist working directly with kids, and then you would have a behaviour analyst who supervises that programming and the data collection, who oversees and is responsible for overseeing and then implementing and kind of guiding that particular therapy program for that individual.

[3:50 p.m.]

Behaviour interventionists, at this point, only need to have, basically, a criminal record check and be age 19 or older, and then most of the time they get trained on the job. They have a fairly intensive training and also are overseen by behaviour analysists — again, those master’s- or doctoral-level individuals who set up the program and the therapies for that person and then design and monitor things as they need to. Does that help?

H. Yao: Yeah.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much for the presentation. Regardless of which model you’re for or against, the knothole really does seem to be the lack of ABAs and not being able to get through that diagnostic process fast enough.

You mentioned wanting — and the third recommendation was — to have more training seats. What is the number of training seats that are required? I know we went from very few to 421 in 20 years. How could we scale up faster than that?

M. Elfert: Certainly to have other programs, potentially, that would provide behaviour analytic training. I mean, I know, for myself…. I work at Capilano University, and we have an undergraduate program. We train students who are at a bachelor’s level, and they’re still overseen and supervised by a master’s level. One of the things we’ve advocated for in our program is to develop a graduate program to be able to open up more seats and have those available.

One of the things is I know there was recently a survey conducted of service providers to try and get a sense of how many people are interested in working in these FCCs, in these hubs, when they come, and to get a sense of where those unmet needs might be or where we’re lacking in terms of service providers. So I couldn’t give you a specific number in terms of how many. But if I think about…. Again, looking at speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists that are around 1,200, we’re only a third of that.

There’s a demand. There’s a demand for behaviour analytic service providers. Part of it is helping people understand the role that behaviour analysts can play on a multidisciplinary team and working with other professionals. You know, we’re not just about problem behaviour. We also provide services in lots of other areas. So I would say that it could be more comparable to speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists in terms of increasing the numbers.

Now again, we’re a long way away from that. As you’ve said, we’ve certainly increased the number of people who are credentialed and who are trained as behaviour analysts over this period of time in our province, so that’s all to the good and improving. That keeps going in this direction in terms of more and more people getting trained, but we don’t have enough. We need more.

J. Routledge (Chair): Mike, a quick question?

M. Starchuk: My question really bounces off what Renee just said. If you create more seats so you have more people that have that access, will you have the applications to fill those seats?

M. Elfert: Yes. I would say so. I was just looking at a report which came out of the U.S. Our credentialing body to be a board-certified behaviour analyst comes out of the U.S. They issue this report every year. They hire a company. Again, this was in the U.S., so not entirely comparable, but they were showing the demand for master’s- and doctoral-level behaviour analysts, and the trajectory, the trend, was just ever-increasing. So there certainly is the demand.

Obviously, it will take time to increase the seats. It’s not like we’re going to go from 400, say, to 1,200 and triple the capacity in the next couple of years. But increasingly, more people are in the field.

Again, if we’re broadening services ultimately to deliver…. Behaviour analysists have historically provided services to many individuals with autism, and the autism funding has kind of created that market. But now, also, with the expansion — and again, if we’re talking about 8,300 more children and families that need services, with all varying needs and abilities and different supports that are required — behaviour analysts will certainly be needed to fill those gaps and work together with these other professionals to provide quality and comprehensive services across the board to many children and families.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Doctor. Thank you for your patience, and thank you for coming and sharing your expertise and your vision.

Maybe because it’s late in the day I’m going to take a chance and say…. This is what I want to say about the model argument. I think that your presentation and some of the previous presentations…. Whether we have one model that is underfunded or an alternative model that’s underfunded, the issue isn’t the model.

M. Elfert: We were just having a very similar conversation in a group I was speaking with the other day and making the point that a smattering of service across the board to thousands of families is not quality service.

[3:55 p.m.]

So that’s really the thing. Of course, we want more families to access services, and we’re happy about the fact that there’s an opportunity to provide services to individuals that historically have not had them — haven’t been funded. Also, we want to do a good job of delivering those services. Otherwise, if it doesn’t truly make a difference in the lives of children and families and have a meaningful impact and improve their quality of life, then…. That’s the point. That’s what we’re all aiming to do.

Thank you for your time.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you.

Our final presentation for the day is Michael Goehring, Mining Association of B.C.

Thank you for your patience. Welcome. Whenever you’re ready, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and then we have five minutes to ask questions for you to answer.

MINING ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

M. Goehring: All right. Thank you.

Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Michael Goehring. I’m the president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia.

I’m pleased to recognize that I’m speaking to you today from the unceded, traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

MABC represents British Columbia’s 16 major operating mines and two smelters. Prior to the pandemic, our industry made more than $2.6 billion in direct payments to governments to fund public services. Our industry supports 35,000 high-paying jobs across B.C. and over 3,700 small, medium and Indigenous businesses throughout the province through an annual spend of $3 billion.

Climate change requires urgent action. A clear global consensus emerged following COP26 last November that the clean energy transition cannot and will not happen without more minerals and metals, many of which we produce here in British Columbia.

Wind turbines, solar farms and EVs all require minerals and metals. They’re now referred to as critical, because they are foundational to meeting our regional and global climate goals while also being paramount to our future economic and geopolitical security. This is underscored by the recent $3.8 billion commitment to support critical mineral strategies in the federal budget.

At MABC, we continue to highlight B.C.’s strategic position as a low-carbon provider of the minerals and metals the world needs due to our clean hydroelectricity. Our mines and smelters are not stopping there, though; they continue to decarbonize throughout their operations by investing in electric trolley assist technology and electric and low-emission haul trucks.

MABC will be providing a submission to the select standing committee next Friday, June 24. Today, as the province and federal government begin to collaborate on critical minerals strategies, I will make recommendations in three priority areas.

First, permitting and authorization processes are bogged down by delays and uncertainty. This is our number one issue for governments and is raised repeatedly by our advanced development project proponents and operating mines and smelters. We applaud Minister Ralston’s efforts to secure additional resources to help address delays and backlogs, and we applaud recent efforts to establish cross-ministry permitting and authorizations as a core focus of the new Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship.

However, as federal Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson put it succinctly earlier this week in Toronto, it should not take 15 years to permit a new mine. I might add that it also shouldn’t take months and months and months to get routine operational permits, but it does.

On behalf of our members, we ask the committee to make timelier and more predictable permitting and authorizations in mining a key cross-ministry priority in the forthcoming budget. We urge government to make necessary funds available to ministries to reduce timelines and increase certainty.

Second, importantly, we must address the gap between the promise and implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Mining has a leading and vital role in economic reconciliation. Our industry has a long history of partnering with Indigenous nations through impact-benefit agreements, job creation, contracting opportunities and community partnerships.

But importantly, to ensure Indigenous nations can fully participate in and benefit from projects in their territories, we ask government to provide support to nations so they are placed on an equitable footing in government-to-government relations with the province. Here MABC recommends government establish a shared-services organization administered by and for Indigenous nations on their terms so they can build and enhance their governance, technical and administrative capacity.

[4:00 p.m.]

Further, a pathway must be cleared so nations can take equity positions in mining and other major projects. Here, we recommend the province advance this in discussions with the federal government to determine appropriate financial instruments and institutional arrangements to make this happen. Additionally, we recommend the Crown assess and revise all existing economic and community development agreements so as to provide nations with a larger and more consistent share of mineral tax revenue on an annual basis going forward.

Third and last, B.C.’s carbon pricing regime places our mining and smelting industry at a competitive disadvantage relative to higher-emitting, lower-carbon-tax jurisdictions in Canada and internationally. Every other jurisdiction provides protection for their trade-exposed industries, like mining, who are price-takers for their products in world markets. The gap now is challenging for B.C.’s mining and smelting operators and will become extremely challenging without further supportive decarbonization measures in our operations as the carbon price rises from $50 a tonne to $170 per tonne by 2030.

To be clear, we’re not asking government to reduce the tax rate and write us a cheque. The price signal should remain. We’re asking government to direct more of the carbon tax paid by our members towards decarbonization projects through the existing CleanBC industry program. Our members will match these funds and invest in projects to reduce GHG emissions further and faster, enabling us to meet the province’s 2030 climate targets and protect B.C. jobs and talent from moving elsewhere.

This is the kind of climate action that British Columbians expect from their industry and their government. It’s also what the province’s own Climate Solutions Council has recommended to Minister Heyman. With that, thank you for your time today.

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

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I just would love to follow up with your last recommendation. You talk about how you’re not asking for reduction of tax or a big cheque, but you’re asking government to reinvest all this money into decarbonization in various sectors. Obviously, you mentioned earlier that mining is actually where we get a lot of elements that are required to be able to incorporate a lot of future decarbonizing technologies.

My question right now is…. When those moneys come back, the way government should utilize this money for decarbonizing technology…. Are you thinking more of, like, physical technology infrastructure or investment for research? Or are we talking about actually finding a way to reduce the cost for carbon…? Sorry, my apologies. I should’ve probably thought about this more thoroughly. Are you thinking about more of a research direction? Or are you thinking about more, actually, implementing a manufacturing section, or consumer cost reduction?

M. Goehring: I understand your question. It’s a great question. We are suggesting that we build on an existing program. CleanBC industry fund takes carbon tax dollars that our industry pays to government. It takes a portion of that and places it in a fund. Industry matches it, and it helps fund decarbonization projects.

The example is the recent development of the overhead trolley assist program at Copper Mountain mine. I believe the carbon tax funds that CleanBC attributed to that project are approaching somewhere around $11 million, matched and exceeded by the mine itself. What that has done is built a kilometre-long overhead trolley system like you would see outside on Hastings Street, that’s strung up along. The large, 220-tonne haul truck hitches into that and drives up the hill. It reduces GHG emissions, I believe, by some 50,000 tonnes a year.

R. Merrifield: Thank you so much, Michael. I have always said that if we want a clean future, we need to get super comfortable with mining. You guys have been absolute industry…. Not even industry leaders — your industry has led in decarbonization and in really hitting those net-zero targets, so thank you and kudos.

I was going to ask, actually, about an example of your no. 3 recommendation, and you gave one already.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Michael. I just want to ask about the permitting delays. With the resources that have been allocated…. That was at the lunch hour when Minister Ralston announced that there were going to be these people. Is there an objective in mind? What do we have to do? Do we have a goal, or does the government have a goal? Maybe that’s a better one.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. Goehring: The ministry does have a goal. The ministry’s goal is to reduce timelines on the time it takes for a permit to be provided to a proponent. We would add that we’d like to see those timelines reduced and a more predictable permitting process so that when the ministry says, “You will have your permit” — if all things are appropriate, of course — “within three months,” the proponent can rely on that time estimate. Currently, now, those estimates sometimes fall by the wayside.

H. Yao: Just one final quick question. Is jade mining part of your advocacy? Are you advocating for jade mining as well?

M. Goehring: No, we are not. We do not advocate for jade or placer miners. We just advocate for the smelters and large operating mines in British Columbia.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Michael. You are our last presenter of the day, of the week. I think it’s actually very encouraging, very hopeful, to make the connection, which you did right off the top. We cannot move to a low-carbon economy and our vision of a better economy without minerals and metals, and that’s where your industry comes in.

Thank you very much for your creative, interactive and solution-oriented presentation.

M. Goehring: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. I know you’ll be glad to see me go, because now you get to the end of our day. I’m sure it’s been a long one.

Thank you for your public service.

J. Routledge (Chair): It’s not only the end of the day; it’s the end of the week.

I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:07 p.m.