Caitlin Burritt  00:00 

Thank you for listening to the and silencing stories podcast. We are in the midst of a public health crisis. More than 32,000 people in Canada have died from fatal opioid overdoses since 2016. According to Health Canada. Previously, this podcast featured interviews with bereaved people in smaller towns and communities in BC and Alberta who have lost loved ones to fatal overdose. In this phase, we're sharing interviews with seven harm reduction workers also known as peers in different parts of BC.  

Caitlin Burritt  00:27 

The BC Centre for Disease Control harm reduction services defines harm reduction as support services and strategies that aim to keep people safe and minimise death, disease and injury from high risk behaviour. Peers face a lot of challenges. This has been documented by many researchers including czar among Danny and colleagues in BC. In their 2021 paper they outline significant challenges peers face including financial struggles, difficulty finding housing and stressors at work. We wanted to explore these themes with parents and find out more about their experiences and share this information with the public. So we conducted multiple remote interviews with harm reduction workers and invited them to talk about the stressors they face.  

Caitlin Burritt  01:06 

Please note this podcast contains information about substance use overdose death, grief, trauma, and stressors that peers face and this may be distressing to listen to. The podcast is part of a research project led by Aaron Goodman, PhD faculty member at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey BC and conducted under the auspices of a grant known as the Chancellor's chair award. I'm Caitlin Byrd, a researcher with the project a number of researchers including Georgia Ricciardi and Chloe Byrd, who happens to be my sister and a number of students have played key roles in the study, and you'll hear many of their voices in this podcast.   

Caitlin Burritt  01:40 

In this episode, you'll hear Lucas Akai and Esther Cheung interview Daniel Schneider about financial security and the lack of standard payment practices across agencies for peer workers. Daniel discusses how many peers do gig work rather than engaging in salaried employment and the importance of making peers feel valued by compensating them fairly.  

Esther Cheung  01:57 

I'm freezing.  

Daniel Snyder  01:58 

And you're wearing a jacket and a toque inside. 

Esther Cheung  02:01 

 Yes, inside. I'm cold. It is. Yeah, it's snowing outside. You know [indiscernable]. 

Daniel Snyder  02:07 

It hasn't really started here yet. 

Lucas Akai  02:10 

It's not reached you yet, huh? It's just starting this. Yeah, just starting this noon for me. So. 

Esther Cheung  02:17 

Fair enough. I got it already in the morning. This morning. It was like light, but now it's like, it's going, it's falling. 

Daniel Snyder  02:24 

Oh, cool.  

Esther Cheung  02:25 

Yeah. 

Daniel Snyder  02:26 

I like snow. I'm okay with it. Although we are doing the tents again tonight. And we'll see how that goes.  

Lucas Akai  02:32 

Right. 

Esther Cheung  02:36 

How does that affect the tents? 

Daniel Snyder  02:38 

Yeah, we're gonna find out. I don't know. Hopefully, I think we can just you know, use a broom and knock it off, should be alright. But yeah. 

Lucas Akai  02:51 

So when you mentioned tents, do you mean like, the kind- I don't know whether, like saw, like the ones you'd see like on the sidelines of like a sports game type of idea. 

Daniel Snyder  03:00 

Yes, the same kinda idea. Just a pop up tent. They go up in not even 10 minutes, really easy to set it up. Yeah,  

Lucas Akai  03:09 

Yep, all right, cool. And now we're going to start going off of the list again, the five stressors. And I know,we've talked very briefly about the financial aspect of peer work in general. And I know you've mentioned personally, your work, the peer work is not your main career. It's your passion. And so you do work. But I think that we can definitely tie that in. So, maybe just in general, for the peer work that you do do, you find that that's adequate financial compensation for the work that you're conducting? Whether that's at your, you know, your talks, or as a board member of the CAT team, but that's volunteer?  

Daniel Snyder  03:47 

Yeah, this comes up a lot. I was just actually talking about this. So, it's all over the place, depending on the activities that your engage in, and the organisation that might be inviting you to do some work or contribute in some way.  

Daniel Snyder  04:06 

So for me, like, for instance, the CAT work, I'm technically an employee, they they've hired me and the lead agency, the agency that handles the grant funds, is a really well established community service agency with policies and human resources department, et cetera, et cetera. So for them, like they set an hourly wage, and they even, they manage me as an employee the same way they manage all their employees. So there's options potential for raises, there's Christmas bonus and, and that sort of thing.  

Daniel Snyder  04:41 

And that's about like, the best you can expect, I think in peer work, right? So, a contract where you're hired as an employee, outside of that, you know, maybe another community will say, hey, would you like to come speak at our events and we'll pay you an honorarium or, or something along those lines, and then you know, oftentimes the amount is not disclosed. It's not an upfront thing, like what it's, it's more communicated into that term, like, we'll pay you an honorary. Okay!  

Daniel Snyder  05:11 

So that could be $18 an hour, maybe they're going to approach it that way. And you're there for two or three hours, they'll give you 54 bucks, or maybe they just give you $50. Or maybe they give you 100 or 150. I mean, I've had all those experiences. And so... I had one- now, I'm approaching it from a different perspective, somewhat, right? Like, I'm not financially insecure, right? So, that's important. Because a lot of the peers that do this work are literally like, like, they might have $5 in their pocket when they come to your event or come to a meeting. They might not know how they're getting back home. They might... and that, and I think a lot of times, these are tenuous issues that people are uncomfortable discussing.  

Daniel Snyder  06:01 

So, even for me give you an example I had, I was invited to another community to share briefly at an event and the host said exactly what I'd said earlier, well come on out, we'll pay you an honorarium. Right. Great. Thanks. And she, this person said to me at the event, I'll send you an etransfer tomorrow. Okay. Well, 10 days went by, you know, without it. And that's awkward. For me, I'm like, whatever 10 days went by, I didn't need, I don't need this money. But someone else might have been really depending on it. And it's uncomfortable to ask, right? Like, you actually shouldn't have to ask, so.  

Daniel Snyder  06:51 

But I'm a person of principle. So, I think actually, some people might just let it go. Like, they might be so uncomfortable with asking that they never say anything. And then, and then they lose that, those funds and probably develop a resentment or, or more mistrust is exposed, and that sort of thing. So, but I, you know, just emailed the person and was like, hey, never got the honorarium you said, you were gonna send. And it was a legitimate like, a misclick basically, on their end, when they had filled out the etransfer information and not not completed it, right? Not pressed the next step. And so whatever, no, no hurt feelings, doesn't bother me that it was 10 days late. 

Daniel Snyder  07:40 

 But I think about that in the way it can affect other people. I think about the tension between paying peers immediately. So sometimes we have meetings, and I always approach it, where I want the money in their hand at the end of the meeting. And I think that's best practice, generally speaking. But then I was in conversation with a coworker the other day, and she's trying to encourage peers to get into a routine of like, hey, most people in the world only get paid once every two weeks. And you can't always expect to be paid immediately, five minutes after you finish the job you are doing.  

Daniel Snyder  08:25 

Sometimes the cash isn't on hand, or sometimes the person responsible for paying you isn't here. And you might need to see them next time, tomorrow, or a week later. And that doesn't always actually go over as smooth as you would hope it would. And for maybe multiple reasons, like maybe this person is desperately in need of funds right now. Or, maybe we've created like, entitlement culture amongst peer work, where I mean, it's not an uncommon narrative to know that that component of this work is just getting paid.  

Daniel Snyder  09:04 

And that that does happen sometimes. Sometimes there is a person just in a meeting, because they need they need a stipend. They need 25 bucks or 50 bucks that day. And, and you're not getting the full engagement, you're not getting their full presence. But you're not going to be like, I'm not paying, right? 

Lucas Akai  09:23 

 Right.  

Daniel Snyder  09:24 

So, this is a- it's a complicated system. And then to jump into another problem. I think we alluded this to this in previous weeks, but there's an agency here in Langley that employs peers for contract work like just on regular hourly basis, and their rate is like $13 an hour which is less than minimum wage. 

Daniel Snyder  09:48 

Which is obviously problematic for me, and for I think, most people like, when this turns into a conversation. And it seems to be when I've dug into it for the information I can glean, is it's just bureaucratic red tape, it's just there was a contract, the initial contract was set many, many years ago in the black and white print of the contract, the hourly compensation rate is $13 an hour, the contract's been renewed, but the wording never has changed,  

Lucas Akai  10:17 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  10:17 

And, you know, what do you do? Like, who's the person that needs to put pen to paper and modify this? I can't find this person, I don't know who they are, right? But it's not appropriate that there's that big of a divide. But like, like, it should, at the very least, it should be minimum wage. But then I participate in some other peer work, and they compensate me at $50 an hour. And it's really quite impressive.  

Lucas Akai  10:50 

Absolutely. 

Daniel Snyder  10:52 

Really, and you know, and then when I talk to people about this, because for me, it's a conversation about like, what do you think of this rate, right? And I get mixed, mixed feedback, like some people think, totally appropriate. Other people feel it's way too high. And I've actually had a couple people say that they think it's low, even at $50 an hour. So, it's amazing the plethora of responses you can receive. And I'm one that I mean, I think there are some that would want to value peer contributions like, literally the same as, let's say expert academic contributions.  

Daniel Snyder  11:33 

So, if you're someone whwent to school and got- spent four years or six years or eight years in university specifically studying this area, and then you're sitting at a table, and you're compensated by salary, or who knows how, or what the reason for being there is, some people feel appears to be paid the same as this person. Now, I don't know how you can make that argument. But some people are. So you know, there is a hierarchy in terms of the contributions that exist. And I mean, even I slot into that, as a hired peer employee under contract with an agency, my hourly compensation is now higher than most peers that sit at that table. 

Lucas Akai  12:23 

 Right. 

Daniel Snyder  12:24 

 And that's just, that's the way it is. I don't know. I think that most people are okay with that. I think that compensation is largely viewed in our societies as a experiencing, you know, a mix of experience and the difficulty of the work and the contribution that you make. And if you want to make more money, then you probably need to make more contributions and work harder and learn more like, that's just a reality of the world, right? So.  

Daniel Snyder  13:03 

Yeah, that's a lot to talk about like, a very complicated thing, right? Like, where, how do we get- and the amount of dollars that we compensate a person with doesn't actually correlate with the value, always, right? Sometimes we overpay people and sometimes we underpay people. This is just a reality, right? So yeah. 

Lucas Akai  13:25 

So, maybe as we start to try to uncomplicate this very complicated topic. When we- when you refer to say, like your $50 an hour contract, when you work as a peer, do these types of things, is that done factoring in maybe travel time? Or maybe helped us understand that process? 

Lucas Akai  13:43 

 Right.  

Daniel Snyder  13:43 

Well, oh, you're not uncomplicating it, you're making it worse. Yeah, well, that's actually something that's not even always considered. So, with, with my contract position, yeah, like travel time is something that I would be able to document. Actually, the way they do it is through mileage because I use my personal vehicle, or if I was submitting hours for work, then I would, at my discretion, be able to insert travel time into that. If it was the way I treated is like, well, I'm in my own city. It's not travel time, but if I'm travelling further than an on average, then I think I, I insert that in and I mean, every single one of these contracts jobs, it needs to be individually negotiated. 

Daniel Snyder  14:31 

Right? With my other work, my contractor work that I do with in the trades, yeah, I work literally job by job. I will either bill in travel time or negotiate travel time, per customer. 

Daniel Snyder  14:46 

Where it's not taken into consideration is for perhaps, this last, where I was invited to speak in another community. They asked me to come for the event starts at 7pm, we'll pay you an honorarium. Now I could have asked, how much is the honorarium? I mean, that could have been. And if they get said, oh, the honorarium is $50, I'd be like, just so you know, it's an hour drive one way for me. So that's two hours of driving. Plus, I'm at your event for two and a half hours. In total, this is five hours of my time. So I've just let you know, $50 is actually probably not appropriate. If you want to reconsider, that, I would appreciate it.  

Daniel Snyder  15:30 

Like, I could have had that conversation but I didn't. And in the end, the amount that they gave me was $100, which is acceptable for five hours of my time. I'm not- I'm not, I don't feel I was overpaid. I don't feel I was underpaid. Because and part of the what plays into that is, it's passion work. I'm not always expecting to be paid fairly, right?  

Daniel Snyder  15:58 

And so that's where there's a another internal level of tension. Because if you do feel that you're underpaid, or not paid appropriately, you will become frustrated. You will, you may develop resentments and bitterness. And that might be the thing that ultimately ends up driving you out of this work. And I see that with people at times. And so, I guess for me, I think I'd rather err on the side of overpaying a little bit, then making the mistake of not valuing the contribution in this space, because we're not talking about huge salaries.  

Daniel Snyder  16:38 

We're talking about honorariums that are intermittent, and kind of irregular, occasional, maybe two or three times a month, kind of thing for the average peer participant. So, if they get a little bit of extra through that, as I think it's more valuable then if we were chintzy, right? Oh, right, was exactly 1.5 hours, or you were under 15 minutes for your two hour, you know, two hour time slot. That's not going to help, right? It's not going to win hearts.  

Lucas Akai  17:15 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  17:15 

So, travel time I think, I think the onus here actually- so yesterday, I was participating in a q&a with a bunch of fourth year university students and the issue of finance came up. And they were talking about research. So the issue of compensating peers was part of the right, the q&a. And I said the onus for researchers, for leaders, for people who are doing that work, when working with patient partners or with peers, communicate extra, like, say a lot, make it very clear so that the people know what their value is, what they're being compensated, what the- when they will be compensated.  

Daniel Snyder  17:54 

So that they don't have to ask the questions, because if the question-because you can expect them not to want to ask the questions. To feel awkward, and maybe to feel, I mean, I think often with peers, you're talking about people who maybe even still in active addiction, or dealing with substance use in some way in their life.  

Daniel Snyder  18:14 

And so therefore might not, you know, might have a higher level of shame, or uncomfort, or awkwardness, and being invited into a space and told, hey, you have value and your contributions are important. And you're, you're a person with lived experience, and we want to hear about that. That's actually counter to what that person has experienced most of the time in their life, especially in the addiction space.  

Daniel Snyder  18:41 

Mostly, you're told, hey, you're a dysfunctional disaster of a person, and we're not really interested in what you have to say. So, this is really contrary to their, you know, historical experiences, I think, and so to also say, oh, and you're worth money for your experiences. It's like,am I really? Am I? Is this really true? Like, so, I don't know if I'm comfortable asking you  hey, when are you going to pay me for this? Like, because part of me might feel a shame about even believing that I deserve to be paid for contributions like this. So, you guys have been excellent with your communication on that. So. 

Lucas Akai  19:25 

We're glad to hear that. Um, so maybe on the same note, is when you're doing when you're doing the travel, the ones that include travel, do you find that there is a maybe a driver and incentive to go to certain locations because of higher pay whether that's like, you have to make that long trip into Vancouver because maybe they paid more there. Whether like, Abbotsford I don't know exactly.  

Daniel Snyder  19:51 

That has never become... that's never been an issue for me. Probably again, just because If you want me to speak about this, I'm gonna do it. You probably don't even have to pay me, buy me a coffee, right? I'm not gonna complain, it's really important. So maybe that's where I need to pay attention to like, because even in my own self, even even with passion you- people burn out.  

Lucas Akai  20:22 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  20:23 

Right? Even if it's important to you, even if it's you're doing the meaningful work. If you're always giving for free, or people, I think over time, that that might be a drain on the passion. Right? If you're not feeling rewarded, people need- so and reward isn't only money. I mean, reward is people telling me that they are rethinking ideas that they've changed their mind on something that they are found a new way to talk to their son or daughter. Like, that's reward. It's worth just as much to me, but then on the practical side, I mean, I got to consider my own privilege, my position in life, like I go to an event on a Tuesday night. It's always because I want to, it's not because I need $50 or $100, or whatever.  

Daniel Snyder  21:22 

And so, that meet for that it's keeping in front of my mind the importance of other people's circumstances and their mot- and even if their motivation, like being motivated by money isn't a bad thing. I don't know. I mean, it guess it could be a bad thing in life. Certainly. But in general, I mean, I hope you- I hope people are motivated by money. It's an unfortunate necessity in this world we live in for now. Universal Basic Income? Anybody? I don't know, I'm not sure how I feel about that one. But. 

Lucas Akai  22:00 

So maybe actually, similar vein, when we are talking about these different amounts, I know that the best practice establishes maybe 25 an hour is usually a number tossed around quite frequently for what we pay peers. Do you find that when you have these discrepancies, 25-50. But maybe, let's see a better way to phrase that maybe, there's less credibility maybe in regards to peer work, in general and how it's seen as a profession? Or? 

Daniel Snyder  22:29 

No. Well, no, for me, I mean, I see it as a splintering of the system. I mean, it's the inevitability of agencies, working within their own budgets. So, you know, they deem while we can pay 18 an hour, because really, that's what we have, we'd like to do this much work, we'd like to give out this many hours. And you know, we can we can work with 10 peers at five hours a week, if we pay them 18 an hour, right. But if we paid 25 of our capacity, and the number of people we can connect with goes down. So it's, I guess they're making a cost benefit analysis.  

Daniel Snyder  23:07 

I mean, another problem you have is agencies who have employees who are making 20, or 21, or 23, an hour. And, and, and then you say, Oh, we're gonna bring peers into this meeting with you, and we're gonna pay them 25 an hour during their time here, but you only get 21 as an employee of this agency. Yeah, that's gonna be, that's not going to be good, right? It's gonna create your problems too. So. 

Daniel Snyder  23:40 

For me, though, I understand why, you know, one place is going to be one rate and another place is going to be another. It's their own internal internal politics. And I don't know that setting a like, umbrella rate by the province or by the federal government or something and saying you need to pay peers- it would have to be paired to the minimum wage. I mean, really, how else could you do it? If you set an arbitrary number higher than minimum wage, I think you're going to create a real problem for yourself. Yeah.  

Daniel Snyder  24:17 

But like you said, this number of $25 an hour seems to be pretty conventionally thrown around in peers workspaces. I would say, in my experience, 25 is at the higher end of things. The 50 is an anomaly. Or the higher amounts are often one off honorariums, like, maybe for a larger contribution. If a peer participates in a meeting, we kind of see it as yeah, you get your- the hourly established rate that this organisation has set.  

Daniel Snyder  24:52 

But if you go stand on a stage and share publicly to an audience, I feel, like, we feel it's appropriate to increase that. And even if your speaking is only 10 or 15 minutes. Well, I mean, I suspect you spent hours actually probably contemplating and preparing for that. A 10 minute speech is not 5-10 minutes of prep, right? So, for me to someone go out on the stage, also, the vulnerability and the exposure to the community in the public, like those things are, are risks, that's a risk, right? A higher level of risk than sitting in a meeting with allies.  

Daniel Snyder  25:34 

So I'm very comfortable providing that person with $100 or $150, honorarium for that kind of contribution, because it feels, it seems on all levels to be more significant contribution than another type. So, again, though, this is kind of arbitrary, like it's a group of people looking at something and deciding that they feel one thing is worth more than another. So far, I haven't run into a lot of people offended, upset, frustrated, or irritated with that. The only one, the only exception is the below minimum wage rate, like, where everyone thinks this is unfair. In the rest of it, it's kind of seems to be seen as the nature of a fractured system, and different organisations that work within it. 

Lucas Akai  26:32 

So when you when we talked about like, say, $150 honorarium for a 10 minute speech for $25 an hour for whatever workshop event might be hosting, or the minimum wage, if you participate at a board meeting, whatever it is, do you find that because of the nature of the peerspace, and that it already comes under such scrutiny that you're having to constantly justify the amounts that you're setting? These arbitrary amounts that you've mentioned? Whether that's like to yourself internally, or maybe to the broader public? That's- 

Daniel Snyder  27:07 

Well, definitely not to, like it's not questioned. There's not [...] I think like, for for us, we set a rate, and it's just kind of set. Like, there's either a group of core leaders or the, with this grant, it's held by an agency that has policies already, basically on that stuff. So you know, we sit down when we write the grant, and we literally put in the grant that peers will be compensated at this rate.  

Daniel Snyder  27:40 

And so that's- and you know, it's got a beginning date and an end date. And so people aren't [...] yeah, if there's any need to just justify or reconsider that it's always to myself, like, you know, is this appropriate? And I don't know that that should probably always happen. Like, I should always be, we should always be reviewing that, right? If we didn't, then well, minimum wage was like $6 an hour when I started working. So I'm glad that we've reviewed since that, right? 

Lucas Akai  28:18 

Not to date yourself though, with that one. And so, on this topic, again, you mentioned earlier that you had a lady, a coworker colleague that was trying to push or was in favour of a kind of two week, two week hold or delay on the payments, right? Is that something that is being considered for from a legitimacy standpoint, in terms of trying to make this a more formal process or moving away from like, early peer work? 

Daniel Snyder  28:49 

I think she is treating that really informally. And kind of more as a learning tool just to communicate, listen, we're not like, it's not a cash dispenser. Just because you did your work and and you just finished right now doesn't mean that you get paid right now. Not that we're going to make you wait two weeks and have a pay day, right? Like, she hasn't made it that formal yet. But it's more like, hey, this is my schedule. For her, she works on a three day a week schedule. She's available those days. So you know, if you've done work, you can come get paid when I'm at work, like, during my schedule. And if it happens outside of those hours, you'll have to you'll have to wait. And for the most part, that's fine. I think for the most part, people that understand that they accept that.  

Daniel Snyder  29:45 

But certainly at times, they're not happy about it, for sure. And I mean, what the- what are the reasons for that? I mean, I think the reasons are the instability that sometimes people live when they're, if they're in that lifestyle. If you're paycheck to paycheck, if you don't, I mean, how many Canadians have, like, I heard that, that most Canadians couldn't live more than like, they have less than a month worth of savings or something like that. Right?  

Daniel Snyder  30:14 

So that's, that's a bit scary that that's the average Canadian. So, I can imagine, I don't imagine our peers, for the most part, have big savings accounts, you know, right? Buffers for their, for, for the unexpected emergencies of life, right? So $20 is a big deal. Sometimes, no matter what the reason, I need food, or I'm jonesin' and I'm going into withdrawal. $20 is a big deal.  

Daniel Snyder  30:45 

And I- my heart would be to like, oh, like, if you communicate to me that you're in a difficult spot right now and you can use this, I would I would go out of my way to want to help you right now. Right? Like, but that, you know, is that always helping? Right? And then actually, that's kind of like a little piggy back off the the enabling and tough love kind of conversation, right? If I give you this now-  

Lucas Akai  31:13 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  31:13 

-am I really helping you? So, I'm like, I hear myself saying that out loud. And I'm like, kind of sound like, like, just give him the money. But, you know, I'm not always prepared. I was in a situation the other day where the person who was supposed to make the payment didn't show up. And so she had the cash and she didn't have it, and I had some my own money in my wallet. And they don't know that. And I was like, okay, you know, I can give you this, I could give them this. And then it'd be fine. It's taken care of inconvenient for me, I needed it for something else. Now I gotta go back to the bank. But I'm not gonna [indiscernable] there's just, it's just complicated. Right?  

Lucas Akai  32:01 

Right.  

Daniel Snyder  32:02 

It's... this is real life. Like, sometimes you have a person in front of you, and they're frustrated. And you, I can help them so. 

Lucas Akai  32:14 

And so that actually brings us to the next question, funnily enough, is, so, you mentioned that occasionally you might have to out of your own pocket, when something comes up, right? Help an individual that might- you might also be working with as a peer, or you mentioned the individuals right at the start of our conversation that might be too, let's say, maybe, nervous or shy about asking about payment if something is delayed. Do you find that there is an overlap of maybe, professional boundaries? I know, we've talked about boundaries, a lot professional boundaries within the peer space, and the way that it's been handled so far. 

Daniel Snyder  32:49 

Yes, without a doubt, and how do you fix that? And what does that look like? Well, I mean, I would say this kind of work is really probably in its infancy, right. And so again, like, on the idea of a splintered and a siloed system, everyone's starting to come on board with understanding the importance and the value of this work. 

Daniel Snyder  33:12 

 I mean, it's been going on for decades. I've been involved in work for a long, long time, but it's like, exploded in recent years. And there's a lot of money trickling into it. There's a lot of funds, finding grant money, et cetera, et cetera, that's being made available, a lot of new collaborative research, peer oriented research, patient partner research, and all that kind of stuff that's bringing peers into the space.  

Daniel Snyder  33:38 

And it feels like every single organisation, every single research project, every single agency is creating their own rules, right? And not like, not always formally, not always within like, you know, they don't always have terms of reference or a framework or guideline or a proper even structure. Even a hierarchical, hierarchical structure where you have a leader and people to report to, right? Like, that sometimes is our committee, the CAT committee is very grassroots and disjointed in the sense of structure. You could probably ask five different people, like, who's in charge, you get five different answers. So I mean, or how does this work... and people don't really understand it.  

Daniel Snyder  34:34 

So then when it comes to now, we did develop a peer orientation handbook and toolkit and we did develop a terms of reference and stuff, but like, nobody's read it. Maybe two or three people. It was done a few years ago and like, I bet yet again, you could ask 10 people on the CAT where these are and none of them will know where. So I think, I think what often happens with this kind of thing is that you'll have think tanks, you'll have organisations like the BC Centre on Substance Use, or the BCCDC, you know, drug- what's CANDU, Canadian Association Network of Drug Users, agencies like this, are drug user networks that will develop a policy framework. And it's kind of like an overarching policy for peer engagement period, right?And so, you have two or three kind of well known organisations that will develop these kinds of frameworks, and it needs to trickle down.  

Daniel Snyder  35:41 

And then it gets consolidated. And then it comes best practices. And, and then, you know, perhaps at some point in time, it gets researched a little bit, and then we have an academic. Or maybe this has been done somewhat. I haven't actually checked the research, but then we have some academic papers on on, you know, what peer engagement? How to do it best, right?  

Lucas Akai  36:04 

Right.  

Daniel Snyder  36:05 

So, maybe right now, the phase we are in is the the pre-research, it's really messy. And we'll see how this turns out in the five or ten years stage, is that where we're at? We might be a little beyond that. But, you know, on the ground, certainly. Because obviously, we know, like, you might, if you've done research, and you really understand something, you're the only one, it hasn't trickled down to the masses, yet, right? So, maybe we need a real organisational framework to trickle down and start being implemented.  

Daniel Snyder  36:45 

But yeah, I mean, the real problem is like a committee like ours is a partner with organisations in the community, right? So we're not, we're not really even formal. But we're connected to this formal organisation. We work with this organisation, we work with this. And they all work with our peers, and they all have different peer policies. So you know, Monday, you're with the CAT and Tuesday, you're with lookout, and Wednesday, you're with lower Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society, and they're all paying you stipends or honorariums. And they're all different rates.  

Daniel Snyder  37:20 

And it's, yeah, I can imagine if you were kind of, relying on that piece work, or gig work, what do you want to call it peer to peer work? That would be mind numbing, trying to navigate that, trying to say you are doing work for three or four different agencies, and they're paying you in cash at different times and not on set days? Or how do you keep track of that? What if somebody makes a mistake? What if you, someone forgets to pay? I know the, the paper trail is, is there, it's there with the CAT, but I can promise you, it takes a couple days to [indiscernable]. Like it's not alright, let me look this up on the computer, oh, there, I see that you worked on Tuesday, and we didn't pay you for those three hours. It would take a little more effort for that. 

Lucas Akai  38:18 

Fishing through emails and texts just trying to, oh, yeah, we did mention that. Right. 

Daniel Snyder  38:22 

Yes, right. Yeah.  

Lucas Akai  38:24 

Right. And so maybe on the same topic, in terms of the public perception, I know that, you know, oftentimes, you know, sensationalism in the media is not uncommon. And so when something like, let's just use the $50 an hour when that, if that ever becomes news, for example, like peers make this amount of money for working at an event, how does that translate in terms of public perception? Because, you know, those amounts, even 25 for most people, that's not an insignificant amount of money when you're working a retail job that's minimum wage. So how does that translate in terms of perception there? 

Daniel Snyder  39:02 

Well, for a little clarity, I'll disclose who the $50- 

Lucas Akai  39:06 

For sure. 

Daniel Snyder  39:07 

 -is and that is the federal government. So, it's Health Canada. And so for that reason, I think, I think maybe it's a little more justifiable, like, you're on that you're up the hierarchy, I suppose, right? This is the top of the line. It's the federal government, right?Number one payer, right? So, if their rate, their rate kind of has to be higher than everyone else, I suppose. You know, but yeah, I know.  

Daniel Snyder  39:43 

Well, look at what's gone on in Vancouver right now in the news. When you look at the dollars that are going into the downtown Eastside and this debate on how much money and how is this money spent and is it justifiable? Can we justify this spending? And is it appropriate? Is it the best? Is it the most efficient use of money? And all those questions. And I mean, that's probably a never ending debate, I think even the most passionate like east end advocates, who would say, yeah, there's problems here with how this money is spent. And then, of course, on the flip side, there's like, serious questions about even if the figures, the dollar figures that they're talking about, they're even accurate, right? Like, is this even true? Or are they fudging the numbers and trying to make this thing seem a little more dramatic than [indiscernable]? Right? Like you said, so. 

Daniel Snyder  40:50 

This seems actually almost, I'm just thinking about this. I bet you, you'd have a political divide on this issue. I think that more liberal types would be more inclined to pay higher dollar amounts for lived experience work, and more conservatives would be frustrated with paying people anything for just their lived experience. So I think most of the contention would be along, I bet, you divide pretty pretty cleanly down the political divide. Because the people who are valuing this work, in my experience seem to be more left leaning, where we're, and I think that that's the nature of economic conservatism. So like, by its very nature, it kind of has to be bothered by this. 

Daniel Snyder  41:46 

 If you're, you know, financially conservative person, then you're gonna spend money, you're gonna look for places to cut money and spending money on hearing people's stories is gonna be area number one to cut, right? I'm reduced, I'm being very reductive about what peer work is. But for the sake of kind of being facetious about how, unfortunately, like, things get so black and white, sometimes in our society. But on my own, by my own admission, I feel like I've already said sometimes I feel like I've been overpaid for a contribution. But then at other times, I feel like I've worked really hard on something and felt like it was important to make a significant contribution and was barely recognised or underpaid.  

Daniel Snyder  42:37 

So for me, I'm at least pragmatic enough to think it balances out in my own life, kind of? Maybe treating it like, well, I guess some people like karma and the [indiscernable. I'm not a Karma expert. I don't understand that philosophy quite, right? But I mean, in the way I've heard it colloquially used, that's kind of, maybe the mentality that I approach it with, right? Like, what goes around comes around. I'm approaching this with a good attitude, I'm gonna do it with a good attitude, whether I feel the compensation is appropriate or not. And, and I'll speak up when I need to, if it's really like, if it's something that would, if it's something I'm gonna go away from it frustrated, like, I can't believe that they paid me 20 bucks for it, then I better speak up. Otherwise, it's gonna bother me, right.  

Lucas Akai  43:29 

Sure. So you mentioned paper trails, while we're on the topic, maybe, paper trails. And, you know, a lot of the peer work over the years has been kind of cash under, under the table, kind of, you know, cash gig work, gig peer work, as you mentioned. Is there concerns regarding, you know, as easy, simple as taxes, with regards to how the peer system works and receiving grants, and? 

Daniel Snyder  43:59 

Yeah, I mean, I think there definitely is. I mean, ultimately, I would say the responsibility lies with the, well, the people who applied for the grant, so who's signing those papers? Literally, the names on the papers, and the funding agency, like who's providing the funds? And are they doing a thorough review on how the money is spent? And I don't know how often this stuff happens. I don't know how thorough it is. I know like, on the ground for us, we collect, we put names and signatures to all the paid out dollars. So, we pay out cash but there's signed receipts for every person that receives something and then we submit those to our lead agency, and thank God they have bookkeepers and people who enter this stuff into the computers and balance the books, I suppose. Work I would absolutely just despise. So I'm glad there's people in this world who enjoy it, do it.  

Daniel Snyder  45:07 

For me, the where my, where like, I intersect that question, is like, thinking about appropriate expenditure like, how, where are we using these funds responsibly? And where would we cross a line where we're using them irresponsibly? And I mean, so it's an ethical question. I suppose. It's also somewhat within the bounds of well, how was the grant written and worded and what are you allowed to use the money for? And what are you not allowed?  

Daniel Snyder  45:39 

And I, you know, to the best of my knowledge, I get that. I think we do that appropriately. But when I look at the system, I think there's room for abuse, right? I think that people could mishandle funds, I think funds could be spent inappropriately, I think, you know, I mean, I am not aware of where that's happening.  

Daniel Snyder  46:08 

I mean, I know that there was a case in Alberta recently, pretty high profile where, yeah, I can't remember the details. But an agency that was receiving government grants basically had a significantly large chunk of money that wasn't really properly accounted for. And, like, who got it, right? Where did it go? And could it have been an oversight of the such that would happen with any of these kinds of, grassroots things where it's like, oh, I just didn't get that signature from the peers. Because it's, sometimes in the moment, you're outside, and it's minus 10 ad it's snowing and, you know, I forgot to get the signature. 

Lucas Akai  46:50 

Right.  

Daniel Snyder  46:50 

Or, did someone like, scoop $150,000?  

Lucas Akai  46:50 

A nice Christmas bonus.  

Daniel Snyder  46:58 

Yeah. And I mean, at the end of the day, the funder needs to check in on this stuff. And I guess they probably do from time to time. We write midterm and year end reports detailing what we've engaged with. And it's accompanied by photos and dates and information, and that the work we've done and the people we've talked to, and the Naloxone kits we've distributed, and stories about our engagement, and you know, I suppose they read that and they're like, oh, yeah, that's a lot of people, they connect within the community. That's a lot of naloxone kits. That's, that's, I can see how $50,000 was spent on doing this.  

Daniel Snyder  47:41 

And you know, is the nitty gritty oh, they had, they had mochas instead of coffees that one time when they went out? That's, that's too much like, you guys should not spend the- no whipping cream on your coffee. I mean, I'm making, making something up here. But I know people who, hey, this is grant money, we're not spending it on any of these things. You know, you don't get extra coffee when you're out. And then other people who are like yeah, let's Timbitss and mochas for everybody, right?  

Daniel Snyder  48:17 

So, how people spent their grant money on on the little, the little bitty stuff, which I think is what we over we glean over, right? But you can't undervalue that stuff, right? The little bitty, the going for coffee to be together as a group. The community that we have around food, like food is actually a budget line item in our grant funding, like food. And because it's so important to this work. Almost every single time we're together, there's something. There's a snack, there's coffee, there's tea, there's doughnuts, there's muffins, and I don't need anyone that's like, oh, that's not a- I don't really meet anyone that's like, that's not important. We understand innately that this is an important part of this for some reason. So yeah.  

Lucas Akai  49:08 

Great answers! 

Caitlin Burritt  49:10 

That brings us to the end of this episode of The Unsilencing Stories podcast. To listen to more interviews in the series, please go to www.unsilencingstories.com. And if you'd like to share your thoughts on the episode, message us at  unsilencingstories@gmail.com. Thank you for listening.