Hansard Blues
Select Standing Committee on
Finance and Government Services
Draft Report of Proceedings
The committee met at 8:31 a.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Janet Routledge. I am the MLA for Burnaby North and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, a committee of the Legislative Assembly that includes MLAs from the government and opposition parties.
I would like to acknowledge that I am joining today's meeting from the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.
I would also like to welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today's meeting on Budget 2022 consultation. Our committee is currently seeking input on priorities for the next provincial budget. We are at the end of our first week of presentations, with additional meetings taking place later this month.
British Columbians can also share their views by making written comments or by filling out the online survey. Details are available on our website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget. The deadline for all input is 5 p.m. on Thursday, September 30, 2021.
We will carefully consider all input and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly on what should be included in Budget 2022. The committee intends to release its report in November.
For today's virtual meeting, most presenters are organized into small panels based on theme, with others making individual presentations. We will be finishing off the week with presentations on the environment, including parks, wildlife, energy, climate change and water, as well as some presentations on food security and housing.
Each presenter has five minutes for their presentation. To assist presenters, there is a timer available when in gallery view. Following presentations from the panel or following an individual presentation, there will be time for questions from committee members. At that time, I ask that members indicate they have a question, and we will keep a speaking list. I also ask that everyone please put themselves on mute and wait until you are recognized before speaking.
All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.
I will now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I'm Ben Stewart, the Deputy Chair and the member for Kelowna West.
L. Doerkson: Good morning, everybody. My name is Lorne Doerkson. I am the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Definitely looking forward to your presentations, as well as the rest today.
G. Kyllo: Greg Kyllo, MLA for the Shuswap.
I'm coming from the traditional territories of the Secwepemctsin-speaking peoples.
M. Dykeman: Good morning. I'm Megan Dykeman, MLA for Langley East.
I reside on the traditional territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Matsqui and Semiahmoo First Nations.
I'm looking forward to your presentations this morning.
H. Sandhu: Good morning, everyone. I am Harwinder Sandhu, MLA for Vernon-Monashee.
We are located on the unceded and traditional territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations.
I look forward to your presentations.
P. Alexis: Good morning, everybody. My name is Pam Alexis. I am the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission.
I come to you from the unceded and ancestral territory of the Stó:lō people.
I look forward to today.
M. Starchuk: Good morning. My name is Mike Starchuk, MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale.
That is located on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish Peoples, which include the Semiahmoo, Kwantlen and Katzie.
J. Routledge (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Jennifer Arril and Mai Nguyen from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services. Thank you to everyone.
We'll begin with our first panel. We have a full day of presentations today. Our first panel is on housing. There are four panellists. We'll hear from all four, and then I'll open it up to questions from the committee.
Our first presenter is Annette Morgan.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 1 – Housing
DZE L K'ANT FRIENDSHIP
CENTRE SOCIETY
A. Morgan: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Annette Morgan. My traditional name is Nox Stakine. Translated in Gitxsanimaax, it means Mother of the Stakine. I'm the executive director of the Dze L K'ant Friendship Centre in Smithers, Dease Lake and Houston. Thank you for having me today.
Some of the key messages I'd like to present in terms of housing are the long-term investment capacity for friendship centres — provincial core funding recommendations to increase. That reflects urban Indigenous off reserve, impacting housing, specifically in northern communities.
Other interests that I have under the B.C. COVID-19 action plan that impact housing are free PPE for any organization providing housing and for any organization providing supports to seniors, recognizing that the cost of personal protection equipment is significant, specifically for organizations that lie outside of areas that have large or big-box businesses within the province or have access to them. The costs are significantly increased.
Other issues in terms of housing. For a stronger foundation for B.C., looking at supports for seniors in housing, including free support, whether that's in conjunction with summer student programs or free resources that they can access. Safe and adequate housing for residential school survivors, for elders housing, and funding that recognizes the vulnerability of elders on fixed incomes, either those who own their homes or who are renting. This would allow elders to age in place rather than moving to homes.
When we look at infrastructure for homes and housing, one of the key items that I'd like to bring forward is the need for cooling centres or air quality control. That certainly also needs to be recognized for housing across the province.
Finally, I think one of the main issues is providing under healthy B.C. for housing support centres or support resources in terms of detox and community at risk.
I believe that's it for my time, so thank you very much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Annette.
Now we'll hear from Jenny Robinson, Nelson CARES Society.
NELSON CARES SOCIETY
J. Robinson: Thank you very much. I really appreciate being here this morning. Thank you for hearing from communities across the province, specifically on housing.
I work for Nelson CARES Society. I'm the executive director for this organization. It was established in 1974 as one of the original community service resource boards in the province and is now a multiservice community agency.
We have about 140 employees, and we operate in four key areas: legal information services through an advocacy centre funded by the Law Foundation of B.C.; services for community living, residential employment and inclusion programs, funded through Community Living B.C.; Kootenay Seniors program, which is a community program that's funded through Better at Home and the Osprey Foundation; and intermittent foundation grants across the province and the country. We have a stock of affordable and emergency housing in the community, which we've operated for about 20 years now.
I will begin my presentation to talk about the need to increase affordability in our community. The context is that Nelson is in the southeast corner of British Columbia. It's a beautiful community nestled in mountains around the area and with many other communities surrounding it.
We've had a zero vacancy rate in our community since 2014. Now this is ubiquitous across the West Kootenay region, and, no surprise, this has resulted in unreachable housing and rental prices and a lack of stock, workforce displacement — people no longer being able to live in the community — and then increased GHG due to long work commutes. Now people are travelling 45 minutes or an hour to different communities to work, because they can no longer afford to live in these communities.
Of course, an increase in homelessness…. Nelson has held one of the highest per-capita homelessness rates in Canada for many years. For such a small community, we have a large number of folks that are completely displaced and unhoused. The community poverty rate has hovered just over 20 percent for many years. Now, with increasing housing costs, we are seeing more and more families and seniors through our doors for emergency housing supports. Our housing shortage and the systems gap….
First let me share a genuine thank-you for the recent and substantial investments by this government that have been made in affordable housing over the recent years. We're seeing results now, which is really fabulous. The community of Nelson has benefited, with three new buildings coming online. One came online in May, and the two others should be finished in the fall and winter of '22 — for a total of 128 units. One was funded through the community housing fund, which means that it has an ongoing operating agreement. The other two were funded through the previous administration, and there are no operating agreements attached to those developments. Also, the increasing costs of development and building costs have really challenged those buildings to remain affordable, frankly.
None of these three buildings, however, will offer or meet the needs of those with complex housing needs in our region. The following gaps remain to meet the population's need.
We really need supportive housing in the region staffed 24-7 and accompanied with an increased investment in substance use recovery programs to tackle the opioid crisis that we're really seeing throughout the region and, of course, throughout the country. We have, really, no substantial service. We do have allied agencies that are dealing with it, such as ANKORS, Nelson Community Services and ourselves, but there is no complex service coordination to handle this issue that's really becoming more and more complex for all of us to deal with.
We also would like to see an increased investment in service coordination with community mental health and urgent response teams, as well as tertiary beds for mental health recovery, because it really is a continuum. Housing is not just one door, one place. It's actually part of a continuum of service in the community. People require supports to maintain their housing when they've been deeply involved in substance misuse or have a serious mental health condition, or both, or a combination of a chronic health disorder as well.
We really need to see that as a continuum of service, all the way from psychiatric care to end of life, and really encourage the government to look at it as a comprehensive response to people's health and wellness.
Another key area of service inequity that we're seeing is supports for seniors. We're seeing more and more seniors through our doors for emergency housing, and this is being exacerbated by the decrease in affordability and the lack of stock and people not being able to maintain their independence.
We really need to see more supports for inclusion, transportation, in-home supports and system navigation and advocacy for seniors. With all the technology, the older generations are really struggling — and some of the younger ones, too. That really makes it very difficult to navigate health systems, mental health systems, and we really would like to see some investment in that coordination.
Finally, I'd just like to touch on emergency response and, as Annette just mentioned, the cooling and the need to really look at the building fabrications.
J. Routledge (Chair): Jenny, you're out of time, so I'll give you one or two sentences.
J. Robinson: I'm actually done. That was my last statement. So really, just being prepared for pandemic and forest fire response and how much the coordination has relied on the community during the last 18 months.
So thank you very much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Jenny.
Now we'll hear from Angela Fletcher, Comox Valley Coalition to End Homelessness.
COMOX VALLEY
COALITION TO END HOMELESSNESS
A. Fletcher: Thank you. I would like to acknowledge that I'm living and working on the ancestral and traditional, unceded territories of the K'ómoks First Nation.
I am the coordinator for the Comox Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. The coalition consists of 36 member agencies who serve our most vulnerable populations in the community. We work as a collective to plan, coordinate, recommend, advocate for and implement community responses to homelessness and to affordable housing.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to give feedback on budget 2022 as we're continuing to recognize the housing crisis in B.C. We are grateful that the province provided emergency support during the pandemic as it exasperated our housing crisis. We are particularly grateful for the strengthening community funds that are coming to our community through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We look forward to seeing the positive impact on our community. So thank you.
The Government of Canada legally recognized an explicit right to housing in the national housing strategy law passed in June 2019. Housing is a determinant of health and a fundamental human right. It is integral to core human values such as community inclusion, dignity and security. Unfortunately, at this time, housing has become a source of growing socioeconomic inequality, increasing wealth and health for those that own housing and driving those who do not into greater poverty and ill health.
Like many B.C. communities, in the Comox Valley, our affordable housing situation is dire. In 2020, we completed a regional housing needs assessment that told us that our vacancy rate rarely exceeds 2 percent. Nearly 30 percent of those housed are in core housing need, with 32.8 percent of those homes containing children.
Equity-seeking groups, including Indigenous households, senior households and households with at least one person with an activity limitation reported greater rates of core housing need compared to other households in the region. Over 58 percent of people indicate that their monthly housing cost is not affordable to them. Overall rental rates have increased over 21 percent in the last decade, with half of that increase happening in the last year. Over 10 percent of renters are using some sort of subsidy to pay rent.
In 2020, our point-in-time count indicated that a minimum of 32 people are experiencing homelessness. In January of 2020, the B.C. Housing wait-list for subsidized units in the Comox Valley had 270 applications: 73 families, 82 residents with disabilities, 74 seniors, 12 persons requiring wheelchair modified housing, 25 singles, and also supplement applicants for rent.
In January of 2021, the coalition estimated that there were over 200 unhoused people in the Comox Valley. That number consisted of 37 people residing in a motel that is funded through B.C. Housing emergency relief, 89 people wait-listed for supported housing and 69 distinct users who have accessed emergency shelter beds. This number doesn't include transitional shelter numbers and people that we had to turn away.
In January of 2021, the coalition estimated and communicated to B.C. Housing and Minister Eby, with the support of our local municipalities and regional district, that our community is in immediate need of 50 temporary shelter spaces and another 100 units of supported housing.
We must consider that Indigenous people are overrepresented in homeless populations in our communities across Canada, including the Comox Valley. According to our 2020 homeless count, 20 percent of homeless populations in the Comox Valley identified as Indigenous, compared to 5 percent of the overall population.
As with the many other communities across B.C., we have a full spectrum of affordable housing needs in the Comox Valley. Today we're choosing to focus on our most vulnerable, and we request that in Budget 2022 the government gives attention to increasing funding for deeply affordable, non-market and non-profit housing, with and without support. Our request is supported by the regional district housing needs assessment report, indicating that 30 percent of people in the Comox Valley are in core housing need, and the private market cannot provide this type of housing.
It is imperative that some of these sites include on-site support, while others do not. A major limiting factor to building non-market housing, even with government support to finance building, is land. For Budget 2022, our request is to work with all levels of government to acquire land for the specific purpose of building non-market housing. Thank you for your time and consideration.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Angela.
Our final speaker on this panel is Pat McKenna, Habitat for Humanity.
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
P. McKenna: Well, good morning. Thank you for allowing Habitat this valuable time in your schedules, and for this community consultation. My name is Pat McKenna.
I'm coming to you today, actually, from Nova Scotia, the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq First Nation.
I'm currently the executive director for Habitat for Humanity Vancouver Island North, and I'm here today representing the eight affiliates of Habitat for Humanity in British Columbia. Habitat for Humanity works with volunteers and staff to ensure that low- and middle-income families experiencing housing insecurity are able to build strength, stability and self-reliance through a hand up to home ownership opportunities.
We began, as all non-profits do, as a grassroots organization, just trying to make the world a better place. As we grew our capacity, we've become stronger and able to serve more families in British Columbia because of the combined strengths of the municipal, provincial and federal partnerships.
The current support, provincially, of the housing endowment fund in British Columbia has had an incredible impact on the growth of our organization. After partnering with B.C. Housing and the provincial government in 2016, we've been able to grow our impact by over 150 percent. Each home that we build serves multiple families over its lifetime. Each home builds a legacy for hundreds of future families in British Columbia.
Our program and how it works. Families are selected based on core housing need. The partner families pay an affordable monthly payment of 30 percent of their gross income, which generates equity and allows them to provide a lasting, secure legacy for their family over generations. They're residents of British Columbia, have secure employment, and their income is defined within the B.C. Housing income limits. They're committed to 500 hours of volunteerism. The asset remains with Habitat through the use of a right-of-first-refusal clause on all properties. That ensures that the homes can serve many families for decades to come.
We assist underserved communities — racialized, Indigenous, single parents — who have been systematically shut out of home ownership and cannot realize the stability and the wealth-building opportunities that safe, secure housing can bring. Our model really frees up valuable housing stock, as a large portion of our families are selected out of subsidized housing.
The social and economic benefits of Habitat. The financial stability alone allows more use of services and business. A reduction in the long-term social service support allows that that support can go to others who need the assistance. Our families invest in their community. They give back through volunteerism. Their children increase their opportunity to attend higher education levels, and they move out of that insecure rental cycle forever.
Family health improves, reducing the need for medical and health services. Children get to participate in extracurricular activities, deepening that community bond. Property taxes, of course, contribute to the growth of the infrastructure in each community we serve, and each homeowner-paid payment gets reinvested into building more homes and helping more families in British Columbia.
So continuing to support Habitat just makes good sense. We've established long-term partnerships as we scale up our models across British Columbia. We have partnerships with CMHC, B.C. Housing, the municipal governments in the communities we serve, community foundations, corporate and organizational funding, granting agencies, retailers such as Home Depot and many others, helping thousands of volunteers connect to enrich their community, and assisting other charities in the growth- and capacity-building.
Our social enterprise provides opportunities in our ReStores, as well as diverting thousands and thousands of pounds out of the landfill. Really, from a climate perspective, we're a very, very favourable organization as well.
Our ask today…. Habitat for Humanity provides a bridge on the housing continuum from subsidized housing to market housing. Our hand up to families provides a much-needed lift to people in need, and regardless of how we have ended up in this housing crisis, it's incumbent on all of us to solve it. Habitat is a piece of that puzzle and a part of the solution.
So our ask today is to increase the housing endowment fund contribution in British Columbia from $50,000 to $100,000, per door, to construct up to 50 homes annually, create a Habitat-specific funding stream, including seed money to assist with predevelopment costs, organizational program capacity, and determine access to provincially owned land to build more homes.
Thanks so much for your time today, and I'll be available for questions.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Pat.
Now we've heard from all members of the panel, and we'll now turn to the committee for questions.
M. Dykeman: Thank you to all the panellists today for your presentations. They were very interesting.
My question is for Pat at Habitat for Humanity. The proposal that you talked about with the endowment and that, is that happening with an increased amount in any other province? Can you explain that a bit more? I'm interested in the per-door subsidy and sort of what your thoughts are with that, if you could expand on it a bit.
P. McKenna: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much for your question.
Currently in British Columbia, we're the recipient of a portion of the housing endowment fund, and it's about $800,000 annually to help all the Habitats across British Columbia.
In other provinces — I can speak to Ontario; I can speak to Edmonton — they receive $100,000 a door from the provincial government. I believe Saskatchewan as well. There are the other provinces that are working towards relationships with their provincial governments, and it's a really strong benefit for us to help serve these families when we have that lift, especially with the increase in building costs, etc. So there are other relationships in other provincial governments that are at $100,000 per door.
J. Routledge (Chair): Other questions?
P. Alexis: More just a comment. I just want to thank Habitat. We recently had a project open in Mission, and we were absolutely delighted to work with Habitat. It's just been such a win-win for the community, for the families that have now got a home, and so just really can't thank you enough. The model works really, really well.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Just to go back to you, Pat. When you talk about this bridge from subsidized housing to home ownership, how does the province treat these homes in terms of first-time home purchasers with the exemption for GST or property purchase tax?
I'm just wondering: do they get the benefit of being a first-time homeowner, like anybody else would, if they didn't have your help?
P. McKenna: They get the benefit of first-time home buying. There's a reduction in the GST, but we still pay a remittance on every home we sell. It's getting more and more expensive as the fair market values increase. You know, that's probably a battle for us for another day. But yeah, they do get the exemption as a first-time homebuyer, so there is a small reduction there on the GST.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay, and just a second question is: on your ask for the $50,000 to $100,000, how much would that be on a per-annum basis? How many homes are you building in a year in British Columbia?
P. McKenna: We're building approximately between 40 and 50, but we weren't building anywhere near that until the partnership. The obvious partnership that we started in 2016 escalated our building from 15 to 50, so we figure, with proper support, we can get well over 80 to 100.
Most of our affiliates are scaling up right now. There are some that are stronger than others. And the rest…. We came together about six years ago to really advocate as one group and to combine our forces, so to speak, to really become stronger, overall, as organizations.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay, right. Thanks, Pat.
I guess, just to the rest of you, I hear, loud and clear, the message. We know the crisis, and it's everywhere. It's not just here in British Columbia — the challenge with housing, the unaffordability of it — and I'm sure the government has it as a high priority. Well, it is already a high priority.
The problem is, really: how do we get to making reality out of creating just the issue about affordability and housing that is affordable for people that are just getting started in terms of trying to find…? Or seniors, for that matter, as you mentioned in your comments? Thanks very much.
M. Starchuk: Thank you to the presenters. There's a lot of crossover there.
My questions are to Angela. You tossed out an awful lot of numbers for me to juggle down on a piece of paper, so I wasn't quite sure on a couple of things. You did touch on rent increases and the amounts that were there, and you kind of lend it to a major rent increase in the last few years, so I'd like you to explain how that took place. As well, if you wouldn't mind, the 50 temporary housing units –– what's the vision for that?
A. Fletcher: Well, the rent increases just happened with the market. We saw that, on average, for example, five years ago it might have been about $900 for a two-bedroom. Now you're looking at…. Currently if I was to go on and search for a rental for a two-bedroom, I'd be looking at about $1,900 a month.
For myself, I'm a single parent, and I pay $1,400 for a two-bedroom. If I was to move out now, I'd be paying about $1,900. It's just that with the market, the rents have increased. People buying in –– they're paying more, and so they are charging rents that are high, and then others that have had their homes for a long time are noticing that they can get more, and so they're asking for more. If you need a place to go, that's where you go.
Sorry, and your second question?
M. Starchuk: It was the 50 temporary housing units. What's the vision for that?
A. Fletcher: Well, it's an emergency shelter space with support. We have at least 132 homeless people in our community. About 54 percent of those are completely unhoused and on the streets.
So especially going into the winter, we need support for emergency shelter beds — at a minimum, 50 — so that we can care for our community members. We have ten to 15 encampments at any time in our community that can be found along riverways or different areas. We also have properties that contain people — 15 to 30 people was our last count — that will also need to be housed coming into the winter months.
At this point in time, we are looking at increasing our warming centre, which is our connect centre, and hoping that we can provide some more shelter mats over the winter and, meanwhile, trying to get permanent housing for these people. So we're looking at 100 supportive housing units in two buildings, with 50 each.
M. Starchuk: Great. Thank you.
L. Doerkson: It is definitely, to echo MLA Stewart's comments earlier, a massive issue throughout the entire province.
Angela, you could be quoted as saying, providing these units as "deeply affordable." Can you give me a sense of what that actually means?
A. Fletcher: Yeah. A lot of us pay 30 percent of our income, and as I mentioned, we have a large number paying 50 percent or more of their income towards living. So for "deeply affordable," we just mean that it's truly under 30 percent so that we still have money to go towards services if services are needed to stay healthy.
"Deeply affordable" just means affordable living. Thirty percent or less of your income goes towards your housing.
L. Doerkson: Great. Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?
M. Starchuk: Pat, this is a question of curiosity. So 500 hours of volunteer work prior to getting the home. With that amount of volunteer work and volunteerism, I'm just curious: how much does that rub off after?
P. McKenna: I could say it's probably unquantifiable at this point, because we don't track the after. What does happen, generally…. First of all, 500 hours, you can imagine, for a single parent, is almost insurmountable. It's very, very difficult to do.
We partner with our families two years in advance. They go through a financial training program which counts as part of their volunteerism. It's difficult. They're taking vacation to try and work through that partnership. Afterwards, what we notice — it's more anecdotal — is that they're a more solid contributor to not just our habitat builds, but they volunteer throughout the community in different things, because they have that stability and security of housing that they don't have to worry about anymore.
Before I joined Habitat, I never understood what it was like to not only be unhoused but to have that insecurity. When you have that, it's all you think about. When we provide and when all these people on the call provide housing to people, it sheds that, and they're able to focus on becoming a stronger person in society.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): One last question to maybe Annette and Jenny and Angela. The point in time where you count people that are homeless…. Angela, you just talked about people living along the rivers, etc., but I think about Annette up in Houston, and trying to find these people in these rural areas, etc.
Is there any kind of standardization, like a particular date when you go out and try to do that point-in-time count so that we can get a better number so we understand? It validates, I guess, what it is that…. You said, I think, that there was…. I forget the number.
Anyway, the bottom line is: is there any kind of standardization that we can speak to? Or is there a way of collectively working on something like that so that we can bring agencies and not-for-profits like yourselves together and say, "Okay, this is the day we're going to do this," so that, I think, government and the agencies like B.C. Housing and all the others can have a better understanding of, okay, this is the magnitude of the issue?
J. Robinson: I'll jump in first there. Yes, there is coordination, if you're a designated community through the federal funding. Reaching Home it's called now. It's been a program for over 20 years. We have point-in-time counts where communities pick one day during a period of time. However, that's shifting to what we're calling the by-name list so that in the community we're not relying on one anonymous day-of count; we're actually collecting names.
It's been a process of coordinated access that the federal government has funded. We're just at the beginning of implementation in British Columbia, frankly. But there has been coordination with B.C. Housing for the last point-in-time count, which was 2018 and then 2020, which was drastically interrupted because of COVID.
But yes, there is some coordination going on to validate those numbers. I appreciate, as funders, you want to know that these are unique individuals and that the investments are actually making a difference. This is our attempt. It is a very difficult and challenging data collection process, but there is a coordination, and yes, there are systems being developed.
We have had challenges, frankly, with HIFIS implementation in B.C. Housing. Other provinces have been funded through the federal government to use HIFIS, which is a data collection system on housing and family support, which has been used for decades across the country. B.C. Housing holds the unique license in B.C., so we've been challenged to try to figure out how to navigate that in the communities where we work so that we can coordinate that data more substantially. It's a very dense and picky process.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): That's great. That's information I never knew, so thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. I think we can wrap it up at this point.
I want to, on behalf of the committee, thank all of you for the work that you're doing in your communities. I also, I guess in conclusion, want to say that as a Burnaby MLA, where I know firsthand about the housing crisis in my community, it's very important for us all to see how widespread it is throughout the province. I think there's probably not a corner of our province that isn't touched by the housing crisis.
You've also put a human face, a human picture, to the impact that it's having on families, on individuals and on communities and that it spins off into other areas of well-being. So thank you for this. You've given us a lot to work with in terms of our recommendations for the next provincial budget.
We'll now recess until 9:20.
The committee recessed from 9:11 a.m. to 9:23 a.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): Our next presenter is Sarah Allison, Horse Council B.C.
Sarah, whenever you're ready, you can begin. You've got five minutes, Sarah. Then we'll ask you some questions.
Budget Consultation Presentations
HORSE COUNCIL B.C.
S. Allison: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sarah Allison. I'm the recreation coordinator with the Horse Council of B.C.
I would like to acknowledge that the land where we do our work is located on the unceded, traditional territory of the Katzie, Kwantlen, Matsqui and Semiahmoo First Nations.
The Horse Council of B.C. is a non-profit organization with over 23,000 members. Our organization covers everything equestrian-related. Today I will be advocating on behalf of equestrians who choose to pursue outdoor recreation with their horses on the trails and at campsites.
We would like to also acknowledge the work of our affiliate partnership with the Back Country Horsemen of B.C., who are very involved in trail and campsite projects throughout B.C.
The benefits of outdoor recreation have amplified with the COVID-19 pandemic, with people seeking refuge in the outdoors. People who originally spent time taking their horses to competitions during the summer decided to go camping with their horses instead and explore the trails. The benefit of recreating outdoors while riding is twofold, as you not only receive the benefit of being out in nature, but you also experience a connection with your horse.
Therapeutic riding and equine-assisted therapy are practised in many communities, and I can attest to the mental and physical benefits it can have on people. More and more literature is also being released on how nature-based activities can decrease anxiety and depression symptoms and improve physical and mental well-being.
Along with the ability to advance our health with outdoor recreation, we have also the ability to make a substantial economic impact. Although equestrians are a relatively small group compared to other user groups, the economic impact equestrians make is large. Horse Council B.C.'s Equine Economic Impact study that was completed in 2019 shows that 46 percent of the equine industry is recreational and accounts for an approximate total of $360 million in economic impact. There are approximately 60,000 horses in B.C., and the expenses with housing, feeding and caring for them are significant.
Equestrian tourism also drives economic value through guest ranches and guide outfitters. The Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. — there are 39 of their members who offer hunting on horseback, and 33 offer trail rides. Tourists want to come to B.C. to ride the vast mountain ranges. I know by experience, every time I'm on vacation, I'm seeking a place to go riding.
Horse Council B.C. also helps support recreational riders with its B.C. equestrian trails fund, and since its inception in 2011, it has provided over $300,000 of funding to trail and campsite projects. We are lucky to have the Back Country Horsemen of B.C. apply for many of these grants. Last year they had members volunteer 3,215 hours of their time. The Back Country Horsemen of B.C. have signed 16 agreements to maintain trails and campsites in B.C., and with plans to add two more agreements by the end of the year, the estimated value of the work put in by the Back Country Horsemen in 2020 is valued at nearly $120,000.
The hard work of these volunteer groups and the different funding models help, but it doesn't address the lack of structure and funding that is desperately needed for the outdoor recreation sector. The increase in outdoor recreation users during the pandemic highlighted the importance of B.C. outdoor recreation assets and the need to support them better.
The demand on park staff due to COVID has made it difficult for volunteer organizations to find support for getting approval for trail maintenance and projects. The heavy reliance on volunteer organizations to take on trail maintenance can lead to volunteer burnout and certain trails not receiving the upkeep they need.
When it comes to creating management plans for parks and trails, there have been times when horseback riders have been overlooked by regional districts and municipalities when reviewing outdoor recreation usage. We hope to work closer in the future with municipalities, regional districts and the provincial government to be a key stakeholder during the engagement phase of the planning process. We are very grateful that British Columbia is already on the world stage when it comes to outdoor recreation, and with the right support, it will be able to live up to its name.
We hope you take into consideration our following recommendation. An increase of operational funding for recreation sites and trails to a minimum of $20 million. Hiring a parliamentary secretary specializing in outdoor recreation. Working with the provincial trails advisory body to implement an integrated trial strategy for B.C. Prioritizing money into inspecting and maintaining forest service roads to ensure safety to the public trying to access remote trailheads.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present today.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much, Sarah.
Do we have questions from the committee?
L. Doerkson: Thanks very much, Sarah, for the presentation. I represent the Cariboo-Chilcotin riding, so I'm certainly familiar with the guide outfitters and all of those departments that you talked about.
I just wondered. Could you give a bit of a sense of what those funds will do? Will it be better trails? More trails? What would that increased budget do?
S. Allison: Operating trail expenses for Rec Sites and Trails B.C. to help maintain the trails that we currently have, the upkeep of them.
L. Doerkson: So is that being user-maintained now? There's no help from the government on those trails now.
S. Allison: I believe there is, but it's just Rec Sites and Trails B.C., the funding that we have.
Then we also have a ton of…. The Back Country Horsemen Society that I referred to has working agreements. They're solely a volunteer organization. They have working agreements with Rec Sites and Trails B.C. and B.C. Parks and Hydro and stuff like that. It's just a heavy reliance on different volunteer organizations to help with those trails.
L. Doerkson: Thank you very much.
M. Starchuk: Sarah, with regards to the $20 million that you've come up with, how did you arrive at that number? I know that you did mention you're volunteers. We all know that volunteers burn out, and you can only rely on somebody for so long or organizations for so long. So how did you derive that number?
S. Allison: We work with the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., as well, as a collective group, getting together mountain bike organizations, hikers, a bunch of different outdoor recreation users. We came to the $20 million just to bump up the funding. I believe it was the $4 million that's currently for that.
L. Doerkson: Sarah, you just touched on something that was kind of rolling through my mind, which was a presentation that I think we heard yesterday — perhaps it was the day before — about mountain bikes.
Are these multi-use trails, then? I know, certainly, in our area, they are. But I wouldn't want to speak for the rest of the province.
S. Allison: Yeah, we like to encourage multi-use trails. Of course, there are some safety issues related to, say, downhill mountain biking, where you wouldn't want a downhill mountain biker on the same trail as a horse. They can share climbing trails or trails cutting across the mountain, but you wouldn't want to have a horse on a downhill mountain bike trail, with a potential crash.
But we do like to advocate for multi-use trails as much as possible and educate people on how to pass horses safely and everything when it is multi-use.
J. Routledge (Chair): I think we have time for one more question, and that will be Pam.
P. Alexis: I just wanted to say — a great organization. We've just had, in the last couple of years, a campground in Mission open specifically for people with their horses. I can't say enough about the volunteers that came out to actually build the paddocks and start clearing trails and all of that.
Just thank you. It's been such an incredible asset. I really do appreciate the increase to safety and maintenance of logging roads, because it is certainly an issue for all those recreational users in the Stave West area, so thank you so much.
S. Allison: Thank you, Pam. Appreciate it.
J. Routledge (Chair): With that, we'll close out this presentation.
Thank you for taking the time and putting the work in to advocating for the Horse Council of B.C. and for providing us with insight into how important it is and what you need.
S. Allison: Yes. Thank you so much.
Have a good day, everybody.
J. Routledge (Chair): You too. Bye.
We'll take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 9:34 a.m. to 9:40 a.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): We'll call the meeting back to order. We will now hear from a panel that is going to be addressing parks and recreation. Each speaker will have five minutes to make your presentation, and then after we've heard from all four, we'll open it up to questions from the committee.
Our first presenter is Louise Pedersen, Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 2 – Parks and Recreation
OUTDOOR RECREATION COUNCIL OF B.C.
L. Pedersen: Hello. Thank you very much to all the committee members for inviting the Outdoor Recreation Council to speak to you. We are a charitable organization. We are composed of organizational members representing the broad and diverse spectrum of outdoor recreation user groups in B.C., including packers, hikers, mountain bikers, off-road motorcyclists, equestrians, quad riders and nature interests. I'll get started.
In addition to a healthy and educated population, B.C.'s greatest asset is our natural environment. From our national and provincial parks to local trails and green spaces, B.C.'s outdoor recreation assets are the building blocks of our diverse and sustainable economy and healthy and thriving communities.
As communities in the province strive to develop sustainable and diversified economies less tied to a single extractive resource industry, outdoor recreation offers a promising path to prosperity, yet the resources for B.C.'s outdoor recreation economy cannot be taken for granted. The more we protect and invest in public land and water infrastructure to facilitate quality recreational experiences for all British Columbians, the greater and longer-lasting the dividends in the form of healthy communities, healthy economies and healthier people.
B.C.'s provincial outdoor recreational assets are facing several pressing issues, including degradation of recreation infrastructure through a lack of maintenance, over-use and also, sadly, through vandalism. There's a lack of facilities such as outhouses, wildlife-proof garbage containers and signage. Environmental and cultural impacts –– there are insufficient staff and projects to plan and to maintain these valuable assets.
We are also very concerned about an increasing loss of road access to trail heads, recreation sites and wilderness areas due to a lack of maintenance and deactivation of forest service roads, resulting from insufficient provincial funding.
The growing interest in the usage of outdoor recreation amenities has elevated the pressure on Recreation Sites and Trails B.C., and more investment is urgently needed to enhance its operational capacity. With a staff of only 50 people and an $8 million annual operating budget, this provincial agency oversees legally established trails, sites and interpretive forests on 80 percent of B.C.'s land base. That's around 50,000 square kilometres per staff member.
Following the reorganization of the recreation program in 2006 in the response to a smaller budget and larger workload, Rec Sites and Trails has entered into nearly 400 partnership agreements with recreation groups to manage trails and sites. While the intention was for Rec Sites and Trails to only manage campsites and forests and trails, this agency is increasingly being called upon by the provincial government for expert input in collaboration on disbursed recreation resources, so outside of established campsites and trails.
Many of our members report that it's almost impossible to reach a recreation officer, and recreation groups are experiencing many difficulties in getting the necessary authorization and permits to construct, rehabilitate and maintain trails and other recreational facilities due to staffing shortages. This is also putting many worthy projects that have received COVID recovery support in jeopardy.
Well-planned and maintained recreational amenities are an integral part of the outdoor recreation economy and B.C.'s brand as a $20 billion tourism destination. It also contributes to health. Unless we start to make more significant investments in Rec Sites and Trails B.C., similar to what the province did for B.C. Parks, in this year's budget, we will see a continued decline in recreational experiences, more conflicts and destruction of natural areas that the sector relies on. The many benefits to B.C.'s rural communities and to the province as a whole will not materialize.
A significant annual operational budget uplift will put British Columbia in a much greater position to develop a world-class trail and recreation system that facilitates broad and inclusive and diverse participation in outdoor recreation and follows best practices for trail and site design and environmental considerations.
Bold investments will facilitate rural development, achieve community health benefits and foster reconciliation through increased Indigenous representation in recreation planning, development and management. It will also support recreation groups who are instrumental in developing and maintaining facilities and trails under partnership agreements with the agency, and it will reduce impacts to the environment and ecological values through planning and education and compliance efforts.
I just want to also note that this committee has previously recognized these shortfalls. A recommendation last year was made to increase operational funding to Rec Sites and Trails. Our recommendation this year is to increase the annual operating budget of Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. to a minimum of $20 million. This will provide the agency with more staffing and better operational support to deal with increasing demands and greater complexities related to land use planning, facilitate more recreation opportunities for communities across B.C. and support volunteer recreation groups.
We would also like to see that a new ministerial position is created as a parliamentary secretary for outdoor recreation under the Ministry of Forests. There is no such cabinet member at the moment.
Sorry. I see that my time is up. Thank you very much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Louise.
Now we'll hear from Colin Campbell, Elders Council for Parks in B.C.
ELDERS COUNCIL FOR PARKS IN B.C.
C. Campbell: Thank you. Good morning. The elders council is a group of retired folks who have worked for B.C.'s national, provincial and regional park organizations. We celebrate B.C.'s parks heritage, foster park awareness and lead projects to support healthy, sustainable parks.
This month the Canadian government announced that they plan to invest $796 million to protect nature as part of nature-based solutions to address climate change. The United Nations has estimated that nature-based solutions could deliver more than one-third of the emissions reduction needed globally by 2030 to address climate change. It is a fact that no matter how aggressively we pursue technological and behavioural methods of reducing our carbon use, we cannot successfully address climate change without relying on nature-based solutions.
B.C.'s ecosystems have been dependably working for us silently over many millennia. Only recently has science been able to identify and quantify their importance to our very survival and well-being. When ecosystems are damaged, they start to fail. This failure results in catastrophic disturbances that cost lives, generate huge costs and threaten our collective survival. Right now we are all beginning to feel this happening around us.
Over the last 100 years or more, we have destroyed core ecosystems for our immediate economic well-being and profit. Now we need to heal those ecological systems so we can return to some kind of ecosystem stability that supports livable environments for our species. Nature will always be fine. It's our species that will end.
We need more fully functioning protected areas covering at least 50 percent of our land and water base and integrated management systems that protect nature and provide sustainable recreation opportunities. It matters where the 50 percent is. It needs to be connected and represent all types of forests, meadows, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, etc. Large protected areas need to be linked through carefully designed wildlife corridors. These areas need to be managed to buffer the effects of activities on our edges. The whole land and water base must be intentionally managed as one within a coherent planning and stewarded system.
This new management regime must be created and managed in partnership with First Nations and should recognize the potential offered by Indigenous protected and conserved areas. This will require new investments, new institutions and government structures, new public education programs and scientific analysis and funding to facilitate economic transitions — governments, First Nations, NGOs, communities all working together towards a shared vision.
This nature-based action plan can provide many benefits; bring the certainty that can attract long-term investment and economic well-being; reduce some of the threats of virus creation; advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples of British Columbia; bolster B.C.'s tourism image and perhaps even provide opportunities to market our expertise to others around the world who are dealing with similar challenges; produce sustainable health services, cleaner air, cleaner water; improve fire management; reduce costs from the catastrophic impact of too little, too late; create a safe world for our grandchildren.
We ask you to recommend that the government negotiate a multiparty agreement to form a new government entity that can lead the creation and implementation of a B.C.-designed, ten-year-or-more, nature-based strategy to repair our failing ecosystems, and seek significant national and international cost-shared funding to facilitate implementation.
Thank you very much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Colin.
Next we'll hear from AJ Strawson, International Mountain Bike Association of Canada.
INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN
BICYCLING ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
A. Strawson: Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me, and thank you for taking the time to hear from myself and from my associations that I'm here to represent today. As mentioned, my name is AJ Strawson. I'm the executive director for the International Mountain Bicycling Association of Canada. And while our mandate is to represent mountain bikers across Canada, today I'm speaking to you on behalf of mountain bike associations here in B.C.
As you've heard from other panellists in this session so far, trails form a core component of many communities across B.C. We seek trails to provide a broad level of benefits to our communities. Unfortunately, some of those benefits are under threat currently due to a number of different challenges that we're facing collectively. Some of the benefits include a broad and diverse economy by providing for amenity migration, simply seeking to draw people out into nature by inviting them to come and live in our more remote, more rural communities.
I can't count how many people have moved to my local town, Squamish, simply because of the trails, and now many of those residents are seeking pastures elsewhere as more opportunities open up elsewhere, which is, I think, a great thing.
We also know that trails provide a place of solace for our mental and our physical well-being. I'm sure that that resonates with many of us as we enter what's now the fourth wave of the pandemic and many of us are seeking a safe place to be, to recreate and to find a little bit of peace and a little bit of quietness. Trails are that for many people and have become that for many people. As such, the amount of traffic on our trails is growing very significantly and very quickly.
We also know that trails provide financially a very high value per dollar that's spent. It's by far one of the most efficient ways of providing for recreation for people who are interested in recreating or simply providing a low-structure way of getting out and enjoying nature.
Some of the challenges that we're facing, though, include — and some of those have been echoed by others — a lack of resources at Rec Sites and Trails B.C., which is the organization that's been given the mandate to handle all of the quickly proliferating trail networks all across the country. Some of them are intentional. Some of them have arisen simply because people have gone to make their own experiences if they were frustrated at not having something locally available to them.
We also know that the demand from COVID has been absolutely rapid. Even the ability to purchase a mountain bike right now, because so many people are interested, is getting harder and harder. That is showing on our trails. We know that the trail condition is deteriorating in those places where people are using them significantly more. And I think that, from what I've heard from my constituents across the country, has been happening far more, including here in B.C.
Lastly, we have a significant threat to our trails and our trail access with climate change. The wildfire season this year has been, I think you could say, surprising, although not surprising at the same time. And while the wildfire might be the more cinematic way of pointing out the challenges that we have with trails, simply the increase in temperature and the deteriorated soil conditions we have on many of our trails mean that for all of the trails we have, we will start to need to invest more time, energy and resources into maintaining them.
The combination of those three things means that we would like to echo Louise's and the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.'s requests for an additional annual operating budget for recreation sites and trails — $20 million — not only to meet their mandate as intended, but also to overcome the challenges that the UNDRIP resolution brings to the table with increased participation in reconciliation, creating a new ministerial position of parliamentary secretary for outdoor recreation, with the responsibility of creating and implementing an overarching outdoor recreation strategy for B.C., with input from stakeholders. As a mountain biker and a multisport trail user, I definitely speak to the importance of all use types being at the table.
Lastly, adopting the Provincial Trails Advisory Body recommendation for a revised trails strategy for B.C. and committing to funding that strategy. Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, AJ.
Finally, we'll hear from Ciel Sander, Trails Society of B.C.
TRAILS SOCIETY OF B.C.
C. Sander: Good morning, everyone. My name is Ciel Sander, and I volunteer as the board president for the Trails Society of B.C. The Trails Society of B.C. is a volunteer society established in 1994 to assist the provincial government in establishing the Trans Canada Trail in the province.
I live and work in Greenwood, B.C., on autonomous Sinixt, a traditional territory that is also claimed by the Ktunaxa and the Syilx Nations through the colonial land claims process.
Given the experience with extreme heat and wildfires this year, there should be no doubt we are living in a climate emergency. The latest IPCC special report states that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent within five years, which is still considered by many climate analysts to be insufficient. If there's going to be a decent human future, we must intensely reduce our CO2 emissions in every aspect of our lives. Reduction of emissions must be considered a priority with every dollar spent with public money.
Now is the time to accelerate the maintenance and construction of active trail routes, connecting rural communities. Transportation accounts for the largest percentage of all greenhouse gas emissions at 41 percent. We can only achieve our climate goals if we help British Columbians spend less time driving and make it easier for individuals to walk, hike and roll. To make this a reality, it will require further investments in trail projects between our rural communities, combined with investments in rural transportation systems with transit and with rail service.
Accessing affordable and convenient transportation would be a huge incentive for people to decrease the need to own a vehicle. Incentives for electric mobility devices would also help lessen the need for car ownership.
So what do these investments look like? Last year's active transportation budget was $18 million over several years. We propose increasing 12 times this amount, considering the recent announcement of over $4 billion to replace the Massey Tunnel in Vancouver. So $216 million to support trails and active travel infrastructure throughout the province is reasonable towards the equitable funding of transportation infrastructure throughout the province.
A portion of funding could be used to integrate the collaboration and support of an active transportation staff division in every region and road district of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. That's MOTI. In addition, rural and Indigenous communities compete for limited resources, and many do not have the population tax base to develop active transportation and trail infrastructure due to capacity constraints.
Trails B.C.'s dream is for the province to allocate at least $25 million over the next three to four years to the southern Interior rail trails of the Trans Canada Trail. We envision the rail trails to be prioritized as the active trail route it was meant to be. The Trans Canada Trail has been taken over by off-highway vehicles, and the trail itself is difficult for people who are self-propelled, and inaccessible to most people with mobility issues or hidden disabilities.
The southern interior rail trails of the Trans Canada Trail are rapidly degrading due to the lack of upkeep and maintenance. Last year the Trans Canada Trail lost 67 kilometres of recreation status to road status in the West Kootenays, and we don't want to see additional rail trails being turned into roads.
We also support the call for $20 million, at least, to fund operational costs for Rec Sites and Trails B.C., as this portfolio has oversight for over 80 percent of public Crown land in the province, including the Trans Canada Trail.
Lastly, we would like to see investment in research to gather further data that illustrates how a lack of active trail infrastructure disproportionately affects marginalized communities, such as those living with a disability; individuals living in poverty; people of colour; and lesbian-, gay-, bi-, transgender-, queer-, positive-identified people.
Investments in active trail infrastructure will result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It will increase recreation throughout our communities, increase rates of personal health and fitness and provide a positive trend towards transportation equity and the conservation of green space.
On behalf of the Trails Society of B.C., I thank you for your time and consideration.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you so much, Ciel.
We will now open it up for questions from the committee.
M. Starchuk: To the presenters, thank you as well.
Colin, I like your last line in your bio. It's a great line.
My question is to Louise, with regard to lack of access to a recreational officer. Can you explain what that means?
L. Pedersen: Yeah, so the Outdoor Recreation Council represents a lot of these trail groups that work in direct partnership with Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. As I said, there are around 400 — maybe, AJ, you know the number — partnership agreements. Agreements are signed with these volunteer groups. It's the volunteer groups that do the work.
We hear from them that there's a lack of opportunities for communications with the local rec officer that holds that agreement, just because these rec officers are doing great work. There are just too few of them, and they oversee a huge land base and a lot of different groups that they have to liaise with. We would like to see more of those.
Then of course, as AJ and I'm sure others here too can attest to, a lot of groups would like to get permits to maintain trails, to maintain new trails and to build trails. Often we're hearing that people are waiting for years, like three years, five years.
Not only is it because these recreation officers have limited time, but also the process is just very different now than it was a decade ago. Rec Sites and Trails have to work with local First Nations to make sure that they don't have any concerns. Part of what we're proposing here is that we do need to see a significant budget uplift so that Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. has the capacity to work collaboratively with Indigenous groups as well.
Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. oversee what is called the trails strategy for B.C. The Provincial Trails Advisory Body has just put forward some recommendations to government, and I think I can reveal that Rec Sites and Trails are identifying that they need at least a few handfuls of people who can support the portfolio, working directly with Indigenous groups. Right now they don't have anybody. There's nobody who's specialized. That's a big issue.
M. Dykeman: Thank you to all of the presenters today. My question is for Colin Campbell, and it has to do with the recommendation for the governance entity to create a B.C. nature-based strategy.
I was wondering if you have an example of this elsewhere — internationally or anywhere else — and who you would see at that multiparty. When you say multiparty, who do you see at the table in addition to that, if anyone? If you could expand a bit.
C. Campbell: I don't have a perfect model for that that I could refer you to, but I will certainly research one and see what I can find. In terms of the concept, it's basically the simple fact that we just don't manage land very well in British Columbia. We never have, really. It's been a potpourri of management. If we're going to deal with climate change, we have to create something that's multi-year, multi-term and engaging.
Even when it comes down to the proposals from the various presenters today, the whole land has got to be managed as an integrated unit, and the only way I can see that is something that happens over multiple years. You know, nature doesn't work in one-year cycles. It works in 20-, 30-year cycles. Unless we find new governance mechanisms…. Because this isn't about…. We all come asking for a pot of money.
That's not what this is all about. Politicians — all of you — have to at some point come to terms with the fact that the four-year cycle and the vote-getting proposals that are necessary to get elected have to be replaced by a much longer concept.
I would like to see this committee have some mandate for providing government services looking for fiscal accountability. It seems to me that it could recommend governance change, and governance change is what we need. That needs to involve all parties working together and saying: "This is not going to be part of our usual election cycle. We're going to take this climate change out of there and put it on a different footing."
So really, what I'm asking for is an innovative concept or proposal coming from this committee to change the way that governance happens so that those areas that don't produce voters, basically — i.e., the land and the water — have a voice that lasts longer. That's really what I'm requesting, because unless we do that, we will not be able to address these questions. They're all interlinked.
The issue is that all of these things are interlinked, and finding a strategy that can be developed that the public can actually understand and go along with will actually help all political parties.
M. Dykeman: All right. Thank you so much.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much. Really, the presentations are great. We did have some earlier, as Lorne mentioned, from the mountain bike association, and I think that you're all singing from the same song sheet.
Recently I had a presentation by a First Nation group in my riding that was talking about going back to the trails that existed before we were on the land here, and I thought: "That's really interesting." However, it's not going to happen without strategy.
There's a movement called Trails Okanagan, which is an extension of the rail trail that runs through from the Shuswap all the way down into the States. I think that they were describing it as something like the Cotswolds, which is in England. I think the thing about it is that we don’t see that.
My only thought about this is the broader group coming together with tourism. You talked about the benefits. Where are they? They should be here with you. I know that I was surprised years ago when I was in, I think, Burns Lake, and there were mountain bike trails all around the community. I thought: "Really?" Like, nobody knows this unless you happen to be an avid, maybe, cyclist or somebody looking for that and a reader of those things.
But I do think that that broader group — First Nations, tourism, etc. — will help advocate. I think that you're on the right track, and I do think that even the Horse Council, which preceded you, talks about this. I just know that it's a good, logical investment. Where do we start? I think that you've approached it properly. So anyways, I hope that we can support you or find a way to help you.
P. Alexis: Briefly, I just want to thank all of you for your presentations. Certainly in my community, we've never seen such pressure on our trail systems and on our recreational sites, so we hear you. If anything, COVID has taught us how much we appreciate this and how much we need to take care of it and make sure it's managed properly, because there are areas that are not attended to as well.
We have the problems with so many people arriving at one place and not having enough garbage receptacles and that kind of thing. We do need a strategy, 100 percent. I'm really interested in your recommendations. You have put a lot of thought into this, and I very much appreciate it. Thank you so much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, I don't see any other questions. Anything else that anyone on the panel wants to say before I wrap it up?
You've been very thorough. I think, for some of us, you have presented us with fresh ideas and a fresh perspective. As an urban MLA, what I take away from your presentation is that perhaps we in B.C. have taken nature for granted for too long, and perhaps we've viewed it too much as a raw material and as a resource, as opposed to a place to be and a place to live.
I think the current crises, both the climate crisis and the pandemic, must motivate us to look at it differently. I, for one, am reminded that during the pandemic, nature was a safe place to be. Wherever we lived in the province, it was probably the safest place for us to be. You've proposed the notion of nature-based solutions to the crisis of our making. I think there's a lot of work to be done to put those pieces together, and I think we want to do that.
Thank you so much. With that, we'll let you go.
We will now recess for 15 minutes.
The committee recessed from 10:12 a.m. to 10:25 a.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 3 – Wildlife
J. Routledge (Chair): Hello, everyone. Our next panel is on wildlife. Both of them will have five minutes each to make a presentation, and then we'll open it up to questions from the committee.
Our first panellist is Tim Burkhart, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.
Tim, over to you.
YELLOWSTONE TO YUKON
CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
T. Burkhart: Good morning, hon. Chair and members of the Finance Committee. My name is Tim Burkhart.
I'm joining this meeting from the unceded lands of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, of the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations and W̱SÁNEĆ Peoples.
I represent the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, or Y2Y. Y2Y is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and connecting habitats so people and nature can thrive.
We appreciate that these are challenging times and that the province is focused on taking action on the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and the devastating wildfires this summer. Let me take this opportunity to thank the committee for soliciting the input of diverse stakeholder voices in this Budget 2022 process.
Y2Y believes there's tremendous opportunity to support communities in recovering from the pandemic and this summer's wildfire crisis, while also addressing the twin ecological crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. Y2Y recommends that Budget 2022 include support for green infrastructure and support for Indigenous-led initiatives to conserve wildlife and habitat.
We are encouraged by the government's commitment to implementing the recommendations of the old growth strategic review, and Budget 2022 should include funding in line with these recommendations.
Recommendation No. 1 of this report urges the province to establish support programs for Indigenous groups to build upon their land and forest management expertise and to establish government-to-government planning relationships. Y2Y is engaged with First Nations partners to build support for Indigenous-led conservation proposals, such as those by the Okanagan Indian Band, Kaska Dena Council and Tsay Keh Dene Nation, among many others.
We recommend that the budget include direct supports to establish government-to-government land management relationships and to help build ethical space for Indigenous-led solutions to conservation issues, including Indigenous protected area proposals in line with Canada's commitment to protect 25 percent of land by 2025. Y2Y recommends that the government provide support to Indigenous communities to pursue conservation-based business and economies, including cultural and ecotourism business and clean energy, as requested by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
I'd also like to highlight the old growth strategic review recommendations No. 13 and No. 14, which request support for socioeconomic transition planning for communities to address destabilizing events and provide certainty and stability by proactively planning ahead.
As part of the government's commitments, Budget 2022 should include support for forest sector workers in communities, as they adapt to changes resulting from the wildfires and new forest management systems. It should provide adequate funding to investigate, facilitate emerging local and regional economic opportunities and conservation funding. We know that investment in conservation, ecological restoration and green infrastructure can stimulate rural economies.
One type of green infrastructure that Y2Y would like to highlight is a practical solution to make highways safer for people and wildlife. In B.C., there are roughly 10,000 wildlife-vehicle collisions each year, which cost the province upwards of $25 million annually. We would like to see the province dedicate funding to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that is earmarked to reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions.
There is a very exciting example where Y2Y is working with the province, First Nations, local communities, industry and researchers on a collaborative project along B.C. Highway 3, where the cost of wildlife-vehicle collisions may be as high as $3 million per year. Y2Y would like to thank the province for leading a five-year integrated project implementing infrastructure solutions in the highest-priority area here, the Alexander-Michel linkage corridor, just west of the Alberta border, around Sparwood.
The project consists of eight underpasses and one major wildlife overpass, which would be the largest in B.C. This is year 2 of the project. The first installations are in place. Fencing mitigation is starting. The overpass is slated to begin construction when funding is in place. Y2Y recommends that B.C. take the opportunity to create jobs, making our highways safer, and include funding of $16 million for the completion of this shovel-ready project in the Rockies.
In closing, much has been said about what the COVID-19 crisis has revealed about our society's relationship to the natural world. Along with the pandemic and the wildfires, the interlinked catastrophes of biodiversity loss on a global scale and climate change have created uncertainty for businesses and industry, uncertainty for communities and uncertainty for wildlife. This uncertainty about the health and security of nature and our economies is a major concern for British Columbians.
As we look to invest in shovel-ready projects today, we must also seek opportunities to build resilience into the natural infrastructure that protects society and preserves biodiversity for tomorrow. By investing in a cleaner and healthier future for people and nature, investing in Indigenous-led solutions and green infrastructure, we know that B.C. can come out of this crisis with a stronger and more resilient economy, more resilient environment and more resilient community.
Thank you for your time today.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Tim.
Now we'll hear from Randal Macnair, Wildsight. Whenever you're ready, Randal.
WILDSIGHT
R. Macnair: Good morning, hon. Chair and members of the Finance Committee. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. My name is Randal Macnair.
I'm speaking to you from Ktunaxa ɁamakɁis, the unceded territory of the Ktunaxa Nation, from the town that you may know as Fernie.
I'm before you in my position as conservation coordinator for the Elk Valley for Wildsight, a conservation organization here in the Kootenays. I'm here today to advocate for adequate funding for wildlife conservation. Indeed, I'm here to submit that B.C. should reposition ourselves as a leader in wildlife conservation.
While B.C. is known for our natural beauty and biodiversity, the reality is that we face something much different. A lack of investment in fish, wildlife and habitat management combined with the impacts of resource extraction has severely reduced a number of species and is jeopardizing the future of B.C.'s natural legacy.
As you may be aware, a provincewide coalition is calling for the government to re-establish the province as a world leader in fish, wildlife and habitat management. The Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Coalition represents a diverse array of interests who share common concerns about the decline of fish, wildlife and their environment. Environmental and conservation organizations, hunting and angling guides, wildlife viewing, ecotourism, naturalists, hunters, anglers and trappers have come together to seek a commitment from the province to invest in healthy landscapes and waters and fish and wildlife stewardship in partnership with First Nations and communities.
British Columbia has a greater biodiversity than all of our neighbours, yet we have one of the most poorly funded fish, wildlife and habitat agencies in North America. B.C. spends less per species, less per square kilometre and less per person than Washington, Idaho, Montana or Alberta. When funding is available, on-the-ground stewardship is nearly impossible, due to legislation which targets resource extraction. Cumulatively, these declines result in social conflict, which is the antithesis to reconciliation. Fish, wildlife and habitat are valued by First Nations and non–First Nations in B.C. alike for existence, for use, for enjoyment.
Further, the opportunity for future generations to see, use and know fish and wildlife habitat must be preserved. Fish and wildlife and their habitat provide jobs, revenue, viewing opportunities and sustenance. Our way of life in British Columbia relies on healthy, abundant fish and wildlife in their habitat. Given the current trajectory, this way of life will follow the mountain caribou and steelhead into extinction, costing British Columbia jobs, revenue and perhaps our very identity.
B.C. needs to prioritize fish, wildlife and habitat and have a plan for provincial and regional levels supported by long-term committed funding, or declines will continue to occur until these populations blink out, one by one. While the $10 million dedicated to Together for Wildlife has sent a signal that the province is starting to pay attention to the biodiversity crisis facing our province, B.C. must have dedicated, annual allocation beyond FLNRORD base staffing and operations, as well as a mechanism to increase funding and revenue for fish, wildlife and their habitat.
Something that's often overlooked in this discussion is the societal importance of adequate funding for wildlife. As someone who has spent half my life living in rural communities in British Columbia and half in the two largest urban centres, I'm acutely aware of the rural-urban divide that exists in our province. An oft-repeated example of this divide by my friends and neighbours is the lack of funding for wildlife and habitat conservation.
My friends and neighbours truly feel that they are voices in the wilderness. I submit to you that increasing funding for wildlife and habitat will help bridge this divide and help bring British Columbians closer together.
We can all be proud that B.C. has taken steps to become a leader when it comes to things like child care and other social issues. As a province, we can become a leader when it comes to wildlife and habitat conservation.
Seeing that I do have a couple more minutes, I'd like to just make reference to the work that's been done by the Ministry of Transportation with respect to the connectivity issue raised by my colleague from Y-to-Y. I live in the Elk Valley, where this investment is being made to make it safer for wildlife and transportation, drivers. Some really good work has been done by the Ministry of Transportation, and I would applaud that and hope that it continues and expands.
Thank you very much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Randal.
That concludes the presentations on wildlife. I'd now ask for the committee to ask their questions.
M. Starchuk: Thank you to the two presenters. Enlightening, what's going on out there.
I have a question for Tim. You made mention of support for the green infrastructure. Can you elaborate on what it is specifically when you're talking about a green infrastructure?
T. Burkhart: I think the example I gave at the end of the presentation, and what Randal just mentioned as well — the highways infrastructure for connectivity projects — are ways of building our actual transportation infrastructure in a way that doesn't prohibit connectivity of wildlife across large landscapes. It actually facilitates that.
As I mentioned, highway collisions cost taxpayers $25 million, roughly, in British Columbia each year, with 10,000 collisions. We know that projects like the Alexander-Michel linkage project are able to reduce those collisions by roughly 80 percent. In that case, with $3 million of collisions happening on that specific linkage, that could pay for itself in ten years or so.
Additional green infrastructure could be looking at how we build restoration economies. We know that restoration work — ecological restoration where trees are planted, seismic lines are restored, things like that — can generate a lot of jobs per dollar of investment. I believe that for every $1 million, it's 33 jobs that are created, which is actually a pretty good return of jobs to investment, comparative to resource-extractive industries.
I would encourage…. One thing I can do for the member is provide a report that Y-to-Y has done with partners in the Revelstoke area, which looks at emerging economies and how to build an economy of the future that includes green infrastructure projects. I will certainly include that in our written submission.
P. Alexis: This is for Tim as well. It's just regarding submissions. You had a lot of information for us. I've been just wanting to make sure that that was included in your written submission. It was well done, so thank you for that. Not to say that Randal's wasn't also well done. I just wanted to make sure that we had a written submission from you.
T. Burkhart: Absolutely. I know I did touch on quite a few issues, because we do have a large geography. B.C. is a huge place. I will certainly be providing detailed written submissions by the September 30 deadline.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): It was interesting information, Tim, about the highway collisions and the cost. I can see that that's a project that could move ahead along highway corridors.
I wanted to ask Randal about your comment about the investment by other, neighbouring states. You didn't mention Alberta, but you mentioned Idaho, Montana and Washington and the per-capita investment. Can you just kind of give us the numbers as to what our neighbouring states are and what they're doing with the funds? How is it invested? How is it set up, that you're comparing that, that we're not doing enough?
R. Macnair: I got that from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, actually. I tried to get some immediate clarity. If I didn't mention Alberta, I meant to, because Alberta is another jurisdiction that we're falling behind.
Like Tim, I can get that information to you from the B.C. Wildlife Federation. I do recall some numbers, but they're three or four years old. But apparently the trend has continued.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I do think it is important.
I'm trying to remember. There's a park down in your neck of the woods that crosses over into Montana, etc. I remember having a heated discussion, and we had actually ended up having to work on the agreement jointly between Montana and, I think, Idaho.
Anyway, I think it's important that we do see this on a long-term basis about access to the environment and the health of it and all those type of things. It's important information.
J. Routledge (Chair): Are there additional questions from the committee?
Well, with that, we'll conclude this panel. I guess, in conclusion, what I'd like to say is we are living through a time of shifting public expectations that we need to keep up with and get ahead of. The work that you do and the things that you've brought to our attention today help us greatly in responding appropriately and accordingly.
I am struck, Randal, by your comment about voices in the wilderness. I think previously, we thought that meant one thing, and you have reinforced that it now means something entirely different and more important.
Thanks to both of you for what you've brought to us today, and with that, we'll say goodbye.
We'll now recess till 11.
The committee recessed from 10:42 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): We'll reconvene the meeting, and we're now moving into a panel on invasive species.
Our first presenter is Robyn Hooper, Columbia Shuswap Invasive Species Society, followed by Randy Harris, East Kootenay Invasive Species Council. Each has five minutes to present. Then we'll have questions from the committee.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 4 – Invasive Species
COLUMBIA SHUSWAP
INVASIVE SPECIES SOCIETY
R. Hooper: Good morning, and thank you, everyone. Thank you 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 my board and staff.
I also wanted to note that our organization is an affiliate of the Invasive Species Council of B.C. I don't believe they're able to make it today, but we share key messages with them, as well as with the regional invasive species organizations of B.C.
I'd like to speak to the aspect of closing key pathways to prevent the introduction of new invasive species into B.C. Here in the Columbia-Shuswap, we had the recent discovery of a freshwater clam, Corbicula fluminea, in the Shuswap Lake last year. This poses a threat to our local ecosystems and freshwater infrastructure. It can reach high densities and cause loss of biodiversity due to competition for food and space with native species. It can alter water chemistry and drinking water and cause biofouling of pipes and water treatment systems.
We need provincial regulations to prevent these and other aquatic invasive species. You've heard a lot about zebra and quagga mussels in the past, but there are many others, including invasive fish, whirling disease, spiny waterflea and many others that we want to prevent from entering the province. Regulatory tools are needed to protect our ecosystems, our tourism recreation values, as well as drinking water quality and hydro power resources.
In the past few years, we have had success in increasing water monitoring for invasive mussels in the Columbia-Shuswap. We've done so in partnership with the province and the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation. These programs support early detection and rapid response that are vital in the fight against invasive species.
Our society is uniquely posed to support these efforts. We have over 26 funding partners and over 200 partnering organizations in the Columbia-Shuswap region. We leverage provincial funding over sevenfold with other funding sources and, therefore, greatly increase return investment as a non-profit charity.
We also have unique regional and community ties to get work done on the ground. We partner with Indigenous communities, local governments, industry partners, land managers, community groups and other stakeholders.
More is needed. The key messages I have are that we need to update and enforce regulations to ensure that invasive species are not introduced and spread into and across the province. The current regulation has outdated lists of invasive species that enable many to slip between regulations.
As well, mitigating climate change impacts requires strong, efficient action against invasive species to protect our resilient ecosystems that are vital in helping reduce the intensity of wildfires and floods and in protecting species diversity.
To summarize, the main piece is that we need stable, long-term funding, and we need a new approach to funding to ensure that B.C, is protected from invasive species threats. I think Randy is going to speak more to the terrestrial invasive species impacts. I wanted to cover some of those aquatic invasive species.
We greatly appreciate the time and being able to present. I've got a little extra time, so hopefully there are some questions at the end as well. Thank you very much for the time.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Robyn.
Now we'll turn to Randy.
EAST KOOTENAY
INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL
R. Harris: Thank you for this opportunity to present to the standing committee. My name is Randy Harris. I'm replacing the original speaker, Hilary Baker. I'm the chair of the board of directors from the East Kootenay Invasive Species Council.
Most of my messaging, from our board and staff, is very similar to what you would have heard from the Invasive Species Council of B.C. and the Columbia-Shuswap Invasive Species Society. We share similar concerns, and we've agreed, prior to this meeting, on our messages.
EKISC does do management for a full suite of invasive species, but our focus, which is driven by our local community priorities, is treating terrestrial invasive plants, specifically those that endanger our rare, heavily impacted grassland areas. Our grasslands are 1 percent of the land area of British Columbia, but they contain 30 percent of the species at risk in B.C. The grasslands are also critical to the cattle ranching industry that contributes $600 million a year to the B.C. economy and employs 8,700 people. We have about 80 active ranches in our zone.
The grasslands and open forests also provide the critical winter habitat for elk, deer and bighorn sheep for all of B.C. Unfortunately, this rich, diverse habitat is valley bottom and semi-fragmented by urbanization, highways, power lines, cities and off-track vehicle use, all of which bring invasive plants to the habitat.
It often falls to regional invasive species organizations, such as us and our allies, to discover what land matters and reducing the impact of invasive plants and controlling their spread. We work mostly on Crown land, but we also work in B.C. parks, Nature Trust of B.C. and Nature Conservancy of Canada properties throughout our zone, trying to create a cross-boundary response to these invasive species throughout the regional district of East Kootenay. As an example of this collaboration, in 2020 EKISC started a five-year inventory and invasive plant management program in the northern Elk Valley — about 20,000 hectares.
We worked with 15 area organizations and local governments to manage invasive plants on a cross-jurisdictional landscape level. With three separate non-government funding sources, this alliance tripled the amount of money received from the provincial government to manage this critical area. We spent it in a focused, integrated manner. We're also inserting invasive plant management and local efforts at climate mitigation.
EKISC is currently working with two of the four nation reserves in our district to provide them with invasive plant inventories and management plans to be integrated with their dry forest restoration projects. These projects involve thinning dense, ingrown, fire-suppressed forests and the reintroduction of cultural burning practices. These on-reserve management practices involve targeted grazing of weeds with goats and the suppression of pockets of weakened plants with grass seed. First Nations prefer not to use herbicides so as to preserve medicinal plants.
This combination of activities is of great interest to another client. The Rocky Mountain Trench ecosystem restoration program would like to introduce the grass seeding trials, with weed pulls or a judicious use of herbicide, to Crown land. The ecosystem restoration program thins a forest for fuel management or habitat. It would not be an ecological gain if a thinning and prescribed burning creates a weed field from a dense forest. A weed-reduced site with good grass cover, even pockets of introduced grass, can create a resilient, self-regulating grassland, one that can survive the extreme, high-impact wildfires we are experiencing.
We want to reduce and control the spread of weeds. We don't have the resources for full eradication. We will also need these herbicide and grass seed treatments to better manage soil stabilization and invasive plant suppression post-wildfire. We cannot afford an ecosystem of black stumps and knapweed.
In order to carry on with our integrated landscape management approaches to invasive plant management and climate change mitigation, we'll need the stable, long-term funding that Robyn spoke of. As well, we're all in agreement that we need a new approach in funding to ensure that B.C. is protected from invasive plant threats.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Randy. It does look like there are just the two presenters.
We'll now open it up to questions from the committee to either or both of you.
G. Kyllo: Hi, Robyn, a great presentation. Randy, thank you very much for making your presentation before the committee.
Have you guys identified what the magnitude of the budgetary lift that you're looking for is? Is there an actual dollar figure that is going to be part of your written submission?
R. Hooper: Absolutely. I think we were both expecting Gail Wallin to precede us with the number figures. The number was around $15 million annually.
R. Harris: That's up from $5 million currently.
G. Kyllo: Okay. So a $10 million lift.
R. Harris: Yes, please.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Robyn, I just wanted to ask you about the invasive clam that you mentioned, that had got into your area. With the quagga and zebra mussels, we've put all those road checks in and stuff like that.
What's the answer? You just rattled off a list of things that I don't even know. I'm just thinking: is this a losing battle? What do we have to do? In the Okanagan, I'd bet you that 50 percent of the boats that are on the lake are from somewhere else.
R. Hooper: Yeah. A great question. It's funny when we're looking for something that we don't want to find. Every year that passes that we don't have invasive mussels is, to me, a success. Having invasive clams being discovered in Shuswap Lake was a bit of a wake-up call, I think, for the region. Things are still being transported in waterways that we don't know about.
I think the inspection station and anti-contaminations that happen around the borders is a huge success story for the province. That program needs to continue, and the funding needs to continue to those programs. The first step, in terms of watercraft coming into the province, is getting them inspected and decontaminated. However, within the province, there's still boat traffic being moved around. That's where we promote "Clean, drain, dry" — getting folks to clean their boats of any material, drain them fully and make sure they're dry between water bodies.
We don't know how long the clams have been in the lake. They were elsewhere in B.C. and moved around. They were also recently found in the Pend-d'Oreille, in the Kootenays, and they are found in the Lower Mainland. They were already in British Columbia, but they were a new infestation to our region, to the Shuswap watershed.
In terms of what can be done, I think there's prevention at the borders for anything new coming into B.C. Also, the promotion of that "Clean, drain, dry" program that I speak of, and funding to our regional organizations, can help with that prevention. That little bit of funding that goes into outreach and prevention saves millions of dollars in the long run, for the cost that it would have when we have these invasive species. Does that answer your question? Do you have a follow-up?
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Well, it begs the question: where do these things…? Are they in the boat? On the boat? Or are they on the trailer? Or all three?
R. Hooper: All of the above. Zebra and quagga mussels are particularly nasty, because they can cling to the boats and to the trailers.
In some of the other species, including invasive mussels, the larval form can be found in the water. That's where we need the threefold process of making sure that any material that's on the boat is cleaned off, and then any water that can hold things. Whirling disease is another disease that is microscopic and is found in the water. Every year that we don't have it, I think it's a blessing.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Randall, a question to you: you're talking about invasive species on the land. I've heard this, especially in the South Okanagan, with some of the trails. You were talking about using some of those things — like the traditional integrated methods and goats, etc., that are not conventional or whatever. I think that that's great. I don't know what we do.
I mean, I think it'd be great if the place looked a little bit like the Alps or something like that, or New Zealand, where you see sheep running around. I don't know if they cause other problems, but if they are part of the solution, I think it's kind of interesting. I know that there's some species in the Okanagan that they talk about and that's quite invasive. You don't even think about it when you're not really out there, looking for this type of stuff.
R. Harris: Oh yeah. We actually have about five species that we're trying to target with the goat. Fortunately, they all have yellow flowers, so you know where they are. Three of our local reserves have actually been using goats, targeting these four deadly species. What we do find is that the goats can reduce the plant, and get it down so that it's a very small plant.
The literature says to use herbicide, but the First Nations, because they use their reserves for medicinal plants, would like something non-chemical. Putting grass feed on top of it actually just means that you're suppressing that plant. Quite often, you put the native seeds in with your agronomic species. The agronomics can suppress the plant, and then it acts as a nurse crop so that native plants can re-establish on site. It's just one of those things.
We don't think we can fully eradicate all the invasive plants that we see up there. What we want to do is reduce their number, because we're going to have a wildfire going through the valley bottom at some point. We want an ecosystem that has a very low loading of invasive plants, so they don't explode after a wildfire. It's just so the grass system itself is self-regulating, so that it will, with new species introduced in pockets, actually reduce the amount of weeds that are on site.
It'll probably look better, which is not quite alpine, and we don't think we're going to be keeping goats everywhere, just because they can spread diseases into bighorn sheep, which is a concern in the Okanagan. But if you use some herbicide or weed-pulling — we've even heard, if you mow them down with a cutter — anything that can actually weaken the plant and then put grass seed on top of it, that might be a more effective treatment, just because it does take us a long time to fully eradicate through herbicide.
H. Sandhu: Thank you, Robyn and Randall, for your presentations. I know this invasive species issue is a big one in the Okanagan and Kootenays. Thank you for highlighting it for the rest of the committee members.
Robyn, you highlighted the request to update the forest regulations, as there are some things we need to look at. What are some major concerns you might want to highlight, that need to be looked at immediately, to address this?
R. Hooper: We've spoken to the committee in the past, and there's an outdated noxious weed act, primarily. So there's a call for an invasive species regulation that might bring in other invasive species.
But you're right. There are a number of regulations — forestry, the fisheries side of things. There are number of acts and regulations that include invasive species. So I think the call for an integrated invasive species would bring things together. Let me just quickly see if I can pull up the specific act.
Randy, if you want to jump in here.
R. Harris: I'll just throw…. A part of it is to update the Weed Act, which is currently in the regulation. That would actually reinforce for the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Fisheries Act.
What has been the discussion in the past, which we haven't seen in the past few years, is to create an invasive species act that would actually integrate all those things, beyond just terrestrial plants. It's more than just terrestrial plants we're now worried about. The impact of the aquatic plants that Robyn spoke of could actually have even more higher impacts to the economy and just to the health of the people, just because you're actually, now, affecting the water supply, rather than just the rangelands and roadside areas.
None of these acts, so far, talk to shutting down these pathways of introduction of weeds into this area. We do have some legislation for the invasive zebra and quagga mussels, but we'd also like to see things like: "Don't grow this plant, because if it escapes from your field, if it escapes from your garden, it'll actually have a deleterious effect on the rest of the gardens around or just the landscape around you."
Or maybe just some direction: "Don't keep releasing your goldfish into Lake Windermere, because goldfish are actually carp, and they can get this big once you take them out of that tiny, little bowl." So it's other species that actually…. We'd like to regulate the reintroduction of species all throughout the province.
R. Hooper: That's right. These are all included in the Invasive Species Strategy for B.C. As Randy said, it's an updated B.C. Weed Control Act regulation in a new invasive species act.
Some other key pieces would be prohibiting the sale of invasive species. A strange part of this act is that people are prohibited from growing some species on their property, but they are not prohibited for sale. So they can still be buying some of these plants at garden centres, and then get in trouble for having them on their property.
This has been in the report on the budget in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2016, 2013, 2014, so a number of years now.
R. Harris: We've missed a few.
R. Hooper: Last year, as well, in 2020.
H. Sandhu: Thank you so much, to both of you. I think it was reassuring for me to know. My daughter, who is a science student at UBCO, is only 19, and she was talking to her 14-year-old sister a couple weeks ago about aquatic invasive species. I paused because this issue comes up in this role over and over, and it was reassuring for me to know how much youth knew. I even had her explain it to me, because the way she was explaining was a very simple version.
Thank you for the work you're doing. Obviously, the younger generations are all so keen and interested in dealing with this issue, which has, I think, taken over in many regions.
R. Hooper: Thank you so much. Great story.
M. Starchuk: Randy, you touched on it with regards to the invasive species that are in the forestry and how it affects fuel load. Then you talked about taking it down and then putting some grass on it.
Is the grass that we're talking about something that's engineered, because just as a layperson, it just seems like we're trading off one fuel load for another fuel load when you present grass that dries out.
R. Harris: Oh, yeah. It's actually working with the people who deal with fuel loading and wildfires. All carbon-based organisms will actually burst into flames if you heat them up enough. Grass burns at a much lower temperature, say, about 500 degrees Fahrenheit versus a tree, which is about 1,200. It's a cooler fire, and grass will actually flash over a site in about 45 seconds, whereas the trees burn over about a five-minute period. It's a hotter, more duration period if you have the fires.
The fires can be flashy, but what our wildfires specialists say is if you keep a grass fire down on the ground, they can knock it down with hand tools and something just as wide as a footpath. Whereas if the fire gets into the trees, it produces much more heat, and it also throws the sparks much farther. It's really hard to actually combat that.
The direction from them is to please open up the forest. Get the fires onto the ground, where they can actually combat them easily. It's a low-impact burn that actually will not damage a site that much. We can actually control it with less effort.
As a benefit, too, by the way, one of the ways of actually reducing the fire hazard around a community is to get cows and deer to eat the grass. If you use nature's lawnmowers, you can actually reduce your fire hazard with grazing.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, I'm not seeing other questions, so we'll conclude this presentation, this panel, by thanking you for once again presenting to this committee and bringing it to our attention. You may have presented before, but I don't think there's anyone on this committee this year who's been on the committee before.
As I was listening to your presentations and your answers to the questions, it's…. I think that wherever we live in B.C., we have experienced the effect of invasive species. I think we know intuitively that it's a problem. Perhaps too many of us have just kind of accepted it as reality, and you have reinforced why it's a problem, why we need to be proactive, and you've shared some innovative ideas with us.
We will, amongst ourselves, pursue this in more detail when we deliberate. I think the things that have been happening in the past year bring it more into focus, in terms of going forward, and we need to do something. Thank you so much.
R. Harris: Thank you for giving us the opportunity.
R. Hooper: Thank you. Have a great day.
J. Routledge (Chair): We'll recess for ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 11:27 a.m. to 11:37 a.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): We're now having two individual presentations. The first one is Glenn Auger, Wetlands Workforce.
Glenn, I understand you're here. You have five minutes to make your presentation, and then we have about five minutes to ask you questions.
When you're ready, Glenn, you can begin.
WETLANDS WORKFORCE
G. Auger: First of all, I'd like to thank the Finance Committee for this opportunity to present.
My name's Glenn Auger. I'm a member of Tallcree First Nations. We're a signatory to treaty 8. I've been hired on with the Wetlands Workforce group as a First Nations liaison person.
Our Wetlands Workforce. What we've been doing is working to protect, restore and promote B.C.'s wetlands and watersheds. The Wetlands Workforce project came out of the funding that was allotted through the healthy watersheds initiative, part of the $10 billion [audio interrupted] collaboration with conservation organizations and First Nations that deployed work pods across British Columbia throughout 2021.
Some of these works were to improve riparian area habitat, monitor the effectiveness of wetland restoration sites, advance collaborative restoration projects with First Nations and communities, provide employment opportunities targeting women, young adults and First Nations individuals and support provincewide monitoring initiatives that will improve wetland management.
What we did is we had this little thing we called a water droplet. We provided this picture. It was a translation of water from the various languages throughout the province. It was kind of a smaller one, but it just showed the impact of the many different communities we have in British Columbia. So just seeing that a small piece of what we [audio interrupted.]
The Wetlands Workforce on reconciliation. What we did is we had posted five regional collaborative sessions this year. We've had over 50 First Nations communities in B.C. actively engaged with us. We've communicated with 120 Indigenous communities throughout the province regarding the project and the available opportunities. Through this program, we've hired 23 students from the Northern Lights College program, a partnership with Northern Lights in providing a practicum training. Individuals from 35 First Nations communities have participated in our online training sessions.
Then we also provided upfront three custom decolonization and [audio interrupted] awareness training sessions, created for the work crews. We did this training session before the crews actually went out to the field to start working out there, just to identify and help them know what they could possibly be seeing with the many different communities throughout the province and just being able to understand how to engage and work with those communities.
Then we had ten community members receive in-person training in the rapid wetlands health assessment protocol. It's called WESP. It's a wetland eco services protocol, a data entry program that we're developing within the province of British Columbia. They're going out regionally and tabulating data in regards to WESP. There are 60 questions that are answered in regards to this WESP protocol. It's creating a data source for future work activities around wetlands so we can monitor and see how wetlands restoration or any future wetlands work can be identified, and what that means for both communities and provinces within the region.
The last part I'd like to talk about is the way forward. We'd like to support First Nations–led stewardship projects, bridge funding to keep this good work going on for the watershed security fund that's in place and then fund healthy watershed initiatives that protect and enhance B.C.'s watersheds.
The last point. Provide work and learning opportunities to support future stewards of our land. Thank you very much to the committee.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Glenn. I'll now take some questions from the committee.
P. Alexis: Glenn, from what I heard — I know there were pockets that we didn't hear — it's a fascinating program and really, really good work. I just want to make sure that your written submission is detailed so that we can pick up the pieces that we may not have heard. Okey-doke?
G. Auger: Sounds good.
J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?
M. Starchuk: Thank you for your presentation, Glenn. When you talk about improving riparian habitat, I know that that is very labour-intensive, to be able to do that.
What I'm curious about is: what is the amount of kilometres of riparian habitat that you've been able to get back into its natural state, or into a better state? What would be the goal in the future, with regards to riparian habitat?
G. Auger: The easiest thing is…. I won't, in kilometres…. We've worked on 60 various sites throughout the province. They're watersheds that have been identified through projects that are already in place, and we're doing follow-up works and reclamation on those sites. Some of that has been follow-up into that type of work. Then some of it is this WESP training that we're talking about. It's another component.
There has been the actual work on the wetland sites and the actual data entry identification on the wetland sites. That alone has been, to my understanding…. I think we're somewhere close to…. What it was is we wanted to identify 80 sites. We have four regions within British Columbia –– we call them eco-provinces –– that we've worked in, and we are hoping to do at least 80 sites within each of those eco-provinces. There are very many sites that…. I don't have all of that information yet because not all of the sites have been completed yet. It's still ongoing work.
Hopefully, that can answer your question.
M. Starchuk: Thank you. That is very ambitious, to say the least. Because of the theme today –– it seems to be invasive species –– during the improvement of the riparian habitat, are you removing those invasive species?
G. Auger: Yes, we are. Some of it could be works that are maintaining, say, if there's…. Some places have dams, so there are locks and stuff, so there's maintenance of that activity. There's site reclamation on trails and trail systems for the public to use. There's removal of invasive species. There are many different ways. Some of them have to be pulled. Some can be cut. We've done the various means of utilizing the best way we can manage to do that with each of our wetlands.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Hi, Glenn. It's Ben Stewart here from Kelowna West. I just wanted to ask you about a couple of things.
It sounds to me like the Wetlands Workforce is a relatively new project. I'm wondering what the funding is that you have currently. What do you need, going ahead, to…? I guess that's what we're here for, to figure out what type of budgetary needs are needed for this type of work. Or is there a commitment you already have and you're not looking for any…?
G. Auger: Well, actually, what it was…. You're correct. Yes, it's new. It was because of the way this funding was laid out that it is a new process. Basically, we had the year, starting in early February, when we started hiring individuals to build the teams and the work pods that are working out there. We're basically working until the 15th of December. That's when our contracts will end.
What we're looking for is bridge funding where we can provide this follow-up to the work that has been done this year. We've had very strong success of collaboration and the ability to work cohesively with many different Indigenous communities and [audio interrupted] individuals from those communities in working on our work pods throughout the province.
Ideally, what we'd like [audio interrupted] to be able to continue this initiative moving forward for many years to come. That's what we're looking for.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay. The other question that I have is: what are the four eco-provinces? What's the geographic location of those?
G. Auger: The first one is the Georgia Depression, which is the Lower Mainland and part of Vancouver Island. Then there's the northern region ones, which are the Taiga Plains and the Boreal. There are two together. They're a large component of the western part of the province. Then there's the Kootenay region. The Kootenay-Boundary region is the other one.
That's another thing that we'd like to be able to expand on in the future. With the bridge funding, what we're hoping is that it will provide opportunity for expansion of being able to work in the central regions of the province and some more in the northwest part of the province that we weren't able to get to this year. Hopefully, that bridge funding will provide some of that for the future.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): That's fantastic. Thanks.
J. Routledge (Chair): I'm not seeing more questions, and I think that's because you've been very, very clear about what you're doing, why you're doing it and the value on so many fronts that you've identified.
Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for meeting with the committee. We will be talking about this in much more detail when we deliberate and make our recommendations on the budget. Thank you for your leadership on this.
G. Auger: You're welcome. Thank you very much.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Our next presenter is Laura Sacks, Citizens Climate Lobby, Nelson–West Kootenay chapter.
CITIZENS CLIMATE LOBBY
L. Sacks: Hello, everyone. I'm focusing on rural communities and greenhouse gas reductions. First off, I wanted to say that rural communities are really on the front lines of climate change impacts that we've seen this summer, with the horrific wildfires burning. These affect not only properties but community cohesion, local economies — for example, lack of tourists because of wildfire smoke and evacuation alerts — as well as the very real impacts on physical and mental health.
Being closer to the land, rural residents understand the existential threat that the climate crisis represents, especially without help for measures to build resilience and to be part of the global effort to rapidly reach net-zero emissions and stabilize the climate.
Last March, the B.C. government set ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, sectoral targets of around 60 percent reduction by 2030 for buildings and communities. While we applaud the ambition, rural and small communities are strapped for resources, both financial and staff, to work on these goals.
I'm here today to ask for more resources to go to programs that would help rural communities to meet greenhouse gas targets. Our written submission will include a lot more detail, and I'm going to just provide a few examples here today.
The primary sources of greenhouse gases in rural communities are transportation and building. First, for transportation, is a request to support active transportation. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure's mandate letter from November 2020 asks: "Work with communities to expand their networks of active transportation to meet our CleanBC goals through doubling trips taken by walking, biking and other kinds of active networks by the year 2030."
We asked the province to support safe, active transportation on provincial highways through regulations and funding for safe, separated paths for lanes and signage. There is a great opportunity to reduce car use through active transportation networks out of harm's way of traffic. Besides the greenhouse gas reductions and safety, active transportation trail systems improve health by getting people out of their cars, providing family-friendly opportunities for recreation and economic development by bringing in tourists.
The second request is around transportation, regarding rural regional transit. Rural residents rely heavily on personal car use to get around because of the lack of regional transit systems, especially in the face of the demise of Greyhound. Some regional systems have sprung up, but better service and interconnection is needed. This is especially a concern for residents trying to get to health care appointments.
We'd like to see the province direct resources for a study to explore options such as on-demand transit systems or a provincially funded rural bus system, including consultation with First Nations, persons with disabilities and groups representing other sectors, like seniors, students and women.
Switching to buildings quickly, we ask that the government support the Help Cities Lead initiative, whose requests would be an enormous aid to rural municipalities trying to reduce greenhouse gases from buildings.
One of the requests is allowing communities to easily implement a program called PACE, which stands for property assessed clean energy financing. Essentially, PACE allows loans for energy retrofits and renewable energy systems to stay with the property via property taxes rather than being financed by the property owner.
We ask that the government fund the costs of getting regulations in place to allow PACE to be implemented in communities across the province. We're grateful that the B.C. government recently spent $2 million on a PACE road map study, so that should help us see what's involved.
The last thing I wanted to mention, briefly, is that Help Cities Lead also requests that communities be given the authority to mandate against fossil fuels in new construction and phase them out of old buildings. We ask that the province dedicate funds to develop appropriate regulations that would allow this freedom to encourage fuel switching.
There's much needing to be done. I'm highlighting a few, and our written submission will include much more, including resilience and adaptation to the climate impacts that we're currently experiencing. Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Laura.
We'll now open it up to questions from the committee.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Laura. I know that this issue about active transportation will go on a long time because there are so many kilometres of highway.
That's my question to you. Where do you start, in terms of…? Take a community like where you live. Where would you prioritize? I guess getting that information through to Transportation, because we can't do it all at one time…. If there is a focus, where would it be? I mean, we've heard from some of the groups that are working on trails throughout different communities, etc. Tell me, how would you prioritize?
L. Sacks: Yes, that's an excellent question. One thing that we're doing here in the West Kootenay…. I actually live rurally between Castlegar and Nelson, for many years counting the cars going by that are commuters that are going back and forth. I don't even like to get out on the highway, because I'm right here on the highway.
An example. A working group has come together in our area to look at this and to try to get stats on routes that are very busy but also would reduce the commuter traffic and things like that. Obviously, we can't do this everywhere. I agree. I know that in some rural areas, the distances are too large. But I think by looking at where the biggest traffic areas…. I guess where the benefit would be the best is what I'm trying to get at.
I would think that you would have the resources, probably, to be able to do a study like that way more than I would. But I think from my experience, finding communities on the ground that are interested in working on that…. For example, in this area, we already have a representative from the Ministry of Transportation and one from the regional district and one from parks and trails, from FLNRO with Rural Development in there. I forget the name of that acronym now. Anyhow, that was my thought.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Just to follow on with that. Because of the nature of your communities, do you think the money would be…? Do you think that having to go to Transportation and get them to fund this, versus something like maybe communities having access to funds to be able to help execute this and prioritize it…? Do you think that would work in your area?
L. Sacks: I think it needs to be a combination of having funding come but…. As well, we're looking at creative things like tourism, for example. I think it's going to have to be partnerships between getting funding….
This is a big benefit for tourism. Cycling is quite popular for people to come in and be able to safely go from one location to another. It's finding the pieces of the puzzle within communities but having Transportation be there as a support and not necessarily an impediment.
I was talking to our Transportation lead in the area, and there was, for example, expectation for doing anything for active transportation in our Highway 3A corridor. So even though I heard there was a 20-year plan going on, they're basically thinking they're going to add another passing lane. When you spend millions of dollars blasting cliffs, it might seem like trails are expensive, but compared to some of that work, it's quite a bit more expensive when millions of dollars are being spent. So I would like to see public consultation, as well, go on for when Ministry of Transportation has a project going in.
Another example is a bridge just down the road from where I live, which is right near a popular swimming beach where children are on bikes, that has not a single shoulder on it. So you're coming down the hill both ways to the river. They did a regrade of that, and the community didn't know, and so we didn't request shoulders because that was just not even anything that we knew about. The contract already went out, and so….
That's just a small example of what happens all over.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thanks, Laura. I see no further questions.
I'll just conclude this part of our agenda by thanking you for taking the time to meet with us and share your perspective. I, for one, am struck by what you said about rural communities being on the front line of the climate crisis and that you have an important perspective to share because you're closer to the land.
You have offered, today, some very concrete, practical proposals, and what I hear you saying is: these are proposals that are community-driven that would meet the needs of your community and that what you need from us is help to make it possible for you to turn that into reality.
So thank you so much for your very clear presentation and practical recommendations, and with that, we'll let you go.
L. Sacks: Okay. Thank you very much. Take care.
J. Routledge (Chair): We will now recess until 1:15.
The committee recessed from 12:02 p.m. to 1:16 p.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, we're going to call the meeting to order for the afternoon session and welcome our first panel, which is on energy. Each member of the panel has five minutes to make their presentation, and then we'll open it up to questions from the committee.
Our first presenter is Jessica Verhagen, Hydra Energy Canada Corp.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 5 – Energy
HYDRA ENERGY CANADA
J. Verhagen: Great. Thank you so much. I've provided some slides. Should I share those slides on my screen, or are they being loaded?
J. Routledge (Chair): We're not going to be able to see your slides today.
J. Verhagen: Okay, no problem. I'll dive through regardless.
My name's Jessica. I'm the CEO of Hydra Energy. We're based in Delta, British Columbia. We're a hydrogen company that focuses on selling hydrogen to fleets in a business model that provides them that hydrogen on par or at a discount to diesel. We've been speaking with the government for a number of years about our technology and have met with some success on a number of fronts.
First, I just wanted to thank those in the committee for the progress that we've been able to make together. I know it's difficult sometimes, with laws and regulations and policies and programs that were made before new technologies arose. It's been really encouraging, the response that we've gotten from ministers Kahlon, Heyman and Ralston in particular. We reached a part 3 agreement on low-carbon fuel standards earlier this year as well as got a weight exemption granted for low-carbon commercial vehicles.
Hydra put the first commercial truck on the road that uses hydrogen in a co-combustion application. It's a common area of confusion that we're a fuel cell company, as lots of those in the hydrogen space are. We're actually co-combusting, so it means that we have hydrogen that's mixing with diesel in an engine and co-combusting that. We're displacing about 40 percent of the diesel with hydrogen that's coming from a low-carbon source, from the waste stream of chemical companies. In that way, we're recycling someone else's waste into something useful for ourselves.
We did a three-year pilot in nearby Prince George, where we converted Freightliners and Peterbilt trucks — so the big class 8 trucks — and got over 200,000 kilometres on those vehicles, carrying commercial loads with real commercial drivers. The pilot was successful in demonstrating equivalent performance to diesel trucks.
The reason why we focus on heavy-duty applications are because they consume a large volume of hydrogen, which is how we make money. We allow the fleet to convert at Hydra's cost. We pay for their conversion, removing that initial barrier of affordability for conversions and focusing them on just getting those emission results in a really difficult-to-abate sector — freight emissions.
Unfortunately, it's one of the sectors that has been growing the most in greenhouse gas emissions, as you'll see in the presentation pack. It's only 4 percent of vehicles on the road but 26 or 27 percent of total emissions, and that's growing, with little options available for the fleets to switch to affordably.
We also do the conversion in a way that doesn't void warranty. So after price, the next concern that fleets usually have is around their warranties being voided, but because we're not modifying the engine block, we're not voiding the warranties.
We are continuing to make improvements on that 40 percent displacement that I mentioned to go up to 50 percent by 2023 and continue making progress towards a zero-emission vehicle.
We'd also like to congratulate the government on the B.C. Hydrogen Strategy being released. Hydra was featured as a case study in that strategy. We're now at the stage where we're leading a consortium of partners to construct a capture facility in northeastern British Columbia, where we're capturing that waste hydrogen I previously mentioned — compressing it, cleaning it up and distributing it to 65 trucks that will be converted, with the excess being sold to a natural gas distributor thanks to the government's greenhouse gas reduction regulation.
I'll just highlight that I think the main concern for Hydra, when it comes to government policy right now, is just the ability to ensure that we have technology-neutral regulations, so that means that something that's applied, for example, for hydrogen in a fuel cell, is equally applied to hydrogen that's in an internal combustion engine. It shouldn't matter where the hydrogen is going if the result is an emission reduction. That's really the outcome that we're all looking for as we try to hit the greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Our specific request that we wrote to the Minister of Finance on was regarding the voter fuel tax regulation, which provides an exemption for hydrogen when used in fuel cell vehicles but, unfortunately, not hydrogen used in internal combustion engines. So we are seeking in this budget for the government to consider an expansion of that exemption so it's applied to hydrogen, of course, that's low carbon, in an equal way, and it's not picking the technology application.
I will leave the presentation at that. I know we're under strict time constraints here, so thank you so much for your consideration. I really appreciate the opportunity to present to all of you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Jessica.
Next we'll hear from Doug Hooper, Advanced Biofuels Canada.
ADVANCED BIOFUELS CANADA
D. Hooper: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking with you today from Nexwlélexwm in the Skwxwú7mesh Nation ancestral and traditional territory.
On behalf of Advanced Biofuels Canada, I thank you for the opportunity to provide input on Budget 2022. I'd like to begin by setting the context for clean fuels and then move to overview specific tax policy recommendations and highlight current sector investments.
Net-zero clean fuels are non-fossil liquid fuels that can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in all forms of transportation. To achieve net-zero emissions in transport, we must address the fuels that are used in vehicles. Net-zero clean fuels can replace gasoline and diesel and jet fuel to achieve net-zero emissions in internal combustion engines, and in zero-emission vehicles, you can achieve net-zero emissions by using renewable electricity or clean hydrogen.
Liquid biofuels have delivered approximately 80 percent of the emission reductions under the most important and most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategy in the province, the B.C. low-carbon fuel standard. Recent government actions to double the LCFS target to 20 percent by 2030 and commit resources to EMLI to more effectively administer the LCFS were two very important steps, and we applaud the government for the progress to date and encourage ongoing support for the LCFS.
The decade ahead holds considerable promise for the B.C. clean transportation sector. There are two priority actions that we propose. First is to exempt biofuels and other non-fossil clean fuels from the B.C. carbon tax.
The carbon levy on transportation fuels in B.C. taxes biofuels at the same rate as gasoline or diesel. Applying the carbon tax to liquid biofuels is a legacy-designed error that was hard-wired as an administrative convenience back in 2010. Carbon taxes are meant to put a price on pollution. Price differentiation on carbon emissions is the core tenet of carbon tax theory. Biofuels made from biogenic carbon have carbon-neutral combustion emissions and should not be taxed. Notably, the federal and Quebec carbon-pricing systems provide for full exemptions for biofuels.
B.C. does, however, exempt ZEV fuels and renewable natural gas from the carbon tax. The province also exempts natural gas, RNG and ZEVs from the provincial motor fuel tax. Fair fuel tax policy would apply consistent tax principles to all clean fuels. In their letter to Minister Heyman of August 9, the B.C. Climate Solutions Council endorsed removing the carbon tax on liquid biofuels and called on the province to "align the incentives provided by the LCFS and the carbon tax and fully reward consumers for making the decision to use renewable fuels."
Our second recommendation pertains to leveraging federal clean fuel tax measures. In Budget '21, there were two promising tax measures designed to attract private sector investment and clean fuel production capacity. The first was to reduce federal income taxes by 50 percent, and the second was to enhance the CCA deduction treatment.
Project developers in B.C. have identified concerns with respect to the eligibility and the scope of these two measures. We encourage the province to work with industry and with the federal government to amend these policies to apply to commercial-scale clean fuel feed stocks and clean fuel production and then amplify that investment signal by mirroring their adoption in B.C.
The clean fuel value chain supports growth and resilience in forestry, agriculture, waste management, clean tech and clean fuel sectors. In February we released an economic impact study on capital investments to 2030 for clean fuel production in Canada. Sector growth over the decade was estimated to support 20,000 new jobs and add an additional $10 billion in economic output.
Based on our updated survey this summer, B.C. continues to attract strong investment interest. The array of projects span clean fuel production, clean technologies, enhanced waste management, infrastructure and value-added bioproducts. Across 19 projects, clean fuel production capacity could increase from 115 million litres per year to 1.5 billion litres per year by 2030. These projects represent over $2.5 billion in new capital investment and would support 9,500 jobs and add $3.4 billion in economic output.
In summary, our approach is straightforward. B.C.'s clean fuel tax policy should amplify and accelerate capital investments in the province by adopting these recommendations.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to the discussion later.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Doug.
Now we'll hear from Scott Stanners, B.C. Bioenergy Network.
B.C. BIOENERGY NETWORK
S. Stanners: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Select Standing Committee and esteemed associates. I am Scott Stanners, executive director of B.C. Bioenergy Network.
I would like to begin by thanking the provincial government for establishing and funding BCBN 13 years ago and am pleased to continue being at your service to grow a thriving bioeconomy. I would like to compliment the government for increasing staff and support for Michael Rensing in the low-carbon fuels branch in EMLI. Michael's deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities in decarbonizing transportation has made B.C. a North American leader in blending renewable, low-carbon fuels.
Estimates indicate that attracting $4 billion may be required to achieve the renewable liquid fuel goals in CleanBC by 2030. If we are successful in attracting this capital, building this low-carbon fuel infrastructure will create permanent jobs, use value-added biomass residues from B.C.'s forest sector and municipalities across the province to decarbonize our economy, decrease the risk of forest fires through increased active management of our forests and maintain B.C.'s leadership role in decarbonizing transportation, responsible for nearly 40 percent of emissions in B.C.
Let's stop what's not working. I'll echo Doug's comments, which are: having a carbon tax on renewable fuels. Continue to collect the tax from fossil-based transportation fuels, but stop applying the carbon tax to renewable fuels to increase their competitiveness. Continue supporting what is working. The B.C. low-carbon fuel standard, also known as the LCFS, is a cost-effective, market-based mechanism that has proven to be successful. This has led to blending up to 8 percent renewable content into our 8 billion litres of gasoline and diesel consumed annually in B.C.
Our forest sector is transitioning from green power generation to low-carbon fuels. Canfor Pulp is producing a biocrude that will add renewable content to conventional fuels. Metro Vancouver is producing a biocrude from human wastewater sludge for Parkland Fuel Corp. in Burnaby to co-process into renewable transportation fuels.
Supporting this leadership and innovation in our energy sector will help B.C. achieve its environmental goals. I encourage the committee to align provincial funding initiatives with federal programs to achieve the best leveraging for B.C. taxpayer dollars.
Part 3 agreements are a spectacular tool that has enabled the financing of infrastructure that enabled the decarbonization of our economy. The only problem with part 3 agreements is that the federal government did not include them in the federal clean fuel standard. If the federal government wants to attract investment into the $6 billion required across the country, I ask you to encourage federal counterparts to consider adding part 3 agreements to their financial toolbox.
Also, providing support for four initiatives to accomplish CleanBC targets. As you know, over 99 percent of bio- and renewable diesel is imported into the province. B.C. does not have significant volumes of primary feedstocks like oilseeds and tallow harvested in the prairie provinces.
In order to achieve the goals of CleanBC, which states that low-carbon fuels have to be derived from B.C. feedstocks, we recommended supporting the scaling up and deployment of innovative technologies in B.C.
Second, develop a biofuel strategy that attracts federal funding and provides assurance to the investment community by committing to a 15-year plan.
Third, provide operating capital and program support for the B.C. Bioenergy Network to continue its mandates.
Fourth, establish a production credit program for renewable low-carbon fuels. It is the strongest way to attract investment, as we've seen in Alberta. They established a production credit program, which had significant impact on manufacturing biofuel in that province and led to ADM building their plants in Alberta.
To recap, stop what is not working. Stop taxing biofuels. Two, continue supporting what is working, including LCFS and part 3 agreements. And (4) support the four initiatives I've mentioned that will enable B.C. to decarbonize its fossil-based fuels.
Thank you for your attention.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Scott.
Finally, we'll hear from Jennifer Green, Canadian Biogas Association.
CANADIAN BIOGAS ASSOCIATION
J. Green: Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee as you undertake this important consultation. I speak on behalf of 150 member companies, including farmers, municipalities, utilities, technology developers and other organizations committed to unlocking Canada's biogas and renewable natural gas resources.
Biogas is one of Canada's quiet achievers. There are currently over 279 biogas projects operating across Canada. These projects capture methane from organic waste collected from farms, landfills, wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities, and then turn that methane into clean energy. In 2020, our sector produced the equivalent of 13 large hydro dams in clean electricity.
British Columbia specifically is home to 33 of Canada's biogas projects, or 12 percent of that total. These include the city of Surrey's well-known biogas system, which turns organic waste into clean, renewable natural gas that fuels its collection fleets and, in so doing, cuts 45,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year.
B.C.'s biogas projects also include 18 industrial wastewater biogas projects, two agricultural biogas projects and 11 industrial anaerobic digestion projects. There is so much more opportunity as well. Recent research on feedstock potential estimates that British Columbia has a theoretical renewable natural gas potential of 74 petajoules coming from animal manure, agricultural crops, source-separated organics, landfills and forestry. In order to meet these goals set out in the CleanBC plan, the province will need to develop more of its local biogas resources.
The province has successfully implemented some of the regulations needed to unleash B.C.'s biogas resources, including the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Regulation that's been mentioned. The GGRR requires a minimum of 15 percent renewable gases in the natural gas distribution network by 2030. This is really a major policy for achieving these goals and is applauded by other provinces.
The GGRR permits renewable gases to come from biogas, wood, hydrogen synthesis gas and lignin under those recent amendments. Ultimately, all these renewable gases will blend together to help decarbonize B.C.'s natural gas distribution system by 2050.
However, of the five renewable gases, only one is commercially available and cost-competitive right now, and that is biogas and renewable natural gas. It's biogas that needs to do the heavy lifting in meeting the GGRR and meeting the targets in the CleanBC plan between now and 2030.
Our recommendations are really to ensure biogas and renewable natural gas play the necessary role in fulfilling B.C.'s renewable gas future and in growing local jobs and private investment. We basically have three recommendations to put before the committee today.
One, that the B.C. government specify a subtarget for biogas-based renewable natural gas in contributing to the province's 15 percent renewable gas target. We believe that biogas and renewable natural gas collectively can meet two-thirds of the province's 15 percent renewable gas target inclusive of imports. This policy signal will help drive additional private investment. It will grow B.C.'s biogas supply and provide greater transparency and accountability with respect to progress towards meeting the requirements of the GGRR.
Recommendation 2, that the B.C. government support this new subtarget of biogas and renewable natural gas with dedicated programs that can grow B.C.'s supply of biogas and renewable natural gas. B.C. farmers, food producers, municipalities, landfills, industry facilities are all the owners of the province's untapped biogas resources. Dedicated programs can help private sector investment and unleash these biogas resources in order to accelerate progress towards B.C.'s renewable gas targets between now and 2030.
Thirdly, that the government support this new subtarget with levers to help offset development and operating costs. Some examples of this include exempting materials that are used to build biogas and RNG projects from the provincial sales tax and innovative clean energy fund tax to support industrial and residential demand for this clean fuel while also lowering energy costs. Another example is to support lowering operating costs of biogas and RNG facilities by providing preferred electricity rates for biogas producers via B.C. Hydro.
Those are our three recommendations. Thank you very much for your time and attention.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Jennifer.
We'll now open it up to the panel for questions.
G. Kyllo: The question is actually…. Jennifer, you might be able to answer this. I've always wondered: why is it that the federal government is not charging carbon taxes on fuel? We see these big tankers coming in from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and it's my understanding that they're not charged any carbon tax. Meanwhile, we're handcuffing our own industries here at home. Have you ever been privy to any reasoning for that?
J. Greene: Thanks so much for the question. I have not been privy to any reasoning for that, and I can't really speak to why the federal government is kind of moving in that direction. Apologies, but I don't really have any insight on that.
Perhaps, Doug, do you?
D. Hooper: Under the federal government's carbon tax on fuels — so transport fuels, gasoline, diesel — if they are consumed in a backstop jurisdiction, they will have the gasoline tax rate or the diesel tax rate. There are different rates on the other liquid fuels as well.
So if we're importing, as we do, over 12 billion litres a year of fossil fuels, refined petroleum products from the United States or other countries, they are subject to the carbon tax in the jurisdiction where they are ultimately combusted. That's on the fossil fuel side.
The federal government's system does allow for an exemption for biofuels if the biofuel content is above 10 percent in gasoline or 5 percent in diesel. In the Quebec cap-and-trade system, all renewable fuels are outside of the carbon-pricing system. They're exempt from the carbon-pricing system.
The only other province that applies a carbon tax on biogenic fuels or biofuels is New Brunswick. When they brought their carbon tax in, they removed their fuel excise tax to offset the impact at the pump. That ultimately ended up with carbon pricing on all fuels.
G. Kyllo: Thank you, Doug.
If I may, Madam Chair, just a quick follow up to that.
So we appear to be the outlier. If the carbon tax was removed from the fuels that have the percentage of biofuel that you had referenced, is your suggestion that those savings be provided directly 100 percent back to the consumer? Or do you think that those carbon taxes should be repurposed and maybe utilized for other initiatives to help support greenhouse gas emissions?
D. Hooper: The way the systems work federally and in the province of Quebec, the consumer gets the benefit of the price differentiation. So if they went to the pump and bought a litre of pure gasoline, they would pay 8.7 or nine cents a litre. If they bought E85 with 15 percent gasoline in a federal jurisdiction, they would pay 15 percent of that amount. They would save themselves 85 percent of the tax.
That's really the core of how the carbon-pricing system is meant to work. There should be a difference between fossil fuel emissions and clean fuel alternatives so that the consumers will be inclined to adopt the lower-carbon-emission fuels.
There are alternative ways, as you suggest, where you could recycle the money back in, but I think the core theory of carbon tax is that the market will be most efficient because it'll put the price literally in the hands of the person holding the nozzle at the pump.
G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Jessica, I know that in your presentation, and in what you sent in, you asked about exempting the tax. I'm assuming that's on the hydrogen side of it.
How is that possible to exempt that? Do they come together as two different fuels, and you load them on? They're both being taxed now, and you're asking for an exemption on the hydrogen side?
J. Verhagen: Yeah, that's correct. We're not the ones selling diesel. We sell hydrogen. The tax is applied to the distributor. For example, one of our customers has their diesel delivered by Esso. Esso would pay the carbon tax and pass it on to consumers, right? We're looking for an exemption just on the hydrogen. You don't have to do anything complicated to split the two up.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay.
Scott, I've got a question for you. You're saying: "Stop taxing renewable fuels." A renewables fuel is processed from renewables like corn and other things that you talked about. But it still emits CO2, doesn't it?
S. Stanners: Yes, it does. It's from a biogenic source. Say, for instance, as a tree grows, it absorbs carbon. And then as it's either combusted or converted into a biocrude to then make liquid fuels, that carbon is released. As long as we maintain the gold standard of silviculture in B.C. and replant those forests and that biogenic material to keep that carbon in a life cycle, then we get a close to net-zero emission from those sources.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): You allude to the fact that B.C. doesn't have the feedstock for this, but forestry is one of the ones you've identified. Having seen the demand for fibre — for pellets, for instance — the big obstacle is the freight to get it from the forest to the pellet plant or whatever. How is this going to work for biofuels and as a feedstock? Is it going to be forests that are earmarked for that? How do you see that?
S. Stanners: I see this more being residues within the forest sector itself. So where we're looking at the pulp mills, trying to transition away from producing power and putting it onto the grid, selling to B.C. Hydro, instead we are looking at transitioning to some of the other gasses, including lignin or synthesis gas as well as hydrogen.
As well as using those materials to make biocrudes, like we've seen at Canfor Pulp or even with Metro Vancouver, those biocrudes can then be used as precursor fuels in co-processing at refineries or even stand-alone facilities to make low-carbon renewable fuels.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I'll look forward to reading more about this in your written presentations.
M. Starchuk: To the presenters, thank you. It creates a lot of dialogue at a time on the planet when we need it the most.
I'm very familiar with the biofuel in Surrey. I happened to be on council when we put the shovels in the ground — and there to watch the tap turn at the same time. I'm very impressed with that. I'd love to see other communities in the province of B.C. see how easy it is to get it done that way.
My question is for Jessica. You made mention of hydrogen recapture, and I've got a big interest in that, because you're taking the unburnt or unutilized and then putting it back in the system. Could you explain that a bit?
J. Verhagen: Yeah, sure. We're capturing it from Chemtrade. We announced our partnership with them back in February. They have a sodium chlorate plant, and there are other plants that are producing chemicals that are simply off-gassing it.
So right now, if you looked at a picture of it, you'd see a vent stack with hydrogen coming out of it. To make that useful, we do have to purify it and compress it, but it is a lot cheaper than starting from scratch, probably as you're alluding to. If we're doing electrolysis or some other form of hydrogen production, you are starting from the beginning, and there's capital equipment and other costs that are incurred in doing so.
M. Starchuk: If I may, Doug, when we talked about the sites that are around Canada, how many sites could B.C. see online?
D. Hooper: Capital projects you're referring to?
M. Starchuk: Yes.
D. Hooper: In the survey that we conducted in June and July this year, there were 19 separate projects representing probably eight or nine sites. Some of the companies have multiple phases to the same site.
Companies that are in the public domain that you'd be familiar with are the Canfor Arbios joint venture in Prince George, the carbon engineering project in Squamish. West Coast Reduction has a two-phase project that they're looking at in the Port of Vancouver as well as in the Fraser Valley.
Who else am I thinking of there? Oh, and then, of course, the two refiners Tidewater and Parkland have both publicly announced, via their part 3 agreement press releases, some details of their intentions to co-process these bio-based crudes and future forestry-based biocrudes at their refining complexes in Prince George and Port Moody, as well as adopt co-refining chains at their refinery to make renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel.
B.C. is one of the most active jurisdictions across Canada, when we survey all of the projects from coast to coast, literally. In Newfoundland, there's one as well. I'd say about a third to 40 percent of the projects are based in B.C. That's because of the low-carbon fuel standard and progressive regulations like the GGRR or the ZEV Act, the carbon price system, etc. B.C.'s climate leadership has really attracted a lot of capital investment attention.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Other questions?
G. Kyllo: With respect to hydrogen, it's my understanding that you can mix about 20 percent hydrogen into natural gas without having to change the orifice sizes for different appliances and that sort of thing. Do you have any idea what the cost of a small electrolysis plant would be for generating hydrogen? What is the minimum capital cost of setting up a hydrogen facility? Anybody have any insight into that?
J. Verhagen: I can give a shot in the dark with a little bit of information. There has been a study that was done, looking at the dollar-per-kilogram cost. So rather than the total capital stack, just looking at dollar per kilogram and how many dollars per kilogram different sources of hydrogen would be. With electrolysis, it really is driven by the cost of electricity. In B.C., we have relatively cheap electricity, so you could see a cost potential of less than $10 a kilogram.
For me, given our application, I always like to convert that into what that means in dollars per litre, because nobody knows dollars per kilogram of hydrogen yet, especially when we talk to our fleets. They have no idea what that would translate to for a business expense for them. So $3.50 per kilogram would be the current price of diesel right now, if that makes sense. It's a little bit more expensive right now to go with hydrogen from the electrolysis, relative to the price of diesel.
G. Kyllo: Okay. Just as a follow-up, does Hydro provide any discounted rates for efforts to undertake the creation of hydrogen? Are there discounted rates to try to encourage more biofuels or hydrogen production in B.C.?
D. Hooper: Not that I'm aware of. There are, in the forestry sector, discounted rates that have been historically applied for forestry sawmills and pulp mills to encourage the adoption of new technologies and maintain their resilience. A number of those facilities went into bioenergy more aggressively with that saving, and so they were able to adopt systems that used their hot fuel and residues, etc., for heat as well as power generation.
Scott, you may know more about the forestry side, but on the biofuel facilities, specifically right now, I'm not aware of any preferential rate discussions.
J. Routledge (Chair): We've got a bit of time. I have a couple of questions.
First of all, Jennifer. Talking about biogas, is this something that could replace gas home heating?
J. Green: The ability to drop in renewable natural gas into the existing natural gas infrastructure to blend into the supply of natural gas is happening today. So that is something that is currently on offer. The opportunity for renewable natural gas will never fully displace the natural gas supply completely, but it helps to definitely de-carbonize the supply.
J. Routledge (Chair): If I could ask, why could it not replace it?
J. Green: Simply, at this point, it's just the volume –– the vast volume that is being provided to the province of B.C. from FortisBC and PNG and others in natural gas. The supply of feedstocks currently to fully displace the natural gas supply is just not there. Right now we can see an opportunity to really make a dent in terms of being able to blend that supply, but not fully replace it.
J. Routledge (Chair): So those of us that live in homes that are heated by natural gas would not have to refit our homes. It's about supply.
J. Green: That is absolutely correct. The molecule, the chemical composition of renewable natural gas, is identical, and, therefore, it does not require the consumer to make any alterations on their end for dryers or gaseous ranges or anything that is using natural gas. It's completely interchangeable.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Thank you.
I have another question. I think, Scott, you made specific reference to the Parkland refinery, which happens to be in my constituency. What also happens to be in Burnaby is the end of the pipeline that is being built from Alberta to Burnaby to carry fossil fuels, bitumen. If we were, over time, to convert to biofuels, which Parkland is already using, would more biofuel be able to be transported to that refinery using that pipeline? I know that right now they have a storage problem onsite.
S. Stanners: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you for the question. Yes, you are correct. The existing infrastructure, the pipeline infrastructure, can be used to transport renewable content as well.
We like to think of the existing refining and pipeline infrastructure not as something evil, as we've kind of encountered in the public, but actually looking at this as infrastructure that will allow us to make the transition to a cleaner future and, as Jennifer was mentioning, really using the existing natural gas infrastructure for other renewable gases like renewable natural gas, and then using our existing pipelines, actually, not only for liquid biofuels and other renewable fuels but also for hydrogen as well.
I think it does represent a winning story to make that transition to a greener economy.
J. Routledge (Chair): Ben, you had an additional question.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I don't know. Maybe this is best put to Jessica, but it's my understanding that the hydrogen buses that were in the fleet used during the Olympics were taken off.
There were some issues with two things. One was the hydrogen source, because it was being trucked in from Quebec. Secondly, the lifespan of the fuel cells wasn't quite up to the expectation when they were sold or whatever. Is there a source…? How are we going to create hydrogen? If we move to that as being a source of fuel, where's it going to come from?
J. Verhagen: I'm happy to take a first cut, and then if my colleagues want to add in anything, please feel free. We're taking hydrogen from a waste source. As I was mentioning before, it's a waste by-product from chemical production. There are alternative sources — for example, through electrolysis. As those costs continue to come down, it's similar to what you saw when wind energy and solar energy came online. It was at a more expensive price point, and then over time, it declined. I would expect to see similar things with the costs of electrolysis and other alternatives.
There are a number of new technologies on the horizon for hydrogen production too. I saw one recently on taking waste plastic and gasifying it to make a hydrogen stream. There are some interesting things, I think, on the horizon as well, but again, it comes down to affordability.
J. Routledge (Chair): Well, sadly, we have come to the end of our time with you to be able to talk about the future of energy. I must say that you've provided us with some facts and a vision that is very hopeful, at a time when we really need hope.
I think we could carry on this conversation for a long time. I, for one, would like to be able to talk with more authority and credibility about what you're proposing. I think we all look forward to more conversations, more dialogue, about what we can do in a concrete way to live the kinds of lives we've become used to and still save the planet.
Thank you very much for your time, and thank you very much for what you're working on. With that, we'll bid you goodbye.
We can go right to our next panel. They're ready to meet with us. This is a panel on water. We have three panellists, and each will have five minutes. Then we can have questions to individual panellists or to the panel as a group.
The first panellist is Coree Tull, B.C. Watershed Security Coalition.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 6 – Water
B.C. WATERSHED SECURITY COALITION
C. Tull: Hi, everyone. My name is Coree Tull, and I am the co-chair of the B.C. Watershed Security Coalition.
I'm joining you from the unceded traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh.
I grew up in Syilx territory, where I got to experience the creeks in my backyard come to life with salmon every year. I can remember the first time in my class that I participated in the salmon in the classroom program. I got to see salmon eggs become eyed and grow sacs and become alevin before they became fry. Then we went down to Goldstream Creek, and we released them into the water and got to see those salmon come back year after year.
This was really a significant experience in my childhood. It built a fascination, understanding and passion for the interconnectedness of our waters, for myself and as a community member, but also the importance that it plays for our plants and animals that depend on them. This is really what built the foundation of my career in freshwater advocacy and management.
I'm joining you today on behalf of the B.C. Watershed Security Coalition. The coalition came together during the pandemic to work with the province to create solutions that recognize that healthy watersheds are fundamental to our current and future human health, security, prosperity and reconciliation. Collectively, the coalition represents 32 organizations and a quarter of a million British Columbians from all walks of life in every corner of our province.
I want to thank your government for the investment in our watershed security through the Healthy Watersheds Initiative as part of your economic recovery plan. This is just the beginning of watershed security in B.C.
Our vision for watershed security in British Columbia is more prosperous communities, healthier people, cleaner water, restored salmon runs and authentic and enduring partnerships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous British Columbians. This vision is possible, and a critical next step is a commitment in the next provincial budget of a dedicated and ongoing $75 million annual investment in B.C.'s watershed security fund.
B.C. is in a state of emergency right now. We're being faced with worsening climate-fuelled droughts and fires, declining fish populations, and right now, communities are in a real reactive mode. These watershed pressures are having a lot of negative impacts. It's affecting drinking water, livelihoods, food security and the enjoyment of nature in our communities. In particular, these impacts are having profound consequences on Indigenous communities.
These problems come with significant economic costs. Right now on Vancouver Island and in the South Okanagan, we're experiencing some of the most severe drought levels that we've seen. That's stage 5. This is the most intense drought rating possible, and it's the first we've seen in the past five years. Under level 5 drought conditions, adverse impacts on socioeconomic and ecosystem values are almost guaranteed. That's according to the B.C. Drought Information Portal.
This will have dire consequences for our animals and ecosystems that depend on those salmon —coho and kokanee — but also the communities that depend on these waters to feed their families, grow their crops and run their businesses.
We can no longer take our watersheds for granted. Our mindset has to shift from one of perceived abundance to a position of watershed scarcity and uncertainty. In the next provincial budget, we need to see a commitment to the dedicated and ongoing $75 million annual investment in the watershed security fund. A permanent watershed security fund is necessary to provide sustainable funding for communities to build the resilience required to secure the health of their local watersheds in the face of these growing crises that we're seeing.
Right now we're seeing the direct benefit of this investment in our watersheds through the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, but that funding needs to be spent by the end of December 2021. We know that investing in long-term watershed community security will result in a stronger B.C. That's clean drinking water, climate-ready communities, prosperity across the province through jobs in rural and urban communities, skill training and private sector innovation. It's reconciliation in action through Indigenous economic development, government-to-government partnerships and flourishing salmon runs. That's putting people to work restoring the health and vitality of B.C.'s rivers.
British Columbians intuitively understand the importance of water and consistently ranked it as critical to human health and survival. In recent public opinion polling, seven in ten British Columbians say that B.C. needs to make major investments in watershed security to take strong action to protect our fresh water.
We know that watershed security is possible, and we can have clean drinking water. We can have healthy, sustainable fish populations, restored watersheds. We can have thriving local economies and communities that allow people to stay there to work. We can better make decisions in our watersheds to create healthy, resilient communities. We can support social, cultural and spiritual practices in our watersheds.
This future is possible, but we need to take action now. The decisions that we can make in the upcoming budget can really create a legacy for watershed security for all British Columbians. Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Coree.
Our next speaker is Justine Nelson, Rivershed Society of B.C.
RIVERSHED SOCIETY OF B.C.
J. Nelson: Thank you for the opportunity to present today. My name is Justine Nelson, and I'm joining you from the traditional territory of the Kwantlen Nation in Stó:lō Coast Salish territory.
I'm the executive director of the Rivershed Society of B.C., which was founded by Fin Donnelly in 1996 after his first swim down the Fraser River, one of the greatest salmon rivers in the world. The Fraser is a Canadian and B.C. heritage river. It's one of North America's most diverse watersheds, covering ten of B.C.'s 14 biogeoclimatic zones. It's home to one-quarter of British Columbians. It fuels two-thirds of B.C.'s economy and is known as the heart and soul of British Columbia.
We have a vision of the Fraser being a resilient watershed, with salmon, people and economies flourishing in rivershed communities. Our mission is to connect, protect and restore the Fraser's 34 riversheds. We call it watershed CPR — connect, protect, restore. We can't have healthy salmon and salmon runs if we don't have healthy watersheds.
Rivershed is an active member of the B.C. Watershed Security Coalition, a non-partisan diverse coalition that came together out of the recognition that in every region of this province, healthy watersheds are fundamental to human health, security, prosperity and reconciliation.
I would like to recognize and thank the provincial government for its investment of $27 million in 60 watershed projects through the healthy watersheds initiative. This investment is creating good jobs and building lasting partnerships with nations throughout the Fraser watershed and the rest of B.C.
Rivershed has an exciting project that was made possible with this investment. On the Salmon River in Langley, we are working with local Indigenous communities and agricultural landholders to restore private land adjacent to waterways through a program called the foodlands corridor restoration program.
Foodlands' approach to restoration focuses on local, Indigenous and ecological values. Projects are guided by a decolonization framework and a holistic understanding of environmental and human health that combines traditional knowledge and western science. This project, on the shared territory of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Semiahmoo and Matsqui Nations, is being completed in collaboration with Seyem' Qwantlen, the business subsidiary of the Kwantlen First Nation; the Langley Environmental Partners Society; Kerr Wood Leidal Consulting; and multiple landholders along the river.
The project is creating off-channel habitat for coho overwintering. The landholders generously agreed to allow us to restore a portion of a livestock grazing area for the benefit of enhancing salmon survival, as well as creating habitat for other species at risk.
The project is stabilizing eroding sections of the riverbank using soft engineering techniques, planting live willow stakes, placing large woody debris into the bank and replanting the edges with endemic plant species that were traditionally found in the area.
It is restoring species-at-risk habitat through the removal of invasive species, building bat and owl boxes, creating off-channel wetlands and establishing a riparian buffer.
It is cultivating a cross-cultural understanding of Indigenous food systems and land management at the direction of Seyem' Qwantlen and the Kwantlen First Nation, through the planning, implementation and maintenance of the project. Rivershed and Seyem' Qwantlen are employing at least 22 people through this project, and these sites will be completed by December 2021.
But completing these sites is just the beginning. Over the next three to ten years, continued maintenance and monitoring of the restored area will prevent invasive plants from re-establishing, ensure the continued growth of native plants and allow for tracking positive impacts of the restoration work on fish and wildlife. The restored corridor will continue to grow through outreach to additional landholders and investments.
This exciting project wouldn't have been possible without the stimulus investment. It's time to build on that investment and invest in long-term watershed security. In the next budget, Rivershed is asking for a dedicated $75 million annual investment in a permanent B.C. watershed security fund.
This investment will provide sustainable funding for communities to face the growing water crisis and allow projects like foodlands to continue. It will boost local economies, create good jobs and leverage additional funding from other sources for watershed restoration projects like foodlands. In fact, Rivershed was able to leverage additional funding for 2022 to commence work on more properties along the Salmon River corridor.
The watershed security fund should be designed and governed in partnership with First Nations and serve as a demonstration of reconciliation in action. A dedicated and ongoing investment in B.C.'s watershed security is imperative to ensure projects like foodlands can continue to work with agricultural landholders, Indigenous rights holders and other community stakeholders.
With an investment in B.C.'s watershed security, we can transform the Fraser to a resilient watershed, with salmon, people and economies flourishing in rivershed communities. Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Justine.
Finally, we'll hear from Tim Morris, B.C. Freshwater Legacy Initiative. Then we'll open it up for questions.
B.C. FRESHWATER LEGACY INITIATIVE
T. Morris: Hi. Thank you to the committee for the opportunity. My name is Tim Morris. I'm project director of the B.C. Freshwater Legacy Initiative.
I actually split my time between B.C. and Ontario, and right now I'm Zooming in from Collingwood, on the shores of Georgian Bay. On Monday, my wife and I are setting off on a long drive across Canada, landing in Victoria, B.C. and the beautiful watersheds of Vancouver Island.
I just want to start by expressing my gratitude to the Indigenous peoples of both the regions that I call home, particularly Indigenous women for their traditional role as carriers of water and for teaching us all that water is sacred and that it needs to be honoured.
I've worked on water protection my entire career and been director of the legacy initiative for the past five years. This initiative is a funding partnership that's supporting five projects that are piloting new approaches to local watershed governance. These are in the Cowichan, Koksilah, Nicola, Nechako and Skeena watersheds. Eighty percent of our funding goes towards Indigenous leadership and capacity, primarily to hire staff to lead these projects. In three of these regions, we're co-funding the work with the provincial government.
Building on the comments from my fellow presenters, I'd just like to reinforce why we need a financial commitment to watershed security in the upcoming budget. I want to touch on the importance of sustainable funding for watersheds and for advancing reconciliation, economic benefits and why we need these investments now.
Long-term, sustainable funding is at the top of the wish list of the things that we hear from our community partners. In particular, sustainable funding is so important to Indigenous nations that are rebuilding their governance systems. What it means is they can hire and provide training and job security to people in their community and build their nation's self-government capacity.
What happens when funding is piecemeal and unpredictable is Indigenous communities are forced to rely on temporary contracts with outside consultants — consultants that bring no long-term benefit to their communities. Currently in B.C., very few First Nations actually have dedicated watershed management staff, because they don't have access to sustainable funding. This is one of the main reasons why a longer-term funding commitment is so important, and why we need to see at least $75 million, on an annual basis, in a watershed security fund that is being created in partnership with First Nations.
To dig a little more into the economic benefits, we all know that a reliable supply of clean water is essential to almost every economic sector in B.C. The financial impacts that we've seen for farmers, fruit growers and others during this year's drought is just a devastating reminder of what happens when that supply of water is not here. Less well known is the surprising number of jobs that actually exist in the work done to keep our watersheds healthy, in fields such as watershed restoration, in building and operating water infrastructure and in developing new technologies.
In fact, a recent economic study from the Delphi Group, which was called Working for Watersheds, estimates that there are nearly 50,000 jobs — 29,00 of those direct jobs — in B.C.'s watershed sector, which puts it on par with the oil and gas and agricultural sectors. This report also highlights the opportunity for growth in the watershed sector, and it forecasts that an investment of $100 million per year over ten years would add an estimated 13,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in GDP to the British Columbian economy.
Why do we need this investment now? Well, this summer has been a huge wake-up call. If we don't take action now, we're going to see social and economic costs that are orders of magnitude higher than the investment that we're recommending. On the flip side, if we invest in our watershed security now, we're going to be building our best line of defence against the climate crisis.
Just a few quick examples of what I mean by this. By restoring riparian vegetation, we provide shade to keep streams cool and a refuge for wild salmon so they can survive heat waves. By rebuilding wetlands in and around towns and cities, you can absorb floodwaters that would otherwise cause enormous damage. By protecting old-growth forests, you can hold back snow melt like a sponge in the winter and ensure it gets released as cold groundwater when it's needed in the summer.
These are the benefits that healthy watersheds provide, and they are among the most effective climate resilience measures we can take as we face increasing droughts, floods and heat waves.
Like my co-presenters, I give credit to the B.C. government for the investment in the healthy watershed initiative, which has been a very well-implemented program. But as Coree said, this funding ends in December, and there's currently no funding in place to keep this, to continue this momentum.
It's the opposite of sustainable funding. All these jobs, training and projects are going to just fall off the cliff. This is why we can't afford to wait for another budget cycle. It's essential that B.C. make this necessary investment in our watershed security now.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Tim.
Now we'll turn to the committee to ask questions.
P. Alexis: Thank you, all three, for your presentations. I just have a question about the ask. I heard the $75 million from the Rivershed Society and the B.C. freshwater legacy initiative. So we're talking about the same $75 million investment, and you are working together because you provide slightly, perhaps, different supports or focuses in your own non-profits. So that's what you're looking for as an investment in all of your initiatives. Is that correct?
I see some nodding. Does anybody want to elaborate?
C. Tull: Yeah. That is correct, Pam. The B.C. Watershed Security Coalition has members — the Rivershed Society as well as the B.C. freshwater legacy initiative. So yes, we're all asking for the same long-term $75 million investment.
How we came to that number, around that, was we know that there's been a need identified for this sustainable annual funding. Those of you who've been on the committee for the past several years have heard us asking for this. But we identified a $50 million to $75 million per year need in watershed projects across the province.
Back in 2019, a report was done by Polis project, the First Nations Fisheries Council, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the B.C. freshwater legacy initiative. It identified $40 million. Then, more recently, in 2020, a survey was conducted across the province to identify 140 projects which totalled a funding need of $200 million.
What we're learning now, through even the healthy watershed initiative, is that even more projects are coming forward that are identifying a need for long-term, sustainable funding. So that is how we landed on that $75 million annual investment.
P. Alexis: Sorry. The current investment, the current dollar value that you're receiving.
C. Tull: Sorry. We aren't currently receiving any money….
P. Alexis: Nothing. So it's not in addition to. This is a newish ask.
C. Tull: Yeah. The province committed $27 million as part of the healthy watershed initiative, but that is obviously stimulus money, and we're saying that we need $75 million annual long-term, sustainable funding committed in the budget.
P. Alexis: Okay. I understand now. Thank you.
C. Tull: Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Other questions?
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentations. To get from the $27 million that the government put into the clean water initiative that you're currently receiving funding from, what's the $75 million? In your presentation here that Delphi did, it talks about $100 million a year in a watershed security fund. What's the basis? Where's the background information that justifies a lift of almost three times the amount that you've been given from the watershed security fund that you've got money from?
I mean, I understand the importance of water. I have a farm, and I understand we need a reliable source. But I'm not quite getting there in terms of these restorative projects you're talking about. You talk a lot about jobs, but what I'm not quite seeing is: what's the work that's going to be accomplished if you were to get that type of money?
T. Morris: Yeah. Just to build on what Coree's saying, the basis of the $75 million most recently is a survey that was sent out to many different groups in the water community to identify what's needed in their regions to restore and put watersheds back to good health, and the amount that came back was over $200 million.
So in fact, $75 million is not the final total that we need. But we think that's a good, significant contribution. If it's core funding, we know that that can be leveraged with other governments, with the private sector, with philanthropy to get much closer to that $200 million need.
What we've learned from the people running the healthy watershed initiative is that $27 million, again, is just the tip of the iceberg. They're hearing from many other nations, local governments, groups that have projects that need to be done in their regions, but there isn't sufficient funding to do it.
It's a good start. It's a good stimulus. But it isn't going to get us where we need to restore and protect our watersheds in B.C.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay. So the other question I have is: what about waste, in terms of water waste, etc.? I know what it's like in the Okanagan. We've got all sorts of restrictions in place. Farming, I cut my water usage by 83 percent by putting in drip irrigation from overhead irrigation. That's kind of the standard that our families use. The part about it is, when we look at it….
We've just completed a $100 million project in agriculture, in twinning irrigation systems in the southeast Kelowna area. That project separated domestic from agricultural water. I'm sure that there are a lot more savings and stuff like that. I'm not certain we're very good at managing water yet. That's what I'm trying to say.
We talk about restoration. That's important. Don't get me wrong. But I do think that there are some other things that we need to think about when it comes to water, because it's going to cost something. It costs something already. We pay by the litre of what we're using and stuff like that.
Anyways, thanks for that explanation.
T. Morris: I agree. I like Coree's point, that we need to move from this kind of myth water abundance to a sense that we're actually managing in scarcity, because that's what we've seen this summer.
J. Routledge (Chair): Other questions?
I see no further questions. I think you've made a very powerful case, and I would just wrap it up by thanking you for your leadership on this very important issue. I wrote down: "Moving from a sense of abundance to something that's at risk." I think that's an important paradigm shift in terms of how we look at water.
As all of you were speaking, I was thinking about my own community, where it is an urban community. It is in the middle of an urban community, and we celebrate World Rivers Day and we celebrate B.C. Rivers Day. In the time that I've lived there, I have seen the community come together to restore creeks that were basically ruined by industrial pollution.
Salmon are coming back. We go, and we see the salmon. Children from schools go, and they see the salmon. They experience it. What has been accomplished with leadership from groups like yours is an incredible sense of community pride in my community.
Thank you again for your leadership, and thank you for sharing this with us today. With that, we'll say goodbye.
Shall we do one more presenter, before we take a break?
Okay. Our next presenter is Kat Hartwig, Living Lakes Canada. Kat, you can go whenever you're ready.
LIVING LAKES CANADA
K. Hartwig: Thank you for having me. I'm the executive director of Living Lakes Canada. I'm actually calling you today from Aleknagik, which is near Bristol Bay, where I'm just volunteering, on holiday, for a freshwater research station. I just took a two-hour boat ride in to get Wi-Fi, so thank you so much for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you today.
I'm from the East Kootenay, and I managed our family farm there, so I do have a business background. But my passion, and where I've dedicated the past 35 years of my life has been in large-scale land conservation, endangered species and water stewardship.
In our work, we've found that water stewardship is the most tangible way for people to understand how the climate crisis will have direct and indirect impacts on them, since water underpins the health of our ecosystems, communities and local economies.
We built and use Living Lakes as a platform to mobilize and train and empower communities to address the long-term viability of watershed health and to increase our climate adaptation options.
In 2006 and in 2013, the Pacific climate change consortium reported that there was not enough water data available to allow for adaptation options as they relate to water supply for most communities in the Columbia Basin. It reported that ecosystems are shifting to semi-arid conditions, while the Okanagan Basin was shifting to arid conditions.
A subsequent report commissioned by the Columbia Basin Trust in 2017 revealed the same thing. Nothing had changed. We were still in water-information arrears, and that water data was urgently needed for our understanding of groundwater, wetlands, small to medium-sized streams, high-elevation lakes.
In 2020, UBC also released their 30-year study suggesting that because the glaciers in the basin will be gone within the next two decades, we are now past peak flow in the Columbia Basin. It means that our high-elevation lake temperature is increasing faster than air temperature. Soil and moisture content is rapidly dropping. Small streams are becoming intermittent, and intermittent streams are disappearing, which will impact fire-suppression logistics. As surface water supply becomes more challenged, communities are moving to groundwater sources, for which we have little to no information regarding aquifer size nor their recharge rates.
These reports were the impetus for Living Lakes to initiate and facilitate the Columbia Basin water monitoring collaborative, which included the establishment of an open-source data hub as a repository for the water data collected by over 22 volunteer water-monitoring groups, some First Nations, industry and local government. You do have the details of some of this information in your background package.
Last year we hosted a senior hydrologist workshop with lead provincial and federal hydrologists who agree that a scientific water balance approach — i.e., measuring the water coming into a basin, being used and leaving the basin — was needed for the Columbia Basin — and this is unrelated to the Columbia River treaty — in order to support subsequent water budgets that would be required by community decision-makers.
We've developed terms of reference for a basin-wide, priority-monitoring matrix to build out economies of scale with a nested monitoring approach, since water monitoring needs are vast and resources are not, especially for local government. The terms of reference included budget estimates requiring a minimum of $30 million for the next ten years, starting now, just to get the basic data needed to begin water budgets required for adaptation options. Water budgets will determine whether we will water a golf course or make snow for a ski hill, provided it's cold enough, have water for our communities or for local farmers to grow food.
Four days ago, the mayor of Grand Forks was in the media announcing his concerns that Grand Forks will run out of water, and in parts of California, they stopped allocating to farmers. Just yesterday Reuters released an article regarding long-term water challenges for our wheat belts. It is becoming increasingly onerous for all levels of government to meet fiduciary responsibilities regarding water supply requirements.
These are unprecedented times, which require innovative paradigm shifts in thinking. A dedicated, result-oriented, annual watershed security fund is a step in the right direction. We must be bold in our transition to green economies that provide young people with hope and meaningful work. This year alone, thanks to the provincial healthy watersheds initiative, we were able to provide dozens of young people with these green jobs, just from our organization.
In closing, we strongly urge you to consider a dedicated watershed security fund in your budget deliberations. Let's make British Columbia a centre for water excellence with a 21st-century, relevant, dedicated watershed security fund.
Thank you for your time.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Kat.
Now, if we have any questions from our committee….
P. Alexis: Thank you for travelling for two hours in search of Wi-Fi. Really appreciate that. What a feat.
Just clarity on the ask. You are referring to the ask of the group before you, with the watershed society, Rivershed, freshwater legacy? There was an ask there. Are you thinking it's the same ask that we just heard?
K. Hartwig: I think what the water community in British Columbia is asking you is to consider having an annual watershed security fund that can be used by the groups in communities throughout British Columbia that are concerned about the longevity and well-being of their communities with water supply because of the climate crisis. I think you're hearing similar messages asking for a dedicated annual fund.
P. Alexis: Did you put a dollar value on your ask?
K. Hartwig: I think what I said to you was that for us to collect the data in the Columbia Basin alone, to make informed decisions around water budgets, we've costed that out in our terms of reference. At a minimum, just to get the science, it's $30 million over the next ten years. But I think the ask from the water community in general is to have a $75-million-a-year annual fund.
I'm thinking that's not enough. We've been talking to the people who are investigating the Canada water agency development as well. You've heard Trudeau's announcement of $1 billion. Really, we've left it so long and we're in such arrears that the longer we wait, the more it costs us.
P. Alexis: Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that.
M. Starchuk: Kat, I'm thinking that 20 years ago, we would have never thought about two-hour travel for Wi-Fi. I'm hoping that 20 years from now, it'll be the same thing, that you don't have to travel.
K. Hartwig: Well, I'm on holiday, but I didn't want to miss this.
M. Starchuk: At the beginning, you had made mention about what your organization is doing. You talked about training communities. Can you expand on what that training of a community actually entails?
K. Hartwig: What it is, is that in 2004, we started really wanting to make sure that we understood the health of our…. We had hosted a business and biodiversity conference, and the CEO of Unilever Canada said: "What are you doing about the headwaters of Columbia Lake?" The Columbia Lake burbot fishery had just collapsed.
Then we partnered with ECCC to make sure that we developed a protocol that the Canadian government was using and the province was using and trained citizens — citizen science — to use this federal and provincial protocol to collect water data that could then support provincial and federal decision-makers around water and water decisions. This was mostly water quality–related.
What we've done since then…. We're one of the few groups that are trained to train trainers. We train groups across British Columbia, mostly First Nations groups in northern B.C. We actually do it across Canada. Now we're actually working with the University of Victoria, doing eDNA stuff. Really, empowering community groups to use provincial and federal protocols to assess their watershed health is our main bailiwick.
M. Starchuk: Just so I have it clear, in 2004, you noticed that there was a lack of data. Today you used a term — I'm going to try to figure out how I'm going to use it later on: "water-information arrears." You still don't know the aquifer sizes or how they're charged. Is that correct?
K. Hartwig: That's correct. In the Columbia Basin, which is two-thirds the size of Okanagan Basin, just for an example, when we started the groundwater monitoring program, there were three observation wells. The Okanagan had 60.
Now our groundwater program has brought it up to 23 observation wells, which means that we are then able to provide…. Well, it's pre-drought information. But we're also able to help support the provincial government in providing data around what's happening to groundwater and groundwater fluctuations. The concern is that we have aquifers…. We have no idea the size of the aquifers or how many.
The concern, too, is that because surface water is going to be so compromised, communities are going to groundwater. But we don't know how much. … We don't know the recharge rate of those aquifers. We don't know the size of the aquifers. We do know that the aquifers…. For example, groundwater is what now feeds the Columbia River Wetlands during the winter months. The Columbia River Wetlands is one of the most important flyways in North America for migratory birds.
There's so much information that we don't have. But we were told to start collecting the information by the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium over 15 years ago. We still haven't done it. The longer we wait, the more costly it becomes.
What we're proposing is: let's build economies of scale. Let's figure out what communities' needs are, what the scientific needs are, and do a nested approach so that you're not holding the town of Revelstoke to ransom.
They've got a $50,000 budget to get their water supply under control. Then they've having to pay $80,000 to a hydrologist in Vancouver because they don't have that economy of scale where we all work together, build a priority-monitoring matrix and say: "Listen. You have these needs. We can help you. We can support you." We can't do this in a siloed way anymore. We don't have the money, and we don't have the time.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Kat. You obviously know your stuff. I'm very impressed, and it's great. I've got a question about Columbia Basin Trust and the money that they have got, etc. Have they been investing and helping, in terms of your initiatives? I don't know if you're in the CBT area, but anyway, my question….
K. Hartwig: No, I definitely am. The Columbia Basin Trust covers the entire Columbia Basin, basically from the West Kootenay–Nelson side, Grand Forks, over to the East Kootenay, etc. I mean, the Columbia Basin Trust has the revenue that's generated. Some goes to the feds; some goes to the province. Not nearly enough of that revenue that's generated through the treaty is being redistributed back to what I would say is putting us in a more climate adaptation option.
I think they're reconsidering that this year, but that's a question that we're all asking ourselves too. For example, this year alone the Columbia Basin Trust is giving 800,000 bucks for all environmental initiatives throughout the basin and lumping climate change and water stewardship under that umbrella, which is simply not feasible. There is questioning, and people are questioning, about how that money is being redistributed.
The problem is, too, with the trust…. The trust wants the community to determine for them how to spend the money. But if the community doesn't understand how little information we have around water and how close we are to really having emergency situations with water supply, how are they going to then inform the trust? It has to actually be the other way around, where the trust, which actually paid for those studies that said we don't have enough data….
Then they sit on it and don't do anything. They also don't let their constituents know that they have a huge problem. Then they go back to the constituents and say: "Well, tell us what to do." It's the blind leading the blind, literally. So yeah, it's a problem.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): All right. Yes, I know. As the former minister responsible, I know how big the fund is, and I think it does take a lot. Really, it should be reinvested there, especially in the….
K. Hartwig: Yeah, it should be, and it is. But I feel like it's not being reinvested, necessarily, in the areas that are the underpinnings of our economy. I mean, if we're going to be making decisions about watering a golf course or making snow for a ski hill or whether a community has water or whether ranchers can continue to grow alfalfa, those are pretty big, significant things.
This kind of band-aid solution stuff isn't going to work. This isn't for me…. I'm not wanting to be negative. I just think that if we don't sort the underpinnings of what holds our economy in place, we are not addressing the crux of the issue.
The climate change crisis is here. This is not a dress rehearsal. We're feeling it now. We were in smoke all summer, and I'm not sure where we're going to get to with fire suppression if our streams become intermittent. These things are things that take…. It's called hydrological non-stationary.
Even to get baseline information, we should have been doing this 15, 20 years ago. Now playing catch-up is almost too little, too late. But we've got to do it, regardless. Right? Not to sound alarmist, but it is alarming.
J. Routledge (Chair): I hate to do it, Kat, but we're going to have to wrap this up — we have another presenter, also on water — but your enthusiasm and passion for the topic is kind of infectious.
I've got to say that when Mike asked you about training communities, it reminded me that when we conclude today, I'm immediately going to an island that has had chronic water shortage, and we have learned for 40 years what we need to do to conserve water.
On our particular water system, our water usage is posted. That trains us, because all our neighbors get to see how much water we use. That's what immediately came to mind when we talked about training communities. We all have to be part of the solution.
K. Hartwig: That's brilliant. I'm glad you said that, because it does require all hands on deck. We really do. We need to provide hope for our young people, for sure. It's our responsibility. I think that we can make B.C. a centre for water excellence. I don't see why not, you know? We just do need to play some catch-up here before we get there.
J. Routledge (Chair): We definitely do.
K. Hartwig: I really appreciate your time, and thank you so much for letting me speak here today. It's been a privilege.
J. Routledge (Chair): And thanks to you. See you again. Bye-bye.
We will go right to our next presenter and then we'll take a break after that, before our next panel. Our next presenter is Shannon McGinty, Lake Windermere Ambassadors.
LAKE WINDERMERE AMBASSADORS
S. McGinty: My name is Shannon McGinty. I grew up in Ontario. Swimming and canoeing were huge parts of my childhood.
When I moved to Prince George in 2010, B.C.'s natural beauty and access to fresh water was pivotal. Water has been ingrained in my recreation pursuits, volunteer efforts and education throughout my life. B.C. has an incredible resource that is currently facing huge threats and the opportunity to mitigate the negative impacts we're seeing so clearly right now.
My connection to water led me to my work with the Lake Windermere Ambassadors. The Lake Windermere Ambassadors are a non-profit organization with a vision of healthy waters for healthy communities.
Lake Windermere is the lifeline of our community, and it brings tourism to the community. Many rely on it for safe drinking water, and it has huge cultural significance to the Ktunaxa and Secwépemc peoples.
We work towards our vision through monitoring, education and creating connections for all levels of government to get involved. B.C.'s fresh water is currently under threat, with increased human demands and climate change jeopardizing the quality and availability of this water for ours and future generations.
There is a lot of potential to turn this around though. I see organizations and new projects starting all the time that are creating thriving communities, good local jobs and ecosystem restoration. This work is becoming more and more prominent as it becomes more and more essential. This year in our community we saw severe heatwaves, fish die-offs, drought and threatening wildfires. This is not unique just to our corner of B.C., but is provincewide.
I'm asking that B.C. stop taking our watersheds and the efforts of water stewardship groups for granted. In the next provincial government, we would like to see a commitment to a dedicated and ongoing $75 million annual investment in B.C.'s watershed security.
A permanent B.C. watershed security fund is necessary to provide sustainable funding for communities to build the resilience required to secure the health of their local watersheds in the face of the growing crisis we are seeing. Such a fund could also be an important boost to local economies, creating a surge of good jobs and leveraging additional funding from other sources, including private and philanthropic sectors.
A long-term, sustainable fund will also be a tangible investment in the support of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. If designed and governed and partnered with B.C.'s First Nations, this fund can be a clear demonstration of reconciliation in action.
Such a fund is imperative to ensure critical habitats are restored and protected to safeguard wild salmon survival and so many other fish and wildlife populations. That's my ask. Thank you.
J. Routledge (Chair): Any questions for Shannon?
Shannon, you should know that there have been a number of speakers ahead of you that have made the same case and have made the exact same ask, which I'm sure you're aware of. So we don't have questions, because we've already asked a lot of questions. But we do thank you for taking the time to add your voice. The fact that there are so many of you making this case makes a difference. Thank you very much.
Unless there's anything, another sentence or two, that you want to add, we'll thank you again and say goodbye.
S. McGinty: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you.
We will now recess for ten minutes.
The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.
[J. Routledge in the chair.]
J. Routledge (Chair): Our next panel is on climate change. We have four panellists. Each panellist has five minutes. Then, after we've heard from each panellist, we will open it up to questions from the committee to the panel as a whole or to individuals. Our first speaker is Margaret Holm, B. C. Climate Alliance.
Whenever you're ready, Margaret.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 7 – Climate Change
B.C. CLIMATE ALLIANCE
M. Holm: Good afternoon. I'm speaking on behalf of the B.C. Climate Alliance. We are a non-partisan, non-profit organization. We advocate for stronger provincial climate policies, and we work with 22 partner organizations across the province.
The B.C. Climate Alliance has two recommendations for this committee. The first is that the budget for CleanBC be significantly increased and that the climate action revenue incentive program for municipal climate action be restored or a new municipal program formulated. The second is that the B.C. government explore opportunities to increase revenue from the carbon tax, which would stimulate industrial emission reductions and fund increased climate program expenditures.
We applaud the B.C. government for being the first jurisdiction in Canada to establish a carbon tax and initiating the CleanBC plan, which is a very good plan, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The government spent a total of about $800 million in the past fiscal year on climate-related initiatives, and it's expected to spend another $500 million, but it isn't quite what it appears. If one examines the budget, there are a lot of disparate programs being funded under what are called climate-related initiatives. For instance, Stronger B.C. is under this now, and the COVID response for jobs and business. There are major capital transit projects, forest enhancement, flooding and forest fire mitigation. These are all good programs, all worthy programs. But are they bringing our GHG emissions down?
Also considered in this large budget is the climate action tax credit. This is part of the climate umbrella of programs. Up to 30 percent of the actual expenditures is for these tax rebates. We feel that the CleanBC budget allocation of about $235 million for actual emission reduction initiatives is low compared to B.C.'s healthy GDP and the revenue growth that is anticipated with the increased carbon tax.
B.C. municipalities have been given a really challenging job to reduce emissions by 60 percent in this decade. I come from a medium-sized municipality. We have a 0.5 position for emissions reduction. I'm in quite a large regional district. We have one new position each year. Climate mitigation and adaptation is being added to all the other functions of local government. Local government is required to include GHG reduction in all of their strategies, official community plans, regional growth strategies. Where are the financial resources for this?
There is about just over $8 million a year that was distributed through the climate action revenue incentive program, CARIP, which ends this year, which leaves a program and funding vacuum. We need a next-generation beefed-up version of this program with a significant increase in funding. For our local governments to engage in climate mitigation planning, they need multi-year funding. They need to be able to work with five- to ten-year long-range planning. There is no information on what's replacing the program. Municipalities now have fiscal uncertainty to engage in significant emission reduction.
Our message is that local governments need the financial resources and funding structure to fulfil their mandate in the climate action charter.
Now switching to the revenue side very quickly, I'm confident other groups are addressing the cost of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, so I won't talk about that. The B.C. Climate Alliance recommends that the B.C. government increase carbon tax revenue and, at the same time, stimulate emissions reductions by first restricting carbon tax fuel exemptions — there are a number of them — and also by including forestry emissions in the provincial emissions inventory and sectoral industrial targets. You could expand the B.C. carbon tax to cover slash burning and harvested wood product emissions.
Lastly, methane is a potent GHG. Right now it sort of sits outside of all the other emissions taxing and incentives. We know that it's possible to establish accurate and independent methane monitoring. We know that methane release occurs across the entire LNG gas supply chain, from extraction to storage to well abandonment. The B.C. carbon tax could cover methane emissions. It would become a greenhouse gas tax rather than a carbon tax, and there are many good studies making a case for increasing methane regulations and taxing.
In conclusion, there's a need for more revenue for CleanBC or municipal climate funding, and there's potential revenue for expanding the carbon tax, or GHG tax, to cover more types of industrial emissions.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Margaret.
Our next speaker is Sue Kirschmann, First Things First Okanagan.
FIRST THINGS FIRST OKANAGAN
S. Kirschmann: Hello. On behalf of First Things First Okanagan, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Sue Kirschmann. I'm from the village of Naramata, which is just north of Penticton, on the traditional lands of the Syilx people.
The first item I'd like to discuss is building retrofits. There are two types of retrofits: those that improve energy efficiency, such as new windows, better insulation, tighter building envelopes; and clean energy retrofits, where buildings are switched to renewable sources of energy — for example, replacing natural gas furnaces with electric heat pumps.
There are a number of benefits associated with retrofitting buildings. First, it creates jobs and stimulates local economic activity. Retrofits require a range of skilled labour and use mainly local materials and also create employment where people live. The Pembina Institute estimates that the retrofit industry will create 20,000 new jobs and $10 billion in associated economic activity in B.C. in the next 20 years.
Retrofits also save everyone money, as energy-efficient buildings cost less to heat and cool. Investing in retrofits helps with climate adaptation. For example, heat pumps can be reversed to cool buildings in the summer, and tight building envelopes help keep indoor air smoke-free during wildfires.
Lastly, clean energy retrofits also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will help us meet the government's CleanBC targets.
First Things First Okanagan applauds the province for its current support of retrofit rebates and zero-interest loan programs such as HELP and the PACE program. However, these incentives are not enough if we are to meet the emission reduction targets set by the CleanBC plan.
The CleanBC target for the buildings and community sector is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 60 percent by the year 2030, and to reach this target, this means that at least 30,000 houses, 20,000 residential building units and a whole lot of commercial space will need to be retrofitted each and every year. We are far below these numbers, so we need to seriously ramp up retrofit action.
More people would take on retrofitting their homes, their rental units and businesses if incentives were increased. Based on research done by the Pembina Institute and by Clean Energy Canada, we recommend a budget of $1.5 billion annually for incentives that cover 50 to 75 percent of people's retrofit costs. We recommend another $270 million annually to fund no-cost retrofits for low-income households.
First Things First Okanagan also recommends that the province ban all incentives for natural gas. Companies such as Fortis currently offer rebates for connecting new builds to natural gas and for switching space heating and appliances to natural gas. Such rebates should not be allowed, as they completely undermine the goals of CleanBC, which is to reduce emissions, not increase them.
Our final point about building retrofits is that a large number of skilled workers will be needed to implement the retrofits at the rate that is required. So we recommend that the province allocate $40 million annually to support building retrofit training and retraining programs.
I'd like to spend my last minute on communications. This disastrous summer and the recent IPCC report make it clear that there's an urgent need to respond to the climate emergency. Some people have low awareness, while others are very aware and are frightened but don't know what to do. Awareness and buy-in are crucial when implementing change, and both climate mitigation and climate adaptation will involve a great deal of change.
We feel the province needs to better communicate to its citizens what the public can do, what government is doing and how things might change. We recommend that $50 million be budgeted annually for a climate change communications campaign, a professional advertising–style campaign that uses all media platforms to regularly inform and motivate the public and to celebrate successes as we hit emission reduction targets.
I thank you again for your time and hope you will consider our organization's budget requests.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Sue.
Our next presenter is Sven Biggs, Stand.earth.
STAND.EARTH
S. Biggs: Thank you. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that I'm joining you today from the unceded territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam nations. I'd like to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to present.
I'm going to focus today on fossil fuel subsidies. For the last two budget cycles, our organization has worked with economists to do a review of the provincial budget through an environmental lens. We were struck, in this process, by how quickly fossil fuel subsidies in the province have risen and how large they've become, and as a result, we have issued a number of public reports on this issue.
I want to take a second to explain our methodology we used to identify fossil fuel subsidies. We did a line-by-line analysis of the budget documents and the supporting ministerial service plans, using the World Trade Organization's internationally recognized definition of fossil fuel subsidies. The most recent report found that this year as much as $1.3 billion will be allocated to fossil fuel subsidies in B.C. That number has doubled since the B.C. NDP took power in 2017. To put that in context, that is more than we are spending on fighting climate change in this province. If this trend continues, budget estimates show that subsidies will increase to almost $1.8 billion by 2023 and '24.
The largest and fastest-growing provincial fossil fuel subsidy is something called the deep-well royalty credit, which is a tax break for fracking wells. This tax credit is budgeted to cost the province $514 million in foregone revenue this year, and estimates show that that will rise to $657 million by 2023-24.
However, that is only half the story, because this tax break is so generous that many fracking operators collect more credits than they can use, and they are allowed to roll those over into future years. As of this year, fracking companies hold roughly $3.1 billion in outstanding royalty credits that they can use against future revenues. If changes are not made to this program, it is estimated that that number will rise to $3.7 billion by 2023-24.
I want to pause here to remind the committee that, effectively, your government holds our natural resources, including oil and gas reserves, in trust for the people of British Columbia. The structure of this and other royalty credits effectively means that in many cases, you have been giving away those resources for free.
If we step back and take a look at the bigger picture, you will see that over recent years, oil and gas production in B.C. has steadily increased, but counterintuitively, over the same period, royalty revenues from oil and gas have fallen. This year the province took in just $378 million in provincial revenue from oil and gas royalties. To put that in context, vehicle licensing and registration, the B.C. Lottery Corp., the Liquor Distribution Branch and tobacco taxes all individually contributed significantly more money to the provincial treasury than the oil and gas royalties.
I'd like to acknowledge that the provincial government is undertaking an oil and gas royalty review that will look at many of these issues, but I'm raising this issue here because I think it is important for this committee to fully understand the scope of this problem.
We know from the lobbyist registration that the staff at the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, who are conducting that review, are under incredible pressure from the oil and gas lobby to maintain the status quo. I hope that you will agree that that outcome would be unacceptable and that the current royalty regime is indefensible from a fiscal point of view, even before you consider the environmental and climate implications of these policies.
I want to leave you with a couple of recommendations. We are calling on the provincial government to use that royalty review to cancel not only the deep well royalty program but all other fossil fuel subsidies that are embedded in the province's royalty regime in time for those changes to be in effect for the next budget.
Additionally, we call on the government to embrace the 2025 deadline set by the federal government and other G20 nations to phase out all remaining fossil fuel subsidies. Finally, we recommend that you reinvest new revenues that result from closing these tax loopholes into economic diversification, especially for communities that are currently dependant on oil and gas extraction.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thanks, Sven.
Finally, we'll hear from Tracey Saxby, My Sea to Sky.
MY SEA TO SKY
T. Saxby: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the 2022 budget consultation. My name is Tracey Saxby, and I'm speaking to you from the traditional, unceded territories and ancestral lands of the Skwxwú7mesh Nation.
Today I'm wearing two hats. I'm speaking to you as the executive director of My Sea to Sky, a people-powered environmental organization that was founded in 2014 to defend, protect and restore Howe Sound. This is one of our "Protect Howe Sound" hats, featuring the tail of a humpback whale.
But I'm also speaking to you as one of 13,800 scientists that have signed the world scientist declaration of a climate emergency. This hat is from Moreton Bay Research Station, one of the many places where I studied to be a marine scientist. It's a little grungy. It's seen a lot of use over the last 20 years. But who says that science isn't sexy? So I'm going to be keeping my scientist hat on today as I speak to you.
Have you watched Finding Nemo? I first discovered my very own Nemo when I was seven and my parents took my family camping on an island on the Great Barrier Reef, in Australia. I spent hours snorkeling and watching this little clownfish and saw turtles, reef sharks and manta rays. The coral reef was a magical and mysterious underwater world, and I fell in love with it.
I first learned about climate change when I was 11. It was 1988. At the time, I thought that the adults would fix it, just like they dealt with the hole in the ozone layer by signing the Montreal protocol. Ten years later, in 1998, the first worldwide coral bleaching event occurred, and most of the reef where I had first discovered Nemo bleached and died. I was 21.
I decided to specialize in marine science, and for my master's equivalent, I studied the impacts of climate change on corals. For the last 20 years, climate change has been a recurring theme in all my work, with governments, industry and universities around the world. But because we have failed to take the urgent action required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we have reached a crisis point.
Let's fast-forward to 2021. This past summer in B.C., the climate crisis has directly impacted our communities and our health through deadly heatwaves, floods, wildfires, drought, crop failure, fisheries collapse and costly infrastructure damage. Climate change is very expensive. Not taking action on climate change will be even more expensive.
Scientists are warning that we are on the brink of climate, ecological and social collapse. The world's scientists' warning of a climate emergency, 2021, states that transformational system changes are required, and they must rise above politics.
Each of the committee member's ridings has experienced the direct and indirect impacts of climate change this year. As this committee develops the 2022 budget for British Columbia, I strongly urge you to take into consideration the latest recommendations from scientists and economists and ensure that the 2022 budget supports the urgent need for climate action.
I have two key recommendations. One, dedicate the funding required to immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and treat the climate emergency as an emergency. This means investing 2 percent of B.C.'s GDP on climate action, which is equivalent to $6 billion per year. Two, end fossil fuel subsidies and financial incentives. Fossil fuel subsidies are expensive, they incentivize pollution, and they undermine climate action.
Right now, the world is on a trajectory to 3 to 5 degrees of warming. But at just 2 degrees of warming, 99 percent of coral reefs will bleach and die, along all of the species that rely on this precious ecosystem, like the clownfish, Nemo. If we fail to respond to the climate emergency, B.C. will experience more severe wildfires, more heatwaves, more floods and more severe storms. More people will die. The iconic salmon runs that are an intrinsic part of the culture here in B.C. will collapse. Everything we know and love is at risk.
I've provided a written submission with more detailed recommendations and references, but for now, I would like to leave you on a note of hope. Addressing our climate emergency is an unprecedented opportunity to generate new, vibrant, economic and social wealth, as we transform where our energy comes from and how it is used. It is an opportunity to achieve energy security, develop more sustainable economies and jobs, become better environmental stewards, reduce pollution, improve public health and enhance our quality of life.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels to a zero-emissions economy has clear benefits for people and natural ecosystems and is an opportunity to create a more prosperous and equitable society.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Tracey.
We've now heard from all members of this panel on climate change. I'll ask members of the committee to now ask questions.
M. Starchuk: Thank you to all of you, painting the picture as it is and reminding me of Nemo being a clownfish as well.
My question is to Margaret regarding funding of staff at a municipal level to deal with your adaptation, mitigation and other strategies that are there. I know that you're probably familiar with your own location, and I'm familiar with mine.
But can you just tell me if there's a network of these people that actually will have the answer as to what kind of funding that's going to be required for all the municipalities and cities in the province of B.C?
M. Holm: I'm not sure if you've heard of climate caucus. There's also another caucus of people under UBC Municipalities — UBCM — that are local government representatives. There are climate caucuses all over Canada.
They certainly have some briefs on this issue — I'm not sure what it's called — in the UBCM climate caucus. Most of these people are in the planning department, and the planning departments just have to carve out a position for them. Sometimes it's in the engineering department, but from what I've observed in my municipality, it's done off the side of their desk.
Because the charter occurred — well, I guess it's about ten years old now — more and more functions are downloaded onto municipalities, and climate action is one of those. It's something that really costs a lot. It has got infrastructure implications, and so far, all they've had is really this year-to-year, small bits of funding that comes out of the carbon tax rebate. It's really just inadequate. Staff have told me that it's the not having multi-year funding that's the hardest too. So they can't really do any significant, long-term planning.
If you want a dollar figure, I'd be happy to submit more information by the September 30 deadline to estimate what a dollar figure might be. Is that what you're asking?
M. Starchuk: Yeah, I would love to see something like that. As we all know, municipalities, depending on size, area and staff, will have different implications. Each one of the municipalities will know what does best. But I think your one comment you've made that's extremely important is: that person that's funded cannot do this off the corner of their desk. They cannot.
M. Holm: As a matter of fact, FortisBC is funding one of the positions. I don't know how that happens, but a position in our regional district is actually being paid for by FortisBC.
J. Routledge (Chair): I have a couple of questions. I'm referring to a point that Margaret made, but I would invite any other members of the panel to also address this. That is about methane.
We heard previously from presenters who talked about biofuels, and methane in the context of biofuels. I'm asking you this question as experts on climate change: from your point of view, where do renewable biofuels that contain methane fit in? Are you suggesting that that be restricted as well, that there be a carbon tax on that? Is there an issue we're missing about renewable biofuels?
M. Holm: Renewable biofuels is a really exciting opportunity here where I live. There are landfills now that are being used. All of these biofuels are being put into the natural gas system. There are projects using forestry slash in the Kootenays. But I think the most that we will ever achieve by this is that about 20 or 25 percent of our methane supply might be from natural fuels.
No, what I'm talking about is a carbon tax on emissions that come out of LNG storage tanks or come out of wells, flaring and that sort of thing. For a long time, people talked about not being able to get a good handle on what these emissions were. It was hard to model how to do this, but there has been some very detailed studies on the methodologies needed, and there's certainly the technology to measure these emissions.
I was in a webinar last month about emissions coming out of agricultural fields. There are very fine-tuned ways of knowing what emissions are coming out of different gas wells and also the piping, the storage tanks. It's all well documented. There's a big Suzuki study. You've probably had people presenting on that. Canada is also doing a lot of research on methane emissions, and they, too, are talking about including methane into the sphere of taxation.
So it's not a new idea. It's being studied all over. But no, it's not intended for biofuels.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you for that clarification.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much. That was interesting. I look at your organizations. I don't see the papers, though. They must not have gotten loaded yet, but I look forward to reading them. I guess the question, really, is the dollar numbers. I've heard everything from $6 billion to $40 million and some without that.
Tracey, you mentioned $6 billion a year, 2 percent of B.C.'s GDP. Where would you see that money being allocated to? Are there some sort of priorities that you have in your own mind? Just so we can kind of get a handle. That's like 10 percent of the…. Well, it's a little bit under 10 percent of the provincial budget today.
T. Saxby: I believe that that was a calculation that was approximately 2 percent of the provincial budget, but if I'm mistaken, I apologize. The leading economist Nicholas Stern is the one that has recommended an investment of 2 percent of global GDP to mitigate and adapt to climate change and then to kickstart that transformation that we need to see that also tackles economic, ecological, societal and democratic problems.
There are a number of ways that the B.C. government can do this. Some of it includes, for example, investing in affordable, accessible and convenient public transit within or between all communities; reallocating infrastructure funds from highway expansion to transit and active transportation; subsidizing electric vehicles and investing in fast-charging infrastructure along major roads; investing in retraining programs so that we can equip a workforce to retrofit existing buildings to eliminate fossil fuel heating, for example, and improve energy efficiency; and building the new affordable zero-emissions buildings that we need to have and providing more incentives for building retrofits and energy switching.
A lot of the things that have been mentioned today I will just be reiterating. Bolstering funding for renewable energy projects. Investing in local, organic and regenerative agriculture. We've already seen crop failure happening from the heat dome this year. It's possible that there's going to be a lot more food insecurity as droughts worsen and there's less reliability on the food that we typically access from California and other growing areas, so we need to ensure B.C.'s security and safety by investing in that food security. Supporting initiatives to increase consumption of plant-based foods.
Providing funding and capacity-building for local governments, again, to support local climate action initiatives. I think it was Margaret or Susan that mentioned that there's a lot of burden that's being placed on local governments, and local governments are also responsible for approximately 50 percent of emissions within their jurisdiction, be it through buildings or transport or waste. So really allocating the funding at that local level and building climate action and supporting climate action from the ground up is going to be a critical part of really seeing that very widespread, transformative change that we need to see happen.
There's a range of other recommendations that I provided in the written documents that were submitted last week, but I'm happy to expand on those if you want more suggestions or recommendations.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thank you. I appreciate that you've got a written document.
Sue, you mentioned $40 million. I missed what it was for.
S. Kirschmann: That was for the building retrofit training and retraining programs. I think Tracey also mentioned that as part of a bigger training initiative, to ensure that there are enough skilled workers to perform all the building retrofits that would be needed to meet the emissions targets. I guess the retraining would involve displaced fossil fuel workers who already have some of those skills.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thank you.
Margaret, thanks for the job in keeping CleanBC accountable in terms of your math there. It means we have to go back and look at the budget ourselves.
M. Holm: I'd just like to point out that at least Susan, who's in a nearby community, and myself are just volunteers working with local climate groups — we're not at all climate experts — using material that's provided by the government to be able to look at your budgets and examine them. At least, I am an unskilled volunteer just passionate about climate action in British Columbia.
M. Starchuk: This is to Sue. Your numbers are really good there. I like the way that they add up, and I like the fact that retrofitting fits in with the B.C. building code and there are energy steps that they've got there for new builds, whether it's a single-family residence or multifamily.
But I put a comment in here. So I've got 20,000 new jobs, but I've got something…. You said something about 20 years. Is that 20,000 jobs over 20 years?
S. Kirschmann: I believe it is.
M. Starchuk: Okay. And then with regards to the retrofits, are we talking about single-family residences, or are we talking about multifamily townhouses, condos or some of those older apartment blocks that may be in some communities?
S. Kirschmann: All of the above, yes, and also commercial space — involving everything, all buildings.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, I'll ask another question. Again, I would invite any or all of you to jump in and answer this question.
I made a note when Sue was making her presentation about the importance of public buy-in and recommending, specifically, better communication on the part of the government in order to create that buy-in, and specifically mentioning $50 million a year towards communication.
In the context, I guess my question is…. There's a federal election happening right now. There is campaigning happening right now. There are people knocking on doors talking to the public. People in this room have all been there at some point, talking to the public.
I must say, speaking for myself, when I go to the door and I say, "What's your top issue?" very rarely does someone say climate change. I can tease it out, but very rarely does someone take the initiative to say that the state of our climate…. And as, I think it was, Tracey said, everything we know and love is at risk.
If you have ideas about what we could be doing to create that sense of public urgency that would back up the kinds of budget shifts that you're asking for, I think we would love to hear that.
M. Holm: I think polling by research firms has indicated a very high interest in the climate in Canada. And certainly, if you were to do polling in British Columbia right now, after six weeks of wildfires, I think you'd find a lot of public interest in this issue. There's so much property damage now. There are health effects that we've seen. These are all due to a changing climate, and people now are facing it right on their doorstep. I think there's a great deal of awareness this year.
S. Kirschmann: I think there is awareness, but I also think people are busy and they quickly forget. I guess that's why we recommended that communications strategy.
Thinking of COVID, COVID was in the news right from the start, constantly. And with climate change, there are programs on CBC and that, but having a more comprehensive communications strategy that informs people on what to expect, what people can do — we feel that having that type of broader communication would help.
T. Saxby: If I may, I wanted to reiterate Margaret's point. I believe that in the polling that's happening right now for the federal election, climate change is the number one issue. More than 18 percent of people have said that that's their number one issue. That's above and beyond public health concerns, given that we're in the middle of a pandemic.
I think that it is just due to the fact that we've experienced such extreme heat waves and wildfires this year. I think climate change and the impacts of climate change are very clearly becoming real to people, where in the past it was kind of like: "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if we had warmer summers?" or "I could spend more time at the beach." So I think that the climate change impacts have become very real and that there has been a real shift in public perception.
I also wanted to remind the committee that in 2019, there were more than six million people worldwide who participated in a climate strike. The climate strike that happened in Vancouver had 100,000 people marching. There is another climate strike planned for later this year.
There really is a lot of support for climate action, and we are asking our leaders to recognize that and to be ambitious, to be visionary, to be bold and to lead. We need you to lead. We need you to explain why you are dedicated funding to address the climate emergency.
The support — and, I believe, the public support — is there. But I do support the call for better climate communications or climate change communications. I think that's going to be a critical part of this as we are implementing those transformative changes that are required.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. Any other questions? So there are no further questions from the committee.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for your sense of urgency, for how concrete and specific you've been about what needs to happen and what you need the government to do. We deliberate, and we make recommendations to the Minister of Finance, and we will do our best to convey the sense of urgency that you are conveying to us and to think creatively about what we can do to provide the kind of leadership on this very important issue. So thank you for your time. Thank you for your deep commitment to what is the crisis of our times.
With that, we'll say goodbye.
Our final panel is here, so we can go immediately to our final panel, which is on food security. We have four panellists, and we will begin with Emily-anne King, Backpack Buddies.
Budget Consultation Presentations
Panel 8 – Food Security
BACKPACK BUDDIES
E. King: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Emily-anne King, and I am a founder of Backpack Buddies.
I'm grateful to join you today from the traditional lands of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations.
Backpack Buddies is on a mission to end childhood food insecurity in B.C. Nine years ago we started helping 20 kids, filling their backpacks with food on Fridays so that they didn't go without eating all weekend. Today we help 4,000 children across B.C. every single week. Between school lunch programs, Breakfast Club and Backpack Buddies, these 4,000 children have food security.
In B.C. we have an abundance of food, and yet over 170,000 B.C. kids go hungry every single day. This stems from systemic poverty, the challenging geography of our province, the abuse and forced impoverishment of Indigenous Peoples, our land use choices, rising costs of living and a food distribution system that fails to consider that access to adequate food and nutrition is part of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and of course, the pandemic that has impacted those who are most vulnerable.
We are here to ask the B.C. government to prioritize childhood food security as part of the $4 billion investment it is making in physical and mental health over the next three years and to invest in innovative models like Backpack Buddies that get food directly into the hands of children by working with each of our communities to overcome their unique barriers.
We are making a difference for 4,000 kids today, and with government investment, we can help tens of thousands more. Here is why a program like Backpack Buddies can overcome the barriers that children face to having enough food to eat. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution. What works in Vancouver does not work in B.C.'s far north or in places like Alert Bay.
In the Lower Mainland and Victoria, Backpack Buddies has its own infrastructure, a fleet of trucks, warehouses and staff. We distribute meals in bags directly to children at school so that they don't have to rely on the food bank that may be far away or only have a few meals to offer. They know that if their parent can't work because of a disability or mental illness, they will still have food, no matter what.
In remote communities, it's different. We partner with transport companies to piggyback on their shipments, and coordinate local volunteers to distribute the meal bags to kids in schools. Six hundred children in nine Vancouver Island communities get their Backpack Buddies meals this way.
When Oweekeno community made a call to ask for help, Backpack Buddies worked with Helicopters Without Borders and Stable Harvest Farms in Langley to airlift 1,600 pounds of meals and produce to Rivers Inlet.
In Port Hardy, we buy food directly from a local grocery store, and a volunteer team packs and distributes that food to schools. Two hundred and fifty children in Port Hardy get their meals from these volunteers.
On the Sunshine Coast, we ship bags from our warehouse in North Vancouver to Gibsons, and then each of the 12 schools we support takes the meal bags it needs and moves the rest to the next school. One hundred and eighty kids on the Sunshine Coast are supported this way.
When schools closed last spring, we worked with partners like Surrey schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, Mom2Mom and Writers' Exchange, who distributed food to 2,000 kids who needed it.
This is what overcoming barriers to food security looks like. It is about innovation, flexibility and adaptability. It is about creating partnerships with non-profit organizations, corporations, Indigenous leaders and government to tackle the problems they are facing, one community at a time. It is also about inclusiveness and sustainability. We have thousands of refugees living in B.C. who are trying to establish their lives. The opioid crisis is taking a massive toll on many families and their ability to hold a job, maintain housing and pay for food.
We are just at the beginning stages of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and there will be years of struggles ahead. Partnering with communities to ensure food security is one way we can help provide stability to families, especially their children, regardless of any challenges they may face.
During the pandemic, Backpack Buddies stepped up to help more children than ever before, tripling the size of our program. We proved we could do so, with generous support of many donors and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested by the federal and B.C. governments. It has allowed us to provide food security where there was once hunger, scaling up faster than we ever imagined. We promise to support thousands of children for as long as they need us.
We could do so much more. The urgent need during the height of the pandemic has not ended. We hope the B.C. government will invest in innovative, grassroots programs like Backpack Buddies that are changing the way children are able to access food in their communities. A $3 million annual investment over the next three years will mean 10,000 children in 75 B.C. communities will have access to food. At just $20 a week for a child, it is a small investment with massive, long-term impact on the health and well-being of B.C. children.
Thank you for your time today. Backpack Buddies is having conversations with all ministries responsible, but we recognize that the support of the central government and Finance is needed to move forward. We're grateful for your consideration.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Emily-anne.
Next we'll hear from Pat Tonn, B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation.
B.C. AGRICULTURE IN THE
CLASSROOM FOUNDATION
P. Tonn: Thank you for the opportunity to present. The positive health and economic benefits of the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional program are outstanding. Thank you for the valuable investment in this widely respected program. It was created in partnership with the Ministries of Health, Agriculture, and Education and has been led by our B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation since 2006.
Recognizing that students need a healthy, balanced diet to learn, grow and prevent health concerns like chronic disease later in life, this program was built on food literacy. It's an educational program for all students to understand the importance of healthy food choices in a non-stigmatizing way. Fruits and vegetables and milk are delivered right to their classrooms a total of 24 weeks in the school year, alternating half of the province each week.
This program has been successful, is supported by all governments and in all communities and has grown each year in the 15 years of its operation. We believe it's important to keep and grow the B.C. school fruit and vegetable and milk nutritional program.
Our province is a leader across this country with a fresh B.C. food universal program to kindergarten to grade 12 students in over 90 percent of public and First Nations schools all over our province. Over half a million students and teachers receive free fresh fruit and vegetables and milk that they share in a class setting. They eat and talk about the value of healthy foods. Curriculum resources are provided for teachers.
Over 1,000 B.C. farmers grow and provide product to the school fruit and vegetable program. That's a value of $3 million and important for economic stability in our domestic market.
Over 4,000 parent volunteers love this program. They appreciate it and are invested in it through giving their time. Parents say to me that, finally, they're not the only ones telling their kids to eat fruit and vegetables. It's part of what students do together with their friends at school, a parent's dream.
The students challenge each other to see how loudly they can crunch on a cucumber. They cheer when the milk man comes with their milk. They sneak kiwis home to show their parents how cool they are and how great they taste. Just a few fun stories that I hear.
We have a sophisticated delivery system, through the supply chain, networking retail grocers, cross docks, local trucks, planes, boats and even volunteer drivers across the province in every town and in Indigenous communities to deliver healthy food to schools. We have the cooperation of big business and community, individuals working for a common good, educating and providing fresh fruit, vegetables and milk to kids.
Therefore, we have three options for our proposal. One is our request to continue this program as a universal program delivered in all schools. The cost of this program would be $4.9 million.
Option 2. I've been asked by the Ministry of Health to consider scaling down the program to only those most vulnerable. That would be $3.5 million to $4 million, dependent upon the schools identified by the Ministry of Education as most vulnerable or needing supplements to the current local food security programs.
Option 3. Thanks to the long-standing support and performance from the private sector food supply chain, agriculture industry donations and government funding partnership, the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation has the experience and the expertise to provide a school food program biweekly to the entire province. We have the ability to scale capacity and to act as a key and established primary and final-mile distribution partner to all schools every week. Funding and expanding this program could attract federal and private sector funding to bolster the needs of a provincewide, universal school meal program.
We strongly urge the continued funding of the B.C. school fruit and vegetable nutritional program for the benefit of B.C.'s students, schools, families and farmers and to not disrupt the ecosystem built to develop a more robust program. Annual incremental funding would allow us to demonstrate our capacity to increase delivery to schools every week should a universal school meal program be mandated federally or start to be pursued by our provincial government.
We at the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation are ready to make it happen.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Pat.
Now we'll hear from Maurita Prato, LUSH Valley Food Action Society.
LUSH VALLEY FOOD ACTION SOCIETY
M. Prato: Hello there. I'm here today as the executive director of LUSH Valley Food Action Society but also wearing the hat of the Comox Valley Food Policy Council coordinator as part of the VIHA Island Food Hubs. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
I acknowledge that I am standing and working on the unceded, traditional territory of the K'ómoks First Nation.
LUSH Valley envisions local food at the heart of community well-being, and we have worked in our community for 21 years toward this goal. We have been presented with multiple awards for our pandemic response in our community.
We're also one of eight VIHA-recognized Island Food Hubs. The Island Food Hubs work with Island Health and community partners to support healthy food systems and address food insecurity, ultimately to improve the health of all Island citizens.
Hubs are instrumental in the ongoing delivery of community food programs. That includes school meals, Good Food Box, hot meals, cooking programs, community gardens and farms, gleaning initiatives and advocacy. The Island Food Hubs were shown to be extremely responsive in the face of the pandemic, meeting increasing community needs around food program delivery.
In 2019, LUSH Valley initiated the Comox Valley Food Policy Council with members from our elected local officials, farmers, food business owners and others. The goal of the Food Policy Council is to provide a forum for advocacy and policy development that works towards the creation of a food system that is ecologically sustainable, economically viable and socially just.
I have three recommendations today for the provincial Budget 2022. Each of the Island Food Hubs receive a very small amount of annual funding through the Community Food Action Initiative — $15,000. We're grateful for this funding. However, it's small and we'd recommend that when and if additional Community Food Action Initiative funding becomes available, that each food hub on the Island receive an annual amount of $40,000 for its funding, ongoing.
On behalf of the Comox Valley Food Policy Council, there is a request for additional funding for food security planning and liaising in the case of emergencies. Specifically, that community food security be added to the mandate of the emergency operations centre.
The third recommendation, again on behalf of the Food Policy Council, is that there is funding to cost-share on-site water storage for small- and medium-scale farms in the region at a cost of $4,000 per farm — a total of $200,000.
My rationale for these recommendations. First, the increase in funding for the hubs. Food and nutrition security are essential for the well-being of our citizens. Higher food cost, increased poverty, housing instability and decreases in federal funding for food programs is squeezing our food hub organizations across the Island. Between increasing demand for programs and services and decreases in available funding, Island Food Hubs need direct and stable funding from the province to continue to provide services and long-term community resiliency planning and implementation.
My rationale for the second recommendation, which is increase in provincial food security funding for emergencies within the EOC structure. My community's emergency operating centre and the provincial health emergency coordinating centre does not have food security or other population health issues as part of their mandate. As a result, the Food Policy Council drafted a resolution, which was endorsed by the UBCM in 2020, requesting provincial action to enhance food security during emergencies.
There was a letter back from the province on April 19, 2021, but it didn't address the request to include food security in the EOC mandate and provide resources for it. One way to do this would be to provide a stipend for a food security liaison to sit on the local and provincial EOCs in case of emergency.
The third rationale, support for a cost-share program for on-site water storage for farms. The wildfires and droughts across the province this summer have been on everyone's mind. Some farmers in the Comox Valley have had to choose which crops to water and which to let die. At the same time, historically low levels of flow in some of our rivers, such as the Tsolum, have led to wild salmon die-offs. Healthy local food systems need to operate within the bounds of healthy local ecosystems. Issues of water rights are contentious, and farmers need help with incentives to storing more water on-site.
Thank you very much for considering my recommendations.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Maurita.
Finally, we will hear form Ryan Baker, Breakfast Club of Canada, before we open it up for questions from the committee.
Go ahead, Ryan.
BREAKFAST CLUB OF CANADA
R. Baker: Hi, everyone. My name is Ryan Baker, national programs manager from the Breakfast Club of Canada. I live and work on the traditional and unceded territory of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh people. It's a privilege to be able to speak to you all today.
Breakfast Club of Canada has supported student nutrition programs in schools across Canada for more than 25 years.
We currently support more than 2,000 school nutrition programs across the country and more than 200 in B.C. alone. Our support to B.C. schools means that every school day more than 10,000 B.C. students are eating a full, nutritious breakfast.
One of our key pillars of programs that we support is that they are universally accessible to all students. This inclusiveness ensures that nutrition programs are stigma-free and available to all students who need access to the program on any school day. Our goal in B.C. is to see that every student across the province has access to a nutritious breakfast every school day, to ensure that they can be their best selves and reach their full potential, regardless of food security that may exist in their home or community.
Our support to schools includes funding for food, and direct food donations from local farmers or distributors that also goes well beyond. We ensure that schools or community organizations that support school nutrition programs are fully equipped with equipment that they need to run a successful school nutrition program, and our team of local coordinators provides direct, on-site support and resources directly to schools.
We work directly with schools and school districts, because school is a resource that every student across B.C. has access to, regardless of the size of their community in which they live, or their socioeconomic status. Schools are best suited to addressing the vast array of student needs from hunger to mental and physical wellness.
Our goal is to provide the supports necessary for each school to develop a universally accessible, sustainable school nutrition program that meets the unique needs of their community. Investments in community food infrastructure, the development of relationships with local food producers and the creation of a sense of community around school food programs means that programs are community-led, address the needs of the local school or community and have a sustainable foundation on which to develop,
Our support is intentionally flexible, allowing schools and communities to address their unique needs with locally developed solutions. Flexible support means that we are able to work with community leaders to develop innovative school nutrition programs. In Whistler, for instance, the local community was hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the loss of tourism. This meant greater food insecurity for many families in the community.
We partnered with Whistler Community Services Society and the five schools in Whistler to create a community fridge program in every classroom in the community. The community fridges are stocked daily with nutritious breakfasts, lunch and snack foods and are open to any student who needs to eat throughout the day.
Our support to partner schools and community organizations not only creates inclusive food programs but also provides ancillary benefits to the greater community food infrastructure and to local economies. Our support to the infrastructure of the Central Okanagan Food Bank has allowed them to support school food programs at most Kelowna schools, and provides additional benefits to all local community members that need their support.
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a big challenge to all those that are involved in helping to alleviate childhood hunger in B.C. Due to increases in food insecurity, school nutrition programs have faced an average of a 30 percent increase in attendance, and food costs for those programs have risen sharply since the return to schools.
The increased importance of school nutrition programs has never been more evident than today. Our work with schools, community groups and school districts since the COVID-19 pandemic hit our province has allowed hundreds of B.C. schools to create more sustainable and innovative food programs to begin to address the increase in food insecurity seen in their communities. Unfortunately, a large gap in support remains, and students throughout B.C. are going to school hungry every day. Our wait-list of B.C. schools that have asked for our support is more than 220 and growing literally every day.
Breakfast Club is committed to working with partners throughout the country, from the federal government to provincial governments, the private and philanthropic sectors, community organizations and communities themselves, to ensure that programs across the country are properly funded and sustainable. Programs that encourage partnership from all levels of government and from diverse sectors of the economy are more sustainable financially and by way of increased community engagement.
To help Breakfast Club of Canada address 50 percent of our B.C. funding gap, which helps to sustain the B.C. programs that we currently support, and to reach 150 additional B.C. schools, an investment of $4 million per year for three years would be necessary. To help Breakfast Club address 25 percent of our B.C. funding gap at existing B.C. schools, and to reach 100 additional B.C. programs, an investment from the provincial government of $2 million per year over three years would be necessary. These investments would impact up to 100,000 students across the province.
Thank you for your time and your commitment to B.C. students.
J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Ryan.
Now I'll open it up to questions from the committee.
M. Dykeman: Thank you to the panel for your questions today. These are very important programs. As a former school board chair, watching the way that these types of programs improve the lives of students in the school district, it really is quite immeasurable. Even though we try to quantify it, it's hard. It makes a difference, in so many different ways, for children to be successful in school.
I've had the privilege to see both the Breakfast Club and the B.C. Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation's work directly in Langley and was really interested to learn about Backpack Buddies and LUSH Valley today.
My question, actually, is for Pat Tonn. I was wondering if you could explain option 3 a little bit more. From what I gleaned from reading the document that you submitted, you're looking at this being B.C.-wide. One option would be to move into providing a meal program to all of B.C.
Is that an expansion of the actual foods that B.C. Ag in the Classroom circulates right now in going to full, prepared food? Or is your vision sort of…? I just was wondering if you'd provide a little bit more information for me, please.
P. Tonn: Hi, Megan. Thank you for the question. What I'm proposing is that the school fruit and vegetable nutritional program already expand across the province into every corner in the middle of the province. But what we see coming is a national school food program. I think we're well positioned to be able to distribute every week in every school across the province.
What I'm suggesting, given our reputation for being able to get that done, is that we incrementally, each year, start expanding it. Working with my colleagues that you've heard today as well, I think we can get started if we start incrementally, rather than guessing at how much the whole program will cost when it's time to do that.
M. Dykeman: Just a follow-up. At the end there, you're sort of seeing a coordination amongst other groups and ag in the classroom or the fruit and vegetable program.
P. Tonn: Yeah, thanks. Definitely, I think that is the way to get it done, because there's lots of locally based expertise, but it doesn't always stretch to the far corners or the more difficult places to get to. Together we can be more successful, and I think that to start with a structure that's already sound is good to build upon.
M. Dykeman: Okay. Thank you for the clarification on that. I really appreciate it.
J. Routledge (Chair): Do we have any other questions?
P. Alexis: Just a comment. I want to speak about the backpack program. We have a similar program in my community, and it really does make a difference to those kids. We're grateful to have that program. Thank you for that and for all your work there.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Emily-anne. That was a great story. I'd never heard that, but I did check your website out, and I see you're the daughter of the founder, or the two of you founded it. Anyway, you're all doing great things.
I like the story that Ryan brought up about using the Central Okanagan Food Bank. Obviously, it's more accessible or something like that. I know them quite well because they're throughout my riding and the other Okanagan ridings.
Is there an opportunity to collaborate as a group? You're all doing somewhat similar…. I just wonder at, especially, the cost of delivery to some of the places that you've talked about, getting food. I know the fruit and veggie program really well, and I know a lot of farmers that are supportive. Of course, it's not always year-round. That's another problem with British Columbia.
Anyway, is there a way of coordinating and trying to get the resources that you're all kind of using together? Is there an opportunity to maybe help you all? Anybody want to take a stab at that?
R. Baker: Sure. I think that's a very good point. Speaking from Breakfast Club's point of view, it's something that we try to do on a community-by-community basis. There certainly are provinces across the country where we do have provincial partners, but in a province as large and diverse as B.C., it's very challenging to have one dedicated partner.
Certainly in communities — I brought up the example of the Central Okanagan Food Bank in Kelowna — when we have a community partner on the ground that is doing work, it only makes sense for our organization to partner up and see how we can support that greater food security within the community.
M. Prato: I know that during the early days of the pandemic, we were getting produce from ag in the classroom when schools were closed, and the school buses were helping us. We added those to our Good Food Boxes, and we distributed those out to the students and the students' families. So there is a collaboration that's, I would say, already happening.
There is a push for this Coalition for Healthy School Food. That's a national movement which I think Pat was also talking about. That really would, ideally, look at all of the existing programs and see that as the backbone of building a more robust school food program.
P. Tonn: I think your point is already in motion. I've been approached by the Ministries of Health and Agriculture to start consultation this fall for that very purpose. If we're all working together, I think we can be stronger. I've talked to Breakfast Club before and Salvation Army, and the food banks we worked with during the pandemic, for sure. But we just have to find something that works for all of us, and that takes some meeting and some collaboration to be in operation.
E. King: I'll just say really quickly that we actually…. I recently, just this week, was in a meeting with the Breakfast Club, with some of the staff there, talking about this project we've been working on with Helicopters Without Borders, which is basically airlifting food into really remote Indigenous communities. I know that the Breakfast Club has some schools on its list, but having big issues and barriers to getting there.
We're already working together on that particular project, and I have a feeling that that's just the beginning for all of us in this sort of collaborative effort that is really, ultimately, what's required of us to get this work done. We have to work together.
B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): I like the fridge in the classroom. That's a great idea.
J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, I'm not seeing other questions. With that, I want to thank you very much for the time you've taken to talk to us and enlighten us about the important projects that you're leading. Yes, thank you for the work that you're doing and your community spirit.
I think some of you touched on the root cause of the food insecurity that you're talking about —that it's poverty. Some of it is chronic poverty, and some of it is emergency, temporary poverty. Food is at risk when people are in crisis.
I think I speak for the whole committee when I say that your emphasis on providing nutrition to children without stigma is really important, because that can have a lifelong impact that will affect them later. What you're doing is so much bigger than just providing food.
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much. We'll say goodbye to you now.
I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Motion approved.
The committee adjourned at 4:13 p.m.
NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of proceedings in one meeting of a committee of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the proceedings as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
Copyright © 2021: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
- Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth - Tuesday, April 23, 2024
- Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles - Tuesday, April 23, 2024
- Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth - Thursday, April 11, 2024
- Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles - Tuesday, April 9, 2024
- Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food - Monday, April 8, 2024