The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Good afternoon, 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 would like to acknowledge we’re gathering today in Revelstoke in the traditional territories of the Sinixt, Secwépemc, Syilx and Ktunaxa peoples.

I’d ask everyone to take the time to reflect on the lands that they live, work and play on.

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

Our committee is currently seeking input on the next provincial budget. 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 2 p.m. on Friday, June 16.

We’re also holding a number of public meetings to hear from British Columbians about their priorities.

All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will 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.

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

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Chair.

My name is Tom Shypitka. I’m the Deputy Chair and the MLA for Kootenay East.

A. Walker: Adam Walker, MLA for Parksville-Qual­icum.

B. Banman: Bruce Banman. I’m the MLA for the riding of Abbotsford South.

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

S. Chant: Susie Chant, MLA, North Vancouver–Seymour.

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

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

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

For today’s meeting, we will be hearing about a variety of topics including forestry, health care, rural needs and emergency preparedness. Each participant has five minutes to speak, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments from committee members.

[3:00 p.m.]

I would ask the committee to limit their questions and be as brief as possible to answer as many questions as we can, and the participants as well to limit their answers and/or comments so we can get as many questions coming forward.

Our first speaker is Robyn Hooper, Columbia Shuswap Invasive Species Society.

Robyn, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

Budget Consultation Presentations

COLUMBIA SHUSWAP
INVASIVE SPECIES SOCIETY

R. Hooper: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the standing committee.

My name is Robyn Hooper, and I’m the executive director of the Columbia Shuswap Invasive Species Society. As a witness to the B.C. budget review, I have some key messages to present on behalf of our board and staff. I will note that our organization is also an affiliate of the provincial Invasive Species Council of B.C. and a part of the regional invasive species organizations of B.C. We share similar key messages.

There are three topics and recommendations I would like to cover today, which include: (1) the invasive species threats to the Columbia-Shuswap region, (2) regulatory tools and best practices to prevent and manage invasive species and (3) the need for long-term stable funding for invasive species and how we as regional non-profits can help with these recommendations.

Here in the Columbia-Shuswap, we are particularly concerned about zebra and quagga mussels, given the importance of our freshwater ecosystems, their recreational, hydropower, Indigenous, and other values. I’d like to quote from a recently released provincial report on the impacts of these mussels.

Zebra and quagga mussels “are aquatic invasive species responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damage annually in North America. Since their introduction in the 1980s to the Great Lakes,” these mussels “have been found in over 24 American states as well as in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba.” To date, these mussels “have been prevented from establishing in the Pacific Northwest. However, favourable habitat conditions in B.C.’s freshwater systems make them a significant economic risk.” These mussels pose “significant economic risks, due to their impacts on infrastructure and water bodies.”

The updated report has annual cost estimates which range from $64 million to $129 million. That’s just to manage these mussels if they were to come to B.C. These costs include costs to water-related infrastructure; hydro infrastructure; water supply infrastructure from municipal, domestic and aquaculture; agricultural irrigation and golf courses; annual maintenance to boats and marinas; lost profits in provincial revenues from losses in water-based non-resident tourism; annualized loss in residential property values and property taxes due to reduced water quality and lost shoreline amenity values. This isn’t including the environmental impacts.

We need provincial regulations to prevent these and other aquatic invasive species — such as invasive fish, whirling disease, spiny waterflea and many others — from entering our province. This is not to mention the hundreds of invasive plants. Regulatory tools are needed to protect our ecosystems, our tourism and recreation values as well as water quality and hydropower resources.

In the past few years, we have had success in increasing our water monitoring for invasive mussels here in the Columbia-Shuswap region with partnerships from the province and the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation. These programs support the early detection and rapid response that are vital in the fight against invasives.

Our society is uniquely poised to support these efforts, with over 26 funding partners and over 200 partnering organizations in the region. We leverage provincial funding sevenfold with other funding sources and, therefore, greatly increase the return on investment as a non-profit charity. We also have unique regional and community ties to get work done on the ground, and we partner with Indigenous communities, local governments, industry partners, land managers, community groups and other stakeholders.

However, more is needed. We need to update and enforce regulations to ensure that invasive species are not introduced and spread into and across the province. Current regulations have outdated lists of invasive species, enabling many to slip between regulations. As well, mitigating climate change impacts requires strong, efficient action against invasive species to protect resilient ecosystems, which are vital in helping reduce the intensity of wildfires and floods and in protecting species diversity.

Finally, stable long-term funding is required. We need a new approach to funding to ensure that B.C. is protected from these invasive species threats. We receive annual funding from the province, but it is not reliably secured in the long term.

We also need to ensure that the provincial staff and program capacity in the province have adequate funding to complete the regulatory and management work described, as well as for them to partner with regional groups such as us. It takes a team effort to control and prevent invasive species. We have so much valuable biodiversity in this region and across the province, which is worth protecting now and for future generations.

Thank you for your time.

[3:05 p.m.]

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

I have one question. At the beginning, you talked about the success in water monitoring. Can you describe the success?

R. Hooper: Yeah. We have monitoring across this region in a number of water bodies. With the province, we prioritize the high-risk water bodies — lakes like Shuswap Lake, Kinbasket Lake, Revelstoke reservoir — facilities that have hydropower and recreational values but that also have the freshwater habitat in which mussels could be impacted.

We’ve been doing monitoring for the last eight years, I want to say, in this region. Every year there has been a little bit more funding, I think, allocated to this work. The importance of it is really well recognized by the province and by other partners. The Shuswap Watershed Council, for example, is another non-profit that supports this work in the region.

We’ve seen success in actual on-the-ground monitoring. Then the other success is that we’ve found no mussels, and we’ve been increasing our outreach in talking to marinas and boat industry groups to prevent their spread and introduction.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Robyn, for the super important efforts you’re doing here.

This is about preventative maintenance, full stop. With invasive species, it’s just disastrous, once they take over. Is there a way you can eliminate…? I know that in the Great Lakes. once they take hold — they’re razor-sharp, they’re like concrete — they just totally take over. Is there an elimination….? Is there something you can do to kill them? I don’t think there is, but maybe you’ll explain that.

Also, I don’t know if you mentioned wildlife issues as far as grazing cattle. Forage in the back country can take over and eliminate those species as well. Then, of course, MOTI and B.C. Hydro and all these other stakeholders or government agencies can spread…. What in legislation do we need to see, so that we can control this stuff?

R. Hooper: Great questions, Tom. First off, there are a number of ways to look at the costs here with mussels. The report has gone into detail with just the cost of maintenance, because there is no way to eradicate them. That figure, $64 million to $129 million annually, would be maintenance for mussels, once we get them in the province.

There are some more options now than there used to be, in ways to manage it, but the costs have significantly increased from the original study that was published years ago. So no options for mussels.… I shouldn’t say “no options,” but no management options. There are no ways to get rid of them.

Secondly, you asked about those government agencies and regulations around invasives. Like I said, it takes a team effort. We need all the government agencies, all the stakeholders on the ground, all of our partners to work on invasive species. They don’t know boundaries. They don’t know borders.

That’s where I said in terms of funding pieces, we need it both for provincial agencies and for the groups supporting that work. We help as contractors and grant receivers with this work, but we need the provincial agencies themselves to be doing the work, because a lot of the spread can be on Crown land as well.

In terms of regulations, I think, like I said, there are a number of outdated invasive species lists. What we’ve seen as one of the main pathways of spread is the horticultural industry. Right now, invasive species can be sold, and there are no regulations around the sale of invasive species.

This means that we can be doing the work to prevent a whole bunch of species from entering — and there are some regulations around private landowners having species on their property — but there are no regulations around them buying those species. I think regulations around the sale of invasives would be a top priority. Some regional districts have actually done regional bylaws to manage that risk.

B. Stewart: I appreciate your comments. This is a big issue in our region, in the Okanagan water basin.

I wanted to ask you about the inspection sites, which you didn’t mention. They’re a big part of stopping boat traffic, if you want to call it. My understanding is that it started with, I think, 12, and it’s now only six stations. I’m just wondering if you can provide us an update.

[3:10 p.m.]

Secondly, another area of intrusion into the area is from float planes, which was brought up by the Shuswap Watershed Council. I’m wondering. Have you openly been discussing that as a group? How do you communicate with where float planes dock, in making certain that they’re not bringing in the same thing?

R. Hooper: First off, the watercraft inspection stations are run by the conservation officer service within the province. I can answer just based on their recent report. What I’ve seen in terms of where their stations are located…. It’s based on what they’ve seen in terms of traffic flow. So they’ve, every year, been doing surveys about where they see folks coming in, and because the border services are also helping with protection, I think with the funding they have and where the highest risks are, that’s how they’ve managed the number of stations where they’re open and the time they’re open. We don’t have 24-hour, dawn till dusk, every roadway, like you say, covered. So there are definitely pathways of watercraft potentially coming in.

That’s where I think continuing to, at a regulatory level, ensure that invasive mussels are prohibited and that folks know about that…. But then the funding that goes into that watercraft inspection program continuing…. I think it’s also coming to a decision point around that — so continuing to see that important work as prevention.

Then you asked about float planes. I know that was another part of the work that the province has done. One of the staff members that I know has worked on that at a regulatory level and outreach, as well, with the different agencies around that. I think that would be a follow-up at the provincial staff level to see where that’s come and if there have been any new rules and regulations. I’m not entirely sure.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, Robyn, thank you very much for your presentation of this afternoon.

Next up is Sarah Newton.

Sarah, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for follow-up and/or questions or comments.

I would remind committee members that we have a full schedule in front of us today.

The floor is yours.

SARAH NEWTON

S. Newton: Hi. My name is Sarah Newton. I’m with Wildsight Revelstoke. We’re an environmental organization in the interior of B.C. We have 16,000 members and supporters in Wildsight. I’m also a representative of the environmental justice committee with the B.C. Teachers Federation, and I’m a teacher here.

I want to thank you first for recognizing the Sinixt as a First Nation in this area. Oftentimes people only do the three Indigenous groups, so thank you for recognizing the Sinixt.

The province is committed to shifting the paradigm in how we manage our natural resources, specifically through the old-growth strategic review panel’s document. This is a profound shift, and I want to thank you for your roles in bringing that forward. It’s totally critical. This shift requires funding and money, otherwise we’ll be continuing to tinker with the old policies that we’ve had instead of addressing this paradigm shift that has been so well-laid-out in the old-growth strategic review panel.

The deferrals have come in and, in our area, have been approved by First Nations groups, but we’re not seeing any real money targeted in this proposed budget to move ahead with the recommendations that have been put forward, and we’re in the middle of a profound climate crisis. The temperatures you’re seeing today in Revelstoke are so far off the normal. I moved here 18 years ago, and there was still snow on the soccer fields in mid-May. That was normal. This is a mountain community.

We need to help repair the forests. They are the lungs of the planet, and I really urge you in your positions of power to move forward with these policy changes because they are critical for dealing with climate change.

The first recommendation is securing conservation agreements with First Nations for deferred and important conservation areas, which would mean the allocation of $300 million in provincial funding to be conjoined with matching federal, private and philanthropic funds for the expected nature agreement to the conservation financing fund to secure new Indigenous protected areas by conservancy or another legal mechanism linked to protecting high-conservation-value old growth and endangered forest ecosystems in B.C.

Funds are to be allocated to affected First Nations for the implementation of alternative sustainable economic development visions and stewardship jobs.

Legally mandated corporate compensation for logging, mining and oil and gas companies should be additional to this. In the community here in Revelstoke, the mill employs about 400 people with living-wage jobs, and they should not be abandoned.

The second recommendation is the creation of a $120-million solutions space fund to provide immediate financial support to First Nations to ensure deferrals are economically viable, including compensation for lost logging revenue and employment.

[3:15 p.m.]

In areas where First Nations have overlapping claims or where First Nations have not approved the deferrals, change the default of continued logging to stop logging — a moratorium — until the complexities are worked out. The status quo should be to keep the trees standing until there’s a solution in place, and a solutions fund space would help offset any economic impacts of this action.

The third and final recommendation is a fund to transition to a restoration-based economy. Our relationship with the natural world continues to be extractive, and we would love to see the creation of a historic investment in a new conservation and economic stimulus initiative that could help offset a declining forestry industry.

The new vision for our forests is to leave primary and old-growth forests intact, to make more with less and to support local producers as well, to heal this land and its waters by employing forestry workers to rehabilitate lands and streams, to use the same bulldozers that have punched roads into our valleys to take back the roads so that caribou, fisher, salmon and grizzly bear have a chance in the face of a rapidly changing climate and landscape.

From firsthand experience in this area, I can tell you that the forestry sector workers know as well as anyone that there is so little left to log. Just take a look, I beg you, at Google Earth of this area, and you will see how little there is left. The strategic review panel’s documents are well-thought-out, and the steps outlined above will help people and the natural world to have a chance of success amid the climate crisis.

As a teacher, I see so much despair in young kids, and I’m always instilling hope in them by saying: “The solutions are out there. Other countries are doing it. We just have to do it here.” Those kids believe me when I say that the solutions are there, and the leaders are seeing that it needs to be done. Thank you for listening, and please, with all your decisions, think of the children.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Sarah, thank you very much for your presentation. Given the time on the clock, I take it you must have raced from school to get here.

S. Newton: I did, yeah.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for taking the time out of your day.

A. Walker: I really do appreciate this, and it’s a really special part of the province. We were fortunate enough to come in by airplane and be able to see the whole region.

Being in your position as a school teacher…. I’m not sure what grade, but following your presentation here, you can submit a written presentation. It may be interesting to engage the students in that and have them talk about why these things that you’re looking for are important to them. There may be ideas that they have in this process as well. It could be an interesting presentation.

S. Newton: I could do that. Thanks. It’s hard. It’s a very big balance. You can’t read them Greta Thunberg’s book Our House Is on Fire. You cannot do that to any children under 12 years old. We’re trying to instil in them a love for the natural world, and then we move forward with how to change it. There is hope, because we live in a democracy.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Sarah. You made a comment, and I’m not certain that I completely followed it. You mentioned the mill in town here and about some sort of solution, protection or something for them. Could you just elaborate on that a little bit more, so I could be clear on it?

S. Newton: Yes. The Green New Deal, which is quite a few years old now, talks about how we need to support workers, because it’s often us against them, environmentalists against the extraction industry. It’s not like that, especially in the forestry industry. There are ways of making value-added products. There’s an area that was just logged on Macpherson, where we mountain-bike. They logged for 12 percent cedar, and the hemlock, which was the majority of the other wood, was piled up and burned.

But not in Germany. They have the mills kiln-drying at a lower temperature for longer, and then hemlock isn’t garbage wood. So there are ways to get more out of the forest that we do not do in British Columbia, by any stretch. You can’t even buy toilet paper in British Columbia that’s recycled. We’re not using the pulp or the waste in Canada. We’re selling it overseas, a lot of our pulp. There are just more ways to be efficient.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other comments or questions?

Not seeing any, I think this is your chance to give your plug to your students. What grade and what school?

S. Newton: I teach at Begbie View Elementary, grades 5 and 6. There are 20 kids, and it’s really a privilege to teach them. They can read, and they can write. They don’t cry anymore, and they’re not in puberty. They’re really pleasant. It’s the perfect grade.

I have a copy of my information. May I leave it with you? Thank you.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much, Sarah. The kids, if they want…. The transcript is available on Hansard, so if they want to hear what their teacher said about them, it’s available to them. Thank you very much for your time.

Our next presenter is Sue McCrae, South Shuswap Health Services Society.

Sue, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes’ worth of questions and/or comments.

SOUTH SHUSWAP
HEALTH SERVICES SOCIETY

S. McCrae: Thank you very much for having me here today.

Actually, Revelstoke is ancestral grounds for me. My family has been here for about 135 years. So there you go. There you are.

I do acknowledge the unceded land of the Secwépemc, Ktunaxa and Syilx, which we share with them.

I started the South Shuswap Health Services Society in 2013. We live in a community of the South Shuswap, which is area C of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. We have 9,000 to 10,000 people, and we have absolutely no services there.

Since then, we have managed to get two nurse practitioners through another organization. We have a health centre. We don’t have primary care, but we provide lab services, all of the healthy choices. We do lots of seniors programs: exercise, healthy living. We have IHA there with social services, immunizations. We have mental health. This is all happening in our clinic.

We started it because we wanted to have health care closer to home. I know it’s only 25 kilometres from Salmon Arm to where I live, in Blind Bay, but some of our people live another 30 kilometres away or more.

We are a concentrated population of…. Well, the last census was 9,000 people, and 13,000 when the summer owners come back in. So larger, in some respects, than Revelstoke. Take away all of the services in Revelstoke, and that’s what we have, except for two nurse practitioners and my clinic. That’s why I really….

I think it’s important to support community health centres. We know we’re in a health care crisis. We know we don’t have enough support. People are without doctors, etc. A lot of the grassroots organizations began through the need to provide basic medical and allied services to their communities. This has all happened over the last, say, 20 years.

The ask that we have is…. We would really urge the government to fund community-operated health centres providing health care to the rural communities in British Columbia. Those of us that live in a more urban area…. You don’t have to worry about, if you’re pregnant, going to and sleeping in another town, paying for it and being there for two weeks prior to the baby being born because there are no health services.

I might be in Blind Bay, but I’m working with the B.C. Rural Health Network, which I was a founder of. We know and we hear what’s happening in the rest of British Columbia. So if there’s any way that we can utilize the people in the communities to get that solution going and speak to them directly…. I think that we’ll go a lot further in eliminating some of the disparities that are happening right now.

There are community centres for delivering integrated primary care, social services, etc. Now, the collaboration of the communities and those providing primary health care can help address the inequities.

I have to say that Copper Island Health and Wellness was not eligible for funding in 2023-24 because we didn’t have primary care. We were just missing the doctor. We have everything else. Because we didn’t have that, we were not eligible for funding.

As I say, this is 9,000 to 13,000 people, and we are it. We serve our communities well.

I would really like to ask…. My ask is…. When you’re looking at community health centres, look at the whole of the work they do and the wholeness of what they provide and the value they provide to their communities. It is significant. So that’s with the community health centres.

I have sent this in. So you should all have copies of it. That’s good.

The next thing is health care closer to home.

I guess this is my clock, is it? Yeah. So I’m almost out.

What I want to do, then, is just to go through the asks.

[3:25 p.m.]

I really ask that you provide support to the B.C. Rural Health Network. There are municipalities. There are several members across the province. They are the grass roots. They’re on the ground.

We need to review our government policies and the existing facilities in the communities and to work directly with the communities to determine the best way to improve the delivery of services. A good thing to look at is….

The hospital here was built and opened in February of ’71 with full surgical services, three surgeons, in this area. The hospital doesn’t provide that now. I’m suggesting, from a health care point of view…. Take an inventory. Reduce your wait times in your operating rooms by utilizing the hospitals that have the facilities, as this one does, and Golden and others.

I think by taking away…. When the regionalization took away from the communities, particularly in the North…. They regionalized them. They took away care close to home. They moved it away from them.

This hospital was run by a board. That’s the way it used to be. All hospitals were run by boards. They were run by boards. As a community, we supported that. We had a budget. We made it happen. It was overseen. There was no other interference with it but the Ministry of Health, and they were in touch with the community.

Communities are now trying to get back in touch so that they can not control but help form what their community needs.

Am I over time?

M. Starchuk (Chair): Yes. We have some questions that are coming your way.

Sue, thank you for your presentation. I’m sure that there will be time to expand on that now.

S. Chant: You’ll be glad to know there are two, and I’m one of them, nurses in the Legislature. That’s hopefully a start. We’re taking over the world.

My question is…. Earlier you said you had two NPs that you shared or that came from somewhere.

S. McCrae: We have nurse practitioners. They’re in Sorrento. Sorrento and Blind Bay are both in the South Shuswap, which is now….

S. Chant: Are they attached to another organization?

S. McCrae: They’re attached to another organization.

S. Chant: What organization would that be?

S. McCrae: That would be the Sorrento health clinic. They have primary care there.

S. Chant: Do they sort of come over and help you guys out too?

S. McCrae: Well, we work together, but they have the primary care.

When our centre…. We don’t have the doc. We’re set up for it. We got completely set up for it. We were approved for a locum. Because our primary doctor, who was helping us out, got ill and could not facilitate it, we lost that privilege. We haven’t been able to get it back.

We’re set up. We’re doctor-ready.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other comments or questions?

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Sue.

I wanted to…. When you said 1971, were you referring to Revelstoke or Sorrento?

S. McCrae: Revelstoke. I worked at the hospital in 1971.

B. Stewart: Yes. It was a much different time in health care when there were hospital boards. I know what you mean.

S. McCrae: There were hospital boards. This hospital had $1 million. It wasn’t in a foundation, but it was here. That $1 million was lost during that transition.

B. Stewart: I think your idea of an inventory is a very good idea.

S. McCrae: Take an inventory of what we have.

The other thing that happens is…. There are fast-growing communities. I didn’t address that, but I’ll do it very quickly.

The hospitals that were built many years ago were built, out of necessity, close together. It was horse and buggy. There was a hospital in Vernon, one in Armstrong, one in Enderby, one in Salmon Arm. Then, all of a sudden, our community came and grew in the ’70s. It’s just been left as a bedroom community ever since. We don’t even have a public health nurse. We have nothing there. We rely totally….

Now, if you take Sicamous, which is the same distance on the opposite side, and take an inventory of what they have…. I’m not sure why that disparity is there, but because we’re a new community, relatively speaking, we get lost. Whistler grew at the same time we did, just as a comparison, in the ’70s. Not many hospitals have been built since the ’70s.

[3:30 p.m.]

A. Walker: I really appreciate this.

Do you have a primary care network in the community that you’re working with, or do you work directly with the health authority as you try to replace that primary care practitioner?

S. McCrae: The primary care network is run through the division of family practice, and each division chooses how they’re going to run the primary care network. Because we don’t have a doctor, we’re not part of that. The division of family practice doesn’t include us. I think Sorrento is, but we’re not. And the primary care networks are not working really well. I’ll just say that.

The other thing is that if you have urgent care centres, why build an urgent care centre in a hospital? Why not build an urgent care centre out where the people need the help? That’s just a question.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. On that note, Sue, thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon and for taking the time. Thanks for the work that you do.

Our next presenter is Lisa Lovlin, GSK Canada.

Lisa, you have five minutes to make your presentation, followed up with five minutes of questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

GSK CANADA

L. Lovlin: Hello, everyone. My name is Lisa Lovlin. Thank you for the opportunity for me to present today. While I’m here to represent GSK, I’m also here as a British Columbian with family members who have had shingles.

Before we get started, I wanted to ask a quick question. How many of you have known someone who has been affected by shingles?

Yeah, I’m happy to hear that. Well, I’m not happy to hear that but happy to hear that because the statistics suggest that one in three adults over 50 years of age will develop shingles, and roughly half of those who live to be 85 years of age may experience at least one episode. What that means is that if you personally haven’t been affected, you probably know someone who has felt the pain of shingles.

I’m here today on behalf of GSK to propose to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services that money be earmarked for the development and deployment of a provincial shingles prevention program for older British Columbians.

Unlike medicine, which goes through a defined process for inclusion on B.C. PharmaCare, vaccination programs are not part of their mandate. That is why I’m here today to request that designated funding be set aside for the ’24-25 fiscal year and in future. In addition to reducing the pain and suffering for affected seniors, GSK believes that this addition reduces shingles-driven visits to your overburdened ERs and to family doctors, who typically diagnose and manage this condition.

For your information, GSK makes Shingrix, the vaccine to prevent shingles. Shingrix is a two-dose vaccine which is well researched and is recommended by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization for individuals 50 years of age and older without contraindications.

It’s important to note that not only is it recommended nationally by NACI; there is also broad-based local support for a publicly funded shingles immunization program amongst doctors, pharmacists, those at risk of developing shingles, as well as front-line professionals caring for our most vulnerable seniors who reside in long-term care here in British Columbia.

I just wanted to take a quick moment to talk about the burden of disease. Shingles is caused by the same virus, the varicella zoster virus, that causes chicken pox. After contracting chicken pox as kids, this virus lies dormant in the nervous system and may reactivate due to a weakened immune system driven by increased age or other health conditions.

What this means is that nearly every older British Columbian has had chicken pox and is therefore at risk for shingles. When the varicella zoster virus reactivates in the body, it often manifests as a painful rash. It usually involves the torso but can also affect the head, neck and even the face.

[3:35 p.m.]

The pain associated with shingles can be severe and debilitating and can sometimes last for weeks, months or longer. Because it causes pain, shingles is also associated with high levels of opioid, benzodiazepine and other painkiller use.

We know that older patients want to maintain their quality of life, and many seniors work into their later years. Unfortunately, when you get shingles, it’s hard to work because the pain can be so severe that this may disadvantage working seniors who are trying to make ends meet.

From an affordability perspective, the majority of roughly 1.1 million B.C. residents aged 65 or over as of 2022 do not have private insurance to cover vaccines. Therefore, they’d be paying for this vaccine out of pocket. In the absence of a publicly funded immunization program, many older British Columbians will remain unprotected from shingles despite the availability of an effective recommended vaccine.

Therefore, GSK respectfully requests that the government of British Columbia establish and fund a publicly funded program for older adults. We know that this will support your health care system and prevent many from experiencing the painful condition of shingles.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Lisa, thank you very much for your presentation. I was in Richmond, and I’m really hoping we’re not going to hear the definition from Bruce one more time. But we do have somebody that has the definition, and we heard it from the pharmacist.

For me, my question would be: at what age would you consider this to begin at? It was kind of left a little bit open.

L. Lovlin: It’s a great question. So when it comes to NACI, NACI recommends it for 50 years or older. However, when we look at other provinces, usually they’ll start at either 65 and older. But we also have smaller cohorts, such as just 65 or just 70 or just 80. And then, over time, they can potentially expand from there, based on the popularity of it and how much they’re saving the system.

B. Banman: I’ll spare my colleagues the anatomy lesson of how that…. I will, however, mention, for the sheer enjoyment of Hansard, that I’m holding a physalis berry in my hand, which you’d know as a gooseberry. They told me I couldn’t get that in, but that’s another story.

I did want to ask: is…? What you did say is…. Now, are you suggesting that considering that we have constraints on how much money can be spent…? For instance, there are many of us whose secondary health or dental coverage, etc., will cover that. So would you suggest, perhaps, that this should be a means-tested vaccine? Is that any of your thoughts in the plan?

L. Lovlin: I don’t think I really want to comment on that part. I think it’s open to whatever the government feels. So whether it’s means-, whether it’s cohort-based, I think that’s open for interpretation, if that answers your question.

I think what I’m here today to say is that we need a program. What that looks like — that is open. You know, let’s just get started. When it comes to discussions with BCCDC, we’ve had those discussions, and they’re recommending it to the government. But this has been happening for a number of years. So let’s just get started. Maybe it’s 65 years, or maybe it’s means-based. I don’t know. I’m just here to make the suggestion.

S. Chant: I’m always amazed by the things I don’t know. Is there a booster recommended?

L. Lovlin: It’s two doses.

S. Chant: It’s two doses, but then you’re done.

L. Lovlin: Yup, then you’re done. We actually have ten-year safety data. That is the other thing I was hoping I’d have time to cover off. But there is ten-year safety data now too. So there’s just no reason why there shouldn’t be a public….

I have family members who have been affected by it. Many of you have as well. And we know that it can be very debilitating. So there’s just no reason not to have a publicly funded program.

[3:40 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Thank you, Lisa.

You mentioned at the start that about 1.1 million British Columbians are over 65. Maybe that’s the starting point, not 50 or whatever it is.

Have you got any idea about what the value of this would cost? What’s it going to cost the MSP system to even do what you were…?

L. Lovlin: What do you mean by MSP system? Sorry, public health.

B. Stewart: Ministry of Health.

L. Lovlin: That’s a great question. I do have some numbers I can share with you.

When it comes to the impact on public health, it is expected that a shingles immunization program would help British Columbians 65-plus years and older avoid needing upwards of 116,000 physician visits over their lifetime for care associated with their shingles outbreak. As well, the program would avoid 46,000 shingles cases and 15,000 postherpetic neuralgia.

Susie, you probably know what that is. It’s basically the lasting pain that can….

S. Chant: Yeah, just ongoing gabapentin.

L. Lovlin: Yeah. It’s to the point that my mother-in-law couldn’t even have a shower because just the water on her skin made her skin burn, and it was extremely painful. That’s what we say when it’s postherpetic neuralgia, and that’s why they have to go and take pain medication like opioids, benzodiazepines.

S. Chant: So what do you think the cost would be?

L. Lovlin: It really depends on where you start, right? If you start at 65, then the cost would be associated for just that 65. If you would like some numbers, we can submit that formally.

S. Chant: Yeah, that would be great.

M. Starchuk (Chair): We have numbers.

S. Chant: Oh, you’ve got numbers. Okay.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Lisa, thank you very much for your time this afternoon and your presentation.

Next up is Louise Pedersen, Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.

Louise, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions and/or comments.

OUTDOOR RECREATION COUNCIL OF B.C.

L. Pedersen: Good afternoon, committee members. I really want to thank you for your service to the province of B.C. and to this committee. This is actually the fifth time, I think, in a row that I’m speaking to this committee, the second time in person.

As you know, my name is Louise Pedersen. I’m the executive director of the Outdoor Recreation Council, and really, it is a great privilege and honour to speak to you today from my hometown, Revelstoke. The ORCBC, the Outdoor Recreation Council, is a charitable society with more than 70 organizational members spanning the entire spectrum of outdoor recreation user groups.

We give a collective voice to the interests and concerns of the organized recreation sector when speaking to government. We advocate for access to and promote the responsible use of B.C.’s outdoors for public recreation and build capacity within the sector. We indirectly represent more than 100,000 British Columbians.

Outdoor recreation and access to nature is an integral part of the way of life for British Columbians. We know from a new Ipsos poll that we released last week that seven out of every ten British Columbians took part in at least one outdoor recreation activity in the past year, and 80 percent of respondents said that access to outdoor recreation amenities such as trails and recreation sites and access roads and day use areas in their community and outside of their community is important.

This echoes findings from a similar poll that we did last year that also confirmed that 85 percent of British Columbians who participate in outdoor recreation support more government investments in the development and maintenance of outdoor recreation amenities.

I really want to say that I’m confident that these annual consultations actually make a difference, because in this year’s provincial budget, we saw increases for operation and infrastructure for B.C. Parks and for Recreation Sites and Trails B.C., which are the two key partners that our members work with. While these increases were relatively modest, they will help address some of the issues that I mentioned the last time I spoke to you.

I know that Mr. Stewart was here last year when I spoke. So we’re very thankful to the province for these uplifts but also for providing the ORC with an endowment. We received $10 million to set up a granting program for recreation groups and First Nations. So we’ll be developing that over the next year.

Our message is that this progress that we’ve seen is excellent. Now let’s build on it. Without proper support for this important sector, communities in B.C. and the province as a whole will miss out on many benefits.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’ve got two recommendations.

My first recommendation is the same as last year: increase operational funding and resources for B.C. Parks and for Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. While ongoing funds for recreational infrastructure are vital to expand opportunities across the spectrum to accommodate growing populations, it is equally important to point out that neither agency has sufficient operational resources to allow them to proactively and effectively deliver on their mandates with respect to public recreation.

The context that land managers are in these days is really different from even just a decade ago, with added duties to consult with First Nations, more requirements for environmental and cultural heritage impact studies and managing the damaging impacts of climate change to infrastructure.

As we move forward, we need to recognize the need to invest more in staffing to allow both agencies to partner with First Nations on recreation projects; to proactively plan, develop and maintain trails, day use areas and front- and back-country campsites; and to respond to and approve applications for trail and site developments and maintenance from volunteer-led recreation groups in a more timely manner.

I would say, just with respect to that last point, that it’s not uncommon for recreation groups that are locally based to have…. They put forward really good proposals, and then they have to wait multiple years before they get approved — or even just hearing back that something was wrong with the application. That is very demotivating for these volunteer-led recreation groups. So more agency staff is needed, especially planners, biologists, heritage specialists and Indigenous relations advisers in order to support the recreational staff out in the regions.

I know that Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. has got no Indigenous advisers. They’ve got no biologists, no planners. B.C. Parks is slightly better off. So while funding increases have been allocated in this year’s provincial budget, there’s still a massive backlog of recreation infrastructure, including the KVR, the Kettle Valley Railway, which I know those from the Okanagan are very familiar with, which was devastated by flooding events.

Lastly, because I see that my time is up, we’re also asking the province to dedicate more annual funding for road infrastructure maintenance to support the upkeep and repairs of roads that provide access to parks, recreation sites and trails. This is actually one of the one of the major issues that we’re facing. We’re losing a lot of access to even the province’s own sites and parks because roads are not being maintained.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Louise, I feel like I’ve been on this really quick hike through the forest right now.

L. Pedersen: I’m sorry.

M. Starchuk (Chair): No, it’s awesome.

L. Pedersen: Usually I cover more, but I was trying to focus on the staffing. The staffing is a really, really key part that we hope will get addressed. But now it’s your time to ask me questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Now it’s your time to expand on those things.

S. Chant: Is there any component in the work that you’re doing around accessibility?

L. Pedersen: Yeah. We’ve got members, such as Kootenay Adaptive Sport Association and the CRIS — they’re active in Kelowna — to provide opportunities for people with disabilities. We’re all on this learning journey to understand what it means. It’s not just about people in wheelchairs. It’s also about people like you and me who might have a temporary disability or might have had, like, new knees or that sort of thing — making everything more accessible to elders, to youth.

This is certainly the message that we are sharing with the province, as well — that when you talk about accessibility, it’s much more than just making things wheelchair-accessible. There is such a thing as universal design, which helps trails to be accessible for lots of different people.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Louise, you spoke at the beginning about the $10 million and then turning it into an endowment. So we have some time. Tell us what that’s going to do.

L. Pedersen: It is so exciting. I know that Ben probably heard me say this last year, that we were really….

M. Starchuk (Chair): I was there too.

L. Pedersen: Oh, you were. Sorry.

Yes, all that money has now been invested. It’s put away. It’s drawing interest. We will only be using the interest from this endowment, so we are working right now on creating the guidelines, determining what the streams are going to be.

Initially, what we put forward was a trail fund proposal. The province decided that they wanted to make this an outdoor fund. I think that is a great gift, because it means that it’ll provide opportunities for all our members.

Our members also include B.C. Nature, the naturalists, and the anglers, the hunters. So this is going to be a fund that will, hopefully, support all these recreation groups and First Nations and some local government, too, that work on the ground to make outdoor recreation opportunities or to create experiences for the public.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other comments?

B. Stewart: You know what, I’m so glad to see that there were resources allocated, because what it is, is that we hear from many different groups. I was just looking up…. We had the New Caledonia….

L. Pedersen: Yeah, Dave King was here.

B. Stewart: Yeah, Dave King.

Anyways. The part about it is that it’s difficult to kind of put all of these things of one bucket and figure out how to do it, but I think, consistently, we do hear about staff. I think, to Susie’s point, accessibility. I think the government has made a big priority about accessibility. I think that that’s probably an area where there might be some further support, but I can’t speak for the….

S. Chant: That’s a good word. It’s a very good word.

L. Pedersen: Accessibility?

S. Chant: Yes.

B. Stewart: Make certain you add that to your repertoire.

L. Pedersen: It’s good to know that now, because we are sort of in the process of developing all this in consultation with our members and First Nations and local governments.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, if there are no other comments or questions….

Louise, I love the vigour in which you present. You walk the walk, literally, for the organization that you have. Thank you for taking the time out of your day and your presentation today as well.

L. Pedersen: Thank you for inviting me to present.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Our next presenter is Lisa Cyr, United Way British Columbia.

All right, Lisa. Five minutes to present, five minutes for questions or comments.

The floor is yours.

UNITED WAY B.C.

L. Cyr: Good afternoon, members of the committee on Finance and Government Services.

My name is Lisa Cyr and I’m a regional community developer for the United Way British Columbia. I live here in Revelstoke, and I work with agencies throughout B.C.’s interior, supporting them and learning from them with respect to their healthy aging programs. Over the course of the past year, I’ve also had the opportunity to work on United Way B.C.’s emergent response planning and strategy work and emergency preparedness grant streams for communities at risk.

As we meet today communities are facing, in many places in B.C., including Port Alberni, fires and other climate emergencies. I know you’re all busy representing your ridings, so I appreciate the time and the opportunity to present to you about this increasingly important issue affecting our communities.

In order to support United Way B.C.’s work in emergent response, I come to you today with three asks that total $2.75 million.

First is $750,000 over two years to take what we have learned to help three communities most at risk of future crisis — Cache Creek, for example.

And $1.7 million to invest in the seven communities that are still recovering from the 2021 fires and floods, such as Lytton and the Fraser Canyon area, Princeton, Sumas Prairie, Yarrow, Semá:th First Nation, Skwah First Nation and Merritt.

Lastly, $250,000 to bring together the non-profit players from across the province into an ongoing forum to share best practices, improve our response protocols and find more effective ways to prepare communities and provide advice to different levels of government on how the sector can mobilize and help rebuild.

You may be asking: “Why is United Way, traditionally community development, involved in this issue, and how are we different from other emergency responders?” In the past three years, United Way B.C. pivoted to add to our core work helping communities in crisis. Communities and our network of social service agencies called upon us to step up as there was a need to coordinate the social services sector in terms of response.

We showed up first with COVID in 2020 and then in 2021 for the fires and floods. During this time, we were able to work alongside communities and other responders to learn from them. From those learnings, we’ve developed a three-pronged approach to help in a crisis as well as long-term recovery. These are: response, recovery and resilience.

Response. We work in conjunction with other agencies, such as Red Cross and emergency management and climate resiliency, all within the first 24 to 48 hours. We work to mobilize volunteers, food, shelter, mental health supports, as well as begin the work of rebuilding social infrastructure. We look for gaps and seek out ways to fill them, whether this be through fundraising, matching volunteers to individuals or resources and donations to those in need, including just putting out the call for that.

[3:55 p.m.]

Recovery. This is done primarily through our funding streams, such as the united for B.C. wildfire recovery fund. We’ve already funded 19 organizations following the Lytton fire through this fund. As well, the united for B.C. flood response fund. We’ve already funded 54 agencies that were affected by the floods.

These are donations that are coming from British Columbians from across the province, which enabled us to provide rapid response support, funding and supplies to communities. We tend to focus, also, especially on marginalized populations and those that may be left out of traditional emergency services response. We also provided 26 Local Love grants to individuals who had ideas on how to help community members in need within their local communities.

Lastly, resilience. It’s our MO to build back better. We do this by strengthening vital connections and communities through programs like Hi Neighbour to ensure that the community is stronger than it was pre-crisis, because we know that a connected community is a more resilient community. We also work alongside communities to help rebuild social fabric and infrastructure through community and planning tables, supporting events and helping break down isolation barriers.

In the past three years, we’ve learned so much from communities about their needs and building community. Our strengths lie in the fact that we have boots on the ground. We employ local staff and work with local agencies as well as have the partnerships and support of governments, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. We work with other agencies and responders, such as Emergency Management and Climate Resilience. We’re well positioned to respond to emergencies impacting communities and work with them through the stages of recovery and beyond.

As we enter an era in which climate disasters are increasingly likely to occur and impact communities, we know that we bring value to the table. We are a trusted partner of the province, and we bring donors to the table to help support communities affected by disaster.

Thank you so much for your time today.

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

B. Banman: Thank you very much. As a region that was in the heart of the floods in the Sumas flats, I thank you for the work you do.

We need to consider that actually the largest, I believe, loss of life for natural disaster would have been the heat dome. Six hundred individuals lost their lives. I get some phone calls all the time on this, so there are a couple of things that spring to mind.

Would your organization to be able to help deploy air conditioners for the vulnerable and be able to help fund for those air conditioners or work with others? Is that a task that you could take on and tackle and find a way to help? That’s number one.

Two, there have been many, many incidences where people thought they were going to be covered by government funding only to find out that due to the fact that, for instance…. I’ll give you a prime example.

A woman had leased out her farm because her husband had passed. She had a rental accommodation on that farm for seasonal workers, but because that was no longer technically working for her, that was not covered anymore. It was not a big ask. It was about $60,000 to restore that so that they could bring their workers back, but she fell through the gaps. Are those the types of issues that your organization would be able to help with?

L. Cyr: To be honest, I’m not so sure about the second one. We do tend to focus on community tables, unmet needs and things like that. Less so the actual individual support that goes to individuals from that perspective.

To speak to your first point, you’re right. We did actually receive about $400,000 from EMCR for, specifically, heat dome and cold, so putting up shelters and stuff. We’d be more likely to put up a shelter than to distribute air conditioners. However, this past year, we have distributed a grant, $1.5 million to agencies that would be supporting seniors in their communities. This can be sometimes portable air conditioners to be loaned out.

We do know that the bulk of the deaths were seniors. That was the response to that: working directly with the agencies and communities to find out what they need the most and then respond in that way and support them to do what they need to do.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Lisa. I just wanted to….

I recently have been working on the White Rock Lake fire recovery and was meeting with the regional district. They had a particular issue with the water system that was compromised. There are a whole lot of things. But anyways, United Way stepped up with some people that weren’t able to afford this $5,000 new pit meter that they had. Thank you on that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Anyways, they are rebuilding back. There are lessons to be learned, but I think it’s really important, when you do kind of come out, etc., that people know what you do and not do, right?

Anyways, thank you.

G. Chow: Thank you for your service. I was really curious as to your actual operation, in terms of deployment. Your organization is well known, and I only know it as an agency that distributes funding — very successfully, very extensively — to the various organizations that you give funds to.

You now have people who actually carry out some of the work. How big is that, compared to your original objective of funding? You mentioned that you work with the Red Cross. I just want to get some idea as to this portion of your operation.

L. Cyr: We remain funders; that’s what we do. That doesn’t change. But with some of the funds — some of the government funding, or even some of the donor funding — we’ll employ someone locally — Community Builders, for example.

In somewhere that may be more at risk, we may do some pre-emptive work. We’ll have someone on the ground to help create those social connections and build that net. Whereas, in terms of rebuilding and recovery, then definitely we’re sending in Community Builders, community engagement specialists, to do that work, in addition to the tables and the gathering of the social service agencies and other agencies, corporations, businesses, government, all the multi-stakeholder tables.

This is a new area for us, and we’ve devised a matrix to decide whether or not we’re going to move onto the ground into a certain response or not, in order to be most effective with the funds that we have.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Lisa, thank you very much for your presentation and for the work that you do.

Next up is Joanne Gawler, Revelstoke After School Society.

Joanne, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

REVELSTOKE AFTER SCHOOL SOCIETY

J. Gawler: Thanks for inviting me. Good afternoon, Committee on Finance and Government Services. As the executive director of the Revelstoke After School Society, I’m here to address a crucial issue that’s affecting the most vulnerable members of our society: child care and poverty.

The lack of affordable and accessible child care options is not only a barrier to parents’ employment but also a significant contributor to poverty, particularly for single-parent households. According to recent studies from Statistics Canada, the cost of child care has risen by over 50 percent in the past decade, making it difficult for many families to afford quality care for their children while also maintaining a decent standard of living.

The situation is particularly challenging for low-income families, who spend a disproportionate amount of their income on child care expenses. The consequences of this issue are dire: parents who are unable to access affordable child care face limited job opportunities and are often forced to take low-paying jobs that offer little to no flexibility or to rely completely on financial assistance.

We must also acknowledge and address the gender disparities that contribute to child care and poverty. Women are disproportionately affected by this issue, as they are often the primary caregivers for children and are more likely to face barriers to employment and career advancement due to their caregiving responsibilities. By implementing policies that support women’s workforce participation, flexible work arrangements and affordable child care that is inclusive to all households making under $200,000, we can reduce the gender gap and empower women to achieve their full potential.

Child care isn’t just early child care centres for zero- to five-year-olds. It also includes five- to ten-year-olds. It also looks like before- and after-school and summer camps.

In British Columbia, many families are struggling to make ends meet — this is not anything new — including those whose income exceeds the $110,000 threshold and do not qualify for the current affordable child care benefit program. These families often face a difficult choice between paying for child care and other essential expenses, such as housing and food.

I urge you to consider increasing the threshold to $200,000 for affordable child care benefits for these families. By doing so, we can ensure that children have access to high-quality child care, regardless of their family’s income.

[4:05 p.m.]

Additionally, I would like to address the need for summer camp subsidies. Summer camps are an important resource for families, providing children with opportunities for learning, socialization and recreation during the summer months.

I just got my braces off yesterday. I apologize. These words are tricky.

However, the cost of summer camps can be prohibitively expensive for many families, particularly those living in poverty.

Summer camp subsidies would also provide a valuable form of respite for parents, who often face additional stress during the summer months when children are out of school. By enabling parents to access affordable summer camp options, we can support their ability to work and provide for their families, further reducing the cycle of poverty.

Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of before- and after-school care subsidies. Many families rely on after-school care programs to provide safe and structured environments for their children while they work. The cost of after-school care can be a significant financial burden for low-income families, and many children miss out on these programs as a result. There are currently 895 elementary school spots in Revelstoke. However, the current spots available are only 88.

This fall the government has increased the CCOF payment from $1.40 off each day to $5 off each day. This is a great start. However, it’s still a $400-a-month bill. Ten percent of the provincial population are children ten and under, and here in Revelstoke, according to the population and housing projections in March of 2021 from the city, children ten and under make up 11 percent of the overall population, and it is increasing.

Adding more child care subsidies to all facets of child care, not just the zero-to-five child care centres, will allow parents, particularly mothers, to participate in the labour force, increasing economic output and tax revenue.

Child care subsidies alleviate the financial burden on families, making them have more disposable income and more likely to spend on a wide range of goods and services, which would support local businesses and the broader economy. Supporting working parents and reducing financial barriers by implementing summer camp subsidies, after-school-care subsidies and increasing the affordable child care benefit threshold can play a significant role in fostering economic growth within Revelstoke.

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

I have a quick question about the…. You’ve really focused on the summer camps. What would be the ideal amount that we’re talking about?

J. Gawler: If you put all of the summer-camp camps that are offered in Revelstoke together, on average, it’s about $350 a week to put your child into summer camp. Some parents have to pay that. Last year a friend of mine paid $2,000 for two months of summer camp. Yeah, it’s a little bit of a tax write-off, but it’s still $2,000 of summer camp that you have to pay for.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much, Joanne. You mentioned the threshold. You’ve got it written in your document here. It’s currently at $110,000 per year, moving it up to $200,000. How did you arrive at that number of $200,000?

J. Gawler: Well, I sit on a board. I’m the executive director of the board. There’s a mom there. She makes $200,000 with her income of family, and she can’t even make…. She asks every month if she can move the invoice a little bit differently. I was like: “Well, this is strange. Let me ask more people.”

I put out a poll on…. We have a Revy moms poll. I said: “How much do you pay for child care, and how many of you can actually afford to be part of this affordable child care benefit plan?” They all made well over $110,000, and they all struggle to pay their bill at the end of the day. Most of the income that people are, like, working at CP, or they’re working for larger jobs here in town…. They’re normally making around $200,000.

Over the 150 families that I asked, I took an average, and that’s where I found that $200,000 was basically where people could actually start paying on time for their invoices.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other comments or questions?

Well, Joanne, thank you. For a person that just got their braces off, thank you. They must be all new words to you today.

J. Gawler: It is. I ate an apple yesterday for the first time in 40 years, and it was, like, amazing. Yeah.

Thank you for this. Child care is a huge one, so I appreciate you. Thank you.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you for your presentation and your time here today.

Next up is Sydney Black, Nelson and District Arts Council.

Sydney, you have five minutes for your presentation, followed by five minutes of questions and/or comments.

The floor is yours.

S. Black: I did not get my braces off, so I have no excuses. [Laughter.]

A Voice: Nice shirt.

NELSON AND DISTRICT ARTS COUNCIL

S. Black: Thank you very much, Nelson Museum and Art Gallery.

Good afternoon, Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I’d like to thank you for this opportunity to present today. My name is Sydney Black, and I’m the executive director of the Nelson and District Arts Council.

Founded in 1969, the Nelson and District Arts Council is a non-profit organization that serves the communities of Nelson, regional district areas E and F in the Kootenay region of the province. We serve over 20,000 residents and over 200,000 tourists annually. Our Arts Council has nine dedicated volunteer board members, employs one three-quarter-time executive director, one part-time communications manager, 13 event contractors and over 150 artists and arts workers annually.

Our mandate is to stimulate and encourage and facilitate the continuing development of broad artistic and cultural opportunities, projects and activities in Nelson and district.

We focus on three pillars of support: showcasing opportunities, providing educational opportunities and working with regional, provincial and federal bodies to ensure that the needs of rural and remote artists and arts organizations are met. We’ve produced the longest-running art walk on the West Coast, which started in 1989. This free summer event, where businesses act as galleries for local artists, has spread to communities throughout the province as a result of NDAC initiating it all those years ago.

Our largest project, the Nelson International Mural Festival, started six years ago and, since its inception, has seen 45 murals installed across Nelson in public spaces. With that knowledge that we’ve received in developing the festival, we’ve been able to support 25 other communities across Canada as they initiate mural projects and festivals themselves.

We have a rural artist support weekend which provides the opportunities for regional artists to participate in educational workshops that focus on the business of art, which is something that’s often daunting for creators. These projects are a small selection of the community-centred work that we do with additional programs, supporting youth, individuals with diverse abilities, the dance community and more.

We support the local economy through artist support and presentation. We’ve been named as the sector representatives for the arts and culture on the Nelson and area economic development partnership. Like many other small rural arts councils, we create important programming that engages and connects our community, which is now more important than ever. The majority of our programming is completely free of charge and held in centralized, accessible spaces to ensure maximum opportunities for participation.

Our following recommendations to the standing committee are, number one, to increase the funding of the British Columbia Arts Council, with a focus on operational funding and the newly designed accelerate program. This is the most direct way that you can help to fund artists and arts organizations in our province. Rural artists and arts organizations need opportunities to access this vital core funding, and it’s very desperately needed in our sector as we continue to navigate the effects of the pandemic.

It’s essential, also, that funding reflects inflation and cost-of-living increases so that our organizations can continue to provide stable jobs.

Our second recommendation is to continue funding the B.C. fairs, festivals and events program for charities, non-profits and free community events for the foreseeable future so that these incredibly important events are able to keep up with the inflation that they are navigating. From artists’ fees to insurance to venue rentals, everything is increasing in cost, and it’s going to continue to be incredibly challenging for these organizations to keep doing this work without the support of the government.

Again, these events provide artists and arts workers with income, encourage tourist spending and are vital in providing community connection. The impact is huge in rural and remote communities like Nelson, where opportunities for barrier-free gatherings are few and far between. And the community connection experienced at these events has also been proven, as we all know, to affect people’s mental well-being and self-esteem.

Our third recommendation is that many artists, rurally, are unable to support their practices due to increased cost of living in our regions. Artists are being forced out of their homes and are having to relocate in order to be able to support their families. We request that you consider implementing a guaranteed basic income and housing plan to ensure that artists and cultural workers are able to continue to reside in our small rural communities.

When hosting artist forums, the main concern that’s echoed back to us is the lack of affordable housing and studio space, and we hope that the province will see this as a priority.

With that, I’d like to thank you again for having me, so much. And if anyone has any questions….

M. Starchuk (Chair): Sydney, I’m going to start it off by saying that your enthusiasm is, on top of everything…. I have a question for you that will be not part of your presentation.

S. Black: Great. I love it.

M. Starchuk (Chair): How long did it take you to get here, and how long is it going to take you to get back?

[4:15 p.m.]

S. Black: It took me four hours to get here, and hopefully, if I get to leave before 4:25, it will only take me four hours to get back. But it will take me five hours to get back if I miss the ferry at 5 o’clock.

M. Starchuk (Chair): There we go. All right.

B. Banman: Thank you very much.

First off, for those who can’t see, you are wearing this T-shirt that says, “Art is political,” and I agree with you. Even 500 years later, I don’t think Michelangelo realized the political debate that he would have speared due to his statue David.

The question I have for you is — yeah, just let that one go — on average, these free events that are put on by either cities, communities or non-profits…. Do you have any idea what the general ask for those events is versus what’s the economic return that actually comes into and/or how much money actually can some of these local artists that…? You know, the starving artist syndrome, which is very real. How much economic impact does it put towards them? Any of those, if you can sort of ballpark, that would be great.

S. Black: Totally. I don’t have anything off the top of my head, but I do know that Tiny Lights Festival, which is a festival in Ymir, British Columbia, a community very close to Nelson, has a full economic impact report that I’ll make sure that I forward along to you.

I also did work on an economic impact of the arts report for Nelson, but it was during COVID, so we didn’t have the supply side. It’s not really accurate. I do know that way back in 2003, I believe, the economic impact of the arts in Nelson and District was estimated to be at about $17 million, but there are lots of variables in that.

I think that any funding towards these festivals is massively helpful and important. We have been really grateful to receive between $20,000 and $40,000 from the festival and fairs events recovery program, and that was amazingly helpful, but I know other organizations have had $100,000 in the community. I think it all just really varies based off of the scale and scope of the projects that are being produced, but anything makes a huge difference in the non-profit world.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Ben, Ronna-Rae and maybe George.

B. Stewart: Thanks, Sydney. You mentioned about increasing the funding at the B.C. Arts Council. Do you have a number in mind?

Second.…

S. Black: Well, we always love a good double that, but I do recognize that that is a large amount of money. I think the B.C. Arts Council gets approximately $35.8 million, $32.8 million a year.

So yes, anything to increase it, because that is the most direct way that artists and arts workers are able to access funding, and they already have all of the programs implemented and in place.

I think that the equity work that they’re doing with the new programs that they’ve launched in the last year is just so important and vital to small organizations to be able to access it as well.

B. Stewart: Okay, thanks.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Ronna-Rae.

B. Stewart: I can’t…?

M. Starchuk (Chair): We’ll go through this.

Ronna-Rae.

R. Leonard: On the B.C. fairs, festivals and events, you distinguished for-profit events from it. Many non-profits do charge at-the-gate fees. I’m just wondering why you’ve chosen to separate out the for-profits.

S. Black: I just think there’s a difference in our funding models. Whereas we provide everything for free — it’s completely barrier-free to have festivals that are privately owned, private entities — it feels like it’s a different level of scale and the funding that’s being received by the larger, for-profit festivals that are selling out every year already, things like that. There have been, definitely, different spaces that have received significant financial windfalls.

I feel like potentially they might be in all-right shape moving forward because they are able to sell those tickets and things like that.

G. Chow: Thank you. You mentioned a figure like over $30 million to the B.C. Arts Council. We have increased that funding substantially in the last couple of years. I don’t know whether it’s double or triple, but it’s somewhere along there.

In terms of your organization, do you get other funding? Do you also get money from…? You would apply to the B.C. Arts Council?

S. Black: Absolutely.

G. Chow: What about your town, Nelson? Do they contribute money?

S. Black: Absolutely. We receive money from the municipality as well as from the regional districts. We go wherever we can get money. I probably apply for 30 grants a year. We’re in Canadian Heritage. Anywhere with the feds that is offering money. Canada Council. We also work with Creative B.C., the Columbia Basin Trust, essentially, Osprey Foundation. Anywhere that we can try to get money, we do.

It is because we have this barrier-free kind of vision in place, so we don’t have the earned revenues that other organizations might have. We don’t operate a facility.

[4:20 p.m.]

G. Chow: Okay. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Sydney, thank you very much for your presentation today.

I would be remiss if I didn’t, for the record, mention that it was MLA Anderson that pointed out your drive that was going to take you here today, to me, referring to you as a good friend and awesome. I also want to note for the record that she did not take the three-and-a-half-hour drive herself to make it out here to join you today.

S. Black: I will send her a text message as soon as I’m in the vehicle and will ask her. I will tell her: “The standing committee is very disappointed, MLA Anderson.”

M. Starchuk (Chair): I have already texted her a picture of you sitting up front.

S. Black: She’ll love it.

Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you.

Our next presenter is Sheena Wells, Community Connections.

Sheena, before you start, I would like to just announce — have a seat — that you are presenter No. 200.

S. Wells: Well, I like that. I like a tidy number.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I believe that puts us almost halfway, just more than halfway.

Anyways, you are No. 200. You have five minutes for your presentation.

S. Wells: Do I win? Maybe I’ll double my ask here.

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. On that note, the floor is yours.

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
REVELSTOKE SOCIETY

S. Wells: Good afternoon, committee. I’m sure there have been some formalities.

I just asked if I needed to do a land acknowledgment, but I’ve been told there’s been one that has been done, so that’s great.

As a born-and-raised local here in Revelstoke, active community member, volunteer and passionate executive director of the largest non-profit social service organization in town, I’d like to thank you for the time to consider these recommendations. As a note, ChatGPT did not write this speech. I did, although we did talk about it amongst ourselves.

I’ve had the honour of working in this profession for the last 16 years in Revelstoke locally, regionally, across the province and across other province partners. I’m pretty excited to be able to share this. I’m a bit of a storyteller. That is my way as a social work leader and a therapist with training and background in that, so where 1,000 words is my way and 100 would do just fine, I will try and keep this short. I did print it off.

I also believe as a principle, or in principle, that we make meaning through relational context, so some of what I’m going to make recommendations on or elaborate from my recommendations is with that in mind.

Our organization has been operating for over 40 years in this community, providing a wide range of services, holding many different government contracts to support the community’s most vulnerable individuals and groups, who are up against the most complex challenges in our society as a whole. Our work spans the lifespan, offers support across all struggles and is committed to serving the community in a responsive way.

As a note, we were just nominated for the award for top food bank in Canada for our size. We operate the food bank as well, but not a funded operation.

We’re doing things locally. It’s a small town, but we are certainly connected provincially and federally as well. Until December, we have grown to have about 80 staff across more than 35 programs and are on track to pay about $3 million in wages for local residents, local spending and purchasing for program supplies this year.

We bridge gaps created by the holes and lack of funding in many areas. Every dollar has about three different deliverables on it, and every hour has about 90 minutes. Most staff wear so many hats, paid and volunteer, in a variety of roles that we will all need physiotherapy to see us into our later years of employment.

The recommendations I put forward — I’d like to summarize each with a brief explanation and then, of course, welcome questions.

The first one: localized, stable funding for supporting children, families and individuals requesting mental health and community support. I see in the budget that there are increases to mental health and addiction support in terms of funding going out. However, what I think is really important in terms of the budget and in terms of what these recommendations speak to is the localized context.

I hear a lot of centralized. I hear a lot of provincial procurement language. I hear a lot of: “This is how we do it in the Lower Mainland.” That can be really difficult for us to try and navigate and serve rural remote communities.

[4:25 p.m.]

What I’m saying here bears repeating: that centralization and regional service hubs are hugely detrimental to community well-being and the community feel — the built-in and served communities. Localized funding agreements actually have the benefit of going further for less money, as we can be responsive and preventative when there is trust and some flexibility in the collaborative service delivery approach.

For example, in the 40 years we’ve been delivering services, in one of our contracts with MCFD, there hasn’t been an increase in the FTE in that time, and then last year the contract was cut in half.

For the metrics to go up, as inflation or increases to staffing, that kind of thing, happen…. To see that cut in half was really challenging. It went to a regional pot of money, rather than what’s happening in Revelstoke. We have zero foster homes in town anymore, and there have been very few removals.

The preventative investment in that collaborative community development model actually has put us in a position to not have to ask for more. This recommendation isn’t about a dollar amount. It’s about an approach, which does translate to a dollar amount on your end.

The second recommendation is for housing spectrum funding and operating agreements that are reflective of community need. This is, similarly, in the local context. Essentially, this is speaking to the gaps in the housing continuum.

In Revelstoke, there is no supportive housing and no second-stage housing for women, those kinds of things. In lots of communities, that is the case. There are different spots along the housing continuum that are serving…. The other spots along the continuum have to pick up the slack.

When we’re looking at operating agreements, we’re looking for solutions that aren’t written yet. So that can be complicated.

The provincial standardized models teach us a lot about what could be done, and those launches that happen in bigger centres show us a pathway, perhaps, to meet community need in a meaningful way. Affordability and housing needs are unique. So should be the operating agreements and the contributions.

On this one, I would like to say that our regional director has been fantastic. I can’t stress enough that the relationship that we have with Nanette, who has been in it a long time, really does help support communication between us and provincial parties and funders.

An example on that as well. The UBCM pilot project…. We’ve been running an emergency shelter program with UBCM funding for the last 18 months. It has been hugely successful in learning partnership and community development and also effective in meeting local need in this area. The model we’re providing doesn’t exist within B.C. Housing, and the one they have would cost three times more. So we’re putting forward, again, that local context.

The last recommendation is about non-profit capacity and sustainability. The previous speaker spoke a little bit to this. It’s to increase the administrative percentages allowable in contract budgets.

The burden of survival and effective service delivery in our unique context are inflated exponentially when we have 30-plus programs and services, all with multiple funders, applications, procurement demands for each, reports, data collection, storytelling. Portal log-ins for each and every ministry contract are different. Various styles, questions, increasingly rigorous administrative policy, which, of course, is not always a bad thing. It’s hard to meet all of that in the 8 or 9 percent administrative percentage on those contracts.

You know more about these pressures than I do. However, without the core funding and localized agreements, we have to ask for something more somewhere. So this is the monetary ask I put forward in terms of a recommendation.

We would much rather do more of what we do in the communities with the people we serve than the reporting. But of course, we want to meet those needs too.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Sheena, I will ask you nicely to, well, wrap it up. I mean, you’ve got your 200th presenter bonus minutes.

S. Wells: Great. I’m done.

Actually, I just wanted to…. I was going to close and say that I do…. I would strongly advise, as often as possible, that relationships take precedence rather than contract language.

A Voice: The chamber will give up one of its minutes to help….

M. Starchuk (Chair): That’s a kind offer, but it’s not necessary right now.

Sheena, just to start off, you talked about no second-stage housing. Maybe just provide a little bit of historical background. When you’re talking about second-stage housing for women…. What was there as opposed to what is there today?

[4:30 p.m.]

S. Wells: I would love to. My mom started the women’s shelter in Revelstoke 30 years ago. There is a women’s shelter. There is that facility. B.C. Housing owns it, and there’s an operating agreement. There has not ever been second-stage housing in Revelstoke. There have been many asks over many years. We’re trying to find a model to get there, in my time anyway. I can’t speak to what was here before I was born.

I’m also the vice-chair of the housing society. Kira will speak next, but we are looking, in our next build or within the next two builds, at putting forward a mixed-use building. We don’t necessarily need a full facility for each of those other spots on the continuum, but we could do something that’s blended: some seniors, some second-stage and some Indigenous supported housing.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Very good. Any other comments or questions?

Not seeing any, Sheena, thank you very much for your presentation and your time today, and thank you for the work that you do in the community.

Next up is Kira Wolf of Revelstoke Housing Society.

Kira, you have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions and answers.

REVELSTOKE HOUSING SOCIETY

K. Wolf: Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today in Revelstoke.

My name is Kira Wolf, and I’m here on behalf of the Revelstoke Community Housing Society. We are a local non-profit dedicated to providing a range of affordable housing options within the city of Revelstoke.

I’m not here today to ask for money to build houses — there is a lot of money out there for housing — but to explain the challenges we face as housing providers and to offer solutions for you to take back to Victoria. I’m also not here today to tell you what to do. Instead I’m here to tell you what not to do.

One, do not leave money on the table, because non-profits can’t access the funds. Over the last ten years, B.C. has spent $7 billion on housing. That is a lot of money, but here we are, still stuck in a housing crisis. We need solutions to remove barriers for smaller, newer non-profits to access provincial funding.

To apply for a housing grant, we need to produce audited financials going back several years, architecture plans, site surveys and feasibility reports before applying. A non-profit needs to front fees close to six figures. Our local economy doesn’t have time for us to save or apply for grants to fund the grant application process. The turnaround time for our affordable housing units is six years between projects.

My solution is to propose a system that enables municipalities to submit master plans, on a one-time basis, to funding partners to develop staged, affordable housing plans for larger developments. Each phase would have a separate review period for additional funding.

My other solution is to improve access to capital funds for development. Many of the operation grants go towards societies offering heavily subsidized housing — rightfully so. However, our current operation does not fall under many of those categories. We generate revenue to run our operations from rent, but it does not leave enough money for a quick turnaround in the development process. Non-profits need access to capital, whether in the form of grants or low-interest loans, to fund the early development stages.

Two, do not allow non-profits to struggle while maintaining operations during an inflationary period. Once a building is complete, it falls on non-profits to manage it or contract the task out, at considerable cost. There are not a lot of property management resources for small non-profit societies. For example, the B.C. Housing website, under the “Resources for property maintenance and improvement” tab, only mentions bedbugs and mould. Those are serious issues, but there is more to property management than those two issues.

My solution is to increase funding for B.C. Housing or another housing partner, such as the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, to create a dedicated central resource for non-profit housing operators.

First would be legal counsel. This isn’t just a non-profit issue but a tenant issue as well. While non-profit workers might have best intentions, if they incorrectly apply RTB rules, they risk hurting the tenants too.

Second, create an annual inspection from B.C. Housing. Having one consistent oversight will create continuity during staff changes and reduce knowledge gaps. Yearly a maintenance supervisor with a dedicated region will visit non-profits to develop a consistent property report, in conjunction with local staff, making asset and capital planning easier and more transparent for all parties.

Third, hire a human resource director for the sector and develop an employee support program.

As housing grows, our sector will only be expanding. However, money will always remain tight, so that we can keep rents low. Providing resources for non-profit societies that would normally be very expensive to bring in-house or to outsource will allow us to focus on tenant well-being and expand the housing supply.

[4:35 p.m.]

Three, do not slow down construction by saddling small communities with the burden of updating and increasing utilities due to government policies. Revelstoke’s permanent population and seasonal population are growing rapidly. According to the 2021 census, the population grew 9.4 percent over a five-year period. Ottawa’s plan to welcome half a million immigrants to Canada yearly means more people living in Canada. Those people will need a place to live.

Before non-profits can build more housing, we need roads, sewage treatment, potable water supply and electrical lines. The growing communities fund is a great initiative, and the $1 billion distributed amongst 188 municipalities will be a welcome addition. However, if we hypothetically divide that equally amongst all 188 municipalities, that comes down to a little over $5 million each.

Additionally, the new e-bike rebate proposed by B.C. is wonderful, but it will increase the number of e-bikes on the road. The riders need a safe place to ride. That means more road maintenance.

Please do not leave residents of small municipalities paying more in taxes because of government policies. Local municipalities are often left with passing the cost to local taxpayers, which only exacerbates the affordability crisis in our area. I propose that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure extend additional funding for local municipalities to improve their infrastructure to meet growing population needs.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my suggestions today. I open the floor to any questions.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Kira, thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon.

A. Walker: You packed a lot into five minutes. I appreciate that.

I’ve got a number of things I’ve highlighted here. The one I’m wondering is if you can expand on is this master plan for local governments. What does that mean?

K. Wolf: It’s something I sort of made up. I took inspiration from the way it works in the private sector. If you are building and have property that’s zoned for multiple units, you have to go through stages of funding. You get funding at one point, and then, if everything goes well, you get a little more funding.

I think that could work really well for non-profits. That way, we’re not all trying to get one big chunk at once. If we had a larger plot of land, we could have one building. If everything goes well, and B.C. Housing sees that we are responsible, that we did a good job, then maybe we can go on to the next phase — instead of having to submit multiple applications, work with multiple developers and just go through the process multiple times.

A. Walker: It makes sense.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I really like your presentation in the sense of what not to do, because I come from a place where if somebody says, “Don’t touch that” — or there’s a little thing that says: “Don’t touch that” — I want to.

You talked about the growing communities fund. Maybe it’s too early, or not, but have you been earmarked for any of that funding from the local government?

K. Wolf: I’m not sure. I just know that we have a lot on our plate with our community growing by that 9.5 percent number. Right now, the estimate is that for us to keep up with growing population needs, we need to have at least 1,000 new units, at a minimum, in the next ten years.

Those places will need roads to drive on, they’ll need stoplights, and they’ll need the sewage treatment. We have a lot that we need to maintain a growing society.

I did the $5 million just evenly. I didn’t know.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other comments or questions?

B. Banman: Coming from being a former mayor, I want to thank you. What you’ve said is very true. A lot of times, government policies get put in place with all the best of intentions, but the devil is always in the details.

You have packed a ton of details into five minutes, and you should be commended. I don’t know if your city council is ready for you yet, but you should definitely put your name forward, I believe, and run for city council, if you haven’t already.

K. Wolf: I’m an immigrant. I’m a permanent resident.

B. Banman: Well, okay. Well, when you are…. You can work on it. That’s a very easily fixable problem. I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness.

I wanted to boil down on…. You mentioned something in there with regard to…. I’m trying to remember your exact wording. It had to do with making sure that we weren’t layering stuff on top that was basically impossible for you to fit in, based on the government protocols that were required. Did that have to do with building codes? It was about two-thirds of the way through. It was in the construction portion.

[4:40 p.m.]

I guess what I’m hearing you say is that you want to reduce the red tape to be able to get this done, have a collaborative effort and bring municipalities and cities to the table to see if it’s doable, to help you. It needs that coordinated effort, which I fullheartedly applaud you on. It is the missing link.

What I learned is that different levels of government don’t always talk well to one another, so congratulations to you.

R. Leonard: Thanks for your presentation. I recognize that different communities have different capacity levels, and smaller communities are going to struggle if they haven’t had NGOs that have been providing affordable housing in the past. Have you looked at partnerships with other agencies, other communities trying to grow capacity, even with developers?

K. Wolf: We have. Sheena’s on our board, and we met with the economic development team from Golden. I’ve been in contact with Kaslo. We’re reaching out with groups from Slocan, just trying to find a way…. Every single non-profit shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. We can do knowledge-sharing, and I think we can somehow find a way, working together.

Right now Sheena and I are exploring ways to maybe bring on our own maintenance worker through our different societies and see if that could help. I don’t think it has ever been done before here.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Kira, thank you very much for your presentation. You won’t know this, as you’re forward-facing, but there are a lot of smiles and head nods that are behind you that are supporting you 100 percent for what you’re trying to do here in the community.

K. Wolf: We all support each other.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Thank you.

Caroline Lachapelle of Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce, you have four minutes to…. No, I’m just kidding.

C. Lachapelle: I only need four minutes.

M. Starchuk (Chair): You have five minutes to present, with five minutes for questions and comments.

The floor is yours.

C. Lachapelle: I’m the executive director….

M. Starchuk (Chair): Sorry. Just for the record, who are you here with?

C. Lachapelle: Okay. I actually just started in this position five months ago. Rowan is a project manager for the chamber, so I’d like to have him as my helper if you have questions that he might have deeper understanding of.

M. Starchuk (Chair): And Rowan…

C. Lachapelle: …is from the chamber of commerce.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Full name?

C. Lachapelle: What’s your full name?

R. Hargreaves: Rowan Hargreaves.

C. Lachapelle: Thank you, my English friend.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. There we go.

REVELSTOKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

C. Lachapelle: I’m Caroline Lachapelle, the executive director of the Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce.

The Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce has been an organization since 1895 — in fact, since before the city of Revelstoke was the city of Revelstoke and incorporated. We have evolved with Revelstoke for over 120 years and have been the conduit for economic development, tourism, business growth and much more during that time.

In our current format, we are the hub of connection for businesses, non-profit organizations and individuals who are professionals in their field. Chambers are one of the only organizations in Canada that advocate on behalf of businesses on a local, regional, provincial and federal level. I’m sure you’re all very aware of this.

Our first recommendation is to expand provincial grant funding that is meant for non-profit organizations to include chambers of commerce. As many know, chambers are organizations that help communities with social change and gather community members together with events, education, resources and much more. We do not only work for our members but for the business community at large. We rely on grants to help sustain our operations.

We recommend that the government of B.C. stop excluding chambers of commerce in most funding streams that are made available for non-profits and that you start to recognize chambers as viable organizations that are a fundamental part of the ecosystem of communities and be more inclusive to including us in your provincial funding opportunities in the future. We can chat about that after. The first one is a little bit selfish, so that we continue to help you guys.

Expansion of tourism funding grants to include all businesses in a resort municipality. Revelstoke is one of 14 resort municipalities in B.C. The provincial government releases many wonderful funding programs every year that are aimed at supporting tourism, businesses and organizations.

[4:45 p.m.]

We believe that businesses operating within a resort municipality should be recognized as a business contributing to sustaining tourism in those municipalities. Sectors such as trades, health service providers, community support organizations and many other types of business are all a part of the ecosystem that sustains traditional tourism businesses.

It’s our recommendation that funding streams and services available for tourism businesses, such as the services of go2HR, for example, be extended to all businesses inside of a resort municipality. As a local chamber, we would like to ask who we can speak to directly at the provincial level to better understand and advocate for this underrepresented section of our community’s business sector.

How can we be a part of the conversation? How can we understand how the machine functions so that we can not only ask for things, but also provide you with metrics and information? What do you need from us as a resort municipality? Also, on behalf of all resort municipalities: what do you need from us? We’ll get you the things. You just tell us. We’ll get you the info.

Include industrial, commercial, institutional material in the provincial extended producer responsibility program to make it fair and inclusive for retailers, small businesses, offices and schools. I can repeat that one. That’s a big one for me.

Businesses are facing increased costs. This is a no-brainer. As a policy adopted last week at the B.C. chamber AGM notes, costs of recycling, particularly in remote or rural communities, are often too high for businesses to manage, and a large amount of waste is ending up in the landfill. We ask that the next provincial budget include adequate funding for expanding the existing provincial extended producer responsibility program to include waste from industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, which are currently underserviced, and support businesses in their recycling efforts.

We do not have a specific number in mind, because we’re coming to the table with the same question as before: how can we help? Where can we look at how we can expand on these things?

That’s it for me.

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

A. Walker: I’ll jump on the last thing you had there, EPR. What does it mean for businesses in this community? What is the cost that a business would face to dispose of things that should be recyclable that are easier in larger centres?

C. Lachapelle: In Revelstoke specifically…. This is very much so a municipal thing. Some areas have recycling; some areas do not. In Revelstoke, if you want to bring cardboard, you have to…. There’s actually a joke where you have to dress up your staff in different costumes or ask kids or send people in disguise to take it to the local recycling area. Otherwise, you have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars.

It depends on the business. It’s very business-specific. I would love to gather those metrics, and I could do them into subsectors for you. I’m happy to get that together for you and give you some actual information based on, maybe, the size of the business or if they’re a manufacturer or if they’re not a manufacturer, and so on and so forth.

But nothing gets picked up. We actually cannot bring recyclables that are paid recyclables, like pop cans or alcohol containers, to the recycling depot at all, whatsoever. It’s an interesting conversation, because it shifts with every space. So it’s like: what’s the governing conversation here of who is going to be telling the recycling centres what they can and can’t do? How can we help so we’re not overburdening them as well?

Is this a privatized thing? Is this a provincial thing? I’m happy to have that conversation, and I know that this…. Again, this was a policy that was put forward by some of the Kootenay chambers at the B.C. chamber AGM last week that was passed and that will be coming on your doorstep with a lot more information.

M. Starchuk (Chair): It’s interesting how you use the term “conversation,” because I think we were speechless when you brought it up.

C. Lachapelle: What do you mean?

M. Starchuk (Chair): You brought up something, and I think we were all just speechless that it wasn’t here.

C. Lachapelle: That it doesn’t exist? Just so you know, I also was speechless when it was brought up to me. I was like: “I don’t understand. What do you mean?” I didn’t realize that this was an issue for certain areas. This is an access issue, I believe.

[4:50 p.m.]

G. Chow: To reply to your comment about how you cannot bring certain things to the recycling depot, I think it does exist, even for the city of Vancouver, that you have collection for bottles. They would take only items that you cannot take to the depot. If you put it in that bin, they would return it to you. That’s how it works. For example, if you put a pop can that has a deposit in there, it will not be collected.

C. Lachapelle: Yes. For us in Revelstoke…. That happens to me as a private citizen. It’s actually really nice. If my kids put out stuff that I’m supposed to be getting money for, they just leave it in the bin, and then I collect it and take it later on. As a business, you have to pay quite a bit of money depending on the size. Again, hundreds to thousands of dollars, thousands and thousands of dollars to get your recycling picked up, so a lot of businesses are just throwing it in the garbage. Now we’re dealing with a secondary issue.

I would love to have the conversation. Yeah, it’s a head-scratcher.

G. Chow: I think that’s a very important conversation in terms of recycling for businesses. I think, for residential, we are well on the way in terms of how to….

C. Lachapelle: Yes, I agree with that. The residential sector in British Columbia has improved quite a bit. It’s been really wonderful to watch.

B. Stewart: I was going to say that we just had presentations in Victoria from Recycle B.C. I mean, it doesn’t probably address the commercial side of what you’re addressing, but I think you should enter into conversations with them, because clearly, they are doing things, and they’re changing, and they’re deploying even unmanned recycling containers, etc. I think that there is a solution there, and it’s meant to be accessible, not inaccessible. So I just don’t think that you’re talking to the right people.

C. Lachapelle: I believe that the B.C. chamber has contacted that body before, and I would love to pull that information from them. Usually a policy to be brought to the B.C. chamber AGM — because we’re very aware that we have to send it to you, and we want to take your time properly — will get vetted a little bit. But that’s a really great point, and I’ll look into that personally and send it back to the chamber, which also put that forward.

B. Stewart: Okay. What I also wanted to really address was the…. You’re a resort municipality, so you have additional taxation authority to being able to tax….

C. Lachapelle: The MRDT, yeah.

B. Stewart: The MRDT, right?

C. Lachapelle: Yeah.

B. Stewart: I don’t know where that’s put to and stuff like that, but….

C. Lachapelle: I was referring more to businesses, like tradespeople that are looking to access things like go2HR, which is a really great funded program that gives HR support, mental health support for tourism businesses. Other businesses can’t access it, but businesses in Revelstoke are all tourism stakeholders because we’re in that resort municipality supporting that ecosystem — not so much the MRDT money, the funding and grants that are available for that.

B. Stewart: You were asking the province to give some money to chambers. That’s what you were asking. And that’s why I….

C. Lachapelle: The first one, yes.

B. Stewart: I was just addressing that in the sense that I don’t know if there are any other chambers that are getting provincial money to support what it is. It is a business-driven organization. But I think we should introduce you to some of the other resort municipalities, and you should meet with them and find their solutions.

C. Lachapelle: Wonderful. Yeah, we are asking for a quarterly round table with the other resort municipalities, because it makes sense to just have that conversation.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Thank you very much, Caroline, for your presentation this afternoon to the committee members. There is one more presentation that we have squeezed in, because the questions and answers have been on time and on point.

Our last presenter of the day, not quite No. 200 but the last presenter nevertheless, is Jim Cullen, Revelstoke Heritage Railway Society.

Jim, you have five minutes for the presentation, followed by questions and answers.

The floor is yours.

REVELSTOKE HERITAGE RAILWAY SOCIETY

J. Cullen: Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks, especially squeezing me in at the end. My name is Jim Cullen. I’m the executive director of the Revelstoke Heritage Railway Society.

We’re a non-profit cultural cornerstone here in Revelstoke with an annual budget of less than $500,000, serving about 26,000 visitors annually. At our peak, we employ about a dozen employees at Revelstoke Railway Museum and at the Craigellachie Last Spike historic site. We are a year-round attraction, a year-round facility, and we were named by the province as an anchor tourist attraction back in 2021, one of only about 20 museums in B.C.

[4:55 p.m.]

I want to make a contextual point and two recommendations, if I may. My first point sets the table for my two recommendations, and I want to envision a Revelstoke that encompasses a vibrant, thriving, sustainable heritage, arts and culture community, both as core elements in our civic culture but also attracting and retaining engaged citizens.

Museums can do that, as a core element of the educational system, supporting truth and reconciliation, as a place for families to just connect and enjoy themselves, and as a key element in our tourist infrastructure. We are among the largest tourist attractions here in Revelstoke.

In my role as a cultural leader in Revelstoke, I speak to a lot of people. I’ve just been here three years. None of them has expressed the desire for Revelstoke to become yet another powerhouse ski resort that has the ski resort as a dominant, fundamental character that overcomes the fundamental Revelstoke-ness of our city. That’s not the aspiration here.

As non-profits, we are forced to write dozens of grants to eke out survival rather than creating excellence, and it’s not because we’re deeply flawed. It’s not good enough to say: “Try harder, write more grants, or find some volunteers.”

We now compete with essential services for funding, essential services such as food banks and school breakfast programs. That’s from things like the Columbia Basin Trust and our local trusts and other organizations. Non-profits supporting other non-profits rather than the province providing heritage with that support. There’s something broken in this system, and we’re all quite exhausted.

My first recommendation is to fund affordable housing here in Revelstoke. I believe the province and this government believe in something bigger and better than survival of the biggest and richest. It’s imperative that you invest in affordable housing so that all participants in our economy can attract and retain employees. Our municipality has attempted to invest in affordable housing, but it’s a difficult thing to do, as you heard earlier. The need is for hundreds of units, not a dozen here or there.

Our lack of affordable housing really impacts our ability as a museum and every employer in Revelstoke to attract and retain employees. We can’t get the workers that we need. It drives unhealthy turnover as we poach each other’s staff. It drives up wage rates to levels that only for-profits can afford, and firms that provide us with necessary services like janitorial can’t get the employees they need. It’s hard to run a tourist attraction or a civic cornerstone with dirty toilets and stained carpets.

My second recommendation is to ask for sustained operating funding to museums. Revelstoke is profoundly changing its economic base and its character from a diverse industrial town into a resort municipality. Heritage institutions like mine and others here in Revelstoke are key in sustaining our local civic culture — that Revelstoke-ness, the thing that makes us special, the reason why people come here to live.

Our character is a competitive advantage for us, and our character is in danger because of this major change. Furthermore, tourism studies tell us that visitors crave authentic experiences and authentic environments, and museums and heritage organizations provide that. We’re a key source of this authenticity, but we’re not thriving. Our needs are somewhat unique because of the collections we hold, because of the work that we do. And our operating costs are spiralling like crazy for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Channelling funds through the B.C. Arts Council does not help us. I spoke to the B.C. Arts Council. I’ve been a repeat submitter of grant applications. They tell me they have no more capacity for operating funding. Clearly, there needs to be some other vehicle for providing sustained operating funding to heritage organizations.

One idea I would humbly propose is with the city of Denver. The city of Denver earmarks a very small fraction of its sales tax for heritage, arts and culture. This garners over $200 million annually for heritage, arts and culture institutions. Even a smaller fraction in a place the size of B.C. would make a huge difference to our sector.

I see my time has run out, and I want to be respectful of your time. I thank you for your patience.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Jim, thank you for your presentation and your heritage railway. I was just saying to Karan that I was made aware of your railway because in my riding is the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society that’s there. There are similar asks that are out there.

On that note, are there any comments and/or questions?

G. Chow: I understand your museum is quite famous, the railway museum in Revelstoke. Certainly, I do agree that there should be some kind of funding to museums in British Columbia.

[5:00 p.m.]

A lot of the smaller museums are funded by a municipality or the district. I guess yours is the same, right? You do get some funding from, say, the city of Revelstoke.

J. Cullen: Our actual cash funding is quite minimal. We do get relief on our property tax. We get a lot of help from city employees. In terms of a stipend to help us operate the museum, that does not exist at present.

G. Chow: It’s certainly very important in terms of building the tourism network right across B.C. with all these museums. Yeah. I hear you. Thanks.

B. Stewart: Jim, just as you were talking with George here, I couldn’t help but think about the railways that run through town here. They’ve made Revelstoke what it is — the creation of it, etc.

Do they have any interest in being supportive of what you’re doing, being that you’re talking about what they do and the railway?

J. Cullen: We get very favourable treatment by the Canadian Pacific Railway. CPKC is now their new acronym. That’s in the form of in-kind support.

We have in-kind support in terms of our renting of Craigellachie. We’re the renters of Craigellachie. We operate a small store there. We do maintenance on that site. We also get support from Canadian Pacific in terms of storage for some of our collection, which is off-site.

There are roughly 100-some-odd organizations in Canada that have railway equipment or some kind of a railway museum mandate or some railway content. Frankly, it would be impossible for CPKC to provide monetary support to all of us. We have a very good partnership with them, and they are very supportive in a lot of ways. It just doesn’t involve handing over wads of cash to help us with our operating costs.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Jim, thank you very much for your presentation today. I would encourage you to ensure that we get a written copy of that sent to us for us to take a look at in case there are some things that may or may not have been missed.

J. Cullen: I did drop a couple of paragraphs at the end. I will also attach my written remarks and a document about this sales tax program in the city of Denver. It is making a remarkable difference to the museums, heritage, arts and culture community there. It’s unbelievable to see what they can do when they’re not just trying to stay afloat.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay. Great. Thank you very much, Jim.

That comes close to concluding our hearings here today. I would like to take the time to make a couple of closing comments.

First off, an event like this requires the help, especially in a smaller community, of the local MLA. In this case, it’s MLA Clovechok. While I might mention his name as the MLA here, we all know that it’s not him that is herding the cats, calling out the names of people, trying to fill the spots and, in this case, getting Jim here in a way that wasn’t on the schedule.

Chelsea Meulendyk, thank you very much for taking care of the community that we’re in today.

On that note, a reminder to our listeners that we will be in Penticton tomorrow morning at 8 a.m.

A motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 5:03 p.m.