The committee met at 8:35 a.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Mike Starchuk. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting in Vancouver today on the territories of the Coast Salish people: the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

I’d ask you to take some today to reflect on the places where you live, learn and play and work.

I would like to welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meetings.

Our committee is currently seeking input on the next provincial budget, and British Columbians can share their views by making written comments. Details are available on our website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The deadline for input is two o’clock on Friday, June 16. We’re also holding a number of public meetings to hear from our British Columbians about their priorities.

All of our audio from our meeting is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

We will carefully consider all input to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be included in Budget 2024. The committee intends to release its report in August of this year.

Now, I’ll ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Chair. I’m Deputy Chair Tom Shypitka and also MLA for Kootenay East.

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

B. Banman: I would be Bruce Banman. I’m the MLA for Abbotsford South.

G. Chow: George Chow, MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview,

B. Stewart: Ben Stewart, MLA for Kelowna West.

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

M. Starchuk (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Karan Riarh, Emma Curtis from the Parliamentary Committees Office, and Amanda Heffelfinger, David Smith and Danielle Suter from Hansard Services.

Today we have each participant that will come forward to us to speak, followed up by five minutes from the questions from the committee members.

The first speaker that we have today is Tina Tong from the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia.

Budget Consultation Presentations

ALMA MATER SOCIETY OF UBC

T. Tong: Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for this amazing opportunity to speak to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. My name is Tina Tong, and I serve as the vice-president of external affairs at the UBC Alma Mater Society, representing over 60,000 students.

I’m situated on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Musqueam people that I’m privileged to work and study on.

We thank the government for their implementation of the B.C. access grant in 2020. Not only has this grant empowered over 40,000 students to fulfil their academic aspirations, but it has also contributed to the overall growth and development of our province’s workforce.

With this in mind, the AMS would like to advocate for an expansion to the B.C. access grant by increasing the maximum amount given out per student and the grant cut-off threshold. We strongly believe that an expansion would remove financial barriers for students accessing advanced education and help build a strong economy for all. Allow me to demonstrate.

Students who receive higher education and training tend to possess the expertise required for industries with higher skill demands, leading to increased productivity and economic growth. A survey conducted by StatsCan found that over 87 percent of the top 1 percent of earners had post-secondary qualifications. A report made by the Conference Board of Canada stated that B.C.’s relative lack of educated workers costs our economy almost $8 billion in lost GDP and nearly $2 billion in revenue to the government. Therefore, investing in students financial well-being is an investment in the future of British Columbia.

An example is the StrongerBC future skills grant, which alleviates financial pressures on students in trades. Trade programs are vital to the health of our province’s workforce, but the same vitality applies to advanced education programs.

Our second recommendation addresses the alarming issue of sexualized violence on post-secondary campuses. Only six out of 100 incidents of sexual assaults are reported to the police, yet one in three Canadian women experiences sexual assault in their lifetime.

[8:40 a.m.]

In 2022, 52 percent of UBC undergraduates and 28 percent of graduates reported being concerned about the prevalence of sexual assault on campus, and one out of five students reported personally experiencing sexual assault, of which 72 percent identified as females and 13 percent as males.

To effectively implement sexualized violence prevention initiatives at post-secondary institutions across the prov­ince, it is crucial to commit annual funding to support the successful running of dedicated prevention offices and consider the population size of each institution to evaluate the existing programs in place.

Our third recommendation centres around food insecurity. We ask the government to establish a non-repayable food security grant program for post-secondary students from low- and middle-income backgrounds.

Food insecurity amongst post-secondary students requires urgent attention from the government. With grocery prices rising by a significant 11.4 percent in 2022, two out of five undergraduate UBC students reported feeling worried they might run out of food. This has led to a staggering 315 percent surge in need at the AMS Food Bank as of October 2022. The situation has become so dire that UBC staff members have been excluded from accessing the AMS Food Bank since April 2023 due to insufficient funding.

Campus food banks are no longer a viable solution to food insecurity, but a dedicated grant program would provide direct financial assistance to students in need. We recommend aligning its eligibility criteria with the existing B.C. access grant program.

Prioritizing student welfare is vital, as adults struggling with food insecurity face a higher risk of physical and mental health issues, negatively impacting the future labour markets. We would also like to recommend including international students in this fund, so that government can attract even more high-performing students.

Thank you all very much for your time.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your time.

Questions?

H. Yao: Thank you so much for presenting. I really appreciate what you’re doing to advocate for students.

Actually, I would like to ask for more information about the numbers. You’re talking about how you would like to see the B.C. access grant amount to increase the maximum amount. Do you have a number in mind for that?

T. Tong: Yes, most definitely. I can follow up to your email with a specific number. Thank you for asking.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation.

Point No. 3, food insecurity. I know that’s a real deal. I think it’s one in five British Columbians, now, of lower or middle income who choose not to have a meal, at least one meal a day, not because they want to but because they have to. It’s a real issue for sure, and the price of food is definitely going up.

Point No. 1 on the access grant, for growth and development. Is there anything in the grant that you will receive that will help retain graduates to British Columbia at all, keep them here?

T. Tong: Right. We believe that an investment in the B.C. access grant is important because there are current labour shortages in the economy. With more than 850 job openings expected over the next decade in Vancouver, we believe that making post-secondary education more affordable will definitely keep students in school and pursuing education.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I understand. There’s definitely going to be a labour crunch right now, but it’s keeping people here in British Columbia.

It’s great to put people through and get more seats into the colleges and universities, but I’m trying to find a solution, with all the discussions we have here in the next little while, as to how we can keep those graduates here in B.C. If there’s anything that you can ever relate to us on, or an idea, I’d love to hear it.

T. Tong: Right. For sure. I will definitely follow up to your email with more specifics.

R. Leonard: Thank you for presenting today. I really appreciate it.

I didn’t realize that the AMS had a food bank. Did you say it has had to close?

T. Tong: Our food bank is currently struggling a lot. As of last month, UBC staff members have been excluded from accessing the AMS Food Bank.

R. Leonard: Oh, I see. Okay. All right.

Now, I know that we’ve increased the loan portion, recognizing the affordability piece. I’m just wondering if you have an idea of how that’s going to impact food insecurity or improve the situation with the 40,000 folks who are students who are able to see…. Is it a doubling of the student loan, so deepening the opportunity to stay in school?

[8:45 a.m.]

T. Tong: Right. Well, I think that by investing more into the B.C. access grant, this will definitely help to keep students in school. Students are currently struggling in many different areas of financial affordability — that would be tuition, textbooks, food, housing, etc. By increasing the B.C. access grant, it will definitely help to remove their financial pressures on them.

B. Banman: Thank you for your presentation. I’m surprised one of your asks wasn’t more capacity and seats for students for some programs, but I wanted to zero in on the sexualized violence.

Do you have an idea as to how we can increase the reporting of those crimes? Based on what you said, I got the feeling that it happens, but a lot of people, be it men or women, don’t report it. So in your program, are there any ideas to help increase that reporting of it so we can help put an end to it?

T. Tong: Yeah, for sure. Actually, at UBC, if students personally experience sexual assault or misconduct, students have reported that they would be most comfortable accessing support from SASC, which is our UBC Sexual Assault Support Centre, which would be 60 percent of students; and also SVPRO, the sexual violence prevention and response office, which is 56 percent. These offices, aside from offering services, also offer education initiatives.

We believe that committing more funding, then getting the education out there to students, is very important in ensuring they understand the process that goes behind reporting.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.

T. Tong: Thank you very much. I hope everyone has a great day.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next we have Aryanna Chartrand from the Alliance of B.C. Students.

Good morning. You have five minutes to make a presentation to us, and then we have five minutes’ worth of questions or comments coming back at you.

The floor is now yours.

ALLIANCE OF B.C. STUDENTS

A. Chartrand: Fantastic. Thank you.

Well, good morning, everyone. My name is Aryanna Chartrand. I am the current chair for the Alliance of B.C. Students, and I’ll be graduating with my ECE bachelor’s from Capilano University next week, which is really exciting. I do have the opportunity to be here representing not just the members of the Alliance of B.C. Students but also folks….

I’m so glad that I got to hear Tina talk about some sexualized violence advocacy. We’ve done collaborations with the B.C. Federation of Students, effectively representing over 80 percent of students in the province. We’re here talking about what is, quite frankly, a crisis, and it is sexualized violence.

The reality is that sexualized violence is part of most people’s post-secondary experience. A Statistics Canada report said, in 2019, that 70 percent of students either experienced or witnessed it in the last 12 months, and that data is not current. It doesn’t account for the number of reports or instances that don’t get reported. It also doesn’t recognize the inequities and overrepresentation of BIPOC, queer, disabled students who are disproportionately represented by this type of violence.

As it stands, sexualized violence is part of our experience, but it doesn’t have to be. This is, I think, my third year here talking about this, asking for relatively the same things. The only thing that’s changing is that the numbers are getting higher.

So the only thing that we’re asking for is…. We’ve identified two solutions to address this, the first being legislative amendments. We’ve done a significant amount of lobbying to amend Bill 23, which is the Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act. We recognize that needs significant funding, because, yes, the act exists, but it’s not extensive, and it doesn’t offer direction to the institutions on what a minimum standard is.

[8:50 a.m.]

What we’re finding is that depending on which institution a student goes to, they’re being met with various levels of care. We really believe that all students in post-secondary have a right to trauma-informed and survivor-centred care, because it is happening, but right now, there’s not the support or guidance to make sure that they have the resources that they need.

Our more specific budgetary ask for the last few years has been a commitment to year-over-year funding. We’ve identified $5 million as a really good starting point, just to address the fact…. Every single support worker that I’ve talked to or that I’ve heard through consultations…. They’re already under-resourced, they’re already understaffed, and campus communities are growing.

We’re creating more student housing, which is fantastic. We’re also inviting students to spaces that are not keeping them safe.

Through our conversations and consultations, we’ve heard that this funding can go towards education and awareness, reporting, having extra staff. It really depends on the institution.

We recognize that the province did commit $32 million in the budget for community sexual assault centres, which is fantastic, but communities and universities are their own communities. UBC and SFU function like cities. So they need the funding and support on campus to support those students with their needs.

What we’re seeing is…. These support workers, who are survivors, students themselves, volunteers, are exhausted. They’re burnt out.

This type of violence is not slowing down. We’ve identified that a commitment to year-over-year funding is so crucial, as these programs need to evolve and adapt in response to the pandemic, more students on campus, just a lot of different factors that we really need to keep up with.

Again, unfortunately, this is the third year we’ve been here asking for this. It has been recommended each year to the budget, but we’ve yet to see any funding actually committed.

We also do know that the province has plans to release a provincewide gender action plan, which is super great. What we’re asking for, based on what we’ve seen, is…. If folks have identified certain things as priorities, they’ve actually been released and funded first. We’re asking for this to be addressed the same.

Most students are experiencing it. It’s impacting everyone, and it’s really impacting students’ abilities to thrive and to complete their studies. I know, as some of the students will mention here, it’s impacting people trying to get into work and just their everyday lives.

To really address this crisis…. The year-over-year funding is something that we’ve heard is absolutely necessary going forward.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Aryanna. I recognize the fact that this is the third year for the ask.

I want to start it off with my question with regards to prevention. We always hear about what you can do upstream. We heard earlier on from the prevention offices that are there. Has your organization dived into the pre­vention and looked at the high schools, where it may start, before it actually gets to a post-secondary institution?

A. Chartrand: There is definitely a need for a greater societal shift and an emphasis on this kind of education and prevention in high schools. From what we’ve been hearing, though, from the students on campus…. Education and awareness are part of it, but the reality is that it’s still happening quite high. They just want funding to support the students that are experiencing the type of violence.

I’m not saying that’s not important, but the support workers definitely need some urgent funding today.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate your continuous advocacy for prevention and support for victims of sexualized violence.

I’m going to combine a previous presentation with yours, if you don’t mind. The first thing…. I want to double-check. You mentioned that $5 million is what you’re looking for.

A. Chartrand: We’ve heard much, much higher, but we think that’s a very reasonable starting point, just to see how the institutions are going to allocate those funds. It is going to look differently everywhere.

H. Yao: The previous presenter was talking about, obviously, having one dedicated per school campus and based on the student population. I also understand…. No matter how big or small the population, there must be a bare minimum standard in order to ensure the services are adequate and sufficient to support individuals who have experienced sexualized violence.

Do you mind maybe walking me through that? If you had the opportunity to pick the appropriate bare min­imum…. What kind of staffing are you looking at?

A. Chartrand: Absolutely. I’ll start off by saying…. I’m not the expert in this work at all. Some of the anti-violence and advocacy organizations that have been doing this work for nearly a decade have actually identified a lot of the gaps in the legislation. They have made 45 recommendations but narrowed it down to 11 minimum standards.

When we’re lobbying and when we’re talking to you folks, we actually present those every single time. They’ve identified them as the bare minimum, 11 minimum standards, required for institutions to keep their students safe.

[8:55 a.m.]

An example is requiring mandatory trauma-informed sensitivity training for people who make decisions and hear complaints. Right now that’s not required. Some of the changes in the funding could go towards making programs like that mandatory across the province.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): What’s the breakdown, composition, of support staff and support workers? Are they paid employees? Are they volunteers? Are they a mixture of both? What’s the composition like?

A. Chartrand: It’s all across the board. It depends on which institution you go to. Some of the bigger institutions have big teams that are still struggling. We know that for some of our smaller members in smaller institutions, this is their portfolio among several other things. So hearing people say, “I’m doing this off the side of my desk,” is no exaggeration.

H. Yao: I hope you don’t mind me having more of your time.

Have you guys actually also addressed some of the cross-cultural sexualized violence? As an MLA, I’ve been hearing, unfortunately, different stories about individuals from different cultural communities, newcomers, coming to British Columbia, maybe as students, and not realizing that there should be a higher standard for their expectations, for their right to their own body. Sometimes they actually fail to…. Well, I shouldn’t say fail. They’re not educated to acknowledge that what they experience is actually sexualized violence.

Is there any kind of an ask, also, in this where…? You can also say: “What can we do to support cross-cultural individuals so they can also better protect themselves and be better aware and have access to reporting?”

A. Chartrand: Absolutely. What we have heard is…. Depending on which institution, the needs and the gaps are different.

The folks who are in similar situations to what you’ve described have plans to put this funding towards education and awareness workshops and consent training. It is going to look a little different, but it has definitely been talked about that a lot of funding could go towards just educating folks who are new to post-secondary, first time on their own, new to the country, so many different circumstances that kind of vary our knowledge levels.

In addition, though, THE universities are also struggling. They are required to have a sexual violence and misconduct policy. However, there are no parameters as to what that needs to look like, so to get the university’s support in supporting students….There do need to be some guidelines on what that needs to look like and to sort of set that standard so the university can uphold that for the students, and they can introduce that as students are entering the post-secondary space.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Noting the time, Aryanna, thank you very much for your presentation. It is people like you that are trying to make universities and post-secondary institutions a better place to be. So thank you very much.

Next we have Manpreet Kaur, from the Capilano Students Union.

Manpreet, you have five minutes to make a presentation, and we will have five minutes of questions or comments.

The floor is yours.

CAPILANO STUDENTS UNION

M. Kaur: Good morning to you all. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this morning. I wish you well as you guys listen to different members of the community, across the province, present recommendations for next year’s provincial budget.

My name is Manpreet, and I am the incoming VP external for the Capilano Students Union. We represent over 8,000 students from the North Vancouver and kálax-ay campuses of Capilano University in British Columbia.

As someone before me has already presented, our first recommendation is for the provincial government to provide direct financial support to help students afford food and help with food security. Food is essential for students. Access to high-quality, nutritious, affordable food is vital for students’ physical and mental health, academic performance, social inclusion and well-being. However, too many students right now lack food security during their post-secondary education and suffer negative impacts in their quality of life and, as a consequence, their academic performance. It affects all areas of their life.

In the previous academic year, 57 percent of students faced moderate to severe food insecurity, which was 15 percent more than the 42 percent of the year before. This increase only shows that this really needs to be considered more seriously.

Not only that, students really are unique in the scenario. They face more food insecurity than the general population, which is one in seven general Canadian households. Students are two in five. This is a really unique group that needs to be noticed.

[9:00 a.m.]

Definitely, a lack of financial resources is one of the leading causes, because students already have high tuition. Then there’s the high cost of living and daily expenses, which make it really difficult to afford food as well.

At Capilano Students Union, we cannot keep up with how often we have to restock our Community Cupboard food bank. However, food banks on their own are unable to solve this problem and address the long-term and systemic issues that cause students to be food-insecure. Food banks do not move people out of food insecurity, even after trying so much. That is why we feel the need for direct support for students to help with food insecurity, instead of these stopgap solutions.

Our second recommendation is for the provincial government to eliminate the Medical Services Plan fees for all international students in British Columbia, as it is in line with the elimination of fees for every other resident of the province. While everyone else was really happy with the elimination of MSP premiums, international students now have to pay double. This is really unfair and inequitable for them because they are one of the unique, most vulnerable groups of people in the province, and now they have to pay double to access basic health care.

International students face significant challenges otherwise while studying in Canada, like high tuition costs — and living, in general — and then their tuition is unregulated as well. There’s that, and then there are only limited hours that they can work. And all of these…. Paying this additional fee really does pose a challenge for them. Coupled with the high cost of housing and living expenses in the Lower Mainland, they really struggle to make ends meet.

Another problem with this system is that the province really gets double health care payments from international students. If an international student is working, with a B.C. remuneration greater than $5 million per year, their employer also must pay the employer health tax, which means the province generates revenue from their health care twice, as compared to any other person in B.C. This really is unfair to them.

Leading on to the third ask, it’s also for international students. The third recommendation is for the provincial government to increase the amount of financial aid available to international students, who often struggle to pay for tuition, housing and other living costs while they’re studying in Canada.

While international students already have to prove that they can afford their education as a requirement to obtain the study permit, the instability of the uncapped tuition regulation, the unlimited increases, and the high cost of living in B.C. right now that means many international students find themselves on the hook for unbudgeted expenses they cannot foresee, as the tuition can increase any time.

In order for B.C. to remain competitive, attractive and affordable for international students to pursue higher education, there really needs to be more done to ensure that international students can be successful in their education when they come to study here. Their eligibility for financial aid should be extended, and….

M. Starchuk (Chair): Manpreet, I’m going to ask you to wrap it up here.

M. Kaur: Okay. If they are eligible for more financial aid, that would really help them to access education here — students from different financial….

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, Manpreet, we’re going to have to wrap it up right here, because we have questions, and we have other presenters that are behind you.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for your presentation. I really appreciate it. There’s a common theme. You connect with the other presenter talking about food insecurity. However, I don’t think I heard an actual recommendation.

How would you recommend the provincial government to help when it comes to food insecurity? I know the previous presenter was talking about food grants tied to access grants. Do you have anything else you would like to recommend?

M. Kaur: We already do things with food banks, but as I said, that doesn’t really solve the issue. Maybe more funding to food security or kind of creating systems for students so that they would have special access.

[9:05 a.m.]

The big grocery store chains get to regulate it on their own. So a regulation on their part or something that would help students would be helpful.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. Just on the food insecurity piece, what does the rollout of food supplements…? How is it delivered? If somebody has low income and can’t afford groceries, is it essentially a pickup? They pick up food at the campus? Is it a cheque, or is it just certain amounts of food? Like it’s just basics like eggs, milk, bread, that kind of thing? How is it delivered to the students?

M. Kaur: We do two different things. One is a pop-up produce, which is where students get fresh produce and groceries given to them. They just have to be there, and they can take whatever they need.

The other food bank, which is kind of a regular, is…. No one has to sign up for anything. They can just go take what they need. But we really have to restock it more than in the previous years. So we’re really seeing a need for more food security.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Just to follow up a little bit. So is it income-tested at all? I mean, how do you decipher who are the ones that need it the most? They might be at the end of the line and might not get there in time — that kind of thing. So is there a queue or priority list?

M. Kaur: I totally understand, but food insecurity also kind of has a stigma around it, so people don’t want to come forward that easily. We try to make it as accessible as possible and keep the barriers to a minimum.

Students can also sign up for credit cards — that kind of situation — for different organizations. For that they have to come forward to staff, but otherwise the food bank is accessible to just anybody who feels that they need it.

B. Stewart: Manpreet, thanks very much. I know that maybe the surprise of international students coming and finding out what the high cost of living is…. However, the education system here in British Columbia…. Supposedly its priority is to make certain British Columbians have access — and by extending that to international students. So are we not doing a very good job in letting them be aware of what the costs really are when they are arrive?

I guess the real question is…. The system is not for international students. It’s a part of it to make certain that they have access to institutions that are globally recognized. So do you feel that they’re misled, or they’re not informed when they arrive?

M. Kaur: As I said, students already have to show proof that they have enough money to be able to get their visas. That does give an idea of how much they would be budgeting here, but they do not have a regulation on their tuition. It could increase by however much amount in a particular semester. There is no way they can foresee it. Until that is regulated, the least we can do is provide more ways for them to access the education by increasing financial aid or taking off the MSP payments, so that would be one thing less for them to worry about.

B. Stewart: So more certainty about the cost of tuition would help them have clarity in what their expectation is.

M. Kaur: Definitely.

B. Stewart: However, when they arrive here, there shouldn’t be any lack of clarity about what housing and food costs are really going to be like, right?

M. Kaur: I mean, I would say that has been increasing for the general population, as well, and not a specific problem for international students. But they have more issues to deal with than just this.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. Well, that concludes our time this morning with you. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Our next presenter is Jessie Niikoi from the B.C. Federation of Students.

Good morning, Jessie. Your five minutes starts now.

B.C. FEDERATION OF STUDENTS

J. Niikoi: Good morning, committee members. My name is Jessie Niikoi and I’m the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Students.

Today I’d like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded and traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

The B.C. Federation of Students is the largest provincial student organization in B.C., representing over 170,000 students across the province.

[9:10 a.m.]

As we engage in these important discussions today, I wanted to recognize that over the last several years, the committee has put forward many of our recommendations that have made it into the provincial budget. It is our continued hope to work together to ensure that post-secondary education in B.C. is accessible and affordable for all.

Students, like other British Columbians, have had a tough year. We have been feeling the squeeze, like everyone else, at the grocery store, gas pumps and retail stores, along with paying massive amounts of tuition fees. Our institutions have also been struggling.

Over the summer, institutions, unions and other stakeholders participated in a funding review consultation, led by Don Wright. The consultation was incredibly important and illuminated the troubling shortages that post-secondary institutions are facing. Almost all institutions across the province have talked about the lack of funding and its impact on recruiting and retaining instructors and staff, providing wraparound services for students and being able to be responsive to changing needs.

Post-secondary is incredibly important in B.C. We’re facing a number of labour shortages. We need more nurses, doctors, tradespeople and early childhood educators, just to name a few. Without adequate funding, institutions are left with no choice but to attempt to make up for the shortfall of funding through fees, specifically international student fees.

Due to underfunding of our colleges and universities, institutions have become reliant on international students to make up for these funding shortfalls. According to Statistics Canada, international undergraduate students in B.C. paid 426 percent more for their academic year than domestic students. That’s a comparison of $32,909 to $6,256 in 2022 to 2023. This varies widely across the province.

As an example, for a year in the bachelor of business administration program, North Island College charges international students $15,740 a year, four times the amount that is charged to domestic students, which is $4,260. Another example is the University of British Columbia, which charges $58,948 a year, ten times the amount that is charged to domestic students, which is $5,843.

On average, international student tuition fees make up 54 percent of all tuition fees collected in B.C., even though international students only make up 24 percent of their enrolment. This is not only unfair to international students but is a completely risky way of funding our education system. Annually fees of an international student may increase by as much as 30 percent, which results in students struggling to continue studying in Canada. We’ve heard report and report of international students being unable to afford meals, living in less-than-ideal housing and working in various precarious jobs to simply afford their education. Only a small percentage of financial assistance is also available to these international students.

Our recommendation today is to have the government amend the tuition fee policy to include international student fees being capped at a 2 percent increase, just like for domestic students. However, this will not change the systemic problem we have in the post-secondary sector: a funding shortfall. Out of 11 universities, six of them receive more money in tuition fees than the operating grant provided by the province. Students at colleges fare a bit better, but all institutions report challenges they’re facing with the funding they do receive.

The public post-secondary education funding model was established on the principle that we are each a stakeholder in the investment of education. However, students are paying more than their fair share. Even with domestic student tuition fees being capped at a 2 percent increase each year, students have to deal with programs and classes being cut, weeks-long wait-lists for counselling and ever-increasing and exorbitant ancillary fees.

Our recommendation is that there be an infusion of at least $200 million annually into institutional operating grants and that after that investment, the government freeze tuition fees and develop a plan to progressively reduce tuition fees at public institutions to lessen the financial burden on students and families.

We need to invest in education so that young people like me can get the education we need to enter the workforce and become your future nurses, doctors, teachers and tradespeople. We hope that you will take our asks into recommendations in the coming months and think about how they might be implemented sooner. We need to invest in the future of this province before it is too late.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Jessie.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Jessie, for the presentation. The ask is about a quarter of a billion dollars. I totally agree, 100 percent, that we need to provide more seats, get more skilled and trained out into the workforce in British Columbia. I have no problem making life as easy as possible for international students coming in.

You threw a lot of statistics at us. I’m just wondering if you have a statistic on how many international students come in that graduate and then actually stay, work and live in British Columbia.

[9:15 a.m.]

I have no problem helping international students — or even domestic students, for that matter — but we need to retain them. We need to keep them. It’s no good to throw a quarter of a billion dollars to help this program work, if they then leave. It’s really not money well spent, in my opinion. It’s not a good investment for British Columbians. Are there any statistics on how we can keep those people here?

J. Niikoi: I can speak personally for the fact that I was in Camosun College, and every year we have over 500 to 600 students graduating, and over 200 to 300 of them are international students. Most of them would love to live in B.C., mostly because the weather is better here. I moved here because of that.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Have you been to Cranbrook yet?

J. Niikoi: I lived in Saskatchewan for some time, and the weather was really bad. So I moved to B.C., and I was really happy to be here.

Just speaking for that fact, most students would love to live here. The weather is better. Also, it’s just a nice climate, and the people here make things easy and livable for us.

I’ve been here, and it has been a great experience going to school here, but even with the cost of education, I would want to stay in B.C. because I realize how much we are needed in the workforce. I worked in the health care sector as a food service worker in a nursing home. I used to recommend to students: “If you do need a job, it’s always available for you. We always need people in these places.”

The one reason students would love to stay in B.C. is also because of the kind of work that is available in the sector. Camosun does offer a lot of courses in the marketing sector, and most schools, colleges and universities also go straight towards the tech sector, which is necessary in B.C.

I will say that colleges and institutions across the prov­ince do tailor their courses to the job market that is here. That’s one way that students are being retained, as well, in the province.

R. Leonard: I’m not sure I have a question, but I’m really, really glad that you’re here today.

We’ve been hearing, for many years, around the question of international students, and I think that vulnerability showed itself during the pandemic, when people could not travel. I’m curious about the impacts of that time today. Are you seeing fewer international students coming into our post-secondary institutions? Have they returned?

J. Niikoi: I will say there are more people coming into the country than before. This is not just because they want to, but institutions are also making the efforts to bring these people in. That’s also due to the funding shortfalls. If they’re not getting enough money, they’re going to find ways of making that money. If there are ways to do that by recruiting more students into the institutions, that’s what they’re going to do.

That’s what happened, even at my college, over the last year. I witnessed over 1,000 students come in, in just the one year. Within that time, there was a lot of money that they ended up making. They had a deficit that they were looking to have at the end of the year, but because of this number of international students that came in, they were able to make up for that money and have enough to just have a balanced budget at the end of the year.

Also, I do feel like students would want to be in Canada just because of the quality of education that’s here. We’re seeing more students come in because the quality of education that’s here in B.C. is very high, and most students will want to come here just because of that. Parents are making the efforts to bring their students over here as well.

Speaking to the fact of the funding they need to make, we do have a member school, Emily Carr University, that had a 30 percent increase in tuition because the school was facing a deficit. That was an extra $5,000 on the international students. So if your program costs $30,000, if you are coming into Emily Carr in September of 2023, your tuition is $35,000. That’s an extra $5,000 that parents have to make up for, for all these students to be here.

Tuition is going to keep increasing if there’s not a cap. That’s the one thing that we, as an organization, are working towards to ask for, and we’re going to keep asking for that.

R. Leonard: If I can just add one thing. The advantage of having international students is that in smaller communities, it allows for programming when you can’t have enough seats filled locally. It gives more opportunities for a diversity of options for local students as well.

J. Niikoi: Yes, definitely.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Jessie, thank you for your presentation. I’m not sure what your major is, but the way you spoke about our education system and what British Columbia has to offer, if marketing is not there….

J. Niikoi: I’m a biology student.

[9:20 a.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): There we go. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Next we have Gabby Sarnoh from the Students Union of Vancouver Community College.

Gabby, as you’ve heard, you have five minutes to present, and we have five minutes to question or make comment.

The floor is now yours.

STUDENTS UNION OF
VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

G. Sarnoh: Good morning. My name is Gabriel Sarnoh, and I am the director of college affairs for the Students Union of Vancouver Community College. I am from Nigeria and immigrated to Canada when I was five. I am taking university transfer courses and will be moving to Douglas in the fall semester to complete my psychology degree.

For those of you who may not be familiar with us, SUVCC represents over 13,000 students at both of Vancouver Community College’s campuses and has been doing so for over 45 years.

We have noticed a disturbing trend with VCC’s finances. As their funding review submission will tell you, the operating grant does not cover the full cost of staff, let alone other expenses that come with delivering a program. While there have been increases to the operating grant over the years, they have not been anywhere near enough. For example, while the operating grant was increased by 5 percent in the 2023 B.C. budget, it was still below last year’s 6.8 rate of inflation. VCC estimates that their costs will go up a lot more than that.

There is only one place where this difference can be made, putting more of the burden on the students, both domestic and, increasingly, international. In 2019, the B.C. operating grant made up 48 percent of VCC’s revenue, while tuition made up 29 percent. In the latest budget passed by the board of governors in March of this year, the operating grant percentage has fallen to 36 percent, and tuition has risen to 50 percent. And 78 percent of that tuition will be from international students.

That is an enormous change in the span of five short years. It would be an underestimate to say that the past few years have been difficult for our members. Between the COVID pandemic and the skyrocketing costs of living, our members have faced difficulties that their parents could not have imagined. That is before the cost of education is factored in.

Measures like the B.C. access grant and tuition waiver for former youth in care are excellent, but they’re only partial solutions to a much larger problem. The barriers to access post-secondary are simply too high. The government can create as many spaces as it wants, but they won’t be fully filled if students cannot afford to access them.

We have one simple ask for you guys today. That is for stable, reliable, long-term funding that actually covers the cost of delivering programs. Education is an area where initiatives take years to pay off and long-term planning is essential to success. Reliance on tuition and fees that make extremely difficult…. Without proper funding, the barriers to access for domestic students will only grow, leading to further declines in enrolment.

In an increasingly unstable world, international students are not a wise foundation to build on. All it will take is one more dispute, one more war, one more stupid tweet from a federal MP, and the entire thing will collapse. In VCC’s case, that would mean the loss of nearly 40 percent of their revenue potentially overnight. For the sake of our future, this cannot happen.

Thank you for your time.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Gabby. Great presentation.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I’m really looking…. For me personally, a slam dunk for me is trying to retain those international students. I’ll say that over and over. I don’t know if that’s how you vet when you vet international students to come in, if it’s on the application, “What are your plans on postgraduate,” those kind of things. “What are your intentions?” Domestic students are highly likely to stay, because their families and things are from here.

International students…. We need them. There’s no question about it. They’re essential to our growth of our province. But we need them to stay. We need them to stay to fill those jobs that are coming in the future.

So if you can find out that silver bullet that could actually enhance or make it attractive for international students to stay here, that would be a slam dunk for me. I don’t know if you have any comments on that.

[9:25 a.m.]

G. Sarnoh: Personally, for me as a domestic student, I don’t think I’m a good representation. I would love to share a lot of our international students’ stories and their experiences and why they would want to stay here and have them tell that to you themselves, because I’m not a good representation for them.

I’m sure they would be more than happy to tell you: “I want to stay here. I have no plans of going back to my country. I love my country. I love my family. But this is my future. This is where I want to invest my time, my money, my energy.”

B. Banman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I would like to think that our system is a little bit more secure than one tweet by an MP destroying the whole thing, but anyway…. I think you need to have a little bit more faith in the system than that. But I get your point.

I think that being an international student should be a pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately, we tell everybody that if you’re a doctor, you can come here and be educated. Then you find out that you get a job driving a taxi cab because we don’t recognize your degree.

For me, not only do the international students help pay for domestic students, but they can also end up being a pathway and an entrance into Canada, as a permanent willing participant, to stay here. I fully support that.

My question, however, is: when it comes to the international students, does anybody track how many actually stay? How many that are educated here receive their degree? Does anybody know, out of 1,000, how many actually stay on and become Canadian citizens?

G. Sarnoh: Being completely honest with you, I cannot give you a concrete number. I would love to investigate this and get back to you.

B. Banman: I would suggest that amongst yourselves, all of the student organizations, somebody needs to find that number out. I would say it’s important.

G. Sarnoh: No, you’re 100 percent right. I’d just love to investigate that and give you the full number.

G. Chow: Thank you, Gabby, for your presentation. Of course, you’re Canadian. You immigrated when you were five years old. I completely understand that your understanding of international students is not as deep as people who are actually international students, so that’s understandable.

You mentioned this figure about 78 percent tuition fees. I didn’t quite catch that.

G. Sarnoh: I can read that again. I said that the operating grant percentage has fallen to 36 percent as tuition fees have risen to 50 percent, and 78 percent of that tuition will be from international students, so they are making a huge…. Really, they’re like the bigger percentage…

G. Chow: …to the operating shortfall.

G. Sarnoh: Yeah, exactly.

G. Chow: You mentioned 30,000 students. Those are spread over how many campuses — Langara?

G. Sarnoh: No. Two campuses. There’s the Broadway campus, and there’s the downtown campus. It’s 13,000, not 30,000. Over 13,000 students.

G. Chow: I’m familiar with both campuses. That’s great. Okay, good. Thank you,

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. I do have a quick question to ask just about the feedback on some of the comments made by Tom and Bruce. Is there some kind of, I guess, tax benefit after a person becomes an international student and starts to work and is getting to a PR process?

G. Sarnoh: I’m sorry. I can’t hear you.

H. Yao: I apologize. Sorry. I take pride in being loud, so I’m surprised you couldn’t hear me.

I’m wondering if there’s any kind of after-graduation benefit from government to help international students if they actually become part of the labour force, that we can somehow compensate for the previous tuition they had to pay for in the past. Would that help, or would that be too far away for international students? That’s my first question.

My second question is….

M. Starchuk (Chair): You only get one.

H. Yao: Never mind. I’ll shut up.

G. Sarnoh: So my thinking is: why give them the benefit later? You always want to…. To make education more accessible, you have to give it up front. Why make them suffer through it and then, later, be like: “Okay, here’s a little prize”? No. Give it to them now so they can be excited for this, so they’re not stressed out about this, for international and domestic.

I would love to think about that more and get back to you for that question.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I think that pretty much wraps up our morning. Thank you very much for your presentation.

G. Sarnoh: Thank you for your time.

[9:30 a.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next up we have Tracey Friesen from the Canadian Media Producers Association, B.C. branch.

Tracey, you have five minutes to present, and we have five minutes to respond.

You have the floor.

CANADIAN MEDIA PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION, B.C. BRANCH

T. Friesen: Thank you. My name is Tracey Friesen. I’m the managing vice-president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Media Producers Association. We’re an industry association that serves over 150 B.C.-owned production companies. These are independent businesses of all sizes producing all types of projects all over the province.

I’d like to start by thanking the government of British Columbia for their recent announcement of financial support across the creative sectors. The domestic motion picture fund will receive $15 million over three years to invest in film and television projects. This was years in the making, and it will provide years of economic benefit, so thank you.

I am here today with three further points for the committee’s consideration. One is about tax credits and the importance of maintaining the stability of the program. Points 2 and 3 are about workforce diversification and climate action.

B.C.’s film and television sector is facing some headwinds at the moment: inflation and labour instability in the U.S., plus global-level corporate consolidation and shifting business models. But we’re a resilient industry, historically able to adapt to cyclical ups and downs.

A driver of this stability is the province’s innovative tax credit programs, a cornerstone for about 25 years. These are labour-based credits triggered only when hiring British Columbians, plus additional bonuses, like when working in the regions, offering training or hiring talented B.C. writers or VFX artists. All of this has led to a direct, well-paid, full-time workforce of about 40,000 people, or twice that when you look at the spinoff jobs.

The production services tax credit is a key factor in bringing big business to B.C. in what is an extremely competitive international landscape. Film Incentive B.C. is essential in fostering the growth of domestic production, B.C. stories told by B.C. storytellers. In all cases, the economic benefit to small businesses throughout the province is measurable. Local hotels, retail stores, doughnut shops — it’s significant.

B.C.’s production volume is over $3.6 billion. Notably, though, only 17 percent of that is domestic content, where the copyright is owned and controlled by British Columbians. This is where the recent funding to Creative B.C. will help producers attract more international partners and leverage additional federal funding. Right now, B.C. is still not receiving its fair share. Regional equity is top of mind now as the CRTC begins post–Bill C-11 consultations, bringing the global streamers into the regulatory system.

Lately I’ve been thinking that workforce development could be a team sport here among us. Our primary and very constructive relationship is with the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. We are also exploring collaborative conversations with more B.C. ministries. Can you join us at the table when it comes to education, retraining, recruitment, retaining international students — I have been listening — micro-credentialling and the like? Unionized crew positions can come from many fields — carpenters, hairstylists, accountants — sometimes needing only modest skills upgrades to acquire the expertise.

Likewise regarding social and environmental justice. The production sector is aligned with the province’s own mandates around sustainability, reconciliation, anti-racism and equity more broadly. For instance, the Creative Pathways initiative was built by Creative B.C. and funded by the government and industry. This online hub leads to real-life opportunities for those who have historically faced barriers to entry into the biz.

There’s Reel Green. Started here in B.C. over 15 years ago, this climate action catalyst offers tools and training and amplifies leadership at all levels. One infrastructure example is the city of Vancouver’s clean energy kiosks, allowing productions to get off diesel generators. With this kind of innovative thinking, B.C.’s motion picture community, in partnership with the province, is co-creating a more just and sustainable sector and society. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Tracey.

Are there any questions or comments?

I’ll start it off by saying that at the end of your presentation, you talked about the environment, the green parts and getting rid of those generators and things like that. Can you expand what kind of a scope that is and where you see that growing to?

[9:35 a.m.]

T. Friesen: Absolutely. The city of Vancouver and city of Toronto, major production hubs, have been working at a municipal level to put tie-ins into the grid. This is a key part of getting one of the highest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the production industry…. The two highest sources are transportation, no surprise, and energy consumption.

This is one of the ways we recognize that producers have some control, for sure, over how green their sets are. In some ways, we’re also reliant on collaboration with all levels of government for things that are greening all of our society that will actually have a positive impact across all sectors. This is one really key example that the city of Vancouver is a leader on.

R. Leonard: Just riffing off of that one. When we go to movies, when we participate in anything in the entertainment field, most of us don’t think about the environmental impacts. As the world is shifting in different corporations, the value for investment comes from being environmentally friendly, the whole ESG piece of it. I’m curious if there is that sort of stamp of approval that could help raise the profile in terms of the entertainment.

T. Friesen: This is a great question. Something that we’re working with Reel Green and other partners nationally on right now is data collection, benchmarking, getting a baseline for the overall footprint of the industry, and certification, which is, I think, what you’re talking about. There is a green seal in the U.S. There’s something comparable in the U.K. We’re in discussions about that here in Canada. And then, ultimately, targets.

At this point, we need the data to be clear about how we can set reduction targets, but it’s a path that we’re very absorbed in at the moment.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Tracey. I want to better understand the number you use, the 17 percent domestic content. Specifically, I want to know what it is that we should be trying to do as a province and government to try to increase that.

Secondly, I think that the industry — this green initiative, the plugging into the grid — knows. I don’t think that that generalized kind of approach, where just saying that it would be nice…. I think specifics, like, “Downtown Vancouver, this area, is where the plug-in should be,” type of thing…. If we’re going to do that, I think that that’s what helps the committee make specific recommendations.

T. Friesen: Absolutely. The city is and has been mapping, and there is a map available for where the biggest energy draws are.

To your first question, thank you, the $3.6 billion of production spend that happens in the province largely is service work. Our members and everyone are grateful for this work. It’s an amazing employer. It sets up a lot of infrastructure and training, but the domestic B.C.-owned intellectual property is the 17 percent. That’s less than half a billion dollars, generally.

One of the things that is really supportive of that is, in fact, what happened in Budget 2023 — thank you to the committee from last year — which is money into Creative B.C. to support the development and production of B.C.-owned content. Now we are in the process of receiving that money, doing industry consultations to understand how to best deploy it and leverage it.

We need to leverage it not only with international buyers, but also with the federal system — the national, federal funders — and ensure that B.C. is getting its fair share, because it historically has not. The bulk of the money tends to land in Ontario and Quebec. We have been working with our ministry here in B.C., who has been very supportive in helping us to lobby for regional equity for British Columbians.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Henry, for the last question.

H. Yao: I’ll make it quick, and I’ll piggyback off Ben’s. If we continue to support B.C. content from 17 percent or higher, maybe double, how much money do you think we will be able to draw into British Columbia?

T. Friesen: That’s a good question. We don’t want to decrease the ratio. We want to change the ratio by adding more domestic, not by reducing the overall volume, to be clear about that. But when there is money that’s invested at a development and production level, that money can often…. The multiplier effect can be twice, sometimes three times the amount of what comes in via these incentives because it pulls in this federal funding and it also pulls in international supporters.

[9:40 a.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation today, Tracey.

Next we have Rainbow Robert, B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture.

Good morning, and you will definitely have the best name of the day.

R. Robert: Well, thank you very much, and thank you for the correct pronunciation of my last name.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Oh, great.

Rainbow, you have five minutes to present, then we have five minutes for questions and answers.

You have the floor.

B.C. ALLIANCE FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

R. Robert: I am here representing the British Columbia Alliance for Arts and Culture. We’re a provincial arts service organization with over 430 members of arts, culture and heritage organizations and individuals from across all disciplines.

Although it’s very clear that the arts is one of many priorities that is being balanced by the government, we ask you to think long term about the need for stability in this sector and to bear in mind that strategic investments that support sustainability will benefit the economy overall and contribute to the quality of life for all British Columbians.

I think it’s really important to bear in mind, under this point, that investment in arts and culture is truly the sister investment in tourism, and properly supporting these two pieces in tandem will continue to make British Columbia a place that is one of the most remarkable places in the world and that people will be still, always, drawn to come back and visit.

My first recommendation is that the B.C. Arts Council funding be increased to $50 million annually. The resilience funding has provided a lifeline for the sector, and we applaud the outstanding financial commitments the province has made to provide this essential and timely support, which has been truly remarkable — the method of delivery has been remarkable. But we ask that the province build upon the impact of this resilience funding and focus on investments that will support longevity and enhance our ability to undertake strategic thinking that will be required to effectively adapt to the future.

Resilience supplements have kept many operations in play and organizations alive and on somewhat steady footing but, for the most part, this critical support only reached organizations that had the great benefit of already being recipients of operating support. There is a gap there in some of the more delicate layers of the community where, due to the need for rapid delivery, not all corners of the province and not all levels of presenters and artists were reached.

Stable and predictable funding is what will allow the arts and culture community to plan effectively and to build a strong and vibrant future that benefits all British Columbians. This investment would support the B.C. Arts Council in continuing to develop systems change priorities, which are already well on track through their extending foundations action plan, and improve access to funding for historically underserved artists, cultural practitioners and arts and culture organizations.

The arts, culture and heritage sectors have exhibited outstanding levels of resilience through significant recent challenges. A permanent increase that really makes sustainable the level of funding through the B.C. Arts Council will be an important step towards supporting long-term stability for the sector and will contribute to the cultural vibrancy of communities across B.C., which we feel is an ever-important goal that we work together towards.

My second recommendation is that the province invest $10 million in infrastructure for cultural spaces that include artist housing and/or studio space. In the recent announcement of resilience support, we were encouraged to see that $4.5 million was allocated to infrastructure.

Investment in infrastructure supports economic impact across sectors. Organizations in B.C. are doing outstanding work developing new models for cultural spaces. Ongoing financial investment will add momentum to the remarkable work being undertaken to create these cultural spaces that serve the dual role of providing housing or studio space for artists.

We need to prioritize these investments that allow artists to continue to live and work in B.C. and that will make it possible for arts, culture and heritage organiza­tions to maintain a strong presence in communities throughout the province. The talented and committed working artists across B.C. play an invaluable role in our society and in the vibrancy of community.

My last recommendation is that dedicated funding is allocated to address equity, diversity, inclusion and reconciliation goals. We acknowledge the pronounced need to work together to move our shared goals forward and become truly collaborative. At the B.C. Alliance, we work closely with arts service organizations across the province to create a sense of belonging, and we aim to welcome new voices into every conversation. We come from all backgrounds and are committed to listening to each other in ways that build lasting trust and respect.

[9:45 a.m.]

We recognize that our natural creativity, and that which flows from it, is one of the strongest tools for dissolving the perceived barriers between us. We believe that arts and culture have the power to transform lives and communities. The space that we create together holds the greatest promise for lasting change. We are committed to working together to build a future that respects and honours the value of sharing our inspirations, our traditions and our stories.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, Rainbow, that took us right to the edge of that five minutes. Thank you very much for your presentation. That was awesome.

I do have a question to start it off. When you talked about $10 million for cultural spaces, where in the prov­ince of British Columbia are we talking about? Have we earmarked the spaces, should the money come forward?

R. Robert: Well, you know, there really is a dual need to be served there. Some of the most progressive and remarkable work is currently being done in Vancouver, which is creating new models. Obviously, the housing crisis for artists and cultural workers is most pronounced in this urban community with a very high cost of living. However, perhaps even more important at this point is to keep artists living and thriving in remote communities across B.C., where we’re seeing a shrinking of cultural spaces where very limited infrastructure existed in the first place.

Being able to make further investment in the leaders who are creating social change on this level and developing new models for progressive outlooks and infrastructure for artist housing and studio space, providing them with opportunities to mentor people in remote communities, and providing leaders in remote communities with opportunities to see the progress of work that’s being done in this regard….

I think a sharing of best practices, at this point, could have immeasurable benefit, and the impacts could be seen across the province, because we want to keep these amazing people that keep our communities vibrant able to live here rather than having to move to other places due to cost of living concerns.

B. Stewart: Just to follow up on that question…. I’m really glad you talked about rural and remote. When you get to those rural and remote communities, where do you see this housing and the studio spaces could perhaps be integrated or attached with other services so, if things change…?

I think of Masset or some remote place like that. Where could they be attached to?

R. Robert: Well, certainly there’s a pronounced need in the North, in the Yukon. But even in communities throughout the Gulf Islands, throughout the interior of B.C., the cost of living is really skyrocketing in communities where artists originally flocked because it was more affordable to live there and more affordable to create there and be part of smaller, vibrant communities.

I would consider the fact that investing in the cultural spaces that exist in those communities currently, to enhance their sustainability, and to making ties between those infrastructure pieces and vacant properties in those communities…. Considering what type of dialogue will be required in order for shared services and shared methodologies to be developed to tie these local community centres, venues and studio spaces to available space for artists and cultural workers to continue to live in these communities.

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

If I remember correctly, the current B.C. Arts Council gets about $39 million and going to $50 million. That’s about a 28 percent increase, which I think is interesting, absolutely.

I’m just fascinated that, when I asked last time too, there isn’t a lot of talk about the benefit from arts and culture for mental health. There isn’t a lot of talk about arts and culture benefits for the innovation industry when it comes to creativity, for the creative industry as well.

Can you maybe go more into a bit more of how this $50 million can strengthen our government’s GDP for our province and support our individual mental health — like live performance theatre, like that.

R. Robert: Absolutely. The social determinants of wellness and health across B.C. are one of the things that the B.C. Alliance is most focused on. We are about to announce a social prescribing program that we are in the second phase of currently. We are trying to make the case that arts and culture plays a critical role in health and wellness for communities across the province, for seniors confined in their homes, for people experiencing mental health and addiction problems.

[9:50 a.m.]

We are trying to build infrastructure that connects the health care industry with arts and culture so they can work together in tandem to support long-standing infrastructure and support so that the impact on wellness across British Columbians of arts and culture is amplified, moving forward, and has better infrastructure to support it.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Rainbow, that concludes our time, or nearly concludes our time, here today. I want to thank you very much for your presentation and for your vigour in getting the message across to us today.

R. Robert: It’s my great pleasure. Thank you for your time.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next up we have Tom Green from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Good morning, Tom. There are some of us that were wondering if it was the other Tom Green. I’m not saying that it wasn’t possible or not, but I’m pleased to see you here today. You have five minutes for your presentation. Then we have five minutes for our questions.

The floor is yours now, Tom.

DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION

T. Green: Thank you very much. I’ll try to be…. Well, I won’t be as entertaining as the other Tom Green, but it’s a pleasure to be here with you today. I think this is my third time before the committee, and I appreciate these hearings.

British Columbians are increasingly familiar with the devastating effects of heat domes, wildfires and more. We have had an early heatwave this year, temperature records have shattered and flooding has hit communities. Despite this, new fossil fuel projects and logging plans that will add to the carbon and methane in the atmosphere and further degrade natural systems are still being approved.

At the same time, we are pleased to see in the energy action framework signs that the government recognizes the need to pivot towards clean energy. Signals that a nature agreement with Canada is soon to be announced are also hopeful.

The foundation believes Budget 2024 should address the following priorities.

A B.C. energy plan. To achieve the province’s 2030 climate target and to support CleanBC, the province needs to invest in developing and moving forward with a B.C. energy plan.

The province could follow the lead of jurisdictions like Quebec by developing a blueprint to cost-effectively navigate the energy transition, seize economic opportunities, reduce costs and to make reforms to energy governance and regulation that are needed as the economy pivots to being powered by renewable energy — an energy plan that will provide a clear signal that B.C. understands the scale of investment and urgency of action that is needed to ensure an expanded supply of clean electricity. This has been an essential component of Quebec’s success in attracting battery supply chain investments.

The energy plan should prioritize bringing energy pol­icy in line with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It can be part of creating meaningful economic opportunities for Indigenous communities through their ownership of and participation in clean energy resources.

An energy plan also must be developed and deployed with a biodiversity screen to ensure that the required growth in clean energy is met with methods that also contribute to B.C.’s environment. By meeting a growing share of B.C.’s energy needs with domestically sourced clean energy, the province can wean itself off fossil fuels that are priced in international markets and that have caused so much stress on household and business budgets.

We also advocate that the province stop enabling the growth of fossil fuels and LNG exports. One of the arguments most frequently made by industry lobbyists and LNG project proponents is that LNG is a bridge fuel. They assert it will displace coal and lower global emissions.

We released a report just last week that takes those assertions to task. Burning Bridge: Debunking LNG as a Climate Solution takes a look at the science and concludes that far from being a climate solution, LNG exacerbates the problem. Specifically, LNG locks up investment, locks in emissions and locks out renewables.

LNG projects are very capital-intensive. LNG Canada’s project in Kitimat would not have come about without public financing and an infrastructure provision enabled by the provinces and the feds. The IEA has declared that the golden era of fossil gas is over, and renewables, energy efficiency and clean technologies like heat pumps are rapidly destroying demand for gas. Providing public financing and infrastructure makes little sense.

B.C. can lead also with a restored nature plan. Practices that lead to climate breakdown and nature destruction are mutually reinforcing and often driven by the same forces that lead to social inequities.

[9:55 a.m.]

The world came to Canada earlier last year to conclude a new biodiversity framework. British Columbia governments appeared alongside Canada’s federal government to present themselves as leaders in securing and executing a meaningful deal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. There is much left to do in B.C. to halt and reverse nature loss.

Fossil fuel projects also hurt forests, groundwater and air quality. Scientists recently found that 37 percent of the forest area in western North America burned since 1986 by wildfires can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

B.C. could be a leader in biodiversity conservation and restoration with the adequate funding and prioritization that is required to address all these issues in a coordinated, whole-government effort. We recommend that B.C. establish an office of nature recovery and implementation accountability that reports directly to the Premier, kind of like the climate action secretariat.

Thank you very much.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Tom, for your presentation.

First up, George.

G. Chow: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned heat pumps. Of course, heat pumps require electrical power. Where do you see we’re going to be generating power after we exceed the capacity from Site C, for example? That would be my question.

T. Green: Thanks for the question. We did some modelling in collaboration with the University of Victoria and put out a report called Shifting Power. Other places like the Canadian Climate Institute have as well.

There are lots of opportunities to expand wind and solar and then to use B.C.’s large hydroelectric facilities as batteries. So you don’t drain the water from them through the turbines when you’ve got lots of wind and solar, and when you have less, then you can use it.

Modelling has been used to do this, but that’s one of the reasons that we’re calling for a B.C. energy plan. It’s to actually explore those issues in real depth, do the appropriate modelling and analysis and then align policy regulations, the B.C. Utilities Commission, and all those things, to secure that future.

G. Chow: I went to a presentation that was in Victoria. To my surprise, the solar energy potential for B.C. is not great because of weather and climate. I guess it would have to come from other means, like wind or waves. I think we may be putting a lot of faith in solar energy when, in fact, we actually are not that well positioned in terms of getting solar power. What’s your comment?

T. Green: Well, Germany deploys more solar than B.C. does, and it has less hours of sunlight than we do. In the southeastern portion of the province, we actually have fairly good solar resource.

Solar is very, very affordable now. Prices have really plummeted. So even though it may not be…. You know, we’re not like Saskatchewan or Alberta, which are ideal places for deploying solar. Used in combination with wind, hydro and investments in energy efficiency, I think solar has a real role to play, and we’re going to see more and more of it deployed.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Tom, for the conversation here. It’s an important one.

You identified many climate activities like heat domes, flooding, those kinds of climate change–type catastrophes that we’re seeing across the world, actually. They are global, obviously. But I’m trying to identify, trying to meet our 2030 climate targets and how we participate in the reduction of global greenhouse gases. B.C. has an opportunity to assist in that, and what I….

You recited some statistics from the IEA. The IEA also says that there’s going to be a demand for natural gas. Coal not so much, but natural gas for sure, up until about 2050 — 2045 to 2050. Keeping in mind carbon leakage, if we don’t participate, somebody else is going to pick up that demand — whether it’s Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia or China — that don’t have the same standards that we have here in British Columbia.

Where do we lose the opportunity to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases if we don’t participate in that demand that is there, identified by the IEA?

T. Green: The report Burning Bridge really looks at these issues in depth. Just a few comments there.

One is that the world is going to be in a situation of excess export capacity by around 2025, when new LNG projects will be coming online.

[10:00 a.m.]

Secondly, the analysis shows that by exporting more LNG, we are not actually reducing global emissions, because what we can also be doing is displacing investments in renewables in Asia.

The other thing is that we’re putting ourselves at risk because the renewables transition is accelerating at a startling rate. The IEA keeps having to revise its forecasts as the technology has gotten better. What they’re seeing is that there’s real demand destruction. When someone puts in a heat pump, that’s a house or a business that’s no longer using gas. That’s not just happening here. It’s starting to accelerate around the world.

I’m happy to send you a copy of the report. It’s certainly valuable reading.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. That takes us just about to the end of our five minutes there.

Tom, thank you very much for your presentation. If you’re going to get back, just go through staff with that other, extra information.

T. Green: I’ll send the other Tom Green next time.

M. Starchuk (Chair): No, no. This is fine.

We’re going to alter our agenda slightly, and we’re going to bring up Doug Hooper…. Oh sorry — Ken Carrusca, Cement Association of Canada, then we will go on to Doug Hooper after.

Sorry, I jumped my gun.

K. Carrusca: I decided to bring my own name tag since I’m not Tom Green.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I’m almost speechless, and that doesn’t happen a lot.

Ken, you have five minutes for your presentation and then five minutes from us.

CEMENT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

K. Carrusca: Thank you for your time today. This is the work, I guess, of government that folks don’t often see: the fun of listening to all of us. I’m Ken Carrusca, VP of environment and marketing with the Cement Association of Canada. Yes, I’ll be talking a little bit about cement and concrete. I saw many of you, I think, about six weeks ago in Victoria. I’m going to see if I can move quickly and get you folks some time.

Our industry. We talked about the economic impact of our industry. It’s the cement plants operated by Heidelberg and Lafarge in Delta and Richmond. Then it’s also the concrete batch plants that you see across the province in virtually every riding — about 23,000 direct and indirect jobs and $11 billion in economic activity.

Again, just following up on some of the discussion on climate, climate change is a key area that our industry is very focused on. We’ve been working with the federal government on release of a net-zero plan, and most recently, on May 2, we released our own industry’s net-zero concrete action plan. We’re focusing on reducing emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and then to net zero by 2050.

This will be quite an initiative by our industry. I can get into some of the details. Some of the details do involve transitioning away from fossil fuel in cement production, lower-carbon fuels in transportation. Then a lot of the work is behind the scenes with government staff on transitioning away from being very prescriptive on cement and concrete and letting industry innovate.

The two asks we have. One relates to the CleanBC program. Specifically, we were very pleased to see in the budget announcement for 2023 a transition from the carbon tax to a specific program for industry. That’s the output-based pricing system, OBPS. Geeks like me just throw out the acronyms. We were very pleased to see that.

There was a reference to carbon leakage. Carbon leakage continues to be an issue that our industry does see. About 20 percent of the cement used in B.C. is imported. At present, it pays no carbon tax, and, in fact, leads to higher emissions due to transportation. So the new OBPS program is something we’re very keen on. Our ask is that the details of that program be set so that it protects competitiveness and is fair for the B.C. cement industry.

The second ask and the second main topic for me being here today is Portland-limestone cement and lower-carbon cements. I’ve presented to this committee in the past, and spoken to many of you and others in government, on Portland-limestone cement, or PLC. It’s a lower-carbon-intensity cement. You can reduce emissions by about 10 percent.

[10:05 a.m.]

We are very pleased to say that government has listened, and on many of the projects — the Broadway subway, the Pattullo bridge replacement and other projects — government is using PLC. We’re very happy to see that.

Of course, for us, what’s next? If we’re going to move to net zero, what are the next steps? Green procurement and performance-based concrete specifications — again, kind of a geeky mouthful. What it is…. Instead of setting specific parameters, let industry determine how to reduce those emissions.

So our ask to you, to government, is that the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure develop and adopt lower-carbon concrete standards and move towards performance-based specifications. That’s something the federal government has been working with us in doing.

That’s it. My notes say: “Conclusion and thank-you.” So it’s awesome to be here. Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to your questions and connecting with some of you, many of you, in the future.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Ken. As the nephew of a person that worked for Lafarge for over 40 years, we had the concrete-cement conversations many times. You know — it’s not concrete; it’s not cement; this is what this is.

Anyway, Tom, you’re first up.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Ken, for the presentation. Well, you don’t have to look too far out this window to see how important concrete is to our province. But it’s not so much what we see. It’s what we don’t see, and that’s underground infrastructure, foundations — those kinds of things.

As a matter of fact, concrete makes up more than wood, plastic, aluminum and steel times two. That’s how big concrete is. It’s important that we put our stamp on it in B.C. and keep those jobs here. The Site C dam, for example — a couple million tonnes of concrete there. The Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, is 880 metres tall. The Site C dam was six times that, so that’s the impact that concrete has here in the province, and it’s really critical.

You mentioned a couple of things, like the OBPS. The devil is always in the details. We don’t know what that looks like right now. But what are the biggest barriers? I’ve heard with aggregate mines and things like that…. What is the biggest barrier to push our B.C. product right now?

K. Carrusca: The biggest barrier to push, really, is, like a lot of industries, labour. It is getting staff, getting drivers, getting…. Many people don’t see the cement and concrete industry, if I can use the word, as sexy, but it is an industry where you can come out of high school with a diploma, and you can begin at entry level. You can build yourself a career, whether that’s as a driver…. You don’t have to be a driver for 40 years. You can move into sales. You can move into management. It is certainly a challenge for the industry, finding labour.

B. Stewart: Ken, thanks very much. I want to expand on the green procurement and letting businesses drive that initiative. Could you just tell us what it is right now and why MOTI, for instance…? Why aren’t they embracing it like they are on the Pattullo Bridge, which is one of their projects?

K. Carrusca: Good question. Thank you. You know, I’m an engineer, so I want to be very respectful to my engineering colleagues that work in government, work in the private sector. You know, we’ve got an engineer here. It’s a very conservative profession. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, so to speak.

The challenge is that if we’re going to reduce emissions, we have to innovate. So that takes leadership at the political level, but what we’ve seen is that it takes leadership at the staff level. The specific example is if we want to develop…. If the industry wants to use a lower-carbon concrete, but it is slower-setting, as an example…. The forms will need to be there for 36 hours instead of 24 hours.

Can that be done? On many projects, that’s not an issue at all. But it’s this hesitation to change and really focus on providing the same strength of material, the same qualities but lower carbon. That’s what we talk about as performance-based specifications, instead of prescriptive, where…. Right now, many of the mixes and the mix design requirements say they must have X kilograms, 300 kilograms, of cement.

[10:10 a.m.]

Here, as a cement guy. I’m telling you, telling staff, to take away that minimum requirement so we can develop mixes, and they’re available to reduce GHGs.

G. Chow: Hi, Ken. Nice to see you again.

What is the process that produces the most GHG in cement-making?

K. Carrusca: Cement making. I studied chemical engineering way back when, so I should know this sort of stuff. You’re actually cooking…. You’re heating rock, limestone, to 1,500 degrees Celsius. So you need a lot of energy. It’s the release of CO₂ from burning fuel. So that’s one part.

The other one is actually a chemical reaction that happens. It’s called calcination, and you release CO₂ through that reaction.

G. Chow: Lafarge has gotten a grant from the ministry in terms of capturing the CO₂ and putting it back in the cement or using it to make a few additives. That’s certainly some potential promise to reduce the CO₂ emissions.

K. Carrusca: Yes, absolutely. Carbon capture utilization and storage is something that the industry is very keen on. I know MLA Yao was there at the event at Lafarge a couple weeks ago for that announcement, and it’s something the industry is very active in.

M. Starchuk (Chair): That concludes our time, Ken. Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.

Next is Doug Hooper, Advanced Biofuels Canada.

Doug, you have five minutes to make your presentation and five minutes from us for questions and answers.

The floor is now yours.

ADVANCED BIOFUELS CANADA

D. Hooper: Thank you very much, and good morning, all.

I’m here representing Advanced Biofuels Canada, which is Canada’s national clean fuels association.

We’re privileged and grateful to live and work on Nexwlélexwm in the traditional and unceded territory of the Squamish First Nation.

This budget consultation is tasked to consider five priorities, including affordability and building a strong, clean economy. I’ll speak directly to these aspects.

I’d like to pose two questions for your consideration while I present today. One, why does the B.C. carbon tax not actually tax the carbon emission in transportation fuels? That’s a fact. Two, why, when we have Canada’s leading climate action policy and we live in the province with the highest fuel prices in North America, are we taxing clean fuels at the exact same rate as fossil fuels?

In my supplemental to the committee, I submitted three recommendations. In my time today, I’ll just focus on the perverse impacts of applying the B.C. carbon tax to clean liquid fuels, such as renewable diesel, biodiesel and ethanol.

From the Navius Research annual reports on clean fuel use, we know that the B.C. carbon tax has cost B.C. fuel consumers over $600 million since 2010. Entercan data demonstrates that B.C. consumers are continuing to bankroll the highest petroleum refining margins in Canada. Today, May 30, we’re paying 24 cents per litre more than in neighbouring Alberta on refining margins.

With the April 1 rise in carbon tax rates, consumers now pay 14 cents a litre on ethanol and 17 cents a litre on renewable diesel and biodiesel. The other alternative transportation fuels in B.C., such as electricity for electric vehicles, hydrogen and renewable natural gas all pay no carbon tax — which, we would argue, is the correct approach to stimulate demand and support the transition off of fossil fuels.

Energy and climate experts agree on one key fact: our economy will rely on internal combustion engines to at least 2050. Therefore, any realistic plan to hit net zero by 2050, and especially even our near-term 2030 goals, must include clean liquid fuels that replace gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in non-ZEV transport.

So I’ll make that point clear. We cannot electrify and hydrogen fuel cell our way to our emission reduction goals. It’s impossible. The internal combustion engine and airplanes, long-haul trucking, marine rail, will be around for this period of time.

[10:15 a.m.]

Our recommendation is very straightforward and, in a February letter to the government of British Columbia, was endorsed by 13 national and provincial associations and climate action advocates, and 13 major clean fuel companies, many of whom are based in British Columbia and investing in clean technology.

Our recommendation is this: permanently exempt clean liquid fuels from the B.C. carbon tax. This will (1) reduce the inflationary impact of high fuel costs today; (2) support capital investments that, right now, exceed over $1 billion in clean fuel capacity and infrastructure; (3) reduce B.C.’s GHG emissions and support compliance and feasibility with the B.C. Low Carbon Fuels Act, which is the low-carbon fuel standard; and (4) restore tax fairness across all of the clean fuel platforms.

I’ll close with this. B.C. is the only province in Canada that does not support clean liquid fuels with a full exemption from the carbon tax. The federal GGPPA fuel charge allows for that. The Quebec cap-and-trade system — fully exempt. B.C. is the only jurisdiction which is taxing clean fuels. B.C. consumers and the climate need your support.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Doug.

R. Leonard: I really appreciate you coming out today and sharing your perspective on this issue.

My first question is…. The very first statement that you made — could you repeat it and clarify for us about the carbon tax not applying to something?

D. Hooper: The B.C. carbon tax is based on a volumetric rate that’s calculated on the emissions of gasoline and diesel. It’s a combustion, so when you burn those molecules, you release carbon and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The rate on gasoline is about 14 cents, and the rate on diesel is about 17 cents now that we’re at $65 a tonne. That’s the federal carbon charge.

The B.C. system, in 2010, was amended to convert the system where the tax did not apply on biogenic carbon-neutral clean fuels like biofuels. In 2010, when we brought in the renewable Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation — that’s a great acronym, that one — the tax was fully applied to clean fuels. Now there is no tax. There’s no price signal in the market to incent consumers to use more of these non-or lower-emitting fuels.

R. Leonard: Okay, thank you. So how big is the biofuel sector? Can it take up the capacity of fossil fuels?

D. Hooper: It’s growing rapidly. Longer term, in the diesel market…. That’s where we really have to get our emissions down, because it’s hard to electrify and switch to hydrogen or other fuels.

California, for instance, is closing in on 50 percent of its diesel use being non-fossil right now. In our modelling to 2030, we followed a trajectory to catch up with California by 2030. We now have a LCFS target of 30 percent lower emissions by 2030. That was the amendment that was done by the government in December of last year. They’re just completing the reg for the rule for the LCFA this year to start that next year.

In gasoline, it’s less of an issue, because EVs are going to more rapidly replace light-duty vehicles, but we can still see biofuels going up to 15 percent or more. You can do E15, E25, E85. Mostly, emission reductions need to come from the diesel side to hit our targets.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Doug. Great conversation. I would like to talk to you offline about this stuff because I try to get into this as much as I possibly can.

When we talk about liquid fuels, biofuels, we’re not talking about any other energy sources such as cogeneration of biowaste, or is that part of that? Maybe give me examples of some liquefied biofuels, what their chemical makeup is. Where do they come from?

D. Hooper: Biodiesel and renewable diesel are made from oleochemicals. They’re vegetable oils, used cooking oil, animal fats. The emerging technologies that will probably achieve commercial readiness by 2030 are going to be carbon capture technologies where you can synthesize carbon chain molecules out of CO₂ capture, like carbon engineering.

[10:20 a.m.]

You can also do that from flue stack emissions from the cement plants as well as steel mills and things like that. That’s precommercial right now. That will be later.

You can also do that from flue stack emissions from the cement plants, as well as steel mills and things like that. That’s pre-commercial right now. That will be later. Ethanol, right now, is primarily made from corn and wheat, but it’s also being synthesized from carbon capture technologies. That’s actually at the demonstration stage already.

Then ethanol can be converted into jet fuel, using what’s called the alcohol-to-jet pathway. You can use the same feedstocks in the distillate system to produce sustainable aviation fuel. YVR is one of the signatories to this letter in February. We’re trying to get the YVR system to be Canada’s leading green, low-carbon airport, under what’s called BioPort YVR program.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Right on.

Just a comment, not a question. I think it’s important we embrace this transition. Like you said, it’s impossible, by 2050, to take some of these ICEs out of the market. We’re going to need those internal combustion engines. We need to have that transition to get us to 2050 so that we can eventually get away from it. Thanks for the presentation. That’s great.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Doug, for your presentation. That concludes it.

To the committee, we will take a short recess and reconvene at 10:30.

The committee recessed from 10:21 a.m. to 10:32 a.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right, we are back in session. We have up in front of us Murray Mollard from North Shore Community Resources.

Murray, you have five minutes to make a presentation and five minutes from us for questions and comments.

The floor is yours, sir.

NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY RESOURCES

M. Mollard: Good morning, committee members. My name is Murray Mollard. I’m the executive director at North Shore Community Resources.

We do a whole bunch of things. We serve children, families, older adults and younger adults through a variety of different social services. The thing I want to talk to you about today is really what I spoke to you about last year at about this time. I made a presentation. This committee was, may I say, wise enough to include my testimony and then include my recommendation in your report last year. I’m just going to recommend you do exactly the same thing.

I’m going to give you a little bit of background here. Among the many programs we run at North Shore Community Resources, we run a program called the Democracy Cafe, which is really just a platform for encouraging local citizens and residents to engage in democratic life in many forms, in many different ways. We also try to encourage governments at every level to think about innovations about how they can improve and provide meaningful opportunities for citizens and residents to participate in democratic life, not just during elections but in fact, very importantly, between elections if we want a robust democratic society.

We do a bunch of things in Democracy Cafe. We hold workshops and education workshops on government 101. What is local government? What is provincial government? How is that different than federal government? How do elections work? How can you get involved? How can you participate in a way that is beyond just voting at elections? But we also do election engagement and voter engagement work.

All of this is, of course, absolutely non-partisan, as it must be. The voter engagement work is important, because we know historically — and you, as MLAs, are I think acutely aware of this — we’re in an era and a time when there is diminishing trust about our government institutions and about our democratic institutions, where disinformation and misinformation hold sway. We need to invest in our democratic life and invest in our democratic institutions in order to counteract, I think, that current tendency.

[10:35 a.m.]

Some of the things we do as well: we run a North Shore young civic forum. We gather 18-to-39-year-olds to learn about what local government is and then engage in projects that are relevant to our local municipalities on the North Shore to address this democratic deficit. As you know…. I’m sure all of you are aware of the statistics around voter turnout in both provincial elections but, importantly, in municipal elections too. So I probably don’t have to tell you that in the municipal election in 2022, we had 23.55 percent eligible voters vote in the district of North Vancouver and 22.38 percent of eligible voters vote in the city of North Vancouver. West Van was a little better at 35 percent.

If an alien landed on our good shores here in British Columbia and asked us, “Listen. I understand you have a very robust, successful democracy. Show me how it works. Tell me how it works,” and we revealed to them our voter turnout numbers for municipal elections, they would get back on their airship and head off this planet immediately.

We need to do more. This is important, and I know I’m speaking to probably mostly converted people here. So what to do? Well, one of the biggest challenges I have in running this Democracy Cafe program is that there’s almost no funding. People say: “Oh, that’s political work. Why would we fund that?” And we say: “Well, it’s non-partisan work.” When we engage our voter engagement ambassadors to go out and talk to people — people to people, talking about the importance of getting engaged — people don’t want to fund that.

I tried to get funding for this municipal election last year. I thought I was going to get some, and I didn’t get any. So it’s really hard to do this work.

The recommendation I have for you is for government to create a strengthening democratic participation fund with three branches. One, funds that invest in civics education and community capacity to participate in democracy, the kinds of activities that we do at Democracy Cafe.

Two, funds to enable equity, accessibility and inclusion in government decision-making. We know that there are barriers for some folks who do not participate, and we need to make sure that our democracy is inclusive for everyone.

Three, funds to promote innovation and collaborative decision-making, like deliberative democracy. We are a leader in the citizens’ assembly format in the world and recognized as such. Use of digital tools and processes.

So that’s my recommendation. I think I’m 15 seconds over. Thank you so much.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Murray.

Tom, you’re first up.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I can understand why the committees of past have embraced your network here. I’m just wondering about the Democracy Cafe. Sounds really cool. I’m just wondering how you ensure that it’s non-partisan. I mean, it must be tough. You’ve got board members. Everybody votes. How do you ensure that it’s non-par­tisan?

M. Mollard: Well, first of all, we engage local councillors and MLAs across the political spectrum. So I don’t just talk to Susie, or I just don’t talk to Bruce. I talk to everyone, just as I’m doing today.

When we organize the North Shore young civic forum, for example, it’s focused on the municipal side of things, so local government. We talk to all councillors. I know there’s not the party structure there is at the provincial or federal level, but we want to make sure that we’re inclusive in the sense that we engage all councillors.

Of course, we’re speaking to the staff who work in our municipal halls, but we also do this at the provincial level. We have four MLAs on the North Shore. I try to meet with all of them on a regular basis so that they understand what we’re doing and how they can support our work as well.

In the programming of something like the forum, we’re often meeting with the staff to say: “Listen. The first phase of the forum is about a learning phase. Help these younger adults understand what local government is, how it differs from provincial government, how they can get involved and influence local decision-making.”

You know, we have to be assiduously aware of the non-partisan nature of this. We’re a charity. Charitable rules in Canada preclude partisan political activity.

G. Chow: Thank you, Murray, for your presentation. I think civic engagement is certainly very important, and civic education and voter education. My question is in terms of, because of the time…. Do you think having a rule like Australia, if you don’t vote, you’ll be fined $25 to $30…? What’s your opinion on a policy like that?

M. Mollard: It’s a great question, George. I actually gave a workshop at Langara College on the issue of mandatory voting.

[10:40 a.m.]

If you know my background, I used to work for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Freedom is important. The idea of forcing people to vote…. Australia does have a very high percentage of voting, up in the high 90s, probably because of that policy.

As someone once expressed in a wise moment…. They said to me: “You know, I’m as interested in informed voters as in the number of voters, because we want people to go to the polls informed and educated about their choices.” That’s what we’re trying to do in the background as well. I think that civic education component is really strong. I’m not here today to talk to you about mandatory voting, though.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Murray. What work have you done to engage with Elections B.C., which is responsible? They’ve presented to us, and they actually have a key component to increase voter turnout. What has been their response? Or have you talked to them?

M. Mollard: Actually, the Chief Electoral Officer is on my list of people to talk to. I know they do some work. There is a question. In the past, I have approached their office for some assistance in funding the very local grassroots work we do. I wasn’t successful at that time. It’s time to re-engage with them again, so I will be reaching out and talking to them.

I will emphasize, though, that a lot of our programs occur between elections. It’s really important. Participation in democracy is like exercise. You can’t do it once every two years or once every four years. Your muscles atrophy. You need to be exercising the democratic muscles on a continual basis. Between elections is really important, things like our North Shore young civic forum.

B. Banman: Well, Murray, thank you for what you do, first of all. It’s important, but by the time people get out of school, I almost think it’s too late. Is this not something that should be brought right into the heart of our schools?

We vote for class presidents. We vote for all kinds…. Should this not be a more important part of our curriculum? Most people, sadly, couldn’t care less and are really uninvolved.

M. Mollard: Great question, Bruce. Speaking of voting rights, there are arguments for lowering the voting age to 16. You have a captive audience then. Education in schools is critical. The curriculum does require teaching about civics. I think the challenge is that a lot of teachers have discretion about what they teach during particular curriculum years.

I’m going to give a shout out to George here, because George visited my son’s class in southeast Vancouver and had a little chat with them about what he does and what MLAs do. I really encourage all of you to reach out and spend some time in the schools. It is important what we do in schools.

I think one of the projects I would like to run…. I don’t have funding for it. I call it first vote. There is some research that suggests that if you can get someone to vote when they’re first eligible to vote, they’re more likely to be lifetime voters. My first vote idea has been….

Look, we’ve got to get to the grade 12s. If there’s a fall election, most of those grade 12s, when they graduate — not all of them, but most of them — will be eligible to vote. Let’s figure out a way to get them excited and to excite each other through their social media channels, etc. In other words, help to empower them to engage their own cohorts to get out and vote. I’d love to run that program. I don’t have funding for it.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, Murray. Thank you very much for your time this morning. What you’ve brought towards us is very enlightening, and it seems like the simplest of all things.

M. Mollard: I think everyone can get behind this. There are some complexities around how you do a fund like this, but we could talk to you about that. Thank you so much, everyone.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next we have Michael Meneer, from the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

Good morning, Michael. You have five minutes to present, and five minutes for us to ask questions.

PACIFIC SALMON FOUNDATION

M. Meneer: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’m Mike Meneer, President and CEO of the Pacific Salmon Foundation. We were founded in 1987. It’s a non-profit dedicated to the conservation and restoration of wild Pacific salmon and their habitats all across British Columbia.

Working with First Nations, NGO partners and community groups, our research grants and conservation projects support salmon recovery from headwaters all the way to the open ocean. PSF has been a long and trusted partner of the British Columbia and federal governments.

[10:45 a.m.]

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the B.C. government in recent years in support of Pacific salmon — the wild salmon strategy in 2019; your recent investments of $85.7 million towards the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund, a partnership with the federal government totalling $285 million; as well as a $5 million grant to the Salmon Foundation in 2019, to support our work with our 340-some streamkeeping groups that we work with across B.C.

Members of the committee, our salmon stocks are in trouble, roughly half, due to a variety of factors throughout their life cycle, especially climate change and weather variability that we’ve seen with the recent floods and fires. Because of the ranging migration of salmon, there are also jurisdictional complexities and challenges that have inhibited their protection and recovery — which is why PSF is not only working on the hard science but also the social science of rebuilding and protecting our wild salmon.

In short, we need a collaborative, watershed-up ap­proach to protecting and recovering our salmon. The B.C. government has a critical role to play because of your jurisdiction over their habitats, particularly freshwater and land management. This new approach that I outline will be enabled by new provincial and federal investments in a bottom-up, collaborative approach — which is juxtaposed against the top-down, federal-centric approach that ha been used on salmon recovery in recent decades.

There are three budget investments that B.C. can make that will help this change. First, we recommend the establishment of a B.C. salmon recovery endowment to enable Indigenous-led and watershed-based salmon recovery planning and implementation. This endowment would provide a permanent source of funding for Indigenous and watershed entities to prioritize recovery projects for Pacific salmon and the grassroots mobilization of these ambitious goals.

This endowment would invest in capacity to support the employment of people across First Nations and other delivery partners to do the needed salmon recovery planning and project implementation. It would prioritize major habitat projects that dovetail with your provincial jurisdiction. It would also be the basis for groups like PSF to go out and raise additional contributions from individuals, corporations and philanthropic donors.

Second, we suggest the establishment and resourcing of a provincial salmon recovery office akin to the Washington State office of salmon recovery. The current provincial government has shown leadership for Pacific salmon, but provincial interest can wax and wane with governments. Pacific salmon need a durable commitment, given the province’s jurisdiction over their habitats.

Learnings from recent Pacific Salmon Action Dialogues that we have convened with the First Nations Fisheries Council support the need for a three-scale collaborative framework focused on Indigenous-led watershed-up planning, anchored by the province and by a provincial salmon recovery office that would coordinate amongst First Nations, the federal government and groups like mine.

Third, and finally, we need adequate resourcing for the new Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. The new ministry, with a key mandate to implement your wild salmon strategy, is potentially a game-changer for salmon. Continuing with this relatively new ministry is a clear signal from the province that they are committed to the future health of our ecosystem and salmon. This ministry is poised to chart a new path, working to implement UNDRIP collectively with First Nations and DFO, and a shared approach with groups like the Salmon Foundation, to salmon recovery.

Given the crisis facing salmon, the B.C. wild salmon strategy needs to be urgently prioritized. Adequately funding this new ministry can help us save our salmon. In closing, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, 86 percent of British Columbians, in a recent poll that we conducted with Insights West, ranked Pacific salmon as their number one environmental priority, ranking them higher than climate change in general.

Clearly, salmon, our wild salmon, are a great source of common ground, and their recovery is something that we can do something about. It’s up to all of us, and there’s only upside economically, environmentally and culturally for us to invest more in salmon.

[10:50 a.m.]

I strongly encourage the province of British Columbia to continue to be bold in your commitment to intergovernmental collaboration, Crown and Indigenous, and to continue to make bold investments in Pacific salmon.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Michael.

I have a list of names of people that want to ask questions. So I’m going to ask you to try to be as brief as possible with the answers.

B. Stewart: You didn’t bring up anything about pinnipeds. I wanted to ask you specifically about that. I know that is an issue. Certainly, First Nations raise that.

Where’s the Pacific Salmon Foundation, and their group’s belief, in terms of control?

M. Meneer: We’ve done a lot of research on this. We think they are an issue.

One of the most important things we can do, and the province can do something about, is get logbooms out of estuaries. Seals use logbooms to predate on salmon in a very significant way, both when they’re juveniles and when they’re adults coming back. If you move logs out of estuaries, if you move them out of the mouth of the Fraser River, particularly at key migration times, you can reduce, potentially, that pinniped predation on salmon significantly.

It is an issue. One of the things that the province can do immediately is focus on the logboom issue.

H. Yao: You haven’t given us a dollar figure in regard to what you’re specifically asking.

This is a finance committee. If you don’t mind, can you maybe give us a dollar figure for your endowment fund? And how much money do you think the ministry needs additional funding for?

M. Meneer: We plan to include some specific figures in our written submission that we will make to the committee.

I think this endowment will need to be in the hundreds of millions. I would say, likely, a minimum of $200 million to $250 million.

The intent here, really, is to deploy these funds across watersheds and to provide the on-the-ground coordinators and staffing to develop these plans and implement these plans. This is what Washington state does very well with their salmon recovery model. They have a distributed approach of lead entities. Many of them are Indigenous entities that are leading the prioritization of projects that can be done for salmon recovery.

In order to do that, given the scale of salmon in B.C.… This is likely going to need to be a minimum $200 million to $250 million endowment.

As I said, this is what PSF is good at. We go out and raise money. As Ronna-Rae knows, from coming to our fundraising dinners…. We raise funds all over B.C. We will go out and raise private sector resources to help lever this type of provincial investment.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I’m not really familiar with salmon, from where I live in the East Kootenays. Not a lot of salmon in the Rocky Mountain Trench area. Its wildlife and habitat…. Obviously, predation has been pointed out.

I’m interested in the funding model. The Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. has a funding model independent…. It brings in all sources of revenues. I’m trying to promote something for wildlife and habitat in the rest of British Columbia. But for salmon…. I mean, you’ve highlighted a few provincial funding things here. Is there a collective like that for salmon that mimics what the Freshwater Fisheries Society of B.C. does?

M. Meneer: You’ve hit it on the head. No.

This is the problem. This is why I call it the social science. We need a collaborative governance structure. Washington state, as I said, has one. We think it works pretty well, and we’re suggesting we use it as a model. It basically looks at three scales: a provincial scale, a regional scale and a watershed scale. If you want to do things for salmon habitat, which is where the province can make the most difference, that’s at the freshwater and terrestrial level, right?

We need a prioritizing of….What are the challenges that the salmon are facing in this particular watershed? Maybe it’s not enough water. Maybe the water quality is poor. Maybe we need riparian restoration because of forestry. There’s a number of things.

The best people to decide this are the Indigenous and local community leaders — city councils, regional districts, Indigenous leaders. You’ve got to develop the opportunity to come together, and you have to have some funding to staff and enable that. That’s the key.

We don’t have the model right now. We don’t have the system. We do think there is a good model. We’d be happy to talk more. We are talking to the ministry about this, obviously, and I’m happy to talk offline.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Unfortunately, that will be concluding our time that is here for you, Michael.

[10:55 a.m.]

I wanted to say…. When you started, I wondered whether or not we were going to hear the words “pinniped” and “predator.” We got it a number of years ago from a group that was out there.

To you and the 340 streamkeeper organizations that are out there, thank you for what you do. Thanks for being number one.

M. Meneer: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next we have Jairo Yunis, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Jairo, you have five minutes to make your presentation and then five minutes of questions and answers.

The floor is now yours.

CANADIAN FEDERATION
OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

J. Yunis: Thank you, Chair.

Members of the Finance Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the 9,700 small businesses that we represent in British Columbia. My name is Jairo Yunis. As CFIB’s western economist, based here in Vancouver, I’m here to advocate for the interests of small businesses in our province.

Today I present to you three key recommendations that have the potential to make a substantial impact on small businesses. These recommendations are rooted in the real challenges faced by small business owners across our province. I urge you to consider them seriously.

Let’s start with the number one concern: skyrocketing payroll costs. B.C.’s small businesses are drowning under the weight of excessive cost increases, including the burdensome employer health tax, rising WorkSafeBC premiums, mandatory employer-paid sick days, new statutory holidays and increases in the minimum wage.

Consider for a moment a restaurant with 20 minimum-wage workers. It has seen a staggering 40 percent increase in payroll costs since 2018 due to these cumulative cost additions.

Not surprisingly, almost 80 percent of B.C. small businesses identify payroll costs as the most detrimental among all taxes. It’s quite evident that payroll costs are hampering our province’s competitiveness. Immediate action is crucial, given that B.C. now holds the undesirable distinction of having the second-highest payroll tax rate in Canada after accounting for exemptions, credits and deductions.

This is why we strongly urge you to reduce payroll costs by increasing the EHT payroll exemption threshold to at least $1 million. Out of all the provinces with a similar tax, B.C. has the lowest exemption threshold. This change would save a B.C. small business with ten workers earning a median wage around $3,000 annually.

In addition, we strongly recommend that the government follow the Yukon’s lead and consider partially funding the cost of employer-paid sick days, similar to the approach taken during the pandemic.

These measures would really alleviate the financial burden on small businesses’ payroll and ensure that they can continue to operate while also supporting their employees effectively.

Second, I want to talk about WorkSafeBC. Small businesses across the province are grappling with the burden of rising premiums, while WorkSafeBC sits on a massive $2.5 billion surplus, the largest in the country, even after accounting for the $1.2 billion one-time cost of Bill 41. This is simply unacceptable.

We strongly urge the government to encourage WorkSafeBC’s board to issue partial rebates to employers and legislate a surplus distribution policy once overfunding reaches a certain threshold, like the one in Ontario. While WorkSafeBC must ensure their financial obligations so current and future workers’ benefits are met…. Rebating even a portion of the $2.5 billion surplus would not damage or risk WorkSafeBC’s financial position, but it would provide meaningful cost relief at a time when hard-working small business owners need it the most.

Ontario, Manitoba and P.E.I. have already done this. They have already taken this step last year. Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon have also issued rebates in recent years. We believe it is time for B.C. to catch up.

Lastly, the province needs to provide business tax relief. For example, B.C.’s fuel taxes are among the highest in the country, making 20 percent of the total cost of fuel. To provide relief, we should reduce or temporarily suspend provincial fuel taxes, following the examples of Alberta and Ontario.

Property taxes are also a burden for small businesses. This is not just a municipal issue. The province has a big role to play. A reduction in the school tax, similar to what was done during the pandemic, would provide significant cost relief and help businesses stay afloat after the substantial municipal property tax hikes that happened this year.

Lastly, to improve the B.C. business investment climate, we encourage you to expand PST exemptions on business inputs such as computers, machinery, software, telecommunication services. A recent study found that B.C. has the highest marginal tax rate on new investment in all of Canada, partly because of how the province taxes these business inputs.

[11:00 a.m.]

In conclusion, by reducing payroll costs, rebating the WorkSafeBC surplus and implementing these business tax relief measures, we can provide immediate help, improve B.C.’s competitiveness and support the growth and prosperity of our small business community.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

I have a question for you right off the rattle. When I read your…. Your written submission is exactly what this committee is looking for. It is to the point.

With regards to the rising cost of WorkSafeBC premiums and the surpluses, can you tell me…? What is the rising cost of the actual premium itself over the last ten years?

J. Yunis: Well, I can’t, right off the bat…. I know, for example, restaurants this year saw a 20 percent increase in their premium rates. As payroll continues to increase, then WorkSafeBC premiums are higher as well.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. It’s critical. I mean, we hear all the time about small business and medium-sized business being the backbone of our economy. But what do we do about it? We seem to push them down and down and tax and tax. It definitely has a ripple effect on affordability in the province. It just gets passed on to the consumer. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

You talked about WorkSafe and the $2.5 billion surplus. How would you like to see this surplus be redistributed? How would you like to see that come back to assist?

J. Yunis: Take the lead of what Ontario did or what Manitoba did last year. They issued rebates. Manitoba issued half of what employers paid in premiums. They issued rebates. Ontario issued a third of what they paid in premiums.

It doesn’t have to be the full $2.5 billion surplus. It can be even a portion of that. This $2.5 billion surplus is over and above their funding target. It wouldn’t compromise WorkSafeBC’s financial position at all. So direct rebates.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Just redistribute it back to the businesses.

J. Yunis: Who fund the system, yes.

R. Leonard: A couple of questions.

What percentage of the independent businesses actually pay the employer health tax? I get your ask to raise the minimum. So that’s one question.

The second question is on the last point you made. Can you let us know what study it was that compared the different marginal…?

J. Yunis: The tax rate on investment.

R. Leonard: The effective tax rates for….

J. Yunis: Yeah. Of course.

We don’t have the actual number of how many businesses pay the EHT. That’s something that the Finance Committee must surely have. We know that it will save nearly $3,000 for just a typical B.C. small business with ten workers. It would definitely provide some meaningful cost relief for them.

As I mentioned, B.C. has the lowest payroll exemption threshold in the country. I estimated a little bit. It will cost around $300 million to increase the payroll exemption threshold to at least $1 million. We would like to go even further than that and compete with other provinces.

On your second question….

R. Leonard: The study.

J. Yunis: The study, yeah. It was a 2020 study made by the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. I don’t remember the name of the study right now, but I can definitely follow up with you and send it.

M. Starchuk (Chair): If there’s no one else….

Well, thank you very much for your presentation. I’m just going to go out on a limb and say that questions are not being asked at this point because your written submission is in front of us. We don’t have to ask the question. The answer is already in front of my nose. That’s really good. It’s well done. I will overemphasize what this committee is looking for is in the format that’s there. You’ve fit the bill really well.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

J. Yunis: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next up is Christina Burridge, the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

Christina, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and we will have five minutes for questions and comments afterwards.

The floor is yours.

B.C. SEAFOOD ALLIANCE

C. Burridge: Thank you for inviting me here today.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance is an umbrella organization. Our members represent fisheries and account for about 90 percent of the value of wild salmon from this coast. They’re associations that represent commercial fishermen, licence holders, vessel owners and operators in all the major fisheries in B.C.

We also represent most of the major seafood processers, who account for at least 70 percent of salmon, herring and groundfish production, as well as some specialty products.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’m very pleased to be here today. I do think the format of specific recommendations is very helpful.

Fisheries, I think, are a little strange sometimes for the province. It certainly has an interest in fisheries, but on the whole, it doesn’t have jurisdiction.

Today I’ve only got one recommendation. It is the same one I made to you last year, and it’s one that falls squarely within provincial responsibility.

Our recommendation is that B.C., in its 2024 budget, address the inequity faced by commercial seafood harvesters and provide an exemption to the motor fuel tax and the carbon tax equivalent to farmers and consistent with every other province in Canada. Every Canadian province except B.C. provides commercial seafood harvesters with a tax concession from the motor fuel and carbon tax on diesel used in commercial fishing vessels.

Historically, commercial harvesters in B.C. were eligible for those concessions. Changes to the law in 1985, ostensibly to simplify government policies, eliminated this concession despite the government of the day insisting that there were no policy changes in the proposed legislation.

The reason for the exemption or concession in other provinces is….Food producers, including commercial seafood harvesters, are essential to Canada’s food security and to its reputation as a reliable net exporter of food to the world. While the exact concessions vary province by province, all provinces except B.C. provide exemptions or refunds. We detailed those in a letter to the relevant ministers last year.

I would also like to note that scientific evidence, such as recent studies by the Ecological Society of America, demonstrates that the commercial cost of animal-source feeds created in the land-based farming industry far exceeds the environmental cost of foods produced from the sea. B.C. farmers enjoy an exemption from the motor fuel tax and the carbon tax in B.C., while seafood harvesters do not.

I should note here…. In our view, relevant aquaculture operation vessels, as well as aquaculture support vessels, should also be included, if you decide to fix this historic inequity. The imposition of the motor fuel tax and the carbon tax on commercial vessels supporting food security in B.C. is an unfair and unusual hardship compared to the rest of Canada and to other food producers in B.C.

When I spoke to you last year, the cost of marine diesel in Ucluelet was $2.20 a litre. I’m relieved to tell you today that it’s $1.60 a litre. That certainly helps us.

This year promises to be a very difficult one for harvesters, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, with costs increasing and market prices declining. So we respectfully ask the provincial government to re-evaluate the current tax practices faced by B.C. producers of seafood to the domestic and export markets and to treat us like farmers in the way that other provinces do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. Happy to answer some questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Christina.

B. Stewart: Hi, Christina. Good to see you again.

C. Burridge: Indeed.

B. Stewart: In terms of the exemption you’re talking about…. Is this like a provincial sales tax? Is it the same…? Is the purple fuel that you’re referring to on farms, which is exempt from PST…? That’s the exemption….

C. Burridge: That’s the kind of thing that we’re talking about, yes.

B. Stewart: Okay. Can you quantify…? Have you got a number? What’s the total amount that we’re talking about?

C. Burridge: Needless to say, there’s no good data on this. Last year we did do a survey of our members. We calculated…. In a typical year, we might use about 30 million litres of marine diesel. The motor fuel tax and the carbon tax currently account for 12 percent.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Some of us are good with math right off the head. While we figure this….

One of the things you had made mention about was….

Interjection.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Six million? Oh, 3.6. Okay, there we go. It’s 3.6 million.

[11:10 a.m.]

When you made your presentation, Christina, you talked about…. You thought it should include support of vessels that were there. Is that in your recommendation, or is it just one of those add-ons?

I think it’s relatively important in the industry because without the support vessel that’s there…. If we’re going to compare it to agriculture, it’s like saying that the vehicle that takes it to the hopper is not included, where taking it off the field is.

C. Burridge: Okay. I can amend that.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Is there anybody else? Okay.

Not seeing any other comments or questions, thank you very much for your presentation. We look forward to the amendment.

C. Burridge: Coming shortly.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Our next presenter is Karen Dearlove, B.C. Centre for Women in the Trades.

K. Dearlove: Good morning.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Good morning. Karen, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and we have five minutes for questions and/or comments.

The floor is now yours.

B.C. CENTRE FOR WOMEN IN THE TRADES

K. Dearlove: Thank you very much for inviting me here this morning. The B.C. Centre for Women in the Trades is an organization led by diverse tradespeople, as well as supported by industry and labour representatives. We envision a diverse, equitable, inclusive skilled-trades industry where all feel welcome, healthy, respected and safe. We advocate for the increased participation of equity priority groups, including women, Indigenous peoples, people of colour, people with disabilities and members of the 2SLGBTQ1A+ community.

We provide services that include career and employment development, leadership development, networking. But the one I want to talk to you most about today is our Be More Than a Bystander program. This is a program that helps create allies in the industry in order to address workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination in the skilled-trades industry.

I’m here today with one recommendation: that in light of the B.C. government’s mandatory skilled trades certification process, which is ongoing and started recently, this is an opportunity to introduce compulsory anti-bullying, harassment and violence training for all apprenticeship programs in the province. We see that this could be at all of the training institutions, public and union and private institutions, as well as for supervisors, managers and employers.

One of the biggest problems facing the province of B.C. in terms of infrastructure building is the labour shortage in the skilled trades. This is an ongoing problem that’s only going to get worse. As an organization, we advocate to increase diversity and inclusion in the skilled trades to help address that labour shortage. But the number one reason why women and a lot of other equity priority groups do not either join the skilled trades or continue through their certification process is a toxic workplace environment.

A lot of skilled-trades workplaces — as well as even training institutions — tend to have a lot of gender-based bullying, harassment and discrimination, as well as other issues, including sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and discrimination. In terms of recruitment and retention of underrepresented people in the skilled trades, this is the number one problem. We’re really looking at this as an opportunity to set that standard of respectful workplace culture at the apprenticeship level and take it through to the rest of the industry.

The province of B.C. has already had a lot of investment in trades training and recruitment, but to ensure that this investment is actually effective, we need to ensure that the workplace culture in the skilled trades is inclusive, diverse, respectful, healthy and safe. Otherwise, that investment will not be successful. We want to create a respectful workplace culture.

Our Be More Than a Bystander program is well recognized. It’s effective. It’s aimed at creating allies to make everyone in the workplace responsible for workplace culture. We have a train-the-trainer program, which is currently partially funded through SkilledTradesBC, but we would like to be able to expand that funding and expand the program so that it is in all trades training institutions and a part of all apprenticeship programs in the province.

Our ask to the province today is to consider introducing this basic, mandatory anti-bullying, harassment and discrimination training throughout the apprenticeship program in B.C. and to create it as part of the certification for all apprenticeships. As I’ve mentioned, our train-the-trainer program is an effective way to do so because we’ve already, actually, at this point, trained 250 spokespeople through this.

[11:15 a.m.]

Through this three-day training, they’re able to go out and take that to their workplaces, their training institutions and their unions, and continue this very important work.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Karen, for your presentation.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Karen. We hear a lot of great presentations here, but this one, I think, is probably one of the most critical. We know that we have a labour shortage. We know that we need about 200,000 trades by the year 2030. It’s super critical to the prosperity of this province, and we need all hands on deck.

We need women and those that are marginalized to join that crusade. Your first point on anti–bullying harassment training speaks to the retention and keeping those folks there. We need to have a great workplace. I totally support that, 100 percent. Then on the labour shortage, a lot of the trades are male-dominated; let’s face it. With that comes a culture. We need to reverse that culture. We need to reverse it and make it super inclusive.

There was a program in place not too long ago. It was the single-parent employment initiative program, which I saw work really well. I saw a single mother. It’s mostly female-dominated single parents. She was able to get the tuition, the books, the transportation, the daycare — all those things that empowered her to get a trade. Now she’s a heavy-duty mechanic at one of the mines. Man, she’s got a couple of beautiful kids. She’s an Indigenous woman and works really well.

Would you also support some initiatives like this? Could you expand, maybe, on your funding?

K. Dearlove: Yeah, absolutely. Our organization does have a trades training employment program which is aimed at women and trans women that helps to provide some of the supports you talked about — tuition, books, PPE, even child care and transportation supports. That is one program that we do right now through a workforce development agreement through SkilledTradesBC. Of course, more funding is always important.

We also, again, have a leadership program that helps to advance diverse tradespeople so that there is increased representation, to help have their perspectives at the table and their voices heard when decisions are being made.

We do see that as a recruitment and retention issue — that toxic workplace culture. Even in trades training institutions, we’ve heard many stories from women that that’s their first experience in the trades. If that’s a negative experience, they’re not going to continue.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Karen, I’ve got a quick question. With regard to workplace harassment and bullying, it is a section within WorkSafeBC. That’s there, and you’re providing the train-the-trainer. Have you reached out to WorkSafeBC to get funding to be able to do that, since it is on their mandate, and it is part of the act?

K. Dearlove: We haven’t worked directly with WorkSafeBC for that ask. Actually, one of the things we are working through with WorkSafeBC is about properly fitting PPE, which is another big barrier to women in the trades. That is something that we could look into. I know that WorkSafeBC does provide programs through the occupational health and safety centre of the B.C. Federation of Labour. That’s where they get most of their funding. So that is a potential source.

Funding for training is one of the issues that WorkSafeBC doesn’t provide. It really just has in their mandate that employers need to have policies and procedures in place, but it doesn’t mandate what kind of training and where that training comes from.

S. Chant: Be More Than a Bystander has been implemented in some areas now. Are we seeing a difference?

K. Dearlove: With some organizations, especially. We work with several different unions. We work at trades training institutions. We’ve had successes with doing training with faculty at Camosun College, Vancouver Island University, College of the Rockies, Okanagan College and University of the Fraser Valley, as well as with training institutions like the Electrical Joint Training Committee with the IBEW. When we see it come into action, it does seem to at least provide that basic level of understanding of what a respectful workplace is, but it’s making it so that it’s everywhere.

It’s really about having to have that foundation where everybody entering into a training institution or into a place of employment understands what that is. Policies and procedures aren’t enough, and we want to get to it before, at the culture level, as opposed to there. It has been effective. We’ve seen that. We’ve had lots of spokespeople talk about the work that they’ve done in their training institutions or their places of employment. It’s really trying to get it to the point where it needs to be everywhere, so that everyone has that same experience.

[11:20 a.m.]

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I really appreciate what you’re doing for us, to help advocate for equity and fairness in our workplaces.

I know I don’t have a lot of time, so I will ask a quick, short question. Is there also a glass ceiling that has been created in the trades sector that actually prevents women from climbing up due to the gender bias?

K. Dearlove: Definitely. That is part of that workplace culture. One of the things that we try to address with our leadership program, as well, is being able to have those opportunities for advancement. It’s a whole different kind of structural, systematic issue in terms of gender bias, as well as a glass ceiling for advancement. That’s one of the programs that we do try to address as well.

B. Stewart: I can just visualize, having had a number of construction projects in my lifetime, what it’s like to change the culture in organizations. I don’t know…. At the start is one thing, but that takes decades until….

Any ideas on what could be done to maybe change that culture in an existing organization that has got that problem?

K. Dearlove: Well, we do two things. I think that having this as a mandatory training for apprentices means that when you come into a workplace, you’re setting that culture.

As well, we do training with existing organizations and employers so that they can also address it from that other level. We see it as an occupational health and safety issue that should be implemented in toolbox talks, in regular meetings at all workplaces, in orientations.

Really, we see it as critical to start making that change and to make sure that the recruitment and retention of people coming into the trades is where we really need to have that happen. It is an aging workforce. We all know that labour shortage, so we need to make sure we’ve got people coming in that want to be there and will continue.

B. Stewart: Hang in there.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation this morning, Karen.

K. Dearlove: Thank you. Have a great day.

M. Starchuk (Chair): You too.

Next up is Jasroop Gosal, Surrey Board of Trade.

Jasroop, you have five minutes for your presentation and then five minutes from us for questions and answers.

The floor is yours.

SURREY BOARD OF TRADE

J. Gosal: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here to deliver the Surrey Board of Trade’s recommendations.

The Surrey Board of Trade attracts business to Surrey and supports business in Surrey. We provide businesses and organizations with economic opportunity, workplace development and education, international trade support, government advocacy and business connections.

Our three recommendations today include health care investments in Surrey, a comprehensive taxation review, as well as connecting incentives to vehicle battery recycling programs. I’ll begin with the health care investments.

As you all know, Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. It is going to be the largest city in British Columbia very soon. However, we are still lacking quite a bit of fundamental health care support in the city of Surrey. We agree with and welcome the B.C. government’s investments in Surrey to date, but there is more that needs to be considered. We need to incorporate services into Surrey’s health care ecosystem for people who need care for pediatric, heart and trauma services.

As it stands, there is also no emergency plan to address how residents, our workforce, can access these critical health care services across the bridge if there was a natural disaster or too much snow on the road. Surrey needs the appropriate investments to be able to save lives and improve our standard of living for our workforce and residents. This leads to vibrant and sustainable economies.

The lack of investments in the past has led to congested ERs, overrun pediatric units and overworked health care professionals. As the B.C. government considers investments in health care, they should be providing funding for both Surrey Memorial Hospital and the new Surrey hospital to ensure there are enough maternity beds, ER beds, pediatric beds and there is an ability for health care professionals to treat heart attack, stroke and trauma victims.

On recommendation No. 2, a comprehensive tax review, many other jurisdictions have laid the groundwork for B.C. to complete a taxation review. Newfoundland and Labrador completed a comprehensive tax review in 2018 that can be replicated in B.C. They created an independent tax review committee charged with completing a comprehensive, independent review of the tax system, including taxation expenditures.

The government of B.C. has implemented many programs that serve to alleviate some cost pressures that were felt by businesses during the pandemic. Now we find ourselves in debt. We find rising inflation and a higher cost of living.

[11:25 a.m.]

Without spending more, we must find ways to drive down the debt and provide unique and innovative solutions to the skyrocketing cost of living. A comprehensive taxation review could do that. We need to determine what works and what doesn’t. A review of our taxation system could find those recommendations, eliminate redundancies and find simplifications.

With simplicity, efficiency and certainty comes international competitiveness. Businesses in B.C. have been burdened with rising costs, limited ability to expand and red tape. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated that. The B.C. government is going to be providing quite a bit of support over the next three years, as per the last budget, but we believe that more needs to be done.

On the final recommendation, connecting incentives to vehicle battery recycling programs, B.C. and the government of Canada have made significant commitments to electrification of passenger and some light industrial vehicles. Canada has also proposed regulations that indicate one-fifth of all passenger cars, SUVs and trucks sold in Canada in 2026 will need to operate on electricity. However, battery lifespans are estimated to last between ten to 20 years, and some electric vehicles have been on the market for close to ten years. Those batteries will need to be recycled and disposed of in some way.

Some businesses already operate in Canada recycling lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese. We could recover more with the B.C. government’s support. That’s why the provincial government should commission a study and action plan for the implementation of electric vehicle battery recycling plants that we will need per region and invest in innovating current electric vehicle battery recycling plants to increase their capacity.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Jasroop. Dead on five minutes. Perfectly done. Send the message to Anita that it’s too bad that she’s not here, but the job that you did today was awesome. Thank you very much.

H. Yao: I’m actually really interested in your recommendation No. 3 right now. Based upon your experience or based upon your knowledge, how many plants do we need in B.C. in order to match the needs as we try to phase out as many combustion engines as possible for domestic vehicle travel? How many plants does the Surrey Board of Trade recommend for us to look at?

J. Gosal: Right now I would say that there’s one vehicle battery recycling plant currently operating. Our recommendation is to look at each of the regions, because they are going to be overloaded. They aren’t going to be able to handle that capacity as we transition to electric vehicles. More and more individuals are adopting electric vehicles.

We recommend there be one per region. North Island, Lower Mainland may need more, as we have a higher population density. In general, I think one per region may be the best way to start, because the other thing that you don’t want to do is have all of these vehicle batteries being trucked essentially using greenhouse gases, CO₂ emissions, to the different recycling facilities.

We need to make sure that we eliminate as much GHG as possible by having enough in each region as they also grow, because the Kootenays are growing exponentially, Vancouver Island is growing as well as the Lower Mainland and northern B.C. too.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Jasroop. Just a further question on that. This is the Finance Committee, and we’re here to try to make certain that the government does the right things. To the battery recycling, what is it that the government needs to do to increase the capacity, as you just said? What is it that we should be doing?

I take it you’re with the Surrey Board of Trade, and usually we’re looking at if there are benefits from having a business that grows naturally, and the inertia. But is there something that government should be doing more targeted to having a distributed model, like you’re saying, or is the current model broken? Is there something the matter with it?

J. Gosal: Absolutely. Thank you for that question. Right now what I would say is that the market doesn’t think that there’s enough capacity there. It’s not ready for more people to come in and invest. What the government can do is supplement that, provide some incentives, provide some breaks in red tape and in getting their recycling operation off the ground.

[11:30 a.m.]

Those are some of the things I think the B.C. government specifically could do and potentially work with the federal government on as well, utilizing some of the money that they’ve set aside in Budget 2023, take advantage of that and the budgets coming up as well, and then be able to maximize our ability to provide those incentives to get battery recyclers off the ground. There is potential, of course, for the B.C. government to take on some of that load, as well, to recycle.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Are there any other comments or questions?

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. We like the straight-to-the-point stuff, and if there’s one sentence I’ll take away from this, that’s: “Reduce rising cost of living. Drive down debt. Create economic growth, improve international competitiveness, and improve efficiencies.” That’s perfect. I’m going to tattoo that on my arm, I think.

You mentioned a tax review that was done in Newfoundland in 2018. Were there any takeaways from that? Can I get a copy? I’d like to get that. Were there any good takeaways that we could be doing here that worked in Newfoundland?

J. Gosal: Absolutely. They found that there were some redundancies. I don’t have the information off the top of my head, but they were able to reduce some level of red tape, some level of duplicate taxation, and by doing so, reduce the burden on businesses. By businesses, I mean looking at the income tax as well. They really help the entire population over there in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a study on that. Surrey Board of Trade did write a report on what the B.C. government can do. I know it’s not as extensive in this speech and in my submission, but I can send you the report that we wrote. We basically took a lot of the information from there.

The other thing they found is they’re actually doing a lot of things quite well. That’s the other positive and benefit of doing a taxation review. You get to understand where you can make some adjustments, as well as what you’re doing very efficiently and effectively, and that becomes a win as well.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Jasroop.

Next we have Paul Holden, Burnaby Board of Trade.

Paul, you have five minutes for your presentation, and then there will be five minutes set aside for questions or comments.

You have the floor.

BURNABY BOARD OF TRADE

P. Holden: Good morning, committee members, and thanks very much for inviting us back here again this year for what is a really important part of the process for us in representing the interests of the business community.

We have over 1,100 members. We’re one of the largest boards of trade or chambers of commerce in the province, and it’s really important for us to be able to provide some form of input into this process.

I know there’s a time constraint, and my presentation could go on way beyond that and look at many, many different areas that we would like to recommend. But today I will restrict my comments to some of the focus, really, around the ever-increasing costs of doing business that our members and business owners are feeling these days.

Obviously, we’re still unfolding ourselves from the post-COVID environment, and there are ongoing global uncertainties which have an impact on all businesses, governments and citizens alike. What we’re trying to do is advocate, really, for governments to remain focused on some of the basic fundamentals of fiscal discipline as we move forward and out of the unprecedented times that we’ve been in.

Part of that is to encourage the government, through this budget process, to look at ways that the government can get back to a balanced fiscal situation and budget. I know that sometimes makes it difficult for a government to look at some investments, and a lot of the investments, I think, have been excellent over this last period. We don’t want to totally inhibit that, but obviously, those investments come at a cost and a burden, often, to the business community.

Looking at the cost of doing business is a focus for us. Some of those that we’d like to talk about are the higher payroll taxes over the years, and most recently, the employer health tax premiums, increases to minimum wage, and uncompetitive property taxes and beyond.

[11:35 a.m.]

In terms of some specific measures, the minimum wage, which…. Obviously, the next level goes up in a couple of days. While only a relatively small percentage of B.C.’s workforce earn the minimum wage, something that we have always wanted to remind people of and wanted to reinforce is that it’s not just the folks on minimum wage who have an impact when that wage goes up and the businesses accordingly. It’s that ripple effect, that cascading effect, through a business’s payroll costs. As we know, payroll costs are often the highest cost that a business incurs.

Since 2018, the minimum wage has increased over 33 percent. It would be reasonable to assume that along with that, the cascading costs have increased by at least that as well. So very important to remember that as we go forward, and 33 percent in five years is a lot for anybody to absorb.

We continue to advocate for greater certainty and predictability. We have advocated for the minimum wage increases to be linked to CPI, but just as you probably wouldn’t want wages or minimum wages to go down if CPI fell below zero, when CPI is as high — as unprecedentedly high, almost — as it has been, I think, again, we wouldn’t necessarily want it to be totally linked with no room for mitigation within there. The most recent increase, or the current increase, is obviously a very high one.

Another cost driver is the employer health tax. I think the last couple of years I’ve been at this committee, I’ve mentioned this. I mentioned it when we had Premier Eby speaking at our board of trade recently.

This is an ongoing burden for business. With inflation still at record high, hires and labour costs increasing, partly because of what I just mentioned with minimum wages, the EHT is playing an increasing part in those additional burdensome costs to business. Currently the EHT payments are raising more than was raised by the MSP premiums, which were eliminated when EHT came in.

What we’re asking for is something quite specific, which is that the threshold increases from $500,000 to at least $1 million, as it is in other provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. So we’re looking at how we can increase that threshold and then perhaps link an increased threshold to CPI.

The last one I’ll mention in the last 30 seconds I have…. In the most recent budget, an element was put into the budget on an investment in credential recognition for foreign workers. The amount that was put into the budget was a good amount, which was $58 million over three years. But we’re already saying that it’s such an important part of developing the workforce going forward, $58 million may well be a good start, but we’re looking for something around doubling that going forward.

That’s my time up.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, Paul, if you don’t have a timer in front of you, I’m amazed. That was bang on.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. I have a question for you around…. When I first ran in 2017, the big thing that I heard about was people’s inability to survive on the minimum wage that existed at that time. It was one of those things that I had a lot of confidence in going forward on.

Here we are today with some labour shortages that seem to be…. We’re talking about the rising cost of living and relating it to the minimum wage. What’s the impact if we don’t reflect the minimum wage to the CPI? I understand that across the provinces, every single province did relate their minimum wage raise to CPI.

P. Holden: We recommended that too. There are some considerations to have here as well, I think, when you look at minimum wage and who’s on minimum wage. In many cases, it’s the folks in industries where they’re also getting tips or additional income.

Then there was a lot of information that was coming out at the time where you were seeing that if you factored in the percentage of people on minimum wage who might be students or might be retirees, who are not necessarily breadwinners or trying to support a family on minimum wage, it’s still a relatively small part of the overall community.

I know when we surveyed our members, the vast majority of members had nobody on minimum wage. That’s just information to consider, I think, when we look at the overall conversation around minimum wage. I think we had always said that linking it with CPI is a good way to go about it, to approach it.

[11:40 a.m.]

The other aspect, I think, that we mentioned in a lot of our notifications that we sent out at the time was: let’s give a bit more notice when we’re bringing these in. The one that just came out or is coming out in the next few days was announced two months ago. To give businesses two months’ notice that this is going to be the increase, we feel, is a bit short.

H. Yao: I understand that it’s definitely a different perspective. I do want to say that I grew up in a dual minimum-wage-income family. Trust me; we did not have additional income. I want to make that clear.

You talk about $58 million for foreign credential recognition. I think it’s important for us to really find ways to actually bring newcomers to really maximize their skill sets. I really appreciate it. You mentioned…. Was it double the amount you’re looking for? So we’re talking about $116 million.

I guess my next question right now is: with that $116 million, how much of the labour shortage problem will that be able to help us address? I assume that that’s just the beginning of investment. You probably expect additional investment added into it in order for us to support our foreign credentials to making sure our newcomers have a better chance to maximize their skill sets to contribute to British Columbia’s economy.

P. Holden: Not exactly. That’s a very good point. I think, when you look at some industries in some sectors, they’ve already made some progress in the area of credential recognition. But there are literally hundreds of sectors and industries out there where little to no progress has been made. I think it would be important to look at how many can be impacted positively by an investment in credential recognition.

We’re saying $116 million as a good start, as $58 million is a start, but we think it needs more than that. As you say, it’s something which, you would imagine, is an increasing investment need. For us to satisfy the labour shortages we have, we need more people coming into the country, and we need them to start working as soon as they can.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Paul, I have a question for you with regard to notice on the minimum wage. You said it was announced a couple of months ago. That would have put it at the first of April or somewhere around there. What would be the ideal time frame for notice of what it’s going to be set at?

P. Holden: We’ve been asking for six months. I think that gives businesses enough time to say: “Okay, fine, we’ve got this on the horizon. How do we prepare for that?” I think that would be a reasonable amount.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Just off the top of my head, I’m not sure whether six months could actually be done, because CPI is determined on the previous year that’s there. I understand what the question is: just more time.

P. Holden: Yeah, exactly.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, very good. Well, thank you very much for your presentation and taking the time out of your day to address us.

Next, we have Trevor Bordeaux…. Trevor Boudreau, Vancouver Airport Authority.

T. Boudreau: It’s okay. I once presented to a parliamentary committee where the Chair called Treasure Boudreau. I took that nicely.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, I could’ve done it….

You have five minutes to make your presentation and five minutes from us for questions and comments.

VANCOUVER AIRPORT AUTHORITY

T. Boudreau: Good morning, everybody. I appreciated the opportunity to present last year and equally appreciate the invitation back. On behalf of YVR, I wanted to leave the committee with a simple request. That is: it’s time for the B.C. government to invest in clean aviation and our sector.

YVR exists to serve our community and the economy that supports it. We have a responsibility to lead and help build a globally connected province that is resilient, thriving and sustainable. Our operations and our long-term strategy are built on the values that reflect our community: innovation, climate action and Indigenous reconciliation.

We’re the second-busiest airport in Canada, but we are an economic engine for British Columbia. We are also a living-wage-certified employer, meaning that anyone that works for the airport proper makes a living wage and can make sure that they can live and thrive in our community. We’re also a critical anchor for B.C. supply chains and our new trade and investment strategy, which I’m delighted that the Premier was able to talk about before he was wheels-up to Japan over the weekend.

[11:45 a.m.]

We’re making investments where we need to in order to support British Columbians. We’re investing $150 million to build out our airport’s south cargo development. That development will enable $250 billion of trade and investment in British Columbia over the next 20 years. We’re also opening up 400 acres of new greenfield industrial land, which we know is in short supply here in the Lower Mainland.

As we continue our work, we are very aware that future trade will rely on a strong, resilient and sustainable aviation sector. So my three recommendations are this: invest in helping us to accelerate the deployment of clean aviation fuels in British Columbia, support our progressive airlines and airports to decarbonize their operations, and develop financial supports to build on B.C.’s first-mover advantage and attract more international air services to British Columbia.

On our first recommendation, YVR is a recognized leader in clean transportation. We’re investing $130 million to become Canada’s first net-zero airport by 2030. That is very much in line with B.C.’s CleanBC objectives. We’re supersizing, though, our influence to support the reductions across the aviation sector. That really has taken the form of advocating strongly for the development of a B.C.-based sustainable aviation fuel system.

In 2020, we commissioned the BioPortYVR feasibility study, which demonstrated clearly that B.C. has an opportunity to be a powerhouse in Confederation when it came to the production and deployment of sustainable aviation fuel. Unfortunately, a little virus took the wind out of the sails of that feasibility study. Here we are today, and those findings are very much relevant and, in fact, more so, with a commitment to include aviation fuel in B.C.’s low-carbon fuel standard by the end of this year.

Some of our policy recommendations, as I said, have been have been acted on, but there’s an opportunity for the province to do more to accelerate the deployment of SAF, sustainable aviation fuel, in British Columbia.

Similar to the provincial plans to support electrification and the development of a hydrogen strategy, we think there’s an opportunity for the government to partner with us to develop a SAF strategy; one that understands the suite of incentives that are required, the feedstocks that we can draw upon and the size of the opportunity for British Columbia in relation to Washington state, Portland or Cascadia partners, which are already moving in this area. California has been long recognized as a SAF powerhouse, but we think there is an opportunity for us to be just as competitive.

On recommendation 2, alongside that long-standing advocacy for sustainable aviation fuels, which are really the opportunity for international flights, there are short-haul regional flights. There’s a huge opportunity for electrification there. We have Harbour Air headquartered at YVR. They are looking to make big moves to electrify their operations. They need a bit more support. Iskwew Air is making big moves. We think there’s an opportunity to support….

Wow, five minutes goes fast. I’m not going to do as good of a job as the folks from Burnaby and Surrey.

Finally, my third recommendation: to establish a dedicated fund to attract international air services to British Columbia. A new international flight that we land at YVR generates immediately $38 million to the B.C. economy and creates 350 new jobs. That’s important.

Right now B.C. is a laggard when it comes to international flights. We’re seeing Alberta, Quebec, Washington invest heavily in their aviation sectors, and we’re seeing leakage right now where flights are going to those markets when they could be coming through YVR.

I will wrap up my presentation and take your questions now. Thank you very much for your time.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much, Trevor, for your presentation.

Henry, and then Tom.

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Trevor. Let me, first of all, thank you so much for coming back again. Always a pleasure.

I really want to focus on the clean aviation component. You talked about electrification of flights, but if I remember correctly, one of the biggest challenges of electrification is the weight of a battery when you add it onto the airplane. I know a previous presenter said there’s still a need for biofuel, or some other kind of fuel source for combustion engines, in order for a flight to take place.

What kind of challenges, if you don’t mind me saying right now, are barriers for us to move towards clean aviation? What kind of assistance do you need from the government so that we can work together to move towards the right direction?

T. Boudreau: I will focus on sustainable aviation fuel, because you’re right. I believe you’re talking about Mr. Hooper, who was here earlier today. That is really the big get for international aviation. Hydrogen is a long way off. Electrification right now just isn’t possible for long-haul flights. They’re great for short-haul, as I said.

The real barrier right now is there’s a lack of production. There’s not a lot of sustainable aviation fuel out there in the market worldwide. A lot of it flows through California, but we have a distinct opportunity. For example, right now, West Coast Reduction is located just down the way. They’re a port authority tenant.

[11:50 a.m.]

They generate raw materials that can be used for SAF — waste oils, fats, that sort of thing. Their product is purchased by an international SAF producer. It’s shipped over to Singapore, where it is refined and then sold back to the North American market at a premium.

We don’t think that’s right. We think very much our raw materials should be…. The value-added industry should be here, and the ultimate use should be here as well. We have a huge opportunity there.

So I think that’s the opportunity. Right now, there is not a clear pathway in terms of a plan for tax incentives, a plan for reviewing the carbon tax. We think that there’s a huge opportunity for government to partner with industry. We need YVR to co-develop that solution.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation.

A two-parter here. First, on the hydrogen strategy, you mentioned feedstocks to draw upon. I’d like to know more about what those feedstocks are that you anticipate.

Also, on the international flights, why would they be going to Alberta, not B.C.? What’s the big draw there?

T. Boudreau: I’ll start with your first question first, then second…. Let’s just do it in order.

In terms of feedstocks, right now, fats and waste oils are recognized. There is a pathway for canola, although we do recognize that as a challenge with food versus fuel. There is some work there. I’m by no means an expert, so I won’t delve too far into that.

Forestry waste — that is a huge, untapped opportunity for us. Washington state has done a pretty comprehensive feasibility study on forestry waste as a pathway. They see that. I think we can realize that opportunity as well. It also supports our clean job transition.

Your second one: why are they going to YYC, or Calgary rather? A couple of things. The Alberta government, under former Premier Jason Kenney, invested heavily in aviation, invested heavily in WestJet, which is headquartered, of course, in Calgary. It included a number of investments that they made, but that is drawing air service away from what could be sited at YVR.

Similarly, the U.S. government invested heavily in its airports. Their structure is different. Of course, as you know, here in Canada, airports are private entities that exist in the community benefit, as opposed to the U.S., in which they are government run. The government did invest heavily into their airports. So we see SeaTac opening sexy, new, shiny terminals and attracting new air services down there.

Now I will say, anecdotally, folks that have chosen to drive down to Seattle, fly through SeaTac, have decided they won’t be doing that again. They would rather come through YVR. So we do think there’s an opportunity there.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Trevor, for that. I want to ask one question.

You started off by talking about B.C. government investment. I understand the first one was the aviation fuel study. That’s one.

I didn’t get anything on the electrification, because I assume that that’s just being led by private industry.

The third was attraction to the airport. I want to understand that, because I know that you mentioned YYC. I guess I’m wondering what you see could be done by the government in terms of attraction of international carriers.

T. Boudreau: I’ll just clarify my comments on number two, MLA Stewart. I think there is an opportunity for government to partner through establishing clear tax incentives, carbon tax review to support electrification efforts and other clean aviation investments. That second recommendation does come with a budget ask. We would need to work with government to understand what that is in the public service.

On attracting international air service…. As I said, each new international flight is $38 million to the B.C. economy. We believe that that fund could be used to de-risk new flights that are coming, because we know that initially, it takes some time to build up the opportunity.

For example, we see a huge opportunity in Latin America. We don’t currently have connectivity through YVR via Latin America. That’s an important hub for our mining community. There’s a lot of business that happens down there. It’s also an important connection over to Asia. A lot of trade goes through there as well.

Those are risky ventures right now, so government support to de-risk those flights can be hugely influential in siting a new service at YVR, at YLW or Kelowna Airport, or YYJ, Victoria airport.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Susie and then George.

S. Chant: Actually, my question has been asked. Thank you.

G. Chow: Thank you, Trevor, for your presentation.

You mentioned you are going to be opening up the greenfield industrial land. How much in the area?

T. Boudreau: It’s 400 acres.

[11:55 a.m.]

G. Chow: So 400 acres. If you know Vancouver, Richmond, there’s really a lack of industrial land, so what does that mean? Does that mean the airport is the landlord for the industry to rent, or is it just for your own use?

T. Boudreau: Thanks, MLA Chow.

For folks that don’t know, YVR exists because we have a ground lease with the government of Canada. We are responsible for the oversight of the lands that are under that lease. That is the vast majority of Sea Island. Of course, Burkeville is a member of the Richmond community, and there are other pockets of Metro Vancouver land, port land, on Sea Island. But the vast majority is overseen by the Vancouver Airport Authority, my employer. Tenants on the land are our tenants.

What we’re seeing, actually, right now is a really exciting clean tech community developing at YVR. We were able to attract General Fusion from Burnaby to come site their global headquarters at YVR. They’re just down there on the south side by the No. 2 Road. Henry, you know. We’re seeing a lot of other complementary opportunities popping up there.

Of course, we see a huge opportunity to support that aviation cargo and logistics that I was talking about, that $150 million investment. There’s a huge opportunity to grow that even further, particularly on the north side as we make our way out to the Iona Metro Vancouver park. There’s some land up there that is going to be opened up for development.

G. Chow: But the $150 million improvement is to the airport south area.

T. Boudreau: Yeah. That will be to develop a new avia­tion cargo and logistics facility. We’re hopeful that we can make a pretty exciting announcement on that in the next couple of weeks. When we do build it out, it will be ready for about 2026-2027. It will support $250 billion of trade and investment for the next 20 years.

G. Chow: So you do have a criteria as to who you want to be tenants on the land?

T. Boudreau: Primarily it will be a Canadian-based cargo carrier. Cargojet will be primarily the benefactor of that first phase. It’s a multiphase project, but this $150 million is just for that first phase.

G. Chow: Including maintenance by airlines maintenance depots?

T. Boudreau: No. This will be apron space and cargo logistics facilities for cargo sorting, that sort of thing.

G. Chow: Okay, just cargo.

T. Boudreau: Yes.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Trevor, thank you very much for your presentation and your time. I believe we went just slightly over five minutes in the responses, despite what Hansard is going to report out on. Again, thank you for your time here. It’s very important for the committee to hear what we’ve heard today.

On that note, the committee will recess until one o’clock. We will come back here and gather to be ready for 1:05.

The committee recessed from 11:57 a.m. to 1:05 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Welcome back, everyone. Starting off this afternoon is Jeremy Allingham, from the B.C. Building Trades.

Jeremy, you have five minutes to make your presentation. Then we have five minutes left aside for questions or comments.

You have the floor.

B.C. BUILDING TRADES

J. Allingham: Thanks so much. I hope you guys had a good lunch break.

I’m Jeremy Allingham. I’m the director of communications and campaigns for the B.C. Building Trades Council. The B.C. Building Trades Council represents 25 craft construction unions and more than 45,000 unionized construction workers in the province of B.C. It’s my pleasure to be here to advocate on behalf of the unions and those members.

The B.C. Building Trades Council operates more than a dozen joint apprenticeship schools, in partnership with our contractors. All of those schools are accredited and designated with SkilledTradesBC. I want to give you a couple of examples of those institutions.

The Ironworkers Local 97 Apprenticeship and Training Society has been in operation since 1958. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 115 Training Association has been in operation since 1965. The Electrical Joint Training Committee has been in operation since 1976. We’ve been at this for a long time, decade upon decade. While that history I mentioned certainly goes way, way back, the training of skilled tradespeople by our unions predates those joint committees. In some cases, the training goes back well past 100 years.

A little bit more about the prestige of those institutions, our training schools. According to SkilledTradesBC, our schools are the top trainers of skilled apprentices in the province. According to SkilledTradesBC, our schools are the top trainers of women apprentices in the province. According to SkilledTradesBC, our schools are the top trainers of Indigenous apprentices in the province.

Collectively, our training boards invest more than $31 million in trades training, and we have about $50 million in buildings and assets. Those significant investments are mostly funded by small amounts of money that come off of every hour of our members’ paycheques. Our commitment is steadfast, and the results are impressive. Simply put, the B.C. Building Trades training schools are the best of the best. We’re training the most people and the right people to address the significant labour shortage this prov­ince is facing.

With all that in mind, I do need to bring you in on something that I find a little bit difficult to understand, and it may perplex you as well. Despite the massive shortage of skilled trades workers in this province, despite our proven ability to train skilled workers, and despite our track record of training the most female and Indigenous apprentices, our government funding has not increased in nearly 20 years. It has actually gone down in that time. In 2006, government investment in trades trainers was $71 million. Today, in 2023, that investment is $70 million.

Taking inflation into account, that represents a decrease of 31 percent. Just to be clear, that number, that dollar amount, down 31 percent over 17 years, represents all the funding, not just ours. That money is split between our schools, BCIT, Camosun and Kwantlen. I’ve got to tell you that the industry has grown a lot over those 17 years. The construction workforce has doubled to 255,000 workers. Construction is the second-largest contributor to gross domestic product in the province, after real estate. That industry contributed $25 billion to B.C.’s economy in 2022.

The paltry level of funding in our trades-training system means that most of our trades-training schools are less than 10 percent funded by SkilledTradesBC. If we want to address the forthcoming skilled labour shortage, we must increase skilled-trades training. Any plan that ignores the need for more funding ignores the heart and soul of our skilled-trades training system. Any plan that ignores our trades-training school ignores a legacy of training that is unparalleled in our province’s history.

[1:10 p.m.]

Today B.C. Building Trades is asking the government for a $35 million annual increase in funding for trades trainers, to permanently bring operational funding in line with training delivery costs.

We are also asking for a made-in-B.C. version of the federal Union Training and Innovation Program, $80 million over three years. That’s also known as UTIP. That would allow for bricks-and-mortar upgrades and expansions for our trades-training facilities. We have the expertise, we have the history, and we have the desire to train the best and most diverse skilled tradespeople in the country. We need your support to continue and to build upon that important work.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Jeremy, for your presentation. You touched on bricks-and-mortar upgrades. Can you talk about the quality of training that happens within your organization, within the various unions that are there?

J. Allingham: Yeah, I think one thing that the B.C. Building Trades Council has to work on is showing the absolute sterling level of training and state-of-the-art technology and equipment that is in these training institutions. I’ve only been with the council for about a year, and I hadn’t really heard of the United Association Piping College or the IUOE Training Centre in Maple Ridge. I’ve now toured all those facilities. They’re unbelievable. I would send my kids there in two seconds. I tell my friends that all the time.

These training institutions are second to none. I think a problem is that we haven’t had you all out to see them, and I’m here today to invite you. Anybody who wants to come, we’re going to start organizing tours of those training schools. To give you an idea, it would take more than two days to tour all of our institutions. They’re that big; they’re that sizeable. Please do reach out to us. I’d love to show you the kind of breadth and depth of training in the facilities that we have at our disposal.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Jeremy. We have seen a few presentations that address the labour shortage right now. We need the trades more than ever before if we’re going to maximize our potential here in British Columbia through infrastructure projects and things like that. I can’t remember the figure. I think it’s 200,000 trades by 2030 or something like that. It’s pretty close.

The first question is a two-parter here. The $80 million over three years — is that the feds spend, or is that what you need from the province? The second one: could you touch on the workers compensation system, the review that was done by WorkSafeBC? What does that mean? I think it was coined by a few folks where the consultation process could have been a little better. What would you like to see with that compensation model going forward?

J. Allingham: Sure. On the first question, we’re looking for three years, $80 million for a provincial made-in-B.C. UTIP that’s separate from the federal program.

I’ve got to tell you that I didn’t come fully prepped for a workers compensation review question, but I do know that story reasonably well, having been working around it.

I think the folks you’re referring to who are not happy with that process are mostly contractors and employers. Our folks believe that it was a very thorough and excellent process that led to a very thorough and powerful review that gave us a great road map to bring the workers compensation board into the modern day so that it can properly protect our workers when they go to work.

We know that construction is the most dangerous industry in the province. We support that review, and we hope to see it implemented.

H. Yao: I really appreciate the time you are spending with us. You mentioned that for the last ten years, I believe, you went from $71 million to $70 million.

J. Allingham: Seventeen years, yes.

H. Yao: Seventeen?

J. Allingham: Yes, 17 years.

H. Yao: Okay. And you’re asking for a $35 million annual increase. That’s above the current amount you receive right now.

J. Allingham: Yeah, that would represent a 50 percent increase, yes.

H. Yao: Okay, perfect. I want to make sure I get the right number, clarify the number.

Is that basically helping to cover the training costs and everything, so that we can keep on increasing the capacity to bring more people in for more training?

J. Allingham: Yes, more people in, creating more seats. I think I was looking at the story of the IUOE, International Union of Operating Engineers, training school. The amount of money they get from SkilledTradesBC covers something like gas and gravel and…. It’s like something very minute, and then they cover 92 percent of the costs of training the workforce as they go out the door to run the cranes that you see all around Vancouver and our other major centres.

[1:15 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Jeremy, you talked about the leadership of B.C. Building Trades and women and Indigenous people in apprenticeships, etc.

I want to go back to prior to the CBA agreements. What was your record like prior to that?

J. Allingham: If you’d like, I could include that in our submission. I’m not aware of that. I started working in August 2022.

B. Stewart: Okay. What I would be interested in knowing is the number of members that are across all of those 25 different branches and what the rise has been in membership, and what the apprenticeship…. Just to see how that model is affected and improved or whatever.

J. Allingham: You are looking for Indigenous and women?

B. Stewart: Well, I’m actually asking about…. You mentioned that you were No. 1. You quoted SkilledTradesBC, so I’m assuming that they do this ranking on a year-by-year basis.

J. Allingham: It’s quarterly.

B. Stewart: Okay. More frequent, I guess. I’m just interested in knowing how that number has changed over the last six years.

J. Allingham: Since the CBA.

B. Stewart: Since the CBA introduction.

J. Allingham: I can look into that for you. No problem.

B. Stewart: I mean, it’s a good number, and then you point to the shortages and stuff like that.

I guess more importantly, to Tom’s point, he’s asking about the shortage, and I think there’s a line that shows: this is what we’re increasing. What is the future, and how much more do we need?

J. Allingham: How do we get there? I hear you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, Jeremy. Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.

Next up is Cathy McMillan from Dyslexia B.C.

Good afternoon, Cathy. You have five minutes to make a presentation to us, and we have five minutes set aside to ask questions or make comments.

DYSLEXIA B.C.

C. McMillan: Thanks for having me.

Nice to see some of you again, Ben and Henry. I don’t recognize anyone else.

My name is Cathy McMillan, and I am dyslexic — undiagnosed, of course. The difference between how I approach reading and writing is vastly different from my two adult dyslexic children that have been diagnosed and supported properly. I procrastinate.

This week, while writing my presentation, I got a little distracted with a social media post that I saw on May 25. A quote from the post reads: “‘We’re seeing an increasing number of people who experience brain injury after they survive an overdose as the drug supply becomes more toxic,’ said Jennifer Whiteside, Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. ‘People living with brain injuries require a specialized approach to care that meets their unique needs. The work being done by the cognitive assessment and rehabilitation for substance use program is critical in ensuring more British Columbians can get the help they need and deserve.’”

Hmm. Yet dyslexic individuals get no support or funding for remediation within schools or anywhere else for that matter. It just doesn’t make sense. B.C. needs legislation and policy to support dyslexia and other learning disabilities in K to 12, post-secondary and the workplace.

Programs and policy need to be initiated in the Ministries of Education, Health and Children and Family Development. It’s time to be proactive, as 80 percent — I’m going to say it again, 80 percent — of our homeless youth have dyslexia, and our incarceration systems are riddled with illiterate and dyslexic individuals. Dyslexics are prone to addictions, unemployment, underemployment, suicidal ideation — Amanda Todd had an LD — and mental health issues, especially if they are not supported.

Dyslexia B.C. said last year at our 2023 budget presentation, and we are going to say it again: B.C. does not have a school anywhere in the entire province that provides an education equitably to dyslexic individuals, even the private schools. Of course, they’re private, right?

[1:20 p.m.]

Today Dyslexia B.C. is requesting targeted, specific funding for legislation and mandatory dyslexia screening using evidence-based screeners, starting in kindergarten. In the U.S., this is happening in every state. Only one state in the entire U.S.A. does not have a law that requires them to screen for dyslexia in kindergarten.

Legislation and policy from the ministry to switch from balanced literacy to structured literacy. Legislation and policy for teacher training for mandatory remediation programs that can be accessed by both general and special education populations.

Dyslexia B.C. met last year with the hon. Mitzi Dean and the hon. Rachna Singh and requested the exact same things. In fact, we have met with the last three Education Ministers and requested the exact same things. We haven’t seen any change.

We also told them that the BCCPAC and the BCSTA just recently voted to advocate to several ministries on the exact same things. In addition, we asked them to reverse the 2019 arbitration decision. If you don’t know what that is, I strongly encourage you to look it up.

It’s time for change, to provide equitable access for all students, including the dyslexic ones.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Cathy, and bear with my lack of awareness. Can you educate us a bit more on what the difference is between balanced literacy versus structured literacy?

C. McMillan: Okay. Well, I think last year, I mentioned….

H. Yao: I think I asked the same question last year.

C. McMillan: Balanced literacy, in my view, is the hippie version of trying to teach kids to read. I have a science background. I do have a BSc from the University of Victoria, which I squeaked through with my writing skills and did awesome in math and statistics.

Balanced literacy formed in the ’60s. It basically is…. The idea is to surround the kids with literacy. Read to them. Read to them. Read to them. Show them how much you love reading, and they’ll get it. To me, that’s learning by osmosis.

Structured literacy is based in science. Basically, they’ve done cognitive studies. They’ve done teaching to see what lights up in the brain, hooked people up to machines while they’re teaching them to read. The science shows that you have to explicitly teach reading so that the skills are learned, rather than just memorizing or being exposed to reading. The kids have to be explicitly, systematically…. Structured literacy — that’s what it is.

R. Leonard: I haven’t been on this committee for a while. You did mention, in 2019, an arbitration decision. Could you please expand on that and explain what that is?

C. McMillan: Sure. The 2019 arbitration decision was between the BCTF and the government, and it was about class composition. They decided they were going to go through the special needs categories and try to figure out which ones…. They wanted less IEPs or kids with disabilities in each classroom. The Q category is what repre­sents learning disabilities, and 80 percent to 90 percent of all learning disabilities are dyslexia.

They decided they were going to go through the G category, which is autism, and Q, which is dyslexia. G they didn’t really change that much. But with Q, they decided that they were going to weed through it and take out some of the kids in the Q category so that they wouldn’t be designated with the ministry. This means that they don’t get IEPs, and they don’t get remediation.

I do know of some districts — I get anonymous mail — that hired retired teachers and literally went through without telling parents and decided which kids to get rid of. Basically, those kids would be not designated with the ministry as a child with special needs and not get help.

R. Leonard: So what was the arbitration — the actual decision?

C. McMillan: The government actually decided, for the districts, to go through that Q designation and split it and end it and only have a few kids left. I’ll send you the document.

R. Leonard: Thank you. That would be helpful.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Cathy. That was very informative. I want to ask you about…. You mentioned the statistic that 80 percent of the homeless have dyslexia.

C. McMillan: Not homeless. Street youth.

B. Stewart: Oh, street youth.

[1:25 p.m.]

C. McMillan: The kids that drop out of school and end up being on the streets.

B. Stewart: Where is that number from?

C. McMillan: A study that Linda Siegel did. That’s the number that…. That’s the one I referenced. She did it in Toronto, but I’m sure it was the same in Vancouver in, I think, the ’90s. But I could get you the study.

B. Stewart: It’s a very disturbing percentage.

C. McMillan: It is. Well, these kids don’t do well at school, they can’t read, and they end up on the streets. There’s your addiction.

As a dyslexic myself, with a loving family, and my daughter, who has severe dyslexia…. If she was born into any other family…. The amount of money we have had to pay to get her to university is ridiculous.

It doesn’t end. They become dyslexic adults. So she gets to college, and she finds new problems there. She’s gotten jobs. She’s found problems there as well.

We need to look at learning disabilities differently and ensure that they get equitable access. It’s invisible. You can’t tell that I’m dyslexic until you see me stumbling when I’m reading, and it’s something I’ve read a billion times before I came here.

It’s invisible. But in a workplace, it can cause huge mental health problems when your colleagues don’t understand why your paper takes two days longer than it should, compared to everybody else.

M. Starchuk (Chair): That pretty much ends up our time, Cathy. Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. Despite what you said about procrastinating at the beginning, it turned out very, very, very well.

Our next presenter is Matt MacInnis, Electrical Contractors Association of British Columbia. Matt, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and there’ll be five minutes of questions and answers or comments. The floor is yours.

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

M. MacInnis: Thank you. My name is Matt MacInnis, and I’m the president of the Electrical Contractors Association of British Columbia.

ECABC represents electrical contractors, line utility contractors and electrical manufacturers, suppliers and distributors. Our members are involved in every aspect of electricity in British Columbia, from point of generation at a power facility through the transmission lines, substation, construction, to our homes, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure that relies on B.C.’s clean energy.

We have limited time today, so I’m going to speak to two items of urgent importance: prompt payment legislation and ensuring that B.C. has enough skilled electrical workers to build a sustainable future.

The topic of prompt payment legislation, I know, isn’t new to this committee, which has included it as a recommendation in its final report in previous years. For those of you who aren’t familiar, allow me to briefly explain.

There is no payment timeline certainty in British Columbia’s construction industry. Trade contractors and subcontractors regularly wait 60, 90 or more than 100 days after submitting an invoice to get paid. In the meantime, they need to pay their workers and suppliers regularly first, forcing them to take out loans in order to cover their costs.

Contracts often contain unreasonably lengthy payment timelines, the worst of which is the so-called pay-when-paid clause, or timelines and contracts are simply not adhered to. This functionally puts a portion of project finance and costs onto contractors, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses. Consistent, predictable cash flow is integral to the health of any business and is similarly important for well-being and to ensure that people have good, reliable jobs.

Let me be clear. Prompt payment is not just a business issue. It is a housing affordability issue. It’s a worker fairness problem. It’s even a health care problem. The capital cost of building new hospitals and care facilities is a significant cost in terms of delivering health care in B.C.

Unnecessarily delayed payments can, in the worst-case scenario, threaten the viability of the contractor and put undue hardship onto their workers. I don’t want to speak on behalf of our affiliated IBEW locals, but I know that they’re supportive of prompt payment legislation as well.

At a time when B.C. is trying to build as much housing and public infrastructure as fast and efficiently as possible, we need to be looking for every solution to manage construction costs. The good news is there is a readily available solution, which is prompt payment legislation.

British Columbia has become an outlier in terms of not having legislated timelines for construction sector payments. Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta here in Canada all have some form of prompt payment legislation.

[1:30 p.m.]

Legislation has existed federally in the United States longer than I’ve been alive. Most states have prompt payment legislation in place for both private and public construction projects. The pay-when-paid clauses I referred to earlier have been functionally illegal in the United Kingdom since 1996.

The time for legislation in B.C. is now. Ontario’s legislation provides a replicable template for B.C. It was passed in 2017. It’s been fully enforced for several years, and we believe it’s working well.

Ontario’s legislation requires owners in the first tier of the payment pyramid to pay an invoice within 28 days of receiving it, and then from there, the GC — the general contractor — has to pay trade contractors within seven days, and then throughout the payment pyramid, it’s seven days down each step. Importantly, Ontario’s legislation also includes an adjudication process, which helps to remove industry disputes from the court system. It’s good legislation that can be quickly implemented.

The other important item is the availability of labour. I know you guys just heard from B.C. Building Trades. It’s a very similar message that we have, so I won’t belabour the point too much, but what I can tell you is that today, British Columbia’s electrical contractors are very busy, and demand is only going to dramatically increase in the coming years.

British Columbia really seems to have three core priorities right now: housing, climate change policy through electrification and health care. All three of these require and are dependent on the work of the electrical construction sector. These priorities will all be competing for the same limited pool of highly skilled, highly specialized workers.

We need more electrical apprentices, journeypersons and line technicians in British Columbia if we’re going to accomplish our goals to build more homes, to address climate change and to provide high-quality health care. If we aren’t able to grow our electrical construction workforce, we’re at risk of project delays, of cost escalations or, in a worst-case scenario, to not meet our goals.

The recently announced Future Ready strategy does have some strong foundational public policy in it, particularly when it comes to uplifting British Columbians. Our ask is for the province to take the next step and recognize the essential nature of electrical work and establish a specific plan to ensure B.C. has enough electricians so that we can meet our goals.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Matt, for your presentation.

Matt, I have another word for an electrician. I call them a magician. I have no idea how you walk to a wall, flick a switch and it becomes bright.

S. Chant: Just one. Can you expand a little bit — I’m learning — on the pay-when-paid clause?

M. MacInnis: Yeah. Contracts in the construction sector can be very complex, and some of them have terminology which essentially says that a general contractor isn’t going to pay down throughout the rest of the construction pyramid, so let’s say an electrical contractor or a mechanical contractor or the drywall people, until they have received a portion of payments from the project owner.

That contract could have various stipulations in it. It may be based on a certain percentage of the project being complete, or maybe some other areas. Depending on the project, it’s possible that a trade-level contractor may not have any real line of sight into when they’re likely to be paid if there is this pay-when-paid clause in place. And as you can imagine, that’s why most places have functionally outlawed it either directly or through specific payment timeline legislation like we’re proposing.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Matt. My son is an electrician. He got his apprenticeship. He’s Red Seal. He’s worked industrial and commercial. He’s worked up at Site C. He’s worked up in the oil rigs. He has made a really good life for himself, with a good, highly paid, highly skilled job. He lives in Kelowna, and he says that the wage there for an electrician hasn’t moved at all in the last little while.

I’m not too sure…. If you get in some urban centres, there’s such a big congregation of electricians there, and the supply and demand doesn’t match, but we know we need electricians to build the infrastructure. Is there a bit of a breakdown between industrial and commercial demand that we need for electricians versus residential, or where do we need to put our eggs — what basket?

M. MacInnis: I think it’s safe to assume that we’re looking down the barrel of shortage across the spectrum. We know that the province has very significant ambitions to increase the number of new homes that are being built, of varying varieties, whether it be highrises or single-family homes, but there’s also a big need for ICI work — so industrial or commercial work — whether it would be building new hospitals or if we’re going to be needing to increase the number or increase the generation capacity in British Columbia to ensure that we have the electricity to power electrification needs, industrial through EVs.

[1:35 p.m.]

I wouldn’t say there’s a gap in one specific area. I think what we’re looking at is…. We need to ensure a pretty steady investment across the board to meet what we foresee as the upcoming demands.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. My grandfather was one of the early electricians in British Columbia. I agree with the Chair that electricity and electricians’ work is magic.

What do you do to as an association for — or you or do you do any — marketing? Do you go to job fairs? Do you get students excited about getting involved in the world of electricity?

M. MacInnis: Yeah, so I think that our belief is that we need to work collaboratively to ensure that people see the trades in general — but particularly electrical, in our case — as a desirable profession to get into. Really, it is emphasizing that this is a profession and a career. I think that there’s a lot of opportunity for the association for our members, for our partners in the union and labour, for Skilled Trades B.C. and for the province to ensure that we are working to attract people to construction.

I know that the B.C. Construction Association, right now, has an ad campaign in place promoting youth and individuals to get into the trades. That’s an advertising campaign that’s supported by, I believe, a couple different levels of government.

B. Stewart: The question about prompt payment legislation. If this comes forward — implementation — how do you see that? I mean, you’re talking about, I’m assuming, smaller contractors. Tell me how you see this rolling out in terms of making certain that people aren’t surprised by it. Their old system that they’re accustomed to, pay-when-paid clause, things like that….

M. MacInnis: Other jurisdictions have usually created a grandfathered period. Up until the point where a piece of legislation is passed, contracts that previously existed would be permitted to continue as they were written. I think, in most jurisdictions, what they’ve done is said that contracts signed as of date X are when the new rules will be enforced and in play. It’s similar to how most other legislation is brought into place. There’s usually an implementation date involved.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Great. Well, thank you, Matt, for your presentation this afternoon. I stick by that clause at the beginning — pure magicians.

Next up is Erin O’Melinn from HUB Cycling.

Erin, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and then the committee will have five minutes to ask questions or make comments.

The floor is yours.

HUB CYCLING

E. O’Melinn: Great. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I’m Erin O’Melinn. I’m the executive director at HUB Cycling.

We work to get more people cycling for transportation more often. This, of course, realizes climate, health, equity, affordability and social connectivity that is brought to our communities, and at such a deal of a price tag too, compared to many other ways to achieve those aims.

We have three recommendations to share with you today. One would be to reform the fiscal planning policies to reflect the government goals. CleanBC aims to achieve a 50 percent share of trips made by walking, cycling and transit by 2050. But year after year, the provincial budgets have prioritized vehicle travel over active transportation. MOTI budgets should start moving rapidly towards at least 50 percent of the budget dedicated to walking, cycling and transit. At the moment, cycling hovers around the 1 to 2 percent.

So 69 percent of people in our province drive for commutes that are less than five kilometres, which is an easy 20-minute cycle. In the city of Vancouver, which has invested extensively in active transportation over about the last 15 years, only 41 percent of people drive for those commutes less than five kilometres. It shows that shifting that investment really does shift the transportation modes.

We know that two-thirds of people cycle for transportation regularly, or they want to, but they’re held back by safety concerns. But your investment can fix this. For cycling network gaps within B.C. government control, they have already been catalogued in the south coast region, where we are right now, by the ministry.

For 2024, we recommend that the government of B.C. provide adequate funding to fill at least 40 kilometres of those MOTI jurisdiction south coast gaps and then continue that each year. That would be about $80 million per year to make a basic network that’s connected within approximately five years. That would allow people to reasonably and comfortably get around by bike.

[1:40 p.m.]

Then additional funding would be provided to fill cycling gaps across British Columbia, including social and spatial equity prioritization, cycle highways that would meaningfully connect communities and the economic benefits that come with it. For cycling network gaps under municipal jurisdiction, we recommend increasing the B.C. government contribution to cost-share funding to $100 million per year. This would help to meet the demand for municipalities to build cycling infrastructure. That demand is very strong, but they need funding support to make it happen.

Any investment that you do make in cycling has a multiplied benefit of creating good jobs for British Columbians, providing social health and affordability benefits, reducing GHG emissions and helping communities expand sustainably by relieving congestion and increasing quality of life.

Currently, the cost-share program is chronically underfunded and oversubscribed. Just last week, a long-planned and central cycling and walking path was cancelled because Richmond city council voted against the additional funding needed to move it forward.

In addition to the funding from different levels of government, the provincial government could explore the feasibility of new funding sources to expedite development of safe and connected urban active transportation and public transportation. For example, France is introducing innovative new funding mechanisms with the corporate world.

Two, it’s not all about the hard infrastructure. Awareness, education and promotion work together with a connected cycling network to achieve mode shift and vehicle-kilometres-travelled reductions that the province is aiming for. So we recommend increased funding for cycling education. As well, $1 million per year to fund school cycling education would mean that all B.C. children would receive training through programs like Everyone Rides Grade 4-5. That would reach all schools in the province.

It’s not just kids that need support on how to ride to get around town. We recommend fully funding adult cycling education so that all B.C. adults have access to free or affordable online or in-person courses that would let them be confident, comfortable and safe while cycling for transportation. That would be its own $1 million per year to reach the majority of adults in the province.

Behaviour-change events, like GoByBike Week and Bike to School Week, motivate thousands of British Columbians each year to shift modes from driving to cycling, but underfunding right now means the messaging and support is not reaching as many people as it could. Again, $1 million dedicated to promotion and motivational events would go a long way.

Three would be to introduce equity-oriented incentives. The province’s newly announced e-bike rebate is a great step in the right direction. The ministry can build on this momentum by introducing other incentives, such as subsidies for adaptive bikes that allow people with disabilities to use active transportation or micromobilities.

These improve affordability. They reduce congestion and emissions. I know the clean transportation action plan is under development right now by the B.C. government, and they’ve got lots of great research recommendations to improve equity and access here.

With this increased budget, I look forward to a B.C. that enables people to take many of their daily trips by walking, rolling and cycling and allows them access to the many associated personal and community benefits.

Thanks for your time today.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation there.

I could sit here all day long and ask questions. I actually ride my bike to work when I don’t have to be off-site. I can tell you that the ten- or 11-minute drive to my office is a 13- to 14-minute ride to my office, because while all that traffic is backed up, I’m able to go in a bike lane and go around all of that stuff that’s there — legally, mind you.

R. Leonard: I want to thank you for the work that you do.

I remember, when I was an early city councillor, I started a cycling task force. That was in the mid-2000s. That’s a long time. The interest has grown, and you’ve been around for all of that time. I still have my 2008 Bike to Work Week T-shirt. That was one of the things, when you talk about the incentives, that helped raise the profile. It doesn’t take a lot of money, but it does take a little bit to make sure that you can draw in the volunteers to be a part of it and to make things happen.

I wanted to ask about transit, the interaction with transit and bikes. For some people, that commute is just too much for a bike. They can get partway there, and then there’s this pinch point. I’m wondering if you have ideas that are incorporated into some of these annual asks to improve that piece.

[1:45 p.m.]

E. O’Melinn: For sure. I have very personal experience with multimodal transportation. I ride my bike to the train. I put my bike on the train, and I ride again on the other side. Otherwise, it’s an over-40-kilometre commute, which just doesn’t work. I definitely get it.

We talk with TransLink a lot here in Metro Vancouver, and I think B.C. Transit would be very interested as well. That would be part of the 50 percent investment in the active modes and transit to help people really shift away.

There are lots of components around end-of-trip cycling facilities. When you ride your bike to the transit station, is there somewhere safe to leave it, particularly now that folks are riding more expensive bikes and e-bikes? That may be a great option, much quicker than transit and often quicker or very time-competitive with taking a car but more affordable, healthy, and all those things. But if they don’t have a safe spot to leave it, they won’t use that option. Whether it’s on-demand bike lockers or bike parkades, we’ve seen these put into place but not in enough places. More investment in that realm would be very welcome.

Bikes on transit is something we’ve done decently well with. You can put a bike on the front of a bus. You can put it on SkyTrain some of the time. Making that as easy as possible, I think, is going to be really important. Then raising the profile. I know that here in Metro Vancouver there’s going to be a whole new rapid bus system coming in. That’s going to be a lot more attractive than some of the current suburban systems. To really make that integration seamless is going to be important.

B. Stewart: Erin, we had a presentation in Victoria yesterday, talking about something similar. A lot of the infrastructure we’re talking about taking money…. You mentioned MOTI and putting resources into this. There’s a road tax component to the gasoline that’s used — and, of course, carbon tax and things like that.

What do you see in the long term for this infrastructure? What you’re talking about is really just the start; it’s in its infancy. Where do you see the resources coming to help fund this infrastructure?

E. O’Melinn: There are many innovative things that different places are looking at, whether it’s corporate — people need to get their employees to work — or mobility pricing, so that people are paying for the infrastructure they’re using. I know the gas tax and other taxes are going out of style, for a good reason. We do need to look at different ways to fund that, but there are places all over the world that are doing this and that we can learn from.

B. Stewart: The cyclists and the others are using this infrastructure; there are scooters and other things like that. When you say “mobility pricing,” how is it collected?

E. O’Melinn: Right now people that cycle are paying more than their fair share through property taxes and other general taxes. Many people that cycle also drive cars, so they’re paying for roads in that way as well, but in terms of the wear and tear and the maintenance and construction of active transportation facilities, they’re far more affordable to build and maintain than motor vehicle infrastructure, and they provide many other benefits.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Erin, that concludes your presentation.

I want to leave something with you. Similar to Ronna-Rae, I had a part in municipal government as well. It was always my push that when you built a recreational facility, you provided parking indoors for the bikes. It was secure and it was monitored. You had talked about that briefly. I really hope that you keep on pushing that part with the new builds, or even retrofits. Those of us that would like to cycle to some other place want to know that when they’re finished, that it’s secure, that it’s safe and that you can get your ride home.

Thank you for the work that you do.

E. O’Melinn: Exactly. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Our next presentation is from Juan Solorzano, Public Health Association of B.C. I guess we’re going to find out shortly how I did with that last name.

Juan, you have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions and answers.

The floor is yours.

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF B.C.

J. Solorzano: Thank you, and you did very well. Thank you very much for the correct pronunciation.

As president of the Public Health Association of B.C., I’m here today to support the strengthening of the public health system, which is a cause that aligns well with the vision set out by Canada’s chief medical health officer in her latest report on the state of public health in Canada.

This report provides a blueprint for the types of actions that are required to strengthen public health in Canada as well as in British Columbia. I know there are efforts within the Ministry of Health currently, as well as with the office of the provincial health officer to bring opportunities for these investments in front of this committee and in front of cabinet.

[1:50 p.m.]

Our role today as the association of public health professionals in British Columbia is to encourage government to prioritize investments in public health, with the aim of building a healthier and more equitable British Columbia for all. Public health, as you know, is a discipline that is dedicated to preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through a number of societal efforts. It’s not merely about treating individual illness but really about promoting the health of the entire population.

It is a sector that intersects with education, with social services, with the economy, with the environment — and we just learned a little bit more about transportation. It’s accepted that many factors that contribute to the health of residents in British Columbia are actually lying outside health care system investments. This is what we’re really encouraging this committee to consider.

Most of the health issues, especially populations that are of high-risk experience, are connected to those structural inequities that they face in their day-to-day life. While biomedical solutions like vaccines are crucial, social solutions — including income support, paid sick time, employment supports and appropriate transportation infrastructure for active transportation, like cycling — are equally vital. The COVID-19 pandemic, I think, has tested public health systems worldwide and certainly here in B.C. I think it has highlighted some of the weaknesses and emphasized the need for having more resiliency in the system overall.

As we continue to see some worsening threats for human health — such as the risk of climate change, as well as the increasingly challenging overdose crisis — we need to ensure that our public health system is ready and well equipped to face these challenges. Our vision is to have a public health system in the 21st century that is resilient, world-class and that can act as our best insurance policy for facing these crises.

Our path forward, I think, is outlined partly in Dr. Tam’s report but also in the work that the office of the provincial health officer and the Ministry of Health are outlining and includes things like better population health surveillance, understanding how our residents are doing and what areas are affecting their health, getting better prepared for emergency management, being able to detect disease early and to act, also, on the wider determinants of health.

There are important investments that need to happen in the public health workforce. We heard the challenges that construction companies are facing recently, but it’s happening across health care, as well, and the need to invest in this workforce is critical. As British Columbia continues to face these important challenges for our health, we want to put forward our recommendation to consider increasing the investment for public health infrastructure. Currently it represents about 3 percent of the health care budget provincially. We think that needs to go up to at least 6 percent.

The details of those investments will be part of the submission to treasury that the Ministry of Health and the OPHO is putting together, but our role in the association is just to recommend the investment, recommend that we be prepared for facing the health crises that we’re seeing. Thank you very much. That will be my presentation.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Juan, for your presentation.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for being here with us. I really appreciate where you’re coming from. I would love to ask…. We now know that we have a generation of technology-dependent individuals and that long-term health is becoming more of a concern. Quality of life, I assume, will also be a priority, and of course, the pandemic demonstrated how important mental health and physical activity are as well.

Is there any other preventive aspect you would love to see us increase funding for, to support a way that is not just preventive healthwise but that also improves the quality and prolongs a healthy lifestyle as well?

J. Solorzano: Yeah, this is interesting. The Surgeon General of the U.S. just produced a report on the impacts of social media in the mental wellness of children and youth. I think new technologies have an opportunity to act as assets that can help us with delivering care remotely to some of the communities in B.C. that are remote but also pose significant challenges, including some of the challenges coming from artificial intelligence, which we are just starting to get ready and prepare for.

[1:55 p.m.]

I would say, overall, in public health in particular, that we need to grapple with increased competencies to be able to work in the digital sphere. Many of the professionals that are working in this area started their lives as professionals before some of these changes, and those competencies are not completely there.

Investment in the workforce, to be able to take advantage of the tools that exist, is a critical element and then harnessing some of those potentials that tools offer for, again, delivering care remotely, helping prompt health messages but also identify threats. There are a lot of interesting modelling and surveillance activities that can take place using artificial intelligence and other technologies that I think it’s important to consider.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I have a question with regard to what you’ve just said. You’ve talked about the investment into what’s there and the different tools that you’re going to be able to utilize in the different technologies. What is the end result?

J. Solorzano: Well, the end result I think is, on the one hand, to improve the health of British Columbians overall, although we do have a very long lifespan and life expectancy, some of the best in the world in British Columbia. What we do also have are very significant disparities in the life expectancy for people in our communities as well. Just a few blocks from here, life expectancy for some of our residents is closer to what we will see in countries like South Korea, Bangladesh, whereas a few blocks away from here, we’ll see life expectancies that are closer to Japan or the Scandinavian countries.

Those disparities in life expectancy and, really, social justice, is where we’re trying to close the gap. I think that’s one of the key end results, and then addressing some of the emerging issues. We are starting to see more concerns around the mental wellness of the general population but particularly of children and youth. Being able to address those is certainly part of the end result.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Great.

H. Yao: You mentioned about a 3 percent to 6 percent infrastructure cost increase. Based on what I’m observing, we’re building a lot of hospitals, a lot of UPCCs, a lot of dif­ferent…. The Foundry system right now.

Are we thinking about doubling what we’re building right now, or is it specific infrastructure you’re suggesting that needs to be added, or a complement to the current system we have?

J. Solorzano: Yeah, thank you for the question. I think what we’re talking about is the investment into public health as a practice. I think the province invests about $80 billion in health. Public health is really just 3 percent of that budget.

These are investments in what we call upstream, to pre­vent illness before it ends up happening. They are investments that tend to have a higher return on their costs because you are able to eliminate costs down the line, so it’s more investing in the infrastructure for public health prevention.

H. Yao: Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Ronna Rae.

R. Leonard: I’ll cede to my neighbour next door.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Susie.

S. Chant: I think my question is too late. My question is: where are you on getting some direct federal funding?

J. Solorzano: I would say there’s direct federal funding in some targeted investments. We have received grants for climate change and specific projects, but I haven’t seen something translated into the general operational dollars that are needed to really modernize the workforce, modernize infrastructure. I haven’t seen that, and I think it’s an interesting question, one we should be exploring for sure.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Juan, thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.

J. Solorzano: Thank you for the questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next up, we have Amy FitzGerald, B.C. Society of Transition Houses.

As you walk up, Amy, you have five minutes to make your presentation. We have five minutes for questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

B.C. SOCIETY OF TRANSITION HOUSES

A. FitzGerald: Thank you very much. Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I have provided written submissions as well.

My name is Amy FitzGerald. I’m the executive director of the B.C. Society of Transition Houses. We were founded in 1978 with six members, and we now have 130 members across the province. We are the provincial umbrella organization whose mandate is to work collaboratively with our members to end gender-based violence across B.C.

We train, support and advocate on behalf of the women’s transition housing portfolio, the PEACE and violence is preventable programs focused on emergency, safe shelter, housing and supports for women, children and youth experiencing, at risk of and fleeing violence.

Budgets reflect society’s priorities. In 2018, the B.C., government committed to advancing gender equality by ensuring that gender equity and GBA+ analysis is reflected in all budgets, policies and programs.

[2:00 p.m.]

My three asks today align with the B.C. GBA+ commitment and respond to preventing gender-based violence and exist in successful British Columbia programs that are in the province today and that are woefully and chronically underfunded.

This is to address the increase of 37 percent in domestic violence in the last year in British Columbia and to respond to the fifth consecutive year of an increase in family violence and also the increase in femicides in British Columbia. We had 29 femicides, which is the murder of women at the hands of a man. That is double our average in British Columbia. Across Canada, the femicide rate has increased 27 percent since before the pandemic.

Gender-based violence was a public health and safety emergency before the pandemic and exists the same today. We need budget investments commensurate with the problem.

We have three asks. One is the PEACE program. We’re asking that you fund multi-year full-time PEACE programs at the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General so that children and youth responding to violence receive timely services everywhere in British Columbia instead of the current system, which is woefully underfunded and is a denial of essential services.

We’re asking that you provide $10 million in annual PEACE program funding at the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It would allow for the 86 current part-time PEACE programs to become full-time programs and allow for the expansion of the PEACE program into Indigenous, Métis and immigrant and refugee communities, which have approached us and asked us to advocate on their behalf with the ministry.

The $10 million investment in PEACE would be consistent with Budget 2023’s investment in continuing funding for the community-based sexual assault centres, which was provided last year. So it would be consistent with the mandate of the ministry.

The PEACE program started in 1992. It provides specialized support services for children and youth experiencing violence. It is an upstream intervention and prevention program. It is the only free confidential counselling program to address witnessing family violence available for children and youth in B.C.

For five years, the PEACE program wait-lists have been the key barrier to accessing PEACE program services, from 2018 to 2022. The most recent census report that we did in December of ’22 illustrated that 346 children and youth were served in 24 hours. There were 632 children and youth on wait-lists at the same time, and 302 were unable to be supported. Thus, in 24 hours, over 1,000 B.C. children and youth were denied service, three times the number supported.

We have requested additional funds from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We have been advised that they do not have the funding.

There is a recognized funding need there. Less than one-half of the PEACE programs are currently able to provide the school prevention program and the violence is preventable program because of their part-time hours.

We’re asking that this program be funded. It is an innovative, upstream prevention program that can make a difference in terms of prevention. It works with children and youth, and it builds on their futures to be safe citizens in British Columbia.

The second ask relates to the homeless prevention program, which is at B.C. Housing. We’re asking that you expand this successful program to all 130 transitional housing programs across the province to prevent homelessness and increase safety for women, children and youth fleeing violence. Only 27 of our 130 program members have homeless prevention funding presently. It is funded at $4 million. We’re asking for an increase annually of $20 million, which would allow for that.

In B.C., only 4 percent move to affordable housing after coming into transition houses. Twenty-one percent find housing beyond their means, and 75 percent remain temporarily sheltered.

The last ask relates to transportation. We’re asking that you….

I’ve run out of time. I think I’m at the zero. I’ll go on. Okay.

It relates to transportation. Fund a system of accessible and safe transportation, particularly across the North and in rural and remote communities in B.C.

Thirty percent of our membership are in rural and remote communities, and 14 percent of them are Indigenous communities. Seventy percent have indicated that the existing transportation options don’t meet the needs of their clients. Limited transit times, routes and costs were the three most frequently cited reasons. Eighty-five percent indicated that the current transit options create barriers for women accessing gender-based violence services. The current system provided by B.C. Bus North and the small private bus system is not a coordinated system.

[2:05 p.m.]

We’re asking that the province consider funding B.C. Transit, as a Crown corporation, to extend their mandate to coordinate the delivery of public transportation all across British Columbia and to consider funding it to the rate of what they fund in urban communities.

Thank you very much for your consideration. I welcome any questions and apologize for going over my time.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Amy, thank you very much for your presentation.

My watch says five minutes right on the nose.

A. FitzGerald: Oh, okay. I was watching this….

B. Stewart: Oh wow. What kind of watch is that?

M. Starchuk (Chair): Which watch is that? Yes.

A. FitzGerald: I appreciate your flexible watch. I was watching my little limit timer. I should probably carry one of these around with me.

M. Starchuk (Chair): We’re just happy to have one this year.

Are there any comments?

H. Yao: Thank you so much.

First of all, I really appreciate what you’re doing. Obviously, the PEACE program is extremely important. As a past youth worker, that’s something I would love to see, the way it’s expanding and being supported.

I’m a bit curious. You’re part of the B.C. Society of Tran­sition Houses, and you’re asking about building more secondary transition shelters. I think one of the things…. From my experience, a lot of, unfortunately, individuals who finally find the courage or strength to actually escape domestic violence circumstances are often bounced into a shelter. They couldn’t continue to a secondary transition home and now are forced, financially, back to the relationship they chose to run away from.

Do you have any feedback about that part?

A. FitzGerald: In terms of access to immediate services, there’s…. When someone makes that brave step to leave an abusive situation, the most important thing is to have accessible and timely services that are available, whether it’s for a child who has disclosed violence, in the context of the PEACE program, or whether it’s a woman or a self-identified woman who has made that step.

Our portfolio responds on a daily basis to those folks who make that call and provides those services. They will do everything in their power to ensure that they get into a safe shelter setting or provide the safety planning necessary for them to make that step when they’re ready to make that step. Basically, we attempt to meet women where they’re at, at the time that is safe for them. Safety planning is significant.

The continuum of services, certainly, is…. It’s a transi­tional housing program, right? They come into safe homes or transition houses, and then they can, if available, transition to second-stage houses. The goal is for them, ultimately, to survive and thrive and to get back into market housing.

Part of the investment in the homelessness prevention program…. That’s a subsidy that allows them to access, actually, market housing. It provides a housing worker to work with them to access that program. That’s an example of a program that’s currently working, if there is safe and affordable housing that’s accessible to them.

Does that answer your question?

H. Yao: Yeah.

R. Leonard: I’m probably asking an impossible question here. You cited statistics around femicide and the increase in domestic violence through the pandemic and continuing to rise. The question that keeps coming through my mind is around this cultural shift that we need to make.

All of your recommendations are sort of the long term. Do you see any initiatives that we should be taking on now that will help address, perhaps…? We have the Moose Hide Campaign. What else can we be doing?

A. FitzGerald: To be honest, if our PEACE programs were fully funded…. They’re presently funded at 17.5 hours. If they were fully funded, at 35 hours, they could address the wait-lists. These are children and youth who have been exposed to violence, who have asked for help and who have disclosed. They don’t have timely services available to them. That could help tomorrow.

These are the same folks that go into schools and give prevention and awareness presentations. That could help tomorrow. You would have a public setting where you would talk to children and to school administrators and to teachers. Then if there were disclosures of violence…. If you had immediate and timely services available, like the PEACE program, that would be a gateway to healthy relationships, a gateway to safety.

In the same way, the homelessness prevention program…. If that were fully funded, that could help tomorrow in terms of women finding safe and affordable housing so they don’t return to their abusers, so they don’t return to precarious housing.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Amy, thank you for your presentation.

I want to just make a comment. When we hear about upstream programs…. That, to me, is the key to a lot of things. We can talk about prevention and what we do afterwards or what we do in the moment. But when you’re upstream…. It would be nice to think that your PEACE program could actually eliminate something that’s on the other side of things.

[2:10 p.m.]

A. FitzGerald: That’s the point of it. It’s so that people don’t become perpetrators and they don’t become victims in their future lives. To be honest, I would love to see a prevention budget in 2024 in all of our different realms and all of what we’re advocating for. Prevention and awareness are the key, I think.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the work that you’re doing as well.

Next we have Katie Fenn, B.C. Recreation and Parks Association.

Katie, you have five minutes to present to us and five minutes after that for us to ask questions or make comments.

The floor is yours.

B.C. RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION

K. Fenn: Thank you so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here with all of you today. I’m Katie Fenn. I’m a third-generation settler of Irish and Scottish ancestry.

I live on the Coast Salish territories of the Musqueam and Squamish, just behind the building behind us there, and have lived there most of my life. I also work on the same territories here in Vancouver.

I came to the sector of recreation and parks relatively recently from public health. I worked at the Centre for Disease Control for the last 11 years and found that I was perpetually pulled downstream. I felt that coming into the recreation and parks sector, I would be able to remain upstream. That has certainly proven true in the last nine months that I’ve been with the organization and been able to think about programs and services that really create what I believe recreation and parks are: the hospitals for health and well-being in our province.

Before you, you have three recommendations, and I’ll outline, at a really high level, our organization.

B.C. Recreation and Parks Association, or the acronym BCRPA for short, has been around since 1958 as the voice of recreation and parks in the province. We have, currently, 127 members made up of local governments and regional districts. That represents 4,500 individual members and 3,000 fitness leaders across the province. It’s also a big part of why I came over. It’s because I know that there is no network across the province that’s better positioned to move swiftly and effectively when it comes to upstream programs and prevention initiatives.

To give you one quick example, when I first started, there was $8 million that was granted federally. We received $2 million of that, and, within a week, were able to reach across the province, have grants submitted and then disseminate that money within another week and then have the reporting-back within two weeks for equity-deserving groups across the province.

The first submission to you is likely something that you’ve heard many times about, and that’s aquatics in our province. Deeply confounded by the pandemic, we have, currently, only up to 30 percent programming rates, and that’s a stat just from Vancouver this past month. You can see why our wait-lists are the way that they are and that folks are not able to access swimming services.

I’m speaking directly to a cohort of children over the past two years that haven’t had access to basic swimming skills. We know that we live in a coastal province that also has plenty of natural bodies of water. We can anticipate that five, six, seven years from now, that cohort of children will not be safe in the water. We’ll see increases in injuries and deaths and otherwise.

This particular proposal is a three-year, $3 million investment to address the crisis post-COVID-19. It’s multi-pronged, and it’s modelled after one that has worked in Quebec. It’s scaled for our current provincial population levels.

In Quebec, they had $5 million per year for three years, and they’ve seen success in terms of getting this cohort of children back up and into swimming and having swim survival skills. This also looks at reducing the age for current lifeguards to 16, recruitment and retention for aquatic staff and then piloting partnerships with schools, which we have seen in some communities, including Golden and Vancouver, up till now.

The second ask is around a one-time $500,000 infrastructure investment, specifically related to data. In this province, we don’t have a comprehensive data set that tells us what infrastructure we have related to recreation and parks. The Canadian Parks and Recreation Association has put together a data warehouse and a database for us to work with. This ask is to implement that data warehouse within the province.

It’s a visualized data set, so it’s fairly easy to input data. We do know…. We’ve tried this before a number of times in our province, and it has failed. That’s mainly because of the variability. You can imagine that if you have 150 different municipalities inputting data into a database, you’re going to have non-clean data.

[2:15 p.m.]

So this proposal is to have a systemized approach and a standardized approach to entering data into a data set. Then we can visualize and understand what our current infrastructure is across the province related to recreation and parks, and then that will inform comprehensive deci­sion-making going forward.

Right now most of, if not all, the infrastructure around recreation and parks is made at the local level. That means that what happens is we have a 50-metre pool sometimes 3 kilometres away from another 50-metre pool, and then you don’t have a 50-metre pool for hundreds of kilometres. It creates incredible inequities when it comes to access to resources and infrastructure. Having an understanding of what actually is happening in the infrastructure in the province to inform decisions will be an important step in looking at a networked infrastructure in the longer term.

The last ask is really a prevention-based ask. It is a proof-of-concept ask. It’s a phased approach to looking at free recreation and what that would look like as an offset to the mental health care system and the overall health care system in B.C. It’s a proof-of-concept, three-year approach. It’s $1 million in year 1, $3 million in year 2 and $8 million in year 3. It’s to look at a cohort model addressing equity-deserving groups, who are not currently accessing recreation, for 14- to 25-year-olds.

We have a proof-of-concept around social prescribing and parks prescribing that has been shown internationally, as well as locally in B.C., to be very effective. But that is a health system–based approach. You can imagine that those costs are borne by the health care system, so physician time, MSP billing to prescribe those things, versus looking directly at linking with the school system, and where those youth might be, to provide those services.

I will end there and open to questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Katie, for your presentation. I really like the fact that you have linked health care to recreation. It just seems like a natural thing, and I’m very glad you’ve made the switch from one to the other.

S. Chant: Thank you. I can see the CDC coming out: “I want clean data, I want it standardized, and I want to know what….”

K. Fenn: That’s right. Surveillance cycle, exactly.

S. Chant: Thank you for all of this. The piece about the aquatics — that’s very scary to me. Tell me a little bit more about tying it in with schools. Are you trying to tie it in with schools?

K. Fenn: Yeah, we are. They are doing some proof-of-concept. One is in Golden, and then one is in Vancouver, where they’re doing once-a-week swimming. It’s swim for survival. There are obviously different tiers of swimming, right? One is just: “Here’s what you need to do so that you don’t drown when you’re in a body of water.” They’re doing that right now, and it is showing success.

Again, it’s piecemeal in terms of how it’s funded, and the longevity and the sustainability of it is not necessarily there. Whereas if we had a really targeted approach to say, “Okay, we know we have the specific cohort of children. They’re grade 3 to grade 5 right now. They didn’t get swimming in grade 1 to grade 3….” This is really, physical literacy–wise, quite fundamental. I really worry about those kids who now think it’s not cool to wear a lifejacket. They’re just that much older.

So it’s really targeting that group and getting them those basic life skills. It has worked with partnering with the school system, getting in there. Lowering the age for the lifeguards will help as well. It’s kind of multi-pronged. Work with the high school students and get them there to help actually do the training. That’s the plan.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Katie. I want to better understand the proof-of-concept. The aquatics part — is this deficiency caused by COVID, the pandemic?

K. Fenn: Yes.

B. Stewart: Infrastructure data is collecting that from around the province. Proof-of-concept is to prove that you’re actually accomplishing what you’re setting out to do. Is that correct?

K. Fenn: Yes, and to prove that free recreation actually has immediate cost savings to the health care system. We would work with the health authorities in specific pilot communities to say: “If you’re investing $100,000 this year in this specific group of kids….” We’d likely look at the kids who are just on the fringe of accessing the mental health system and think about….

We have some programs. For example, there’s an em­powering youth program that works with kids in group settings and does dialectical behaviour therapy and then also takes them out in recreation. It takes them for hikes in groups and shows them different abilities and skills. After something like that, they have access, a pass, to free recreation afterwards so that they can keep going and keep sustained what they’ve been taught, what they’ve learned.

[2:20 p.m.]

Then you can, obviously, attribute that to: “This specific person wasn’t in care, wasn’t receiving direct medical intervention. Cost savings are X because of that. This investment was Y.”

R. Leonard: Thank you for this. I just remember how difficult it was going to try to recreate, and pools were closed because they didn’t have lifeguards. I don’t know if you have an explanation or understanding of what hap­pened — that, post-pandemic, they didn’t come back to those positions.

Your first recommendation — is that to raise wages? I know you say to lower age, but that doesn’t cost money to lower age. So what is…?

K. Fenn: Yeah, it’s a recruitment and retention strategy. The recruitment part of it is to look…. The root cause of all of it is that we’re finding that it’s mostly because behaviours change related to work with the group of lifeguards that would have worked pre-pandemic, so far more casual shifts, and not saying, “I’m going to do 15 hours a week” but: “No, I’ll only pick up two or three hours a week.” So generally, what we’re finding is we need a bigger pool of people to deliver on the….

R. Leonard: No pun intended.

K. Fenn: That’s right. To deliver on the actual delivery of service and hours. So even though you thought, “Oh, I only needed 200 lifeguards to man this many pools, and now I need 400.” We actually need a bigger pool based on how they’re behaving in the workplace. So the recruitment side of that and knowing that we have to think creatively about…. Is it some folks who have reached retirement age and bringing them back and that kind of model?

Then there was also a key window from the recruitment perspective of folks who were 15 to 17. They decided to do other work, where we would have traditionally pulled them in. So it’s mainly around recruitment and retention. Retention, absolutely — we know wages are far lower than they used to be. Lifeguarding 20 years ago used to be the job to have to enter the workforce. It no longer is. It’s pretty on par with a lot of other kind of more traditional trade types of jobs.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Katie, we have run out of time, and I want to thank you for your presentation. I like the phrase that you used about how wearing a life jacket isn’t cool. I think if you take a look at the kids today, they’re out riding their bikes with their cool helmets with the spikes and the colours and other things like that. I think you just need to reinvent those life jackets. That makes those kids want to wear them.

K. Fenn: Yeah. Just $3 million for three years.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Katie.

Next on our list is Matthew Klippenstein, Hydrogen B.C.

Matthew, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for comments and/or questions if required.

You have the floor.

HYDROGEN B.C.

M. Klippenstein: Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today on the traditional unceded territory of the Squamish, Mus­queam and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

I’m Matthew Klippenstein. I’m the executive director for Hydrogen B.C., which is a provincial affiliate of the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association. B.C.’s hydrogen sector employs 1,900 workers, has annual revenues of more than $375 million and has exported hydrogen fuel cells to 26 countries.

Our association is highly appreciative of the support the province has shown to the sector over many years. Hydrogen technologies have had a frustratingly long gestation period. It’s a little bit like how cicadas, after they hatch, stay underground for about 17 years. The thing is that after those 17 years, they are everywhere, and that is kind of what hydrogen’s experience has been as a climate solution.

While governments were focused on incremental changes, reducing emissions a bit, hydrogen was off the radar. As soon as government said, “Let’s aim for net zero,” then there has been a place for hydrogen, and that’s probably why I’m here today. That’s part of the reason why I was hired.

Thanks to the province’s early support, British Columbia does have an advantage with hydrogen sector technologies that we didn’t have with wind turbines, didn’t have with solar panels and we didn’t have with lithium-ion batteries.

Hydrogen B.C. would like to make the following requests of the committee for Budget 2024.

One, future skills training allocations. Drawing from discussions with SkilledTradesBC, Technical Safety B.C., vocational schools, technology institutes and universities, we request that the province allocate funding for the development of hydrogen-related courses, curriculums and accreditations. These funds need to be invested now or very soon for us to be able to enjoy the benefits when hydrogen is beginning to scale up in the coming years. Such funds would likely fall under the purview of the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, with whom we are engaging in dialogue.

[2:25 p.m.]

The request aligns with recommendation 24 from the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada, supports the CleanBC workforce readiness framework and complements WorkBC’s training and education efforts. Once developed, hydrogen courses could subsequently qualify for the StrongerBC future skills grant.

The second request is for regulatory streamlining. B.C.’s renewable electricity is landlocked. So there’s no 8,000-​kilometre electric cable over to Asia. Hydrogen is a way to un-landlock our plentiful renewable resources if we beat other jurisdictions who are competing for the same capital.

Regulatory streamlining will assist in these efforts. The creation of the B.C. energy regulator and its single-window regulator approach are very positive early measures. To the extent possible for a subnational government inside a federation, we request that the province add resources for regulatory streamlining and harmonization and coax similar urgency from the federal government. This would support recommendations 4, 17, 18 and 29 through 31 of the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada and multiple policy actions from the B.C. hydrogen strategy.

The third request is a standalone hydrogen fund to anchor deployment-led innovation. B.C.’s early leadership in hydrogen technology has created a renowned hydrogen fuel cell cluster with the world’s largest fuel cell test station manufacturer, one of the world’s leading ERV manufacturers — energy recovery ventilators are a key technology for decarbonizing buildings — and North America’s first hydrogen fuel cell courier service.

The company, GeaZone, began with battery electric vehicles. It has since switched over to 25 battery electric vehicles and 50 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They intend to expand into slower moving jurisdictions as hydrogen becomes more available there, with us accruing the head office benefits in B.C.

We would like to ask the province for a standalone hydrogen fund to boost deployment-led innovation so we can grow our early lead and entrench the network effects to bring more head offices into the province. It’s a request for the confidence to bet on ourselves without having to compete for attention with other sectors for which B.C. hasn’t developed network effects. This is consistent with recommendations 1 through 8 and 25 to 28 of the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada and multiple policy actions in the B.C. hydrogen strategy.

In closing, we would like to reiterate our appreciation of the province for its early support in the hydrogen sector’s admittedly long infancy. British Columbia wasn’t able to capitalize on wind turbines or solar panels or lithium-ion batteries, but we do have an opportunity to capitalize on this lead in hydrogen. Our requests can help our members help the province do so.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Matthew, for your presentation and for pretty much nailing that time period right on the nose.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Matt, for the presentation.

Hydrogen obviously is the up-and-coming fuel source of the future. I don’t know if your group actually does the upstream or midstream type.

M. Klippenstein: Oh, we’re an industry association. We have members from all the way upstream, from renewable energy producers, industrial gas producers and hydro­carbon producers all the way through vehicle manufacturers.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Okay, great. So when we’re talking about future skills training and also hydrogen technology, we have to understand what type of hydrogen we’re using, everything from thermal hydrogen, which would be blue, and turquoise hydrogen from natural gas, and electrolytic hydrogen, which is yellow and green, from water and, of course, biological from biofuels. We heard somebody here earlier talk to that.

A two-part question. One: where is the push in the short term on what type of hydrogen? They all have their pros and cons, whether it’s cost or it’s volume or sustainability, those kinds of things, so what is the push in the short term?

Also, looking at that short term, just a quick question you might know. Can we utilize some of the infrastructure we have in place right now, say with natural gas, to push hydrogen to make those transportation and storage corridors already readily available?

M. Klippenstein: Yes. Okay, I will try and answer in reverse. The second answer is a little bit shorter. In terms of reusing natural gas pipeline infrastructure, European studies — I can provide the reference subsequently — show that it costs about 10 to 15 percent as much to retrofit an existing pipeline as it is to build a new pipeline. Pipelines have challenges in B.C.

I would also note that a lot of the natural gas networks have some duplication in them. When you build a new pipeline, no one rips out the old pipes. It’s like how railroad things are always left in the sidewalks. So there’s an opportunity to retrofit.

[2:30 p.m.]

Now, blending hydrogen to natural gas is no one’s end-game. The most valuable use of this is for transportation. But as a stopgap, as we increase hydrogen use in transpor­tation, vehicle by vehicle, car by car, truck by truck, train locomotive by locomotive, we can use the natural gas as kind of an output, a sink, while we scale up these other uses. So that’s the second part.

In the first part, our association is Canada-wide. We’re agnostic on the sources of hydrogen or how you make the hydrogen. The best way to evaluate it is: what are the life-cycle emissions associated with the hydrogen? Having worked in the wind space, solar has four times the life-cycle emissions of wind. No one really cares about that, but that’s kind of the reality.

In the very near term, we have a fantastic opportunity in Metro Vancouver, where currently we have about 200 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. They share, or they use, about 0.1 tonnes per day of clean hydrogen — green hydrogen from the grid. It’s using B.C. Hydro.

In about 18 months, we should have about one tonne, so ten times as much, available in the local region. We anticipate that gestation period being able to radically increase how many vehicles we power.

In about three to four years, we should have more than 20 tonnes. Most of that will be by-product hydrogen from North Vancouver. It’s been vented for years. There’s never been an economic use for it until now, until we priced carbon.

There is also interest by FortisBC in the Burrard thermal power station where they want to take natural gas and pyrolyze the hydrogen. So this is a process where you take natural gas and you heat it up in the absence of oxygen. That drives off the hydrogen, and instead of forming CO₂, you form solid carbon like a graphite or a carbon black — the stuff used in tires or computer cables.

That is another possible path, which will increase our hydrogen supply by about 200-fold in the next three to four years, call it. We hope to have measures so that as many gasfitters as possible, as many automotive technicians as possible, as many other trades — not just university folks but trades — here in Metro Vancouver, but across the province, Prince George and elsewhere, are able to capitalize on it, so we can deploy more hydrogen and save businesses more money and reduce more emissions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, Matthew, thank you for the thorough answer. I’m going to have one more person that will ask a question, so if we can keep the answer brief.

M. Klippenstein: Sure.

G. Chow: You partly were answering the question about, you know, the sources of hydrogen for British Columbia. You mentioned North Vancouver or whatever. But let’s say…. You mentioned that the heavy transportation is the use of the hydrogen. Do you see in the future that we will be able to produce enough here in B.C. for all the heavy trucks in the north, whether it’s pickup trucks…? Some of the work trucks probably cannot run on electric because of the cold weather and everything else.

Do you see that as something that we could produce here, or would we have to be buying it from, say, the rest of Canada?

M. Klippenstein: B.C. is the area of Germany and France combined. I’m confident we have the renewable resources to be able to generate all the hydrogen we need.

That said, things take time. It is possible that there would be some of this blue hydrogen. Hydrogen from natural gas, whether it’s with carbon capture, maybe in the Fort St. John region, or locally through pyrolysis. So forming carbon powder to sell instead of forming CO₂.

It’s wise to keep all our options open. Sorry, I went over time. But we have the ability to radically scale up our production for our needs and exports as well.

G. Chow: Yeah, okay. Sure. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Matthew.

We have one little alteration to our agenda. We have Robin Tavender from Standing Water nation who has been sitting patiently in the audience that’s there.

Have a seat, Robin. Just so that we’re all aware, Robin was on a waiting list, and we had a cancellation, so we’re going to move our recess around.

Robin, no pressure, but the only thing between you and the recess is you. So there we go.

You have five minutes for your presentation. There will be five minutes set aside for possible questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

[2:35 p.m.]

STANDING WATER NATION

R. Tavender: Thank you for accommodating me.

Bonjour. Je m’appelle Robin. Je viens de la nation de l’eau permanente. Good day. My name is Robin. I come from Standing Water nation. [Chinook was spoken.] That’s Chi­nook, so that Hansard can have a language marker. Standing Water nation is a sovereign Indigenous nation. La nation de l’eau permanente est une nation autochtone souveraine.

In our cosmology, we live in the light. We are governed by our ancient oral law, which is our sovereign and our inheritance. It is our most precious possession that we are governed by our ancient oral law, which has been handed down to us since time immemorial.

That’s sort of something that I can say with confidence on behalf of the nation. As I say, I didn’t know I was going to be accommodated today. The rest is, I think, something we would all share in our hearts, but I haven’t run it past the Elders and others to make sure it’s okay, so this is slightly more personal.

I am currently doing an Indigenous cohort project administration program at Royal Roads University, and it’s really an international learning community. We have Wet’suwet’en, Nisga’a, Standing Water and a number of Métis students there.

I guess I want to touch on something it has reminded me of, which was the difficulty that both my father and my late brother, who passed away at 26, after having dropped out of the public school system between grade eight and nine, although he had trouble from the first day in grade one, or the first period where he was….

This was back in the day when teachers, if they thought you were stupid, could tell you such, and there was no real reprisal. I mean, maybe if we had pushed back, there might have been, but it’s not really in our constitution to push back against authority too much. So he took it until he was about 13 or 14, and then he didn’t want to do it anymore.

But what I want to comment on is how, to go to school, you’ll have a treaty or contract imposed upon you by the school. I remember when this wasn’t the case. I got the last few years of what we might have called normal school in B.C. where, if you weren’t bopping each other on the nose, it was a good day. But gradually, there have been more codes and policies imposed upon students, and I just….

There’s an old case in what was once called Aboriginal law in Canada. I believe it’s — I don’t have the citation exactly; I apologize — St. Catharine’s sawmill versus the Queen, that simply says a treaty is a contract. So as Indigenous people…. This was true for my family and many members of our nation, because even the extended members of the nation have all run into difficulty in the school system, where these contracts that people will point to as a source of behavioural obligation….

It’s almost a fait accompli. Once you are within the institution, you’ve given up your treaty-making powers, in a sense, because there will be this…. In law, I believe the term might be adhesion contract or adhesion treaty, where there is a grave imbalance of power in terms of negotiating the terms of the contract under which you must labour. This is if you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer. I presume you have to do a certificate to be a land surveyor.

All of these things, to my mind…. I won’t say our mind, because I haven’t run this by everyone. I don’t know why it reminds me of Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football, but it’s almost like you’re going to do it, and then you’re getting there, and then, oops, the football gets pulled away — almost in the sense of a not entirely fair game, and almost like: how could you make it fair?

That’s how these institutions — the church and state, in some sense — have operated for many years in…. I don’t want to say…. I don’t know what term I should use. Pardon me. I haven’t prepared.

That’s just the vibe I wanted to lay down here about the imposition of agreements or contracts or treaties and how that is a real barrier to education for some Indigenous people. Members of my nation have really felt that in their hearts, to the point of dropping out of education.

[2:40 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. That is bang on five min­utes, for lack of a better term. I wish I could be unprepared for something and nail it right at the end like that.

Thank you for your presentation, Robin.

Are there any comments or questions?

S. Chant: You’ve come to the Finance Committee. What is your recommendation or ask of this committee to consider so that we can help?

R. Tavender: I guess you would need more money for capacity-building in Indigenous peoples so that they can make better deals for themselves. As I’ve said in previous years, that means legal education. In the medieval university, you had the doctors of theology, the doctors of law and the doctors of medicine. The priests are no longer in charge, so now it’s the lawyers. If Indigenous people have to accept a treaty to become a lawyer, it’s already game over, in some sense. You had this treaty imposed on you.

Capacity-building to make institutions…. For a lot of these institutions, I find student agreements and treaties are normalized. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida says: “To naturalize is to neutralize.” These concepts are naturalized as though it’s natural that you would just have a student agreement. Money, resources for capacity-building I think are a very important aspect of this.

G. Chow: You talk about the contract and the resources, but of course, our government has started, at UVic, the chair for Indigenous law. It is something we are embarking on, in particular, studying and learning for all of us, the laws of our Indigenous peoples. I think we are making some steps in that direction, although you’re talking about bigger things.

I wanted to point out specifically that that’s what we are doing right now.

R. Tavender: May I respond to that, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

I guess on that front…. I mentioned this in my other submission because I didn’t know I was going to speak. There’s a very old case in English law that says that corporations can only speak by writing. To our mind, in terms of the nation, there’s this fundamental irreconcilability, potentially, between oral law and written law, because corporations only speak by writing.

It’s very good to see international relations and progress made on various fronts, but again it’s from this one-sided point of view. I’ll let him remain nameless, but I dealt with a law professor at UBC. He said…. The gist of it was: “Well, if you didn’t write it down, what would it mean?” There’s this primacy of writing in the educational system, almost a fait accompli, once it has been decided the written word, as opposed to the spoken word, is going to rule the day.

This is the tradition of the English, many European and other peoples. It’s not wrong. I don’t think we want to get into that sort of shouting match about who’s right and who’s wrong. I take your point, but I think there’s more work to be done than endowing chairs in institutions that only write.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other questions or comments?

Not seeing any, Robin, thank you for stepping up on short notice. Our agenda is extremely full, and a cancellation got you here. It’s well appreciated that you could fill the spot. Thank you very much for your presentation.

R. Tavender: Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair and committee.

M. Starchuk (Chair): On that note, we will take a recess for 15 minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:44 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right, everyone. We’re going to continue on with our hearings.

Now making a presentation is Mike Old from the Hospital Employees Union.

Mike, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and then there’s five minutes set aside for questions and/or comments.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION

M. Old: Thank you, committee Chair. Good afternoon.

I want to start by recognizing that we’re meeting today on the traditional and unceded lands of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam Nations.

I’m here this afternoon in place of Meena Brisard, who unfortunately had an unforeseen circumstance arise today, so she sent me in her place.

I appreciate this opportunity to share our views with the committee today on Budget 2024. HEU is the largest health care union in B.C. We represent about 60,000 members across the province working for public, non-profit and private employers. We’ve got three recommendations we’d like to talk to you about today.

The first one. HEU is urging the committee to support the restoration of common standards for working and caring conditions in long-term care. Continuing to level up wages — which this government has done, past the expiry of the public health order on single-site — is an important step, but we need to do more. Looking ahead, we have to deliver on restoring common standards by ensuring that benefits and other measures related to working and caring conditions also match the higher standards in the public sector.

We also need to end subcontracting of care and support services. This is an issue that the committee has made recommendations on in past years.

Second, to improve transparency and accountability in the long-term-care system, HEU strongly supports building more public long-term-care homes and improving accountability for private for-profit operators. In 2000, the B.C. seniors advocate highlighted how for-profit operators’ expenditures for wages and direct care hours were far below that of non-profit operators.

It’s time to re-establish the balance in the ownership patterns in long-term care and improve transparency and accountability for contracted operators by guaranteeing that all new builds are public or non-profit, a commitment this government has made, and develop a capital building program to help non-commercial providers build new care spaces.

We need a standardized funding approach in the sector. We require funding for direct care to be spent on direct care and a mechanism where surplus funds are returned to the health authority while strictly defining “operator profit” and eligible “appropriate expenses” and to develop accurate, verifiable and standardized reporting for direct care hours and monitoring and enforcing staffing levels.

Our third recommendation is to invest in promising practices to aid recruitment and retention. This is a big issue right now in health care. Increasingly fewer people are attracted to the health care sector, particularly in the more demanding jobs. Staffing shortages, heavy workloads and lack of support means too many new hires quickly leave the jobs that they’re hired into. As a consequence, existing staff are burning out.

We advocate for recruitment and retention strategies, such as developing a cohesive and equitable approach to career laddering for current health care workers, accommodating health care workers to move from one area of health care into another with greater demand and without losing their years of service, their accompanying benefits and their job security; creating more permanent and full-time positions; establishing mentor positions to provide consistent, high-quality orientation and ongoing peer support; and independently evaluating the health career access program to identify successes and make improvements.

We also advocate for continuing to work with Indigenous partners to recruit more Indigenous workers, improve cultural safety in health care and establish other best practices to support and retain Indigenous workers; exploring innovative solutions to the development of workforce housing for health care workers; and collecting and reporting data on health care worker turnover, sociodemographic information and work environment and experience to better target recruitment and retention initiatives.

[3:10 p.m.]

I’ll leave it at that, committee members. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing your questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, Mike, for your presentation and your expedited of the five minutes that were there.

Are there any comments, right off the rattle?

H. Yao: Thank you so much, Mike. Obviously, long-term care is something we truly care about, having Susie Chant, who is a nurse, here. We also have a parliamentary secretary for long-term care.

I guess my question right now is something I believe we all have been putting a lot of passion into. What happened? How did we get here? Where were we coming from? As you’re describing all these needs regarding restoring senior care, like recruiting new workers, it feels like there’s so much more we need to make up for right now.

M. Old: The situation we face in our long-term-care system right now has its roots in some changes that happened around 2002. At that time, the entire funded long-term-care sector, virtually the entire sector, was covered by the common wage, benefit and working condition standards that are in the provincewide master that would cover workers in hospitals, for instance.

In 2002, there was legislation that allowed the contracting-out of certain non-clinical services. This had a huge impact on the entire long-term-care sector because that sector is not considered clinical. There was a lot of contracting-out that happened in the sector. That drove down wages and resulted in varying wages and working conditions.

There was an effort by the government of the day to build long-term care outside of the public sector and ex­cluded from coverage by the main master agreement through public-private partnerships. There was a bunch of building that happened in the 2000s as a result of that. Thirdly, there was a move by the cabinet of the day to allow care home operators to apply to be excluded from membership in the public sector negotiating body in health care.

All of those things meant that most of the sector, now, is not in the main master agreement. They’re covered by a variety of wages and working conditions. In our case, we’ve organized about 125 different group sites and subcontractors in the long-term-care sector which have a wide-ranging number of collective agreements.

Right now, of course, because of the levelling up during the pandemic, as a result of the single-site order, all of those places have been levelled up to the wages in the provincewide master. They are now ongoing, even though the public health order has ended, but benefits and other working conditions are all over the place. That is a long-term risk to the sector, and one that we’re recommending that the committee take a position on.

I’ll point out that the committee actually spoke to this issue before the pandemic. I think they recognized that it was a problem even then. I think the problem is even more acute now. Thanks for the question.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks a lot for the presentation. Something I’ve been trying to drill down for a while now here…. You said earlier that wages and expenses are lower in the private sector than they are in the public facilities, and also that care hours are below the standard. We obviously have legislation. I think it’s 3.36 care hours per day. I think that was up from about 2.98. I don’t know about the breakdown between direct and indirect care, but there is legislation. We need that.

You also, in your number one point, said that reporting on those care hours, on reaching those standards, is critical, which I agree. I’ve always contested that the oversight that’s provided to make sure that we’re held accountable isn’t quite there. There are a couple of reasons for that. I think one is: what’s Plan B if they’re not?

We have seen, with the private sector, the government take over some of these private care facilities. There are examples of that, but it’s not always a really easy transition to do that. That’s one thing. Maybe there should be an independent oversight body that looks at those direct care hours if they’re being facilitated by legislation.

You said the wages were less. I know that a couple of years ago, there was a situation where there was a $4 lift that was implemented by the government.

[3:15 p.m.]

The public facilities got that lift right away, but there was a tremendous lag for the private sector to get those. I think it was about six or seven months. It was quite a long time. It was quite something. I guess the question is: would you encourage an independent oversight for reporting of direct care hours for residents?

M. Old: I don’t know what we mean exactly by independent, but it’s clearly needed. There needs to be some oversight. This is an issue that this committee has talked about previously. Also, in early 2000, just before the pandemic, the seniors advocate released a really good report called A Billion Reasons to Care. She did a very extensive investigation of this whole issue that you’ve raised about care hours and whether they’re being delivered or not.

Her report found that the for-profit contracted operators in the sector were funded to provide about 207,000 hours of care per year that they did not deliver and that non-profit contracted operators actually delivered more care hours than they were funded to deliver.

This is one of the reasons why we think it’s really important to rebalance the ownership patterns in the sector because just on the face of it, frail, elderly seniors who are residents of these care homes are losing care because of the current situations.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): So if that’s true, where are we failing? We need to have that oversight. There needs to be some accountability if those aren’t being met. I don’t care if it’s private, public, whatever. Our senior citizens are the most vulnerable citizens we have. They need to be looked after. I’ve got numerous examples of how that’s failing right now, in private and in public. But we need that oversight.

M. Old: I know you hear from our members in your community in the Kootenays. In our written brief, which I think you’ve got a copy of, we agree with you. We need some kind of oversight, some transparency in terms of where the money is spent. We’ve not really fleshed out what the mechanism looks like, but it’s pretty critical that we do it. So we agree with you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, thank you, Mike, for stepping in and stepping up on the presentation today.

Next up we have Gerard Bremault from the Centre for Child Development of the Lower Mainland.

You have five minutes to make your presentation, and we have five minutes for questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

CENTRE FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT
OF THE LOWER MAINLAND

G. Bremault: Thank you Mr. Chair and committee.

I’d like to acknowledge the Kwantlen, Musqueam, Katzie, Semiahmoo, Tsawwassen, Qayqayt and Kwikwetlem peoples, on whose traditional territories the Centre for Child Development stands and whose historical relationship with the land continues to this day.

The Centre for Child Development is the largest child development centre in British Columbia. We support children with every imaginable type of disability and support needs across the South Fraser region. It’s a registered charity founded by parents in 1953, and we’re celebrating 70 years of service this year.

We’re proud to have consistently received the highest level of accreditation internationally from CARF since 2004 as one of the first 100 agencies accredited in British Columbia. We provide multidisciplinary pediatric out-patient medical rehabilitation services and child and youth services.

I’ll start with a real-life story that illustrates the intensity of the startling increase in children’s needs that I’ll speak to next. A new mom came to our early years program, which serves our most socially and economically vulnerable children, irrespective of whether they have a disability. She was a new immigrant, a refugee to Canada. She was in distress, at wits’ end about what to do. She described her son as a devil child, completely out of control, and was desperately asking for help. Of course, this mother was simply exhausted and tried to describe the out-of-control behaviour she was experiencing 24-7.

She didn’t know about autism spectrum disorder or its sometimes related behavioural challenges, but our staff did, and connected her to all the supports at the Centre for Child Development.

[3:20 p.m.]

The numbers behind the story are that in 2019, the government of Canada reported that the prevalence rate of autism spectrum disorder amongst those age five to 11 years was one in 40, or 2.5 percent. That was up from 1 percent only four years prior.

In 2016, which, sadly, is seven years ago, when it was last counted, Statistics Canada indicated that 13.5 percent of Canadian children aged zero to 14 have a disability.

I tell you those stats because it’s very easy, on a population basis, to estimate from them what the number of children with disabilities is.

Increased service needs. This past year we served 4,000 individual children with support needs and disabilities who mostly required three or more of our services. It was up 28 percent, year over year, during the pandemic. It’s up 93 percent from ten years ago.

Our intake team processed 5,676 referrals for individual children, not individual services. That’s up 14 percent year over year and up 112 percent from ten years ago.

Why the doubling of children and referrals? Based on Stats Canada data, there are 29,000 children, zero to 19, with a disability of any type across the South Fraser region. Of those, approximately 11,000 have severe disabilities. By necessity, we focus on those with the most severe or urgent needs. As Mike knows well, South Fraser is one of the fastest-growing regions, with one of the youngest populations.

Workforce development is something…. We’ve asked the Finance Committee for additional funds to hire more highly trained professionals. We continue to ask for staffing support because the exponential growth in needs is overwhelming our capacity.

For example, our early intervention occupational therapist caseload is up 59 percent. Wait-lists are up 666 percent. Approximately 60 percent of new children have confirmed or suspected ASD. So we need an additional 42 FTEs of professional pediatric medical rehabilitation therapy staff just in occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech-language pathology at an annual cost of $6.2 million a year.

We also think that if we were able to reduce the case management workload of our therapists so they could focus on providing professional pediatric therapy, we could increase their efficiency to see more children. So we are also asking for a $100,000 one-time grant to engage professional consultants to undertake a feasibility study and to develop curriculum to train specialized pediatric professional case managers and coordinators. We have a massive lack of those in our South Fraser region.

With ten seconds remaining, Mr. Chair, I will yield the floor.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for that extra ten, Gerard.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for the presentation. I really appreciate it. It’s nice to see you again.

I have a feeling I asked this question the last time. Forgive me if I ask the same question again.

You are asking for 42 FTEs for professional pediatric medical rehabilitation staff. Do we actually have those people ready to go, or has the post-secondary system not yet produced those types of employees as well? If we provide the money…. Do we also need to have a complementary HR strategy to actually train those staff members to actually complement the need as well?

G. Bremault: A complex question, in a way, to implement on. I’ll give you the best I can quickly.

Recently, to the good credit of the government of British Columbia, our supported child development programs were significantly supported and enhanced. This provides the one-to-one care for children in child care who have a disability. So very important in our region.

That was a very significant ramp-up of additional FTEs. Because of the nature of what we do, the attractiveness of our centre and the fact that we offer reasonable living wages, we were able to attract in the neighbourhood of 25 FTEs within a six-month period and implement that. In part, we have an attractive site, an attractive setting and an important cause that people believe in and find meaning in.

To your point, I don’t want to underestimate the shortage in medical rehabilitation staff, which is both a national and a provincial issue. That’s partly why we’re looking at curriculum development — so that we can also make the best of the staff that we have in terms of deploying them while we do that kind of a ramp-up.

I’m also on the overall steering committee for our Surrey–North Delta Division of Family Practice and part of the healthy communities partnership. I help to deal with these issues at a macro level. I am also the past chair of the board of trade. Our region has faced these types of shortages, as much of the province does, for some time. I’m working very closely with the new Simon Fraser University medical school so that we can help up the ante inside of medical care.

[3:25 p.m.]

S. Chant: I’m a nurse case manager with the older adults program with Vancouver Coastal Health, their home care program.

When you’re talking about case managers in this capacity, are you talking about people that are able to do outreach and do visits in the home to sort of look at the big picture, or are you talking about folks that will be in-house?

G. Bremault: We’re seeing a bit of a two-for-one sale. Because we’re community care — and we’re really talking about children with chronic disabilities over the lifespan — and we’re working with zero to 19, we’re seeing both roles.

Much of what we do is multidisciplinary. There’s a co­ordination of care right at the front end that’s really important but also draws a significant amount of time from our case leads right now, who are either an OT, a PT or a speech-language pathologist. We simply don’t have those resources in our region. They’ve been understaffed and under-resourced for a very long time.

The other side of it, though, is the outreach and the connection to other services, which they also do. As you know well, occupational therapists and nurses and physiotherapists and speech-language pathologists feel a sense of duty and obligation and responsibility to connect families to those resources. So if we can take some of that burden off of them — and they can be the leads with and on behalf of families for their case care — we believe we can also increase the efficiency of our throughput.

Now, that being said, you’ll see in the document that I’ve sent…. I will send it electronically, Mr. Chair, as well. We’re also at double the caseloads of the surrounding region. When I say we’re swamped, I’m not exaggerating.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): You mentioned those children with developmental disabilities such as autism. It certainly needs to be addressed and diagnosed and fit into the spectrum.

Does the centre do anything to assess, support and assist those with learning disorders such as dyslexia? I’m asking for a friend. We just met.

G. Bremault: We work with children with every type of developmental disability. That 14 percent that the government of Canada estimates, for us, includes some of the children with the most rare disabilities in Canada.

When it comes to children with learning disabilities, the challenge is, from the severe, as I mentioned, to those with more moderate or mild challenges…. When it comes to children with learning disabilities, we tend to work with other partnered agencies like LDS. In fact, we were just meeting and touring with them yesterday at our centre to see if we can partner more.

The reality is, to your question, Tom…. We often strug­gle with the reality…. While we are helping the most severely challenged children, we know we could make a big impact for the children with more mild or moderate disabilities and needs.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Yeah, functioning to….

G. Bremault: When you’re at 4,000 versus 11,000 with severe disabilities and 30,000 to serve overall…. We’re really hard up against it.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Gotcha.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Gerard, thank you for your time. More importantly, thank you for the service you provide to the region.

G. Bremault: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for hearing me out today and for what you do on behalf of the government of British Columbia.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Now we have Joan Rush, the Canadian Society for Disability and Oral Health.

Joan, you have five minutes to make your presentation, and the committee has five minutes to ask questions or provide comments. You have the floor.

CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR
DISABILITY AND ORAL HEALTH

J. Rush: Good afternoon. Thank you.

My name is Joan Rush. I’m the advocacy chair of the Canadian Society for Disability and Oral Health. I’m also a patient engagement research ambassador with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The last speaker, of course, was a terrific lead-in. The persons I’m speaking on behalf of are those persons who have grown, as children with disabilities, to become adults who face serious challenges accessing medically necessary oral health care. People who are profoundly challenged with autism, like my son, do not face a barrier. They face a wall. So that is why I’m here to speak to you today.

Oral health is essential to overall health. The B.C. government has a legal obligation to safeguard the health of B.C. residents who live with disabilities. Sadly, B.C. residents with disabilities have the worst oral health outcomes of everyone in the province. So B.C. is failing to meet its obligation to safeguard their health.

[3:30 p.m.]

Many people with disabilities, including persons born with developmental disabilities and people who become disabled due to injuries or chronic diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, need general anaesthesia for dental treatment. It is not available.

The federal government has announced development of a national dental program for Canadians with disabilities, to be effective at the end of 2023. That program will only be effective if B.C. ensures access to suitable facilities for treatment for those residents with disabilities who are unable to receive dental treatment in typical community dental clinics. B.C. must cooperate with the federal government to ensure that the new federal plan improves access to medically necessary oral health care for B.C. residents with disabilities.

To meet its obligation to safeguard the health of B.C. residents with disabilities, the B.C. government should adopt the following three recommendations.

One, create specialized dental operating rooms at B.C. hospitals so that people who are medically complex and who require treatment in hospital can access dental treatment in a suitable operatory.

Two, encourage cooperation between the B.C. knowledge development fund, which funds capital assets, the federal Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the federal Ministry of Health to create state-of-the-art oral health research and training centres in B.C. — at least one, but maybe more — for development of innovative oral health treatment and to train all oral health students to provide care for patients with disabilities and other special care needs. They do not currently receive this training.

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

These three recommendations are cost-effective for B.C.

Creating specialized dental suites in hospital will require funds to build, but using specialized dental suites will free up operating time in hospital day surgeries, which are now inefficiently used for dental treatments, and will reduce demand on hospital emergency rooms, which frequently attend to dental crises.

Building state-of-the-art research and training centres will lead to new, more efficient, more innovative and cost-effective oral health treatment strategies.

Ensuring that persons with disabilities who do not require treatment in hospital can access care in community-based anaesthesia clinics will save the government money.

To repeat, for people who are medically complex, the government should provide access to treatment at hospital-based clinics. For people who are not medically complex and who do not require treatment in hospital, the government should provide access in community anaesthesia clinics. To conclude, B.C. can meet its obligation to safeguard the health of B.C. residents with disabilities if it collaborates with the federal dental program for research and training and creates access to general anaesthesia for persons with disabilities, both inside and outside of B.C. hospitals.

Please review my written submission for more information. Thank you for your attention.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Joan.

S. Chant: Joan, I appreciate the population that you’re lobbying on behalf of. Thank you so much for that.

If we create the spaces, do we have the clinicians?

J. Rush: It’s the reason you need the training centre. We train our dentists but not to treat patients with special needs.

S. Chant: So currently, for programs to train folks to meet the needs of special needs people, there’s not that much.

J. Rush: The primary work, so far, of our society, be­cause it comprises primarily dentists, dental specialists, dental hygienists and other oral health providers….

S. Chant: Anaesthesiologists, for instance.

J. Rush: Yeah. They have created educational programs and educational overlays for the current dental curri­culum, to say: “This is how you can be training your students.” Because we have so few educators who can provide even the training for the dentists, we don’t make it mandatory training. There is no faculty of dentistry in the country that mandatorily trains its dentists to treat patients with disabilities.

[3:35 p.m.]

As the population, what you should know… He mentioned population statistics. But 22 percent of Canadians, according to Statistics Canada, report as having a disability, and approximately 50 percent of those are severe disabilities. A huge proportion of those people cannot access dental care.

We’re not training our dentists to do it, but we do have this opportunity. It could not be a more propitious time. The federal government is putting money forward. We have a training fund. We could work with our Canadian federal counterparts and create a centre that would focus on that kind of training, and we could become a leader, I think, in the country.

G. Chow: Well, thank you for your presentation. What is the scope of the ask, in terms of money, for this clinic or research centre that you’ve been talking about?

J. Rush: A number of years ago I created a business case for the then Minister of Health. At the time, it was a former government. I worked with dental suppliers, Sinclair and others, and the dean of the faculty of dentistry at the time, Dr. Shuler, who’s still there as a professor. We all created a proposal. That was in 2013 or 2015, maybe.

At the time, we were looking for about $1 million. It’s a lot of money but, relative to the health care budget, not a huge ask. Nowadays the amount given, from 2015 to 2023, is probably double. But I’m also looking for a lot of federal money, because they’ve put forward the idea that there will be a large access fund for special care, to improve access to special care.

If it were our government, meaning you, coming forward with this ask, to say, “We’ll cooperate with you if you can provide some of this care, this funding, to create a centre….” Other provinces have some centres. As I mentioned earlier in our conversation, Ontario has a couple, but B.C. has none. Our faculty of dentistry simply does not have the scope or the medical — how would you say it? — safety precautions to be able to treat this population. So they do not accept any of them as patients at the clinic.

We’re looking at…. Yes, it would be expensive, but it could provide years of benefit.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I’m going to ask questions out of left field a bit. We’re talking about oral health. On fluoride in municipal water systems, when some cities lost that ability to provide fluoride into the water systems, the ones that were affected most were those with disabilities, elderly and young. Now, for the general population, it didn’t affect them too much.

Do you support fluoride in water? I know it’s a bit of a loaded question, but I mean, it does….

J. Rush: I absolutely, 100 percent, do. I’ve been quoted in the press. It is, I think, essential. Other people who are dramatically affected by lack of access to nearby oral health care are people in remote communities. Our Indigenous population, which…. You should know, by the way, it represents…. As numbers of persons with disabilities within our Indigenous population, it’s 30 percent, not 22 percent. They have greater challenges, but they are farther away from access to dental care, and they do not have access to fluoridated water.

Yes, I absolutely, 100 percent, believe in it. So does the chief dental officer for Canada. So do the faculties of dentistry. So does practically every major dental academic research organization. There is push-back from community, but I think it’s a matter that should go to our public health officer. I do think it should be a matter of public health in the province.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, thank you, Joan, for your presentation this afternoon. There’s no doubting the passion in your voice.

Up next is Bryant Harbourne, aHUS Canada, rare diseases.

Bryant, you have five minutes to make your presentation, after which we have five minutes for questions and/or comments.

aHUS CANADA

B. Harbourne: Firstly, thanks for the opportunity to address everybody here today. I’m speaking as a member of the board of directors of aHUS Canada, which is a rare-disease patient advocacy group.

[3:40 p.m.]

aHUS is a rare disease. It’s called atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. I’m actually a patient with that disorder. aHUS is one of over 7,000 known rare diseases that people in B.C. and Canada deal with daily. Rare diseases affect fewer than one in 2,000 people, but with the number of known rare diseases, it’s estimated that one in 12 Canadians has a rare disease, two-thirds of which are children.

There are many challenges that families and patients of rare diseases face: lack of early detection and diagnosis, high rates of misdiagnosis or difficulty being diagnosed, lack of effective treatments, lack of accessibility to available treatments, high costs of medications and a greatly reduced quality of life. My recommendations to the budget committee look to address many of these issues that rare disease patients experience.

Recommendation 1 is budget and provide funding to support the government of Canada’s national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, which was recently announced in March, I believe. The government of Canada’s national strategy was announced in March. It was a great step forward but requires substantial support from provinces to make it a reality. The strategy centres on investment in infrastructure, such as centres of expertise. These centres will bring together the specialized doctors and equipment needed to diagnose rare diseases accurately and quickly.

With accurate diagnosis, timely and effective treatment and therapies is possible. It is my hope that these centres are conceptualized in the context of a provincewide strategy in general health care infrastructure. With these centres a reality, it also enables enhanced patient monitoring, data collection and potential for clinical trials.

Recommendation 2: provide increased funding for British Columbia’s expensive drugs for rare diseases, the EDRD program. Rare diseases require specialized treatment and medicines, which can be very expensive. These innovative treatments can range from $100,000 to $3 million per patient per year in some cases. Providing adequate funding for the EDRD program ensures that when new treatments become available, patients in B.C. don’t miss out due to lack of funding. The unfortunate reality is that by the time many treatments are approved and funded by the province, there are many patients who have already suffered permanent harm and reduced quality of life.

Recommendation 3 is to provide increased funding to expand British Columbia’s newborn screening program — 80 percent of rare diseases are caused by genetic changes, and 25 percent of children with a rare disease will not reach their tenth birthday. Expanding newborn screening has the potential to catch many diseases before they present. Early detection is crucial for limiting and preventing permanent damage that many rare diseases can cause.

B.C. currently has a newborn screening program, but there are examples in other countries where you can screen up to twice as many diseases. With advances in genetic testing and the identification for root causes of many rare diseases, B.C. should look to lead Canada with the newborn screening program.

Many of my recommendations centre around rare disease patients being able to receive early diagnosis and prompt treatment when available. Over the long term for patients and the province, early diagnosis and early treatment improves quality of life for the patient and decreases overall burden on the health care system as a whole.

The government of Canada also plays an important part in the health care system and has pledged funds for many of these rare disease programs, especially related to recommendation 1. However, leaving these issues to be dealt with solely by the federal government prevents B.C. from having a voice and being able to determine what we as a province deem a priority. It is important that B.C. take a strong position alongside the federal government to benefit all people in B.C. now and in the future.

To recap my recommendations: support and fully fund B.C.’s involvement in the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases; number 2, continue and increase funding for B.C.’s expensive drugs for rare disease; and number 3, expand B.C.’s newborn screening program.

Thank you very much for your time, and I’m happy to answer any questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much, Bryant, for your presentation. I actually have a question to start off with, when it comes to the newborn screening. You talked about…. You could double the amount of screening that was there. Is there a cost associated to increasing that kind of screening, looking through those different panels?

B. Harbourne: Yes, I imagine that. I don’t have a specific number for it, but with the increase of any additional screening, the increased costs would go up, associated with that.

H. Yao: Actually, you asked the question I was about to ask, because when I had both my newborns, we were offered a $500 screening cost for basic genetic testing.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think now it’s $800 if we wanted to do a comprehensive screening that we would pay for both — $800. I just want to double-check. Is that the one you are actually referring to? When they are born, they take a blood sample out of a baby and actually do a genetic screening?

B. Harbourne: Yes. It screens for a number of diseases when the baby is recently born.

Part of the increased funding is…. Maybe not everybody has the money to pay for the advance screening. So as many people who can be screened blanketly across all newborns…. I think that would increase early detection and help alleviate downstream costs.

H. Yao: I know you talked about this number right now. Are you able to help us find out…? What would be the cost to the province for this kind of strategy to be implemented?

B. Harbourne: I didn’t come with specific dollar numbers for a lot of this, as it simply is beyond my scope. I would say….

Any additional funding we can provide to these programs is better than what we have currently. Like I said, really, any money…. Any rare diseases, or any diseases in general, that can be caught early through these programs…. I think it’s worth the upfront investment.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): I don’t know enough about aHUS, specifically. It’s a very rare disease, obviously. Less than 100 people in Canada probably have it.

Now, it’s a blood-clotting…? In the kidney, specifically, or…?

B. Harbourne: It’s a part of the immune system that has deregulated. Through that, it kind of attacks the lining of the blood vessel, which creates clots. It’s those very small clots that, then, accumulate in specific organs, such as the kidney, since it’s a blood-filtering organ. Then as those clots clog the blood vessels and capillaries, it prevents oxygen and nutrients from reaching the kidney, and it dies as a secondary effect of the disease.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Just to follow up…. Would a kidney transplant be effective for a better quality of life? How would that work?

B. Harbourne: Definitely. A lot of patients end up needing kidney treatment because of the speed of onset of this particular disease. However, part of the problem is…. Since the site of the kidney is not actually what’s causing the disease…. If you don’t manage the underlying disorder, you’re just going to have the same effect occur over and over. Eventually, that will negate the kidney transplant. So treatment is the primary objective.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Right. Okay.

B. Harbourne: Just to follow up, it is very rare. It’s probably a little bit less than one in 100. I think it’s about…. One in a million is, I think, one of the numbers they throw around. So it’s more like 35, 40 people.

R. Leonard: Thank you for coming and presenting.

This is a tough one, of course. You say there are 7,000 identified rare diseases. How many of them are treatable at this time with any form of treatment?

B. Harbourne: It ranges. Some definitely have zero treat­ment possible, some of the more rare ones, where it’s less than ten people. Obviously, and unfortunately, the research is not there to treat such a rare disease. It kind of goes on the scale from….

Something like mine has a fairly well-established treatment for it. It’s covered under B.C.’s current EDRD program, and it works quite well. As long as you can get that treatment early enough, you can mitigate much of the potential damage from it.

It really does run the whole spectrum, down to things where…. As I mentioned, many children with a rare disease will die before they reach ten years old. So it goes from a pretty good outcome to pretty terrible.

R. Leonard: So between being able to treat and improve the quality of life and actually survive. Is there a distinction in that too? I’m asking you for some specific kinds of numbers. I’m guessing that’s beyond you.

B. Harbourne: Yeah, it’s a little tricky with 7,000. It definitely is…. I bet you there is an example of everything throughout the whole spectrum.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Bryant, thank you very much for your presentation and the courage to be in this room with us today.

B. Harbourne: Thank you very much for letting me speak.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Good luck.

Our next presenter is David Hutniak, LandlordBC.

David, as you walk forward, I will remind you that you have five minutes to make your presentation. Then the committee has five minutes for questions and comments.

David, you now have the floor.

LANDLORDBC

D. Hutniak: Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the select standing committee. My name is David Hutniak, and I am the CEO of LandlordBC. We are a non-profit industry association representing owners and managers of rental housing in British Columbia.

LandlordBC is a member-funded organization consisting primarily of market rental housing providers. We are, however, also pleased to include within our membership many non-profit housing providers who highly value the education and support we provide their organizations and the advocacy we undertake on behalf of the broader rental housing ecosystem. Our association currently represents in the order of 175,000 units of rental housing across the province.

We understand that renters have been impacted by the pandemic, increasing interest rates and inflation. These are challenging times for British Columbians. Unfortunately, the narrative that continues to be advanced by advocates and some political leaders is that landlords are somehow immune to all these economic headwinds. Well, we’re not.

The scale of increases to our operational costs, combined with the negative impacts of the rapid rise in interest rates, have had a huge negative influence on our sector. To further complicate matters, our revenues have been impeded by government interventions, limiting our ability to adjust rents to offset a reasonable portion of these increasing costs.

Add to that a dearth of supply, resulting in at- or near-record low turnover rates. It is not hyperbole to suggest that our sector is facing a perfect storm. This is why so many landlords are deferring significant investments in their existing buildings and why new rental projects have been stalled. Many others are simply leaving the sector because of negative rates of return in the past few years and no clear path for turning that around anytime soon.

On the issue of turnover rates — this is when a tenant moves out, releasing the unit to the market — the turnover rate of rental units in Vancouver, which is the largest rental market in the province, is currently 4.9 percent. This is the lowest turnover rate that our organization has ever witnessed, and we’ve been around for 60 years. That means that over 90 percent of the rental units in the market are essentially permanently occupied by the current tenants.

While that may be good for the current tenants, because they are safely housed and continue to have their rent subsidized by their landlords to the tune of tens of millions of dollars every month, it’s clearly bad for new renters trying to find a place to live, a home, and unsustainable for the rental housing providers.

Something has to give. It’s in government’s court to create that give. Our members appreciate that it’s a challenge to bridge the worlds and needs of renters and landlords. It needs to happen if we are going to come up with actual workable solutions to the quandary we find ourselves in. The prevailing sentiment communicated to me by our members is that governments of all stripes, frankly, are trying to have it both ways — advancing what they consider to be help for renters, while at the same time ignoring the fact that landlords are being unnecessarily harmed.

That won’t work any more. Government can’t expect positive results, like continued investment in existing stock and construction of new purpose-built rental, when the burden of the rental housing crisis is placed largely on our sector. The obvious solution is to replicate the tenancy legislation like we see in jurisdictions just east of us, in Alberta, where they have ample supply. It’s a competitive environment. Renters have multiple choice in terms of finding affordable housing.

We need workable solutions here right now. We’re not going to see changes like we actually believe are justified, which is to eliminate rent control or look for other solutions. Strong measures that provide rental housing providers with the necessary ability to decrease and stabilize expenses are needed.

We need you, this esteemed panel, to help support us by advancing the need for support for our sector. In Budget 2024, we have two recommendations I will quickly cover.

[3:55 p.m.]

The first recommendation will be to reduce the landlord’s property tax bill by extending existing homeowners’ grants to each unit of multifamily purpose-built rental housing. This will be easy to administer and simply recognizes that every unit in a purpose-built rental building is a residence, a home, and thereby, all we would be doing is applying an existing program to these individual units.

The second recommendation is a little more involved, and I must admit that we have not fully modelled it. Our second recommendation would further reduce a landlord’s property tax bill for each unit where the renter is currently paying below-market rent. A scale would be applied on the basis of percentage below market. The more a unit is below market, the greater the property tax break specific to that unit, each year, would be. We would, of course, want and need municipalities participating in this particular program.

I am out of time. I actually had a few other comments, but on the basis of my time, I will thank you very much for listening. I’m hoping that you will seriously take forward our two recommendations in the process that you’re undertaking right now.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you, David, for your presentation and being mindful of the time that’s here. Who knows? Somebody may ask you a question that may allow you to expand.

S. Chant: I probably don’t have the right question.

At one point — I’m now learning; bear with me — you said “subsidized by landlords.” Those were the words that you used. Yet what you also said was that landlords are not looking at unit refurbishments — that’s the word I’m using — and not necessarily reinvesting in the units.

D. Hutniak: They can’t afford to do it. That’s what it boils down to. The fact is that revenues and rents are fixed, particularly with the turnover rates that I’ve just mentioned. So when you don’t have any turnover, there’s no opportunity to invest in those assets and try and approach a market rent.

Then what we’re seeing is, with all due respect to the current government…. This is not necessarily unique to them. What they’re saying is: “Well, yes, the Residential Tenancy Act says that the 2023 increase should be 5.4 percent. Sorry, we’re going to cut it back to 2 percent.” We’re in a situation here where everybody is saying: “You’re very, very important. You provide critical housing. But we need to protect renters.” No one denies that.

These are challenging times. What’s not working anymore is the fact that…. We’re trying to find solutions to protect renters, but it’s always, consistently, at the expense of the landlord. That just doesn’t work anymore. If the housing we provide is that important, then we need to start looking at this from a broader tax base perspective, the broader society, and say: “This is critical housing. We need you to provide it. We want to provide you some support without expecting tenants to pick up that cost.”

From our perspective, one of these two solutions that we’re suggesting would be a small step in the right direction to provide that support.

M. Starchuk (Chair): What I would suggest is if we can have the questions and answers as brief as we can. So before we go through….

B. Banman: I appreciate the two ideas you have. Sitting on the provincial side of the fence, this is a great idea. It doesn’t cost the province a dime for these subsidies. It all comes out of the cities. Putting my mayor hat back on, however, I’m pulling my hair out.

The police, the fire, the parks, the garbage — mind you, in some places, that may not apply — sewer, water, all of these other things come out of the municipal budget. Their scream is that the province has been downloading on them for years.

While I like the simplicity of the idea, I think that there needs to be a provincial component there that you have not tied together.

D. Hutniak: Well, no. Actually, the homeowner’s rebate is the province. The second option, the second recommendation, is actually a combination of the province and municipalities. So there were two recommendations here.

B. Banman: I see a push when it comes to the municipalities, because they have a very fine…. The only taxation they have is land.

[4:00 p.m.]

D. Hutniak: Of course, there’s going to be a push. But here’s the thing. We have an unsustainable rental housing ecosystem, sir. Either we find workable solutions, or we keep pushing landlords out of the industry, and investors who want to build new rental go and build it somewhere else.

I’m just being very candid with you, sir.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): This is a perfect example of how the private sector needs to work with the government to do what’s best for British Columbians, for sure.

You can’t expect the landlord to take on the costs and not be able to recoup those. One of two things happens. Either the landlord gets out of the game or that residence just deteriorates and becomes almost unlivable. I think, for the first time, we can probably see a turnover rate higher with landlords than it is with the actual tenants.

There has to be…. I like reducing the property tax bill. Would you also see, in the Residential Tenancy Act, including the increase of rent to at least the CPI or the cost of living? At least it would give you something. I think it’s 2 percent right now.

A Voice: No, it’s the CPI.

D. Hutniak: The formula in the Residential Tenancy Act is the CPI. For 2023, based on the formula in the Residential Tenancy Act….

The increase for 2023 was supposed to be 5.4 percent. With all due respect to the provincial government here, and we’re seeing this across the country, the province decided to cut it back to 2 percent. They capped it at 2 percent. This is part of the challenge. We get it. Renters are challenged. Rental housing is an ecosystem; it’s landlords and tenants. It’s tough to bridge that gap.

With all due respect, again, successive governments have continued to put their heads in the sand on this. It just can’t continue anymore. It needs to be fixed.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. Thank you very much for your time, David. There’s a long list of questions that is sitting in front of me, but in respect for the other people that are speaking behind you, we are going to move on.

D. Hutniak: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your time. Have a great day.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Oh, yes. A good point. Make sure that your written submission is inclusive of what we talked about.

D. Hutniak: Yes. I will make sure, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Next we have Mark Sakai, the B.C. Real Estate Association.

Mark, as you walk up, if you haven’t already heard it, you have five minutes to make your presentation. Then we have five minutes for questions and/or comments that are there.

Go ahead. You have the floor.

B.C. REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION

M. Sakai: Thanks for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Mark Sakai. I’m the advocacy projects manager for the B.C. Real Estate Association. We represent the eight real estate boards in the province and approximately 25,000 realtors.

I don’t need to tell anyone that there continues to be a need for the B.C. government to create policies to incentivize more housing supply. The Multiple Listing Service continues to show that markets across B.C. are undersupplied. The average MLS residential price in B.C. is at $995,000, as of April 2023. The average home price in B.C. has risen for three months in a row, up nearly 10 percent since the beginning of 2023.

Our recommendations are focused on providing improve­ments to the B.C. government’s Homes for People action plan. Overall, we support this plan. If it is implemented effectively, with adequate sector consultation, it will unlock many new homes for British Columbian families.

Our first recommendation is to provide adequate funding for B.C. Builds. We support the objective of B.C. Builds to deliver more middle-income homes. However, significant funding is needed to bring together public lands, low-cost financing and faster provincial and local government approvals and to create innovative tools to help more middle-income households find a home that fits their needs.

As part of the B.C. Builds funding, we recommend that there be funds to implement a permanent housing round table. The current process of development for new housing policy is often inconsistent. There is a significant need for a more collaborative multi-stakeholder process to identify the obstacles to housing attainability and the factors limiting supply across the housing spectrum. Achieving more attainable housing requires a coordinated effort between different levels of government, in close collaboration with market and non-market housing stakeholders.

[4:05 p.m.]

Our recommendation for a permanent housing round table is supported by ten other real estate stakeholders, including representatives from the finance sector, non-market housing, Indigenous housing and rental housing. Realtors are at the front lines of the challenges in market housing. They are the primary source of data on housing markets, enabling them to provide on-the-ground knowledge and to identify where and to what degree market challenges exist in their communities.

The round table should focus on how best to implement recommendations from the development approvals process review report and the Canada-B.C. Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability report.

Our second recommendation is to increase infrastructure investments to local governments impacted by the missing middle zoning initiative. We support the prov­ince’s commitment to changing municipalities’ restrictive zoning approaches and to making it easier for people to build small-scale multi-unit homes. This legislation allowing more units on traditional single-family detached lots will unlock more homes.

The increase in density can create stress on local infrastructure, though. This is one of the primary objections raised by opponents to the missing middle initiative. This is a legitimate concern. The B.C. government can help local governments unlock additional housing options by linking infrastructure investments to OCP plans, zoning bylaws and other local policies.

As most, if not all, of these new units will be constructed in compliance with the B.C. energy step code, the electrical utilities must also be consulted to ensure that the neighbourhood grid capacity will accommodate the gradual evolution of the power requirements of the housing there.

This important initiative also underscores the importance of a housing round table to ensure that the legislation and regulations, when developed in the fall, are conducive to a strong takeup of the new housing opportunities being made available and do not result in negative unintended consequences.

Our third recommendation is to assess the proposed flipping tax. A flipping tax already exists in Canada, enacted by the federal government. In addition, a flipping tax should ensure that no new housing is blocked from becoming available. If implemented, it should also be aligned with CleanBC goals and should consider exempting the renovation of properties that are going to substantially increase their energy efficiency.

That’s my presentation. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mark.

I have a question based on your presentation. It’s a very speedy one. Is the housing round table that you speak of in any other province or any other jurisdiction?

M. Sakai: Well, the idea of a round table is not new. It’s used in many other sectors — for example, the Small Business Roundtable. I believe Nova Scotia has a housing round table as well.

It’s not an unheard of idea. The idea of widespread sectoral consultation to ensure that policies are free of unintended consequences and will meet their policy objectives when they actually hit the ground is not something that is unheard of or untried.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. An ex-realtor over here. I understand the concerns.

No. 2, on the coordination and the local and provincial governments’ need to kind of get together. On infrastructure, you mentioned the electrical grid and making sure that the electrical grid is sufficient for a new build that comes in, deep infrastructure as well.

When we start implementing strategies to include high-density housing and things like that…. It’s great to identify that stuff. But if government has to adhere to those standards…. They have to make sure that the infrastructure is in place. That comes as a cost to the builder as well, which throws affordability right out the door.

Can you expand on how important that is to have in your strategies?

M. Sakai: Well, certainly, when you are talking about single-family areas and the sort of multiplex type of housing that’s being proposed…. We’re not talking about going from low density to high density. It’s a gentle densification. So the increase in the demands on the infrastructure and utilities will not be the order of magnitude.

In any case, local governments do have development cost charges. That’s their mechanism for growth. It pays for growth and for putting the pipes in place. In addition, I believe that there is a role for government to provide some assistance to governments that are smaller and may have more challenges with providing the necessary infrastructure as well.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I also want to thank some of your colleagues, who had a meeting with me over Zoom. I really appreciated them sharing their thoughts.

[4:10 p.m.]

Pardon my ignorance. Can you explain a bit more about B.C. Builds? Are you talking about somebody investing in local infrastructure building, like manufactured homes? My apologies for my lack of awareness in this area.

M. Sakai: Well, certainly, there’s no silver bullet to solving the housing crisis. If anyone thinks that there’s one thing that the government can do or that the private sector can do, they’re mistaken. There definitely need to be all hands on deck, with all portions of the housing sector activated. B.C. Builds is the provincial initiative to unlock more middle-income housing on government-held lands.

Now, that’s a great idea, but there needs to be a lot of funding for that. You have to be able to find those partnerships. You need to be able to incentivize local governments to accelerate the approval of these types of housing. As we just talked about, you need to make sure the infrastructure is in place. There’s a lot of good that can come out of a program like that, but it needs to be funded. It needs to be able to work on the ground in order to see those results. We need to see results in this sector.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Mark. Just on your last point, you mentioned that the flipping tax should not be on new homes. Is that correct? I want to be clear on what you meant in your third point, please.

M. Sakai: What we meant on the flipping tax is there may be situations where you can create an exemption. For example, if an older house is being renovated by someone who wants to add units as part of the Missing Middle Housing Initiative, and they’re replacing one old, perhaps run-down, unit with four new units that are more suitable for middle-income or lower-income residents and that are compliant to the energy step code, then that should probably be exempted from a flipping tax.

B. Stewart: Okay. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Seeing as we’re almost out of time, thank you very much for your presentation, Mark. Thanks a lot for keeping on top of everything that’s going on at a time when…. It has cooled down, but it was a very, very crazy time in British Columbia.

Our next presenter is Harriet Permut, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver.

Harriet, you have five minutes to make a presentation, after which we have five minutes of questions and/or comments.

REAL ESTATE BOARD
OF GREATER VANCOUVER

H. Permut: I’m Harriet Permut, director of government relations for the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. I want to thank your staff for scheduling me to follow the B.C. Real Estate Association and LandlordBC’s presentations. We look forward to continuing the dialogue on housing affordability and on where the opportunities for leverage are to make improvements.

Today I’m going to talk to you about all the renters who are eager to buy their first home in the greater Vancouver area. In our current real estate market of rising prices, low inventory and multiple offers, these renters face major hurdles.

Saving for a down payment is the first hurdle in a region where incomes have fallen so far behind home prices. The second hurdle is finding an affordable home within reasonable commuting distance. There are so many homebuyers looking for affordable homes, and the supply is so limited that many renters are forced to stay on the sidelines. The third hurdle is saving for the property transfer tax, or the PTT.

Renters who finally scrape together a down payment and locate an affordable home are often shocked to discover how much the PTT costs. Our calculations show that a renter household would have to save an additional three to eight years, depending on their income, just to pay the PTT on a modest apartment unit.

Here’s a townhouse example. A renter buying in Maple Ridge, one of the region’s most affordable communities, will pay a benchmark price of $747,000 for a very modest resale townhome. The PTT adds almost $13,000, even if the renter is a first-time buyer, because the PTT exemption price threshold for a resale home is only $525,000.

[4:15 p.m.]

If this buyer is fortunate and buys that townhouse but has a life change in the first year of owning — for example, they must move for a better-paying job or to care for an aging relative — they’ll pay the newly proposed flipping tax. If the unit is a presale, they’ll also pay capital gains tax. If the new-home buyer has to sell, finding a rental unit will be close to impossible, given the region’s near-zero percent vacancy rate and increasing population.

In B.C., there are just under 670,000 renter households, or about one-third of all households. Of these renters, 72 percent feel so shut out of the market that they have given up on ever owning a home, according to a new Ipsos survey.

What can we do? We have identified three ways the government can respond to the affordability challenges facing renters.

Recommendation 1 is about the property transfer tax, the PTT. With respect to this tax, we’re recommending that government conduct a comprehensive review of the PTT, which hasn’t been done since the tax was brought in, in 1987.

Increase the first-time-homebuyers program PTT ex­emption threshold on resale homes, to $750,000 from $525,000, to match the newly built home exemption.

Exempt presales from the PTT to ensure that new supply continues to be added.

Index PTT thresholds to the consumer price index, make adjustments annually so that the tax more closely reflects the market, and use PTT revenue from homes priced at more than $750,000 for financial incentives to renters buying Missing Middle homes.

Recommendation 2 would be about the flipping tax. We’re recommending that the regulations for the flipping tax include exemptions so that the tax doesn’t unfairly penalize those most likely to move.

Ensure that new-home-construction homes are exempted from the tax, and ensure that the tax doesn’t discourage investment in secondary suites that may be created under the province’s new secondary suite policy.

Recommendation 3 is about rental supply. With a near-zero percent vacancy rate, communities are desperately in need of new purpose-built rental buildings. Rental housing developers face escalating costs, making projects less viable.

Governments themselves make building rental housing more costly in several ways. One way is that CMHC has recently increased mortgage loan insurance premium rates. With the GST being payable on rental construction, this also adds considerable cost. Even new, not-for-profit rental developments have to pay the GST, presumably from grants and subsidies they receive from governments. This makes no sense.

Our recommendations for improving rental supply are: convince the federal government to exempt new not-for-profit rental developments from paying GST; create a provincial rebate program for the GST payable on new rental construction — rebate funding could come through interest payments made to the province from programs like the HousingHub, including the affordable home ownership program and the PTT; and implement a program of ultra-low-cost loans to developers who are building rental buildings by using funds from existing revenue streams, including the PTT and B.C. Housing revenue streams.

The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver is an association representing more than 15,000 realtors and their companies. We’re BCREA’s largest board. Our written submission contains additional information you may find helpful in understanding the points we’ve raised.

I’d welcome any questions you may have.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Harriet.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the staff being able to coordinate your time and place with the organization that spoke before you. Well done.

H. Permut: We appreciate it. I wanted them to know we noticed.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Yes, absolutely.

Questions or comments?

S. Chant: Can you expand a little bit more on — again, I’m learning — exempting presales from PTT. What does that mean?

H. Permut: Okay. Do you know what a presale is?

S. Chant: I buy it now, and I get it five years from now.

H. Permut: Five years from now, yeah. Okay, so if you charge GST on that unit, it adds to the cost of the unit, and it adds to the cost in perpetuity because the GST keeps getting paid and paid and paid. It’s a disincentive to people you might…. I’m not necessarily talking about the most expensive units, but for any presale, it’s a disincentive if people know they’re going to be paying an extra tax on it.

S. Chant: Did you say PTT or GST for presales? I wrote down PTT. That’s what I was trying to….

H. Permut: That was GST, I think. It’s probably both. In fact, it’s both.

S. Chant: Okay, but GST, certainly, we can’t….

[4:20 p.m.]

H. Permut: GST is federal; you don’t control that. The PTT, as well, is a real disincentive to people who find out five years later how much they have to pay in addition to the closing costs on the unit itself, which can be considerable.

It’s a real disincentive, especially to younger people who have already saved for ten years to buy a unit, and all of a sudden, they have to save for another three years to pay the tax they didn’t realize was payable. It’s a disincentive within the market.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other comments and/or questions?

I have a comment, maybe more of a question that you can answer. You said that there hasn’t been a review since its inception, since 1987.

H. Permut: That’s right.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Could you maybe explain how many times that you’ve asked for a review?

H. Permut: Just last year. We’ve talked about the property transfer tax as long as I’ve been at the board, which is 18 years, but until last year we didn’t ask for a major review, but it’s getting out of hand. The tax was 35 years old last year, and maybe it’s time to have a look. It hasn’t kept up with the market. There’s a $200,000 threshold in there. Mark talked about what the cost of homes is. Average in B.C. is almost $1 million. Average, never mind in our board, which is considerably higher than that. It doesn’t even vaguely resemble the market. That’s not really fair.

Our presentation talks about how much…. When the tax was brought in, in ’87 — Mel Couvelier was the Finance Minister then — the tax was meant to be a wealth tax. Assuming that anybody who could afford a home over $200,000 in that year, it was an expensive home. Well, it’s not anymore. That tax then covered 95 percent, so only 5 percent of home sales were above $200,000. Well, there’s not one unit in our board area last year that was sold for under $200,000. Not one. It’s maybe time.

R. Leonard: I wanted to ask about…. Under the rental supply, the last bullet of your recommendations is around ultra-low-cost loans to developers. I know that through the HousingHub that low-cost loans are now provided.

Can you explain how this is different from that, other than it’s got some very specific streams that you’re suggesting we access?

H. Permut: Not everything is built under the Housing­Hub, so it’s just taking the idea of it and finding a way to get more built that doesn’t have to run through the B.C. HousingHub program. That’s all. I think it could be done. You can put any recommendations on it you want in terms of criteria you’d have to meet to be in there, but not everything….

They don’t approve everything that comes to them, so we’re trying to find ways of getting more units built, so we might have to expand the criteria, but I’m not saying very fancy buildings or anything. But there are lots of units that are built without reference to the HousingHub, or even CMHC, for that matter.

R. Leonard: I have to say that in my community, I haven’t seen a heck of a lot of…. I saw one in 30 years, one rental property being built, and since then, I think we’ve seen more rental development, for sure, with that offer, and then the federal government having their CMHC program.

H. Permut: The problem with the CMHC program is it’s so complicated to apply for, people give up.

R. Leonard: Yeah. I’m just curious, because B.C. Housing is through which we do all of our work around housing. So I’m just saying, why veer away from it if we can make it better and streamline into a one-stop shop place?

H. Permut: They don’t approve everything that comes to them.

R. Leonard: But we don’t know why. Okay. Thank you.

H. Permut: Were there any other questions?

M. Starchuk (Chair): No. That is the time, and thank you, Harriet, very much for your presentation.

H. Permut: Thank you for listening. We’ll see you next week.

M. Starchuk (Chair): A motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:24 p.m.