The committee met at 8:30 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, well, good morning, everyone. My name is Paul Choi. I’m the MLA for Burnaby South–Metrotown and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the homelands of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking People, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I would also like to welcome everyone who is listening to and participating in today’s meeting. Our committee is currently conducting its annual consultation with British Columbians on their priorities for the next provincial budget. British Columbians who are not presenting to the committee can still share their views by making written comments. The details on how to provide submissions are available on our website at la-bc.ca/consultations.

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

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): My name is Donegal Wilson. I’m the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, and I’m honoured to serve on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I know for many British Columbians, this committee is one of the few direct opportunities they have to speak into the provincial budget process and share their priorities with government. This committee allows us to hear directly from the people we serve and learn from their experiences. I look forward to working in collaboration with the committee.

Bryan Tepper: I am MLA Bryan Tepper for Surrey-Panorama. Looking forward to a good day.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Hello, my name is Debra Toporowski, and I’m the MLA for Cowichan Valley, and my traditional name is Qwulti’stunaat.

Paul Choi (Chair): We also do have MLA Rohini Arora who will be here and joining us momentarily.

Okay, we are going to be now hearing from a number of organizations and individuals about their priorities for the next provincial budget. Thank you for joining us. Each participant will have five minutes to speak, followed by up to five minutes of questions from committee members.

First presenter we have is Theresa Williams from Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society.

Thank you so much for joining us today in person. As you heard, you have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Budget Consultation Presentations

Canadian Groundfish Research
and Conservation Society

Theresa Williams: Thank you very much. Good morning, members of the committee, and I’d like to thank you for your service. I do not think being an elected official is an easy job.

Debra, I live in your riding. I drove down this morning from Lake Cowichan.

Anyway, as you know, my name is Theresa Williams, and I’m here today on behalf of B.C.’s commercial seafood industry. This is my second time presenting to this committee, so thank you for that.

I’m here with a single, focused ask that the province eliminate the motor fuel tax paid by our seafood harvesters and producers. This is a modest measure with meaningful impact to industry, and it has enjoyed support of this committee already, as we made it into last year’s recommendations, though wasn’t adopted.

Let me start with our central point. B.C. is the only province in Canada that does not provide this provincial fuel tax exemption for its seafood sector. Even the non-coastal provinces provide this for their seafood producers. As such, these provinces recognize that fuel is not a discretionary cost for harvesters. It’s a fundamental input that allows the industry to operate at all.

Meanwhile, here in B.C., our agriculture sector already receives this exemption. Farmers are exempt; fishers are not. These are our two primary resource industries doing fundamentally similar work. We harvest food, we feed British Columbians, we drive rural and coastal economies, yet we are treated differently under provincial tax policy. We are simply asking that B.C. harmonize its seafood tax policy treatment with that already enjoyed by agriculture.

[8:35 a.m.]

I want to be direct about what we think the fiscal impact of this is to the province because I know that’s central to what this committee does. The cost of this measure, as calculated by the B.C. Seafood Alliance, is probably less than $800,000 a year

enjoyed by agriculture.

I want to be direct about what we think the fiscal impact of this is to the province, because I know that’s central to what this committee does. The cost of this measure, as calculated by the B.C. Seafood Alliance, is probably less than $800,000 a year. For the harvesters who pay this, you must understand that fuel is our second-largest operating cost, with labour being our first.

If I may, I think $800,000 is a relatively small number in the context of the provincial budget, but it’s a significant burden for our sector. This is not a fringe request. As I mentioned, we have enjoyed support of this committee once already, and I want to point out that it aligns directly with the mandates of three provincial ministries — Agriculture, Finance and JEDI. More importantly, it has already been recommended by the government’s own advisory bodies.

In 2025, the Premier’s task force on agriculture and food economy made two clear recommendations: first, to eliminate PST on all agriculture, aquaculture and food inputs and equipment; and second, directly on point, to remove the motor fuel tax paid by seafood producers. This committee itself, as I’ve already pointed out, did include this recommendation in your list. It was recommendation No. 20. So thank you for validating that already.

In closing, I just want to reiterate that our request today is straightforward: that this upcoming provincial budget act on the recommendation this committee has already made and which I’m hopeful you will make again. Eliminating the motor fuel tax for the seafood sector would correct an inequity that makes B.C. an outlier in Canada. It would treat our harvesters consistently with the agriculture sector, and it would do so at a minimal cost to the province. This is a small measure that delivers real fairness and support to a foundational B.C. industry.

Outside of my speaking notes, I just want to make a quick note that I had the privilege of wandering around a bit this morning as I was waiting for this to start, and I noticed that on the central dome there are frescoes of industries. There are four: forestry, farming, mining and fisheries. We don’t have a provincial ministry of fisheries, as our maritime cousins do. So the support of this committee is much appreciated, because we don’t have strong advocacy for our sector, even though we have one of the largest coasts in the country.

I also want to just point out that the sector I work specifically in is trawl, which can have a bad reputation. But I want the committee to know that in December of 2025, we received our global Marine Stewardship certification status for both bottom- and mid-water trawl here in B.C. That’s something we should be proud of. Thank you — and I nailed it.

Paul Choi (Chair): You sure did. You had practice last year. Thanks for your presentation.

We’ll now move to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. I wasn’t here last year, so I appreciated that you went back over it in detail. I don’t have very many questions, because you did a great job.

My one question would be around.… Is there any kind of subsidy that you’re receiving for this fuel tax right now? Or absolutely, farming has it, and aquaculture doesn’t?

Theresa Williams: What you said is correct. Farming has it, and fisheries and aquaculture do not.

Bryan Tepper: Going back to last year, you had another recommendation last year, didn’t you? There was something else. Was it left out, or was it just the fuel charge last year?

Theresa Williams: It was simply the motor fuel tax. Maybe you’re thinking about the recommendation that came out of the task force. There was a more complex one around alignment with.… I wasn’t on that task force. “Eliminate the PST on all agriculture, agriculture and food inputs,” but that wasn’t my recommendation. We’re simply focused on the 3½-cent motor fuel tax.

[8:40 a.m.]

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you, Theresa. Like my colleague just said, you articulated everything in your ask. Also, in just updating our committee here on what happened last time, I’m grateful for that.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Okay, we’ll move on to our next presenter. If I can invite

on what happened last time. I’m grateful for that.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Okay, we’ll move on to our next presenter. If I can invite Laura Vye, Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre, to come forward.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Victoria Child Abuse Prevention
and Counselling Centre

Laura Vye: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Laura Vye, and I’m the executive director for the Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre.

We’re Greater Victoria’s only non-profit agency dedicated to providing long-term trauma-informed counselling, advocacy and specialized victim service support to children and youth who have experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse, witnessing family violence, exploitation or a combination of all of the above.

We have been in operation for over 40 years and are considered a centre of excellence, experts in the field of child abuse and trauma and a CARF accredited organization.

As a former police officer who engaged with abused, traumatized and exploited children, youth and adults, I have seen the cycles of trauma and the abuse that exists for many people in our communities, regardless of their socioeconomic background. I’ve seen the results of unhealed trauma and the effects on people, families and our communities.

There is an urgent need. According to the Department of Justice Canada, one in three children will experience some form of abuse before the age of 15, 26 percent will experience physical abuse, and 8 percent will experience sexual abuse.

The British Columbia Our Time to Act report to the chief coroner documented seven children who were killed as a result of intimate-partner violence between 2016 and 2024. The same report also documented children’s exposure to experiences of IPV and family violence, and the associated harms are well documented in research. Yet in practice, the safety, well-being and needs of children who are exposed to violence are often overlooked, with the focus remaining on the adults involved.

In British Columbia, Indigenous youth under the age of 15 are experiencing physical or sexual abuse at more than double the rate of non-Indigenous youth.

These statistics are not just numbers. They represent real children, families in our communities who are in desperate need of support. Last year our agency served 647 children and youth, up from 558 the year before.

Child abuse is a serious public health issue with both immediate and long-term health and social impacts that affect children, families and communities across our province. Untreated trauma from neglect, violence and sexual abuse are some of the strongest indicators of poor mental health.

We are seeing more and more complex cases of abuse with pre-existing adverse experiences such as neglect, family dysfunction, experience in foster care, racism or discrimination, intergenerational trauma, addictions and housing insecurity.

This is highly prevalent and can cause toxic stress, altering a child’s brain development and increasing the risk of vulnerability and negative future life outcomes. Children exposed to trauma are at a significantly higher risk of developing mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety and PTSD. These conditions often persist into adulthood, leading to challenges in education, employment and relationships.

Communities bear the burden through increased health care costs, involvement with the justice system, homelessness, drug addictions and loss of potential community and tax contributions to society.

The Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre is a non-profit organization that receives limited core funding only from MCFD for sexually abused children only. This means that our government does not fund specialized trauma and mental health support for children and youth who have been victims of other forms of trauma, such as physical abuse, severe neglect and witnessing family violence.

Recently the government invested in new measures to combat intimate-partner violence. Part of that investment should include children and youth experiencing abuse and violence, as treatment in childhood can often interrupt the cycle.

Non-government organizations should not stand alone and fill gaps from failing systems, including unfunded mental health access for children, youth and families in desperate need. The government must fully commit to a system that combats intimate-partner and family violence by funding trauma counselling.

Currently our centre must rely on yearly community donations and inconsistent grant applications to support the children and youth who experience non-sexual abuse. Currently our wait-list is between 50 and 60 children waiting for mental health counselling, with more than 50 percent of those cases being non-sexual forms of abuse.

[8:45 a.m.]

Our centre provides unique and specialized intensive counselling and therapy for up to two years.

What can community and government do?

Currently our wait-list is between 50 and 60 children waiting for mental health counselling, with more than 50 percent of those cases being non-sexual forms of abuse. Our centre provides unique and specialized intensive counselling and therapy for up to two years.

What can community and government do? Commit to investing in core funding for specialized child and youth abuse counselling and trauma and mental health.

We are seeking your commitment to call upon government to provide core sustained funding of $250,000 for currently unfunded child abuse counselling. We are seeking your commitment to call upon government to increase core funding for sexual abuse by $200,000 in order that all children may have timely access to trauma care following their abuse.

Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to question by members.

Rohini Arora: Laura, thank you so much for your presentation. What you touched on is incredibly important.

You mentioned $250,000 for sustained funding and $200,000. I missed that last part.

Laura Vye: Sorry. My allergies are killing me today.

Rohini Arora: Don’t worry, girl. We’re all going through it.

Laura Vye: It’s $250,000 extra for core sustained funding and then $200,000 — an increase in the core funding for sexual abuse in order to provide direct service hours for counselling.

Rohini Arora: Oh, okay. Direct service hours.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

Recognizing MLA Toporowski.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you, Chair. That was my question as well.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your work. I’m sure it’s extremely difficult.

My question is more around: is there a need to separate the funding, or should the program just expand in its scope? I’m wondering if the separated programming is because organizations do that work separate. But in my mind, I would imagine that most organizations would be doing…. You don’t want to, just because of funding, be like: “I’m sorry. I can help you to here, but I can’t go past there.” So wouldn’t it make more sense, instead of asking for a new pot of funding, to ask for the scope to be increased in the existing funding, with more?

Laura Vye: To answer your question, yes. Oftentimes the children that we’re seeing are experiencing many forms of abuse, and separating it into the bucket of sexual abuse, as our only core funding, doesn’t make sense. We’ve been advocating for years that the children that we’re seeing…. Some of them are just experiencing the physical or neglect abuse, but to fund one form of child abuse and not form all the others doesn’t make sense.

What would make the most sense is just to increase the core funding and allow us to serve children who are abused, regardless of what that abuse looks like.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I agree. Going back to the first question, are there organizations, though, that are only doing the one? And therefore, would…?

Laura Vye: We’re the only organization in greater Victoria that provides…. Our whole centre is based on providing child abuse services. There is one other organization that provides the sexual abuse counselling out in West Shore, but we’re the only one that provides no-cost counselling support for children.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just to….

Sorry, go ahead.

Rohini Arora: You may have the same question I do, because I’m also following along.

Laura, can you explain to me the difference? Are there organizations that are focusing on just the physical or neglect aspect and then organizations focusing on just sexual abuse? Here you said West Shore provides counselling services if sexual abuse is involved. Is there a separation there in terms of accessing funding as well? I’m just trying to follow along with you here.

Laura Vye: Yeah. The organization out in Langford is an Indigenous organization. So they have a sexual abuse interventions program as well. It’s based on jurisdiction. It’s based on where they’re located.

[8:50 a.m.]

So if there are children that are in the Langford–West Shore area, they go to that organization. But all other forms of abuse come to our organization. So we cover all of greater Victoria, from Victoria to Sooke to North Saanich, in providing service to children that have experienced abuse.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

Deputy Chair, still a follow-up?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just a quick follow-up.

Looking at it as a

So we cover all of greater Victoria, from Victoria to Sooke to North Saanich in providing service to children that have experienced abuse.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

Deputy Chair, still a follow up?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just a quick follow up.

Looking at it as a provincial recommendation was where I was kind of coming from. I understand here, but in a provincial scope, when you’re looking at sister organizations across British Columbia, I’m assuming this is not a unique problem to your organization. I imagine many organizations are in the same position.

Laura Vye: Yes.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just for a provincial recommendation into the report, it would be to increase funding and increase scope?

Laura Vye: Yes.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Okay. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Thank you so much for coming and presenting to us.

Laura Vye: There are also information packages that I left at the desk if you’re interested in more. Thank you so much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, we’ll move to our next presenter. If I can invite Andrew Gage from West Coast Environmental Law to come forward.

Thank you for joining us. As you’ve seen, you have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for a question after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

West Coast Environmental Law

Andrew Gage: Thank you very much for having me. I am a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. I’m also presenting on behalf of the Georgia Strait Alliance and their climate ready now program and the sue big oil campaign that we serve as secretariat for.

A climate-credible budget has to bring to light the many ways that climate change is costing and will cost the province and British Columbians and invest to maximize public benefit in a warming world, including adequate funding for local governments and First Nations. B.C.’s approach to budgeting has consistently failed to quantify the cost of climate change to the assets and services that are contained in the budget and to fund what’s required to address those costs and keep British Columbians safe.

When we talk about climate impacts, we tend to think of massive storms, wildfires or heat waves. B.C. spent over a billion dollars fighting wildfires in 2023. I had a friend and colleague who almost died during the 2021 heat dome along with the more than 600 residents who did. But disaster scenarios are the tip of the iceberg. We can’t know for certain where they’ll strike, making them difficult to prepare for, and the 2026 budget had a $5 billion contingency fund for this reason.

Uncertainty doesn’t mean we can’t prepare. Adaptation typically can save between $5 and $15 per dollar spent. To date, B.C.’s allocation of funds to climate adaptation appears to be arbitrary and political, rather than prioritized based on an assessment of where adaptation will do the most good to protect infrastructure and assets and to avoid harm to humans and property.

For example, B.C. has not funded implementation of its flood management strategy despite billions of dollars of flood damages in recent years. The province,while it spent what it takes to fight wildfires, has been funding only $25 billion per year for the FireSmart community funding and supports program between 2018 and 2026, which is often enough to develop wildfire plans but not enough to implement them to the scale required.

Funding for the local government climate action plan was recently dropped, apparently without warning, from the Ministry of Energy and climate change solutions service plan, creating uncertainty for local governments over how they can fund adaptation.

There’s a recent report, “Prepare or repair,” by the Canadian Climate Institute and WSP Global that’s an example of a rigorous, if incomplete, attempt to understand the cost of climate change on public assets and the benefits of adaptation. The report examines the increased maintenance and replacement costs to roads, buildings, water systems and other infrastructure caused not by disasters but by just chronic increases in heat and precipitation due to climate change, finding that an extra $8.8 billion across Canada is occurring today, like right now, due to those increased heat and precipitation costs; $587 million a year is their estimate for B.C. assets.

Those costs are going to rise, and by the middle of the century, they’re expecting B.C. assets to be having an extra $2.3 billion a year in maintenance and replacement costs if we do nothing. About 72 percent of those costs are borne by local governments or First Nations and 33 percent by provincial or territorial governments. Prepare or repair demonstrates that actively upgrading that infrastructure will cost more in the very short term, about $3.1 billion a year nationally, but will more than pay for itself in a very short period.

[8:55 a.m.]

Based on B.C.’s share of public infrastructure, the province should presumably be spending about $480 million per year on proactive adaptation just in relation to those basic infrastructure types, not counting all other climate costs or adaptation needs.

West Coast Environmental Law recently commissioned a poll by Stratcom which asked British Columbians how they

the province should presumably be spending about $480 million per year on proactive adaptation just in relation to those basic infrastructure types, not counting all other climate costs or adaptation needs.

West Coast Environmental Law recently commissioned a poll by Stratcom which asked British Columbians how they would like to see their local government paying for the cost of climate change, and 76 percent said that provincial and federal governments should be paying these costs. And 71 percent wanted their governments to seek compensation from major polluters that contribute to climate change such as fossil fuel companies. Both of those options had majority support across the political spectrum.

Climate change is increasingly costly, and B.C. needs to be transparent and honest about just how costly and how it plans to pay that bill. Our budget needs to invest in climate preparedness to keep communities safe from climate change and to make sure that local governments and First Nations have the resources to do the same.

At a bare minimum, that should mean ensuring that royalties from oil, gas and coal go to directly address the cost of climate change that they contribute to rather than to general revenue. But B.C. should also look at the example of California and other states that are suing fossil fuel companies.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: I’m deaf in my left ear, so I was reading the closed captioning. It said $25 billion. Did you say $2.5 billion? It showed up as $25 billion.

Andrew Gage: By the middle of this century, Prepare or Repair estimates that B.C. infrastructure will be costing an extra $2.3 billion per year.

Rohini Arora: Sorry. Sometimes it says strange things on here, and I don’t always know what that means.

Then you also mentioned that 71 percent of that Stratcom poll…. I think somebody else was here yesterday and may have quoted the same study, or maybe something similar. You said 76 said provincial government should take on the charges, and 71 should bill back for major polluters. Or did you say 71 percent believe that major polluters should pay?

Andrew Gage: The question was framed asking people what their local governments should do. The 76 percent was that they should look to the federal or provincial governments to fund these costs, and 71 percent said that their local governments should work together to seek compensation from major polluters.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your support of the implementation of the flood mitigation strategy. I’m Boundary-Similkameen. Princeton, Keremeos, Tulameen — all experienced the atmospheric rivers. We’re still trying to figure out how to prepare, with a mishmash of orphan dikes and who’s responsible for what. The only time we’re allowed to work on them is when we’re in an emergency, which is not good.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of the flood mitigation strategy and investing in that, going forward.

Andrew Gage: Thank you. I mean, from our point of view, I don’t think that British Columbians have wrapped their heads around just how aggressively we should be working to prevent some of these costs before they occur. They are financial costs. They’re also human costs and tragedies.

Bryan Tepper: Interesting with that aspect, and you talk about the royalties. We’ve got a Premier going around saying that he wants to expand LNG to overseas and do that. With a cost-benefit analysis, I guess, what do you see as the benefit of expanding LNG to gain royalties to fight the effects of exporting the LNG then?

Andrew Gage: I mean, clearly, West Coast Environmental Law and all the organizations I’m advocating for are not in favour of expanding LNG because of the climate impacts that they have — among other concerns, but primarily the climate impacts.

I think it’s sort of a shell game. B.C. as, ultimately, the owner of the fossil fuel resources, I think has a responsibility for the harm that their products cause, both here and around the world.

That being said, if we were going to exploit those resources, recognizing that we need that money to pay for the harm that we are causing and being honest and explicit about that is important.

[9:00 a.m.]

Bryan Tepper: We’re in a bit of a circular game there, aren’t we?

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

that those are not actually…. We need that money to pay for the harm that we are causing, and being honest and explicit about that is important.

Bryan Tepper: We’re in a bit of a circular game there, aren’t we?

Andrew Gage: Yeah.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Okay, we will invite our next presenter who is online. We have James Casey from World Wildlife Fund Canada.

Thank you for joining us. If you can see me, that’s perfect. And you can hear me as well. That’s great. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

World Wildlife Fund Canada

James Casey: Excellent. Hi, Chair and committee members. Thank you so much for all the work you do on behalf of British Columbia.

My name, as said, is James Casey. I work for WWF, focused on providing funding for First Nations and community groups implementing restoration activities in B.C. and across the country. WWF Canada is one of the larger conservation organizations in Canada, and our vision is a Canada with abundant wildlife where people and nature thrive. But we all have a role to play in building ecological security and climate resilience, so thanks for providing me with the time today.

Unfortunately, our change in climate necessitates a whole-of-society response. I think we just heard from Andrew Gage in West Coast Environmental Law on the cost and benefits, so I won’t speak to that much. I’ll just add, at this point, that nature-based climate solutions achievable through the practice of restoration probably need to be part of that investment.

Investing in restoration has a proven economic return and globally is an emerging multi-billion-dollar sector. A cost benefit of over 200 ecosystem restoration initiatives around the world revealed widespread high returns on investment, sometimes as high as 35 to 1 when considering the suite of ecological services provided. Yet as someone that implements restoration activities and grants in B.C., I can attest that the restoration sector in B.C. is unfortunately underfunded.

If B.C. could find a way to create a restoration framework able to attract private sector investment, there would be economic and biodiversity benefits for B.C. while also enabling the diversification of a workforce that buffers forest-dependent communities. For example, over the three years that the Indigenous watersheds initiative was funded by the B.C. government, it supported 44 First Nations, contributing 375 jobs and enabling the restoration of 4,800 hectares in watersheds across B.C.

If you widen the lens on restoration to include forestry or reforestation, mining-related restoration activities and other industry-related restoration, it has been estimated in the report prepared for B.C. energy regulation that there are billions more worth of restoration demand being created in B.C. every year but a limited capacity to meet that demand.

This is not to say that there has been no action from government. In the tripart agreement on nature conservation signed by this government along with Canada and the First Nations Leadership Council, there was a commitment to build a longer-term restoration framework. Just this week, we heard an announcement of $155 million in support of reforestation across B.C.

The challenge is that the moment of planting a tree is a very small slice of time in a multi-year process. Mobilizing the restoration supply chain requires a clear multi-year commitment, and the budget as well as the associated estimates are a good place to signal that long-term commitment.

Therefore, WWF Canada is asking the budget committee to follow up on last year’s recommendation 16(c) around modernizing industrial waterways with a commitment to dedicate any new funding generated through that process to the B.C. watershed security fund as a transparent and effective delivery mechanism for restoration across B.C.

To ensure this has maximum impact and that B.C. is well positioned to participate in the growing restoration economy, we further recommend that this committee ask the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth to develop a costed forecasted demand estimate for restoration in B.C. and relevant ministries report on the funds being spent on the restoration supply chain, including jobs and skill development, and lastly, request clarity from any of the relevant agencies on steps being taken to address regulatory barriers to the restoration economy, including addressing gaps in the financial regulatory ecosystem.

[9:05 a.m.]

In closing, more investment is needed from both the private and public sector to transition restoration from an ad hoc response to impacts into a sector creating value recognized in private markets. To build the

restoration economy, including addressing gaps in the financial regulatory ecosystem.

In closing, more investment is needed from both the private and public sector to transition restoration from an ad hoc response to impacts into a sector creating value recognized in private markets. To build the strongest possible B.C., we suggest the B.C. government take steps to develop the restoration economy as a mechanism for maintaining jobs and critical watershed infrastructure across B.C.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I didn’t quite…. On the watershed security fund, that particular recommendation, I didn’t catch the first part of that. I’m assuming it’s the industrial water rates that we’ve heard from several other organizations. Thank you.

James Casey: That would be correct. Yes.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions by members?

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you, James. I’m happy that Andrew is still in the room as well. Just wanting to touch base on climate change and the nature-based restorations and all of those different things.

You touched on Indigenous watershed support in B.C. I know I was asked by someone in my community: “What does that mean, Indigenous watershed?” And I said: “It’s not ours. It’s just a different look and a different lens to approaching what we are facing in climate change.”

I was just wondering if you could touch back on the Ministry of Jobs. You said “maximizing impact.” Can you just repeat that again so I can make more notes on that?

James Casey: Okay, sure. The request there was that we ask the Ministry of Jobs and Economic Growth to develop a costed forecasted demand estimate for restoration.

One of the challenges we have in B.C. is that restoration is being supported by investment across multiple different agencies and sectors. For instance, we have restoration that’s reforestation — which was just announced — handled by Ministry of Forests; you have watershed restoration, which is supported through either the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the partnership between B.C. and DFO on salmon; you have the watershed security fund supporting restoration; you have watershed in the agricultural sector, where you have buffers and cover crops.

Understanding how much is being invested and what potential there is for further investment is key for those of us that want to see more investment and want to bring more revenue or more capital into the B.C. sector. Getting a clear estimate of the total demand, both from created through obligations to meet regulatory requirements but then also to implement nature-based climate solutions as part of the adaptation and mitigation pathway, would help us identify the overall need in B.C.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Okay, thank you. I don’t know if you’ve written to other ministries, as well, just to connect that. I just think that this is all connected.

The previous speaker, as well, talking about 72 percent of local governments and First Nations having to carry that load and educate and be on the ground to get data to even put things towards….

Government likes numbers and data, information, so that takes time. And the urgency of all of this is where we need to be.

So thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us.

James Casey: Have a good day.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

Moving on to our next presenter, if I can invite John Wilson to come forward from Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce.

[9:10 a.m.]

Thank you for joining us today in person. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes of questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready to go.

Greater Victoria
Chamber of Commerce

John Wilson: Thank you very much, Chair. Committee members, thank you for the opportunity here today. My name is John Wilson. I’m the CEO of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, representing over 1,400 businesses in the greater Victoria area.

You ask every presenter three questions.

minutes for your presentation and five minutes of questions after.

You can begin when you’re ready to go.

Greater Victoria
Chamber of Commerce

John Wilson: Thank you very much, Chair, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity here today.

My name is John Wilson, the CEO of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, representing over 1,400 businesses in the Greater Victoria area.

You ask every presenter three questions, and I want to answer them clearly. What are our priorities, what is important to us, and what actions can government take to make life better?

Our priority is stopping the decline of downtown Victoria, because when downtown fails, people suffer, and the economic base that funds public services erodes. The Finance Minister says we’re signaling that we’re open for business, but here’s what’s really happening in Victoria. More than half of downtown Victoria’s businesses are not open for business because they have gone out of business. That’s not a communication problem; that’s a policy problem. And when government policy fails, you don’t see it in a press release. You see it on the street every day.

Last year 1,826 people died of drug overdoses in British Columbia. That tells us the current approach is not delivering the outcomes people deserve. At the same time, I’m hearing from multigenerational downtown business owners, people who have invested their whole lives in this city, and they are struggling.

I recently spoke with owners of a family-run downtown business. Their grandparents opened the business, and their parents carried it through the recessions. Over the past two years, they endured repeated break-ins, staff intimidation, vandalism and insurance that stopped covering losses, and one final incident that left an employee shaken and afraid. They decided to shut the doors for good. That family did not fail; the conditions failed them.

Over half of downtown businesses say they would consider leaving if their lease ended today. Vacancies have tripled. Confidence is collapsing.

Downtown businesses are the stabilizing force of any urban core. They create jobs. They train young people. They provide daily routine, foot traffic and eyes on the street. They offer opportunities beyond a job. They are invested in our city and care deeply about the people who live here. When businesses close, jobs disappear, services become harder to fund, and the tax burden shifts onto residents. That is the trajectory we are on right now.

Downtowns depend on people being present. Cities work when people show up — workers, customers, students, visitors. Presence creates safety, vibrancy and economic activity. When government workers disappear from downtown, it just doesn’t hurt the coffee shop owner. It undermines business confidence and public safety.

The public sector is an anchor tenant for downtown Victoria, a predictable, year-round presence that stabilizes entire blocks. Bringing people back downtown is not nostalgia. It is economic recovery.

We also need to say this plainly. It is not compassionate to maintain policies that enable human suffering and despair. As business operators, we see this every day in our doorways and outside our storefronts. Compassion without outcomes is not compassion. It is abandonment.

Answering the committee’s question: what can the provincial government do? We have three priorities for Budget 2027.

Priority one, reduce the cost of staying open. Government can make life better by ending policies that punish businesses for operating. That means rolling back the PST on essential business inputs and using tax policy to reward active storefronts. Open doors should be supported, not penalized.

Priority two, end crime, chaos and disorder, social disorder. Government can make life better by funding downtown safety and recovery. That means visible street-level safety, integrated mental health and addiction treatment and real consequences for repeat offenders, not a system that normalizes disorder and despair. Downtown safety must be treated as an economic priority, not an afterthought downloaded to local government.

Priority three, bring people back downtown and protect living-wage jobs. Public sector workforce policies should support a strong, active downtown by restoring a consistent presence in the office-based roles. The province must protect industrial and employment lands that generate living-wage, family-supporting jobs.

We cannot build long-term affordability by expanding housing while losing good-paying jobs. Preserving employment on industrial lands, particularly in and around our working harbour, is critical to economic resilience and social stability.

[9:15 a.m.]

Chair, committee members, this is the choice before Budget 2027. We can keep talking about being open for business while businesses close, overdoses rise and disorder becomes normalized, or we can change the conditions that are clearly failing people and rebuild downtowns that are safe, vibrant and economically sustainable. That is the priority of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce

before Budget 2027. We can keep talking about being open for business while businesses close, overdoses rise and disorder becomes normalized, or we can change the conditions that are clearly failing people and rebuild downtowns that are safe, vibrant and economically sustainable.

That is the priority of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. That is what matters to us, and these are the actions governments can take to make life better.

I’m happy to take questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that presentation. We’ll now go to questions by members.

Bryan Tepper: Do you know what the vacancy rate is now in downtown Victoria?

John Wilson: The vacancy rate is up. Retail vacancy is 11 percent, up 3 percent since pre-pandemic levels. Third…. I’d like to add to that; 48 percent of businesses surveyed said if their leases were coming up today, they would not renew them.

Bryan Tepper: Sorry, a third?

John Wilson: Sorry, which part?

Bryan Tepper: What number did you say wouldn’t renew?

John Wilson: It’s 48 percent.

Bryan Tepper: Oh, 48 percent. Totally didn’t hear that at all.

John Wilson: And 39 percent of businesses report decline in performance, driven by safety concerns and vacancy reduction.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, well, then to follow up on that, what would the commercial building owners be looking for? What are they saying would help them stay and keep open?

John Wilson: Well, again, that safety and disorder plan that is continuing…. The city of Victoria has a safety and wellness plan that is funded for the rest of this year, and it has made some inroads, basically on increased police presence and increased bylaw officers, but that funding is gone at the end of the year. We’d like to see that funding reinforced by the provincial government to help that carry on.

But more needs to be done for sure. Again, we talk about cancelling the PST, the general tax relief on building owners that’s with space rented. I’ve heard stories of building owners in the downtown core that have had to sell their personal residences to pay for the cost of upkeep and rent on buildings that are 70 percent vacant in the downtown core.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. This is interesting. Then you brought up the public sector workers coming back. Do you have any idea what the numbers are for people working from home or downtown now with our public sector?

John Wilson: I don’t have the exact numbers, but we believe, through talking to building owners and all that, at least two-thirds are empty in the downtown core now, and those that are coming to the office are just only coming one day a month.

Bryan Tepper: One day a month?

John Wilson: Yes. It’s really affecting the small businesses in the downtown core. We talk about youth employment, the stats that have just come out and being devastating with youth employment. A lot of these entrepreneurial small businesses employ youth, first-time job seekers.

One in every ten persons in greater Victoria are entrepreneurs, and that number is declining. It is very hard to be an entrepreneur in this province right now. They’re not feeling supported; they’re feeling taken advantage of.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, not to take up all the time, but I will say, though, I did just take my daughter and her roommates out for dinner the other night, and they are having troubles finding jobs just for storefront jobs.

Anyway, I will let somebody else get a question in here.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m curious. I’ve been hearing some commentary, and I’m wondering what you think about it — that some commercial landlords are not renting out because they’re able to write it off as a business expense as a loss because they’re not able to fill. Do you believe that that’s also part of the problem, or do you think that’s just a misinterpretation?

John Wilson: Well, first of all, I have not heard that as part of the problem, for sure. I think every building owner, every owner of any business wants to make revenue, wants to…. Keep in mind, write-offs are only good if you’re making money in some other area, right?

I mean, step code is…. You know, they want to look at changing these buildings, maybe to hotel space, things like that, but step code is making it financially not viable to do that.

I certainly have not heard that, but building owners would like to see them filled with workers.

Rohini Arora: Since I get to pick your brain right now, I’m also curious what you think about triple-net leasing. I hear from many people, especially in my community in Burnaby, where they think that that should be changed so that there’s more flexibility.

[9:20 a.m.]

John Wilson: I don’t see how it can be changed. That’s just onloading more expenses onto the building owners. Triple-net is simply the expenses that are on top of owning the building — hydro, property taxes. So if a building owner is going to have to absorb that on even more, it’s going to create more financial hardship for them. I do

that’s just onloading more expenses onto the building owners. Triple net is simply the expenses that are on top of owning the building: hydro, property taxes. If a building owner is going to have to absorb that even more, it’s going to create more financial hardship for them.

I do have a leave-behind, and we’re asking for committing to $100 million to establish a downtown recovery fund with funding priorities guided by independent task force co-chaired by business. Just wanted to get that in, sorry.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Since you snuck that in, I’m going to sneak this in. That $100 million, I’m assuming, is not just for Victoria. You’re presenting that as a provincial fund?

John Wilson: Correct, a provincial fund. But we feel that Victoria as the capital city could lead the way for the province.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation today.

John Wilson: Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will now go to our next presenter. I’d like to invite Jessica Nash from Atos Medical Canada to the front.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you are ready.

Atos Medical Canada

Jessica Nash: Good morning, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jessica Nash, and I’m speaking on behalf of Atos Medical Canada, a global leader in laryngectomy care focused on supporting breathing, speaking and pulmonary health for patients who have undergone total laryngectomy.

Today I’m here in support of the Laryngectomy Association of British Columbia’s recommendation that B.C. PharmaCare introduce coverage for medically necessary laryngectomy devices and supplies, including voice prosthesis, heat and moisture exchangers, also known as HMEs, as well as the voice prostheses and adhesives that are used to secure these devices in place. We believe this proposal represents an important opportunity to close a long-standing gap in equitable care for a small but very high-needs population in British Columbia.

A total laryngectomy is a life-altering surgery most commonly required for advanced throat cancer, in which the entire voice box, or larynx, is permanently removed. Following these surgeries, patients permanently lose not only their ability to speak, but also imagine not being able to communicate with your loved ones. Every single breath, additionally, that bypasses the body’s normal filtration and humidification system also results in air going directly into the lungs. These people are neck breathers. It’s the term that’s used commonly. And the assault on the lungs is quite severe.

In particular, a voice prosthesis restores verbal communication, allowing patients to maintain independence and remain connected with their family, friends and health care providers. These devices are not optional supports; they are medically necessary components of standard post-laryngectomy care. Without access to these supplies, patients are at a significantly greater risk of respiratory complication, infection, communication barriers, social isolation, of course, as well as struggling with mental health. I believe that Cindy spoke to all of these matters in depth.

Clinical evidence also shows that patients achieve the best outcomes when they have access to the full spectrum of these therapies. In British Columbia, there are an estimated 350 individuals currently living with a total laryngectomy. While this is a relatively small patient population, these individuals often require lifelong support following their cancer treatment. Patients particularly in rural and remote communities can face even greater barriers to accessing specialized care and replacement supplies when complications arise.

Despite the clear medical necessity of these devices, B.C. PharmaCare currently provides no comprehensive public coverage for these supplies. As a result, many patients face thousands of dollars in annual out-of-pocket costs simply to access their clinically recommended products. Importantly, there are no substitutes at all for these devices.

Most provinces across Canada already provide public funding for these patients because they are recognized as the medical necessity that they are. British Columbia remains an outlier in failing to provide comprehensive coverage for these patients.

For many patients, the years following cancer treatment represent a critical period of recovery, reintegration and preserving their dignity and independence.

[9:25 a.m.]

Tragically, the average lifespan of a laryngectomy is only between five to eight years post-diagnosis. Ensuring access to these medically necessary supplies allows patients to communicate, participate in daily life, maintain social connection and avoid preventable complications and hospitalizations.

This funding would be strongly aligned with the government’s existing

between five to eight years post-diagnosis.

Ensuring access to these medically necessary supplies allows patients to communicate, participate in daily life, maintain social connection and avoid preventable complications and hospitalizations.

This funding would be strongly aligned with the government’s existing health care principles. Across B.C.’s health care system, patients experiencing major life-altering medical conditions that permanently affect their day-to-day basic functioning are provided with supports. We firmly believe that laryngectomy patients should be given every opportunity to make their remaining years as fulfilling and meaningful as possible.

In closing, this is a small, well-defined patient population with an essential and lifelong need. Funding laryngectomy supplies would improve patient outcomes, reduce avoidable complications, lower health care utilization and ensure equitable access to all laryngectomies in British Columbia.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. We will now go to questions by members.

Bryan Tepper: You said five to eight years on a lifespan. What was that for?

Jessica Nash: That’s how long the average lifespan of somebody post-diagnosis is who is diagnosed with this throat cancer. Typically, it’s throat cancer. It’s not always. Sometimes it’s trauma-induced.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. Thank you very much.

Jessica Nash: No problem.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you. We obviously already had a presentation, so I have a lot of clarity already.

My question is: around how many patients in B.C. are we talking? You referenced a small group. I’m just wondering how many.

Jessica Nash: It’s 350, and it’s pretty easy to…. Pretty easy. The surgical numbers are very well known. These are patients that are hopefully seen on a regular basis by the speech-language pathologist, which is within the allied professional health space. Those are kind of the nurses that work directly with these patients. But because it’s a surgical outcome, it’s fairly reasonable to know the numbers — so 350.

Rohini Arora: I was looking up the website of where you work. Obviously, you provide the neck stoma and many of the other products. How much, on average, do you feel needs to be spent in order…? Some of the products last a bit longer. Sometimes they don’t. It depends on the patient and their needs.

Jessica Nash: Correct.

Rohini Arora: Do you have sort of a number of what would be needed annually? We were told by Cindy, the previous presenter, but I just wanted to know if you feel the same way or you might have some more information being that you work for the company that provides the supplies.

Jessica Nash: Approximately $8,500 to $9,000.

Rohini Arora: Annually?

Jessica Nash: Correct, per patient.

Rohini Arora: And that’s for all of the…? The adhesive, the…?

Jessica Nash: Yeah, I actually brought some show and tell, just because I think, obviously, being able to see something makes more sense. But this is the adhesive that is placed over top of the stoma, because again, all the air that they take in goes directly into their lungs.

This is what holds the heat-moisture exchanger, this piece here, in place. These need to be replaced daily, and this is daily to every two days, depending again on the patient’s anatomy as well as the patient’s skin health, just because, post — all the radiation, etc., the surgeries, the healing, the scarring — the skin can be very different patient to patient. So approximately $8,500 to $9,000 a year.

And then here…. This is the voice prosthesis. This is what actually sits between the trachea and esophagus to actually create the voice.

And these…. I’ve been going across the country meeting with patients and clinicians, and for some patients, this might last for six months. Other patients — it could last for two months. It’s very difficult to predict.

Rohini Arora: What’s the reason that it’s so different, that particular piece, between the trachea and the…?

Jessica Nash: Just like each of us are individuals, each patient is individual as well, as far as the way that their bodies create biofilm. So we’re all just unique in ourselves, and certain prostheses work for certain people, and others don’t.

Some patients like to progress to being able to speak without having to press the button to speak to communicate with their families and use a hands-free, it’s called, so it’s much more natural.

Rohini Arora: Is that one more costly?

[9:30 a.m.]

Jessica Nash: Yeah, those are slightly more costly but not significantly. But people who have more challenges with the biofilm, like I say, might go through these products even every two months.

Rohini Arora: So some might purchase a new one every two months, like six times a year. Others may purchase it two times a year, but it depends.

Jessica Nash: Correct, yes. And other provinces have tackled that by allowing

But people who have more challenges with the biofilm, like I say, might go through these products even every two months.

Rohini Arora: So some might purchase a new one every two months, six times a year; others may purchase it two times a year, but it depends.

Jessica Nash: Correct, yes, and other provinces have tackled that by allowing four to six prostheses per year. Our estimation, that number that I’ve quoted, is assuming four of these a year.

Rohini Arora: Which provinces?

Jessica Nash: The other provinces that cover across Canada would be Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I’d say Saskatchewan has, actually, the gold standard of care. British Columbia has zero coverage for these patients. Recognizing the population sizes — Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario. The other provinces that don’t have funding would be the maritime provinces and Manitoba.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that presentation. Seeing no other questions, thank you today.

We’ll move to our next presenter. I’d like to invite Chelsea Termuende, from UBC medicine political advocacy committee, to come forward. Thanks for coming. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after. You can begin when you’re ready.

UBC Medicine
Political Advocacy Committee

Chelsea Termuende: Good morning. I realized coming in here this morning that the last time I was in this building was on a grade 5 field trip. So thank you.

My name is Dr. Chelsea Termuende. I’m with the UBC medicine policy advocacy committee, whose past projects include emergency department safety and burnout, migrant worker health and surgical wait times. I actually graduated medical school just two weeks ago, and get to work and learn as a resident doctor in family medicine right here in B.C., in Victoria, actually.

I’m very grateful for my roots in a small Gulf Island, working as a paramedic, pulp mill worker and medical trainee, from Langley to Lower Post, Port Mellon to Prince George. Thank you for my student loans and for the work that you’re doing — investments in primary care, expanding PharmaCare to save money and lives. And thank you for looking diligently at the high building costs of adding long-term-care beds — up to $1.11 million to $1.8 million a bed — and working to bring those costs down.

I’m here today on my holidays while my kids are in school and daycare, because I’m concerned about the re-pacing, and I’m concerned that we’re missing the other half of the equation — the costs to our budgets and to our hospitals of not building long-term care.

Hospitals are meant to be about 85 to 90 percent full, but we’ve normalized 100 percent or 120 percent utilization. Closets that could fit a bed have beds. Nurses’ lounges have been cleared out for beds. Hallway beds used to come and go even a few years ago, but now they’re permanent. They’re in the computer system; they have tape on the floor.

We’re spending more and getting less out of our hospitals, because we don’t have enough long-term-care beds. Between 12 and 28 percent of people in hospital beds across B.C. no longer need hospital-level care but also can’t go home. Nine times out of ten, these are patients waiting for long-term care. We know a hospital bed costs more than a long-term-care bed to operate. A study in 2020 estimated this difference at about $620 a day, per bed, which comes out to a quarter-million dollars a year, per bed.

So we, as B.C., have been paying about $310 million per year to use hospital beds as long-term-care beds, just in the bed-cost difference. But that date is old; I’m worried that it’s an underestimate, and it’s only part of the cost. It doesn’t account for downstream impacts on emergency departments, surgeries, recruitment and retention, patient outcomes.

The places that I see these impacts most powerfully, besides on patients and families, are emergency departments and operating rooms — so cancelled surgeries, because there’s no bed. A pre-pandemic Canadian study found one in 50, or 2 percent, of non-emergent surgeries were cancelled specifically because of no bed. I’ve seen this multiple times as a medical student, and they’re often cancelled at the last minute. Sometimes the patient is at the door of the OR. They already have the surgeon’s Sharpie on their leg.

Then this results in partially double-paying for the same surgery when it eventually happens, and it contributes to surgical wait times. A surgical patient, on average, spends about three days in hospital recovering from their surgery. One available bed could be used to hold someone for long-term-care for six months or support dozens of surgeries in that same time.

[9:35 a.m.]

Regarding emergency departments, there’s a body of evidence finding that output factors moving out of emerg are more powerful than input factors — people coming through the doors. Although it’s counterintuitive, a full hospital has more impact on wait times than a full waiting room. I’ve noticed emergency physicians starting a shift. They ask, “How is the bed block?” — meaning how much of the emergency department is usable space for assessing and treating emerg patients, and how much

and so that’s…. Although it’s counterintuitive, a full hospital has more impact on wait times than a full waiting room.

I’ve noticed emergency physicians starting a shift. They ask “how is the bed block,” meaning how much of the emergency department is usable space for assessing and treating emerg patients and how much is being used as a holding area for the rest of the hospital. An emerg resident here in Victoria feels that it’s about half-and-half most days. I’ve seen emerg doctors waiting for space to see patients, even while patients are waiting eight, 16 or more hours to see them. I’ve been sent home early when there were four docs on, plus residents, but only two available spaces for assessing patients.

I’ve cared for a woman who is about my age with first trimester bleeding who waited 16 hours in the waiting room wondering if she was still pregnant, partly because her bleeding was safe and partly because we needed a private space to see her, to assess her and diagnose her and talk to her about her miscarriage. Some examinations, some conversations, some medicine cannot be done in a chair, cannot be done in a hallway or a shared room.

And the bottom line. Most emergency departments are physically big enough. Most are adequately staffed. But the usable space and the nursing capacity are dramatically limited by people waiting for a bed on the wards or a patch of the hallway upstairs. And with our aging demographics, we expect this to get worse.

So I’m asking you, please, to build long-term-care beds urgently without decommissioning any current facilities. Please use data that already exists within the Ministry of Health and health authorities to fully evaluate the current costs of using our acute care beds as long-term-care beds. Please use modelling to determine the most urgent, impactful and cost-effective placement of this precious resource of new long-term-care beds. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that presentation.

We will now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. Unfortunately, I’m acutely aware of the issue myself with my own family. And I have a friend right now whose mom’s in the hospital with a broken leg — sorry, this one was a hip. It was a leg two months ago. She was sent home, been waiting for a long-term-care bed and fell again and broke her hip on the other side, is now back in hospital, had to have another surgery, all of those things. And we’re now at a point where she’ll be staying there. She can’t go home.

So I feel it acutely and really appreciate your advocacy on the issue and especially speaking from the hospital level about what it looks like.

You were talking about the cost per bed, and I had $620 per day. Is that how much it costs for a long-term-care bed or an acute care bed?

Chelsea Termuende: That’s the cost difference, so that’s how much it costs more. And that’s all data, so that’s a twist study out of 2019-2020.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you. So it costs us$620 per day more to keep them in an acute care bed versus moving them into a long-term-care bed.

Chelsea Termuende: Yeah, so that study modelled $310 million in B.C. each year — just the cost difference between using acute care beds as long-term-care beds.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Same line. I’m going through this with my family as well. Also, mother-in-law passed away three years ago but she was stubborn and didn’t want to go into a care home, so it was a real struggle. So those are just difficult times.

And yes, like you were mentioning, the privacy of all the different needs in the hospital…. I had both an aunt and uncle pass away from cancer and being in a shared room was very difficult — not for me necessarily but the patient next door.

It is the pressure that we are facing not only in our riding but all across B.C. of the aging demographic. And I’m getting up there, too, and just not having that planned care, as well, of what that actually looks like. I think that was the other thing too.

I thank you for coming and speaking to us about this. I’ve been meeting with stakeholders across B.C., doctors, nurses and others, in regards to the same concern that you’re bringing forward, and I just wanted to thank you.

[9:40 a.m.]

Chelsea Termuende: Thank you very much. I think that my concern is maybe a bit different than the conversation that’s often happening. I think that we are well aware of the cost to patients and families but I think that we’re not recognizing the cost to our systems, and that’s in patient outcomes and

concern that you’re bringing forward, and I just wanted to thank you.

Chelsea Termuende: Thank you very much. I think that my concern is maybe a bit different than the conversation that’s often happening.

I think that we are well aware of the cost to patients and families, but I think that we’re not recognizing the cost to our systems. That’s in, like, patient outcomes. And financially we’re paying more and getting less out of our hospitals because of this.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): You’ve mentioned that 2 percent of surgeries are cancelled last minute because of lack of beds. Is that acute care beds that are being used?

Chelsea Termuende: Yeah, do you mind if I walk you through that?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I would love it if you did.

Chelsea Termuende: I come in for surgery. I’ve been fasting. I’ve already seen my family doctor to be screened. I’ve already had my ECG maybe. I go into pre-op. There is a group of nurses working in pre-op with me. They assess me and take me through that. I see the surgeon. I see the anaesthesiologist. That all happens. Then I go onto the gurney and I go into the OR. I see the surgeon again outside the OR.

Now, if my surgery gets cancelled, it might be because the post-op is full. Post-op is one-to-one nursing to manage a lot of risky things that happen after surgery. Post-op can often be full because they’re having trouble taking people out of post-op back onto full wards.

This was a pre-pandemic study out of a medium-sized hospital in Ontario. I wasn’t actually able to find any B.C. data, but I’m sure that the health authorities have it.

I think that the concern, also, there with the surgeries is that we’re double-paying. If I come in for my surgery and it’s cancelled last minute, you’ve already paid for three nursing teams, pre-op, operating room, post-op. You’ve paid for all the equipment. You’ve paid for the operating room to be there. We paid for the anaesthesiology assistant, the cleaners, the people that maintain the equipment.

You don’t pay the surgeon twice. You don’t pay the anaesthesiology twice. You don’t pay the bed twice. But pretty much all the other costs of the surgery are being paid twice.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that explanation, and thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

Chelsea Termuende: Thank you for having me. This was a great learning opportunity.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will go to our next presenter, who is virtual. We have James Stansfield, from Students Union of Vancouver Community College, joining us online.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready to go.

Students Union of
Vancouver Community College

James Stansfield: My name is James Stansfield, and I’m a student here at Vancouver Community College and the external representative for the Students Union of Vancouver Community College, or SUVCC, Local 16 of the British Columbia Federation of Students.

I am here today to present my vision for post-secondary education in the upcoming provincial budget, a vision where our province invests in our future workforce to provide opportunity for my colleagues and a stronger province.

While the IRCC’s restriction on international students has had an impact on many colleges and universities due to the reliance on international students to pay tuition, we as student unions have warned the government how reliance on these international students could impact the post-secondary system.

Today we are here to make two asks. The first ask is to invest in British Columbia and to restore public funding to 75 percent of post-secondary institutions’ budgets.

Vancouver Community College serves a diverse group of students, from students in trades or culinary programs or mature students wanting to get an education to nursing students and the sign language interpretation program and deaf and hard-of-hearing communities.

Due to instability in the revenue source for our college, we have lost more than 175 jobs. These are members in our community who need to support their families. These layoffs have a big impact on our members.

For example, 32 applicants in the sign language interpreter program have waited for more than three weeks after the interview process to hear whether they are accepted into the program in September. Even though these decisions have been made for some time now by the department, the students have been left in limbo due to a backlog in processing the documents through the admissions office because of recent layoffs in that department.

[9:45 a.m.]

This is one small example of how my program is affected by cuts to important services like the college’s ombudsperson, who directly supported students with appeals, as well as cuts to our

through the admissions office because of recent layoffs in that department.

This is one small example of how my program is affected by cuts to important services, like the college’s ombudsperson, who directly supported students with appeals, as well as cuts to our ICT support and library hours. These services all have an impact on student experience.

Too often we are hearing that these budget challenges were created by federal government policy, yet we know that the problem is due to government funding for our post-secondary institutions because it isn’t keeping pace with inflation.

Our second ask is to protect affordability and strictly maintain the 2 percent tuition limit policy. Through my position on the Students Union of VCC, I have witnessed firsthand the struggles that our members are experiencing. Metro Vancouver is an extremely expensive place to live, and our members are facing increased costs at the grocery stores, rent and challenges finding affordable housing for their families.

The tuition limit policy restricts annual domestic tuition to 2 percent, and it works. It allows our members to budget and predict what the costs will be to attend college now and in coming years. Unfortunately, the tuition limit policy does not stop the institution from making massive fee increases that circumvent the intent of the policy.

At our latest board of governors meeting, the board approved a fee increase to materials in the dental hygiene program, raising it from $510 to $5,000, which is a nearly tenfold increase. Increases like this have a huge impact on whether someone continues to pursue their education in this program.

The rationale for this fee increase was because the program had to obtain new software for privacy protection. While we agree that this is an important thing, we do not believe that it is on the onus for the students to pay for this, and it shows that the tuition limit policy does not go far enough.

Maintaining affordability in the B.C. post-secondary institution has broad public support. Polling conducted in 2024 shows that 91 percent of people surveyed say that it is important to make college and university education more affordable for students in B.C.

VCC plays a crucial role in our sector. We are an access institution. Students come here when they are considering their futures in our province, and they can afford to enter post-secondary education through VCC.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the B.C. budget consultation process. I hope to leave you today with an understanding of the critical role of regional community colleges that students can get into the door of. VCC is supporting our province with important future workers, but we are missing the opportunity to build our province together because of affordability. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that presentation.

We will now go to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Thanks, James, for your presentation.

I know the folks over at VCC quite well, and I do remember when the LINK funding was completely cut, federally, and the impact that had on the deafblind students, especially those that were refugees from Ukraine who were in need of services to be able to use ASL to communicate. I know that VCC is really the only, I think, college in the province that provides those services, so it’s really important. Thank you for lifting that up.

You also said that library and ICT services…. Can you run me through some of the changes you’ve seen again? You went through them really quickly, but I think I just lost track in between there. So you were talking about library time being cut down and other aspects of services. You said something about the ombudsperson application processing delays because of staff cuts.

Is that all in the last six months, and what all was cut?

James Stansfield: Thank you for your question.

With regards to the library services, they did have a full-time IT person to support students with any technical issues they were having — logging onto their account, email. That full-time position has been cut. They are providing support for the first couple of weeks each semester for students, but it’s not something that they can access all term. Of course, that means that now students that have technical problems are being funneled to the student union for support rather than to the library.

[9:50 a.m.]

There are other services that have been cut. I couldn’t tell you exactly which ones, off the top of my head, from the library. But with the ombudsperson, that was fairly recent. That happened within the last three months, and it was quite a sudden impact. I know that the college is working through policies to try and find a solution to the elimination of that program. But in the interim, again, student

but with the Ombudsperson, that was fairly recent. That happened within the last three months, and it was quite a sudden impact.

I know that the college is working through policies to try and find a solution to the elimination of that program, but in the interim, again, student appeals, any student concerns that they’re having with their instructors, are being put to the student union and the staff at the student union to support the students.

We’re trying to support students the best that we can, but the student union is only, I believe, five staff, full-time, at the moment. Our student membership has decreased. I think our student fees that we collected decreased this year by $8,000. So we’re, as a student union, being expected to support students in greater ways with less money.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for clarifying that.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

James Stansfield: Thank you for the opportunity.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Okay, we would like to invite our next presenter, Grace Wong Sneddon from Victoria Chinatown Museum Society.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after. You may begin when you’re ready. Thank you.

Victoria Chinatown Museum Society

Grace Wong Sneddon: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your time. My name is Grace Wong Sneddon. I’m chair of the Victoria Chinatown Museum Society.

I’ll keep, actually, my presentation quite short. I always think sometimes less is more. I just want to go over who we are, what we do, that place matters and the past informs both present and future.

The Victoria Chinatown Museum Society has operated the Victoria Chinatown Museum in Canada’s oldest Chinatown for the past four years. Earlier, the first two years, it was operated by the Chinese Canadian Museum. We took over in October 2025.

What do we do? Who are we? We are community collaborators with all of the Chinese associations, the communities right across — not just the Chinese community but the much broader community — our great city. We’re collaborators with our local businesses, both in Chinatown and beyond, including other non-profit organizations.

Our outreach event, our signature event, is Awakening Chinatown. I hope some of you had a chance to see that. It was last Sunday. The thons were filled in Chinatown. We had 1,000 people come through our museum that day.

We’re also educators. We provide educational programming through presentations, film screenings, books and tours. Not just within our museum. We partner with other organizations, other museums, across many sectors.

What we’ve been really doing the last couple of years, though, is we are Victoria’s tourist attraction. We have had approximately 176,000 people come through the museum over the last four years. During the cruise ship seasons, which start middle of April right through until October, we get 500 visitors a day.

We do this education and outreach because of the passion and dedication of the Victoria Chinatown Museum board, staff and our 60 volunteers. Our volunteers have clocked in over 20,000 hours annually. As much as the Victoria Chinatown Museum aspires to be a governance board, with such limited staff time and a very, very busy museum, we are truly a full operational board. Board directors roll up our sleeves with every exhibit, event — whether it’s selling 50-50 tickets at the Royals game or helping our movers uninstall an exhibit — we have just done the work.

To this date, we have not received any provincial or federal funding. We have come this far because of our incredible fundraising development team, led by former mayor, Alan Lowe.

[9:55 a.m.]

We have a few grants and, of course, community patrons. To keep the doors open, it costs us $389,000. There’s rent, we have staff — we have two 0.75 staff, we have a very part-time administrator and a very part-time

We have a few grants and, of course, community patrons.

To keep the doors open, it costs us $389,000. There’s rent. We have staff. We have 2.75 staff. We have a very part-time administrator and a very part-time social media person.

To put an exhibit on, it’s about $60,000 for each time, but that doesn’t even include the renovations that each exhibit needs to have happen before we can do that.

Of course, there are other things, like utilities or insurance. Even paying for advertising costs a lot.

We have, over the past four years, established this museum. We feel very strongly that we’ve contributed to the revitalization of Victoria’s Chinatown.

For the past three years, I have participated in the #ChinatownSolidaritySummit, where Chinatown representatives across North America gather to talk about how we can collectively utilize our knowledge to sustain and revitalize Chinatowns, many of which are at the brink of disappearing.

Victoria’s Chinatown is unique. We may not be the biggest — that’s New York. We may not even be the most famous — that’s San Francisco. But we are famous because we are the oldest. Structurally, Chinatown, our buildings, are actually the oldest in North America. Despite our small size, we have established a welcoming space for visitors and our local residents to learn, to explore and to enjoy.

Victoria Chinatown’s work as a convenor between the Chinese associations. There are 29 of them. We’re in conversation with them all the time — our local businesses, which we support, and our communities, many of our communities — to build stronger relationships.

The Victoria Chinatown Museum is a vital part of that, and we need your help. Without it, we too will be like the other Chinatowns, and we’ll be at risk. I’m here today to say we cannot sustain the momentum we have built and we have created without some help.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We’ll now turn to questions by members.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you, Grace, for your presentation.

I was able to visit the museum last year with my family and saw the whole wall full of the Chinese head tax, the photos, and also a really informative film that you could actually sit down. I had to tell my brother not to touch anything on the table, because it said don’t touch anything there.

Just hearing the history of that, like you said, being lost. Thank you for giving us numbers on how much it costs to keep the doors open and how much an exhibit changeover does. People don’t realize the changeover of changing something and how long the durations that you have for exhibitions and that. I just wanted to thank you for that.

I know in Duncan, in 1970, the city council decided to move Chinatown out of Duncan. I know what that means about being lost, and I do enjoy visiting Chinatown.

I didn’t hear a complete ask, but what would your ask be today?

Grace Wong Sneddon: My ask is to be able to have…. To be quite honest, if you could help us to keep our doors open annually. We could probably do it for $250,000, because our community patrons have been really stepping up.

What Alan Lowe has done is he’s given…. We have a three-year plan, bringing commitment from patrons for three years. Our third year is up this year. We probably have enough money to run another year, but beyond that, I don’t know how we can sustain it. We think that with $250,000, we can fundraise the other part to keep going and to also create new exhibits.

[10:00 a.m.]

What we’ve done in the past to try to save money, because we’re always cost-cutting, is I have borrowed and built relationships with other museums — CCM, Royal B.C. Museum, even Calgary — to borrow their travelling exhibits. That works to some degree, because at least we don’t have to

to try to save money, because we’re always cost-cutting, is I have borrowed and built relationships with other museums — CCM, Royal B.C. Museum, even Calgary — to borrow their travelling exhibits. That works to some degree, because at least we don’t have to create the exhibit, but it also means we have to move it. We have to then change our walls at their convenience, at their timeline, not ours.

So this last exhibit — there’s been a bit of fanfare about it. Board and staff created their own, highlighting Victoria’s Chinatown from way back. For any of you who were here in the ’70s and ’80s, the Embassy Cafe was the hub of Victoria’s Chinatown. That’s where the Chinese went to find work. If they needed to find a good place to live or a good school for their kids or maybe another part-time job, that’s where they went.

So there’s a lot of buzz around that, and the cool thing is the family…. Some of the family are still around. It’s third generation. And they have given us, actually, their famous butter tart recipe, which we now share with all visitors to the museum.

So I think that’s the piece. It’s not just about the past, and it’s really important that we acknowledge the past. It’s about our present and our future. We want to engage our kids. We want to talk about things that were important and how we move forward as a community, how we integrate into Canadian history.

Chinese history is not just Chinese history. Chinese-Canadian history is Canadian history, and we want to share that in a really good way with our future generations.

Paul Choi (Chair): Perfect. Thank you so much.

Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

The committee will take a quick recess at this point.

The committee recessed at 10:02 a.m.

The committee resumed at 10:21 a.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): All right. We are back. I will call the committee back to order and go to our next presenter. We have Liz Cronin from Victoria Transit Riders Union.

Thanks for coming today in person. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for your questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Victoria Transit Riders Union

Liz Cronin: Hi. Thanks so much for having me. I’m the chair of the Victoria Transit Riders Union, a grassroots community organization representing the interests of users of public transit in this region. We organize for free and excellent transit for all, and I’m here to urge the government to make three specific changes.

First, we want to see the government of B.C. massively increase investments in public transit across the province.

Second, we want the entire public transit system to be deprivatized and brought fully into the public realm.

And thirdly, we want the provincial government to abolish transit fares. We want to see this start immediately with youth, seniors and people on provincial income assistance and disability and to move as quickly as possible to a full shift away from fares, following efforts to build up the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the increase in ridership that would come with this change.

It is clear that funding to public transit must be increased. We know that public transit funding comes from all levels of government, but the provincial government is extremely well placed to secure the necessary funds and invest in transit in a serious way.

Expanding service in urban and rural areas, including in and between communities that currently have no access to public transit, will lead to improved health outcomes, reduced congestion and emissions, and many other benefits. Well-supported public transit is essential to addressing the health care, affordability and climate crises.

Deprivatization within the entire B.C. transit system is our next recommendation. Many members of the public we speak to don’t know that much of the public transit system in B.C. is contracted out to private companies, who run the service in a way that allows them to extract a profit.

In some of these systems in B.C., we’ve seen devastatingly long strikes carried out by brave workers fighting against for-profit companies for decent pay and working conditions. Last year saw a nearly eight-month strike in the Cowichan Valley system, where B.C. Transit has contracted transit service out to the multinational corporation Transdev, a company based in France.

All public transit in B.C., including handyDART, should be brought fully into the public realm so the interests of transit workers and transit riders, not profit, are centred.

Our final ask for today, the abolition of fares on public transit, makes a lot of sense when you think about the library. We fund libraries to a level that allows them to be free at the point of service because everyone has a right to learn and because we know that all of us benefit when more people use the library.

We in the Victoria Transit Riders Union believe that everyone has a right to freedom of movement, and we know that when the people of B.C. are able to use transit for free, we will all benefit. Fares are inefficient, and they are a significant barrier to many people who need to get around. They’re also quite costly to administer. In Vancouver, they’re looking at upgrading the system for collecting fares, and it’s supposed to cost around $507 million.

[10:25 a.m.]

Poverty costs society a lot, both in suffering and in cash. The same is true of mobility poverty. Mobility justice in the form of excellent and fare-free public transit will reduce costs in critical areas like health care, highway infrastructure and congestion.

In 2024, economist Marc Lee wrote about the case for fare-free public

cash.

The same is true of mobility poverty. Mobility justice in the form of excellent and fare-free public transit will reduce costs in critical areas like health care, highway infrastructure and congestion. In 2024, economist Marc Lee wrote about the case for fare-free public transit in B.C. He didn’t even account for the reduced cost to the health care system and still concluded that the economic case for abolishing fares is strong.

We want fares to be eliminated on public transit in B.C., starting with teens, seniors and people on provincial income assistance and disability. We then want to see the province move quickly to increase capacity within the transit system and to abolish fares completely as soon as possible.

A senior seeking safety during a heat emergency; a mom on disability with a child who wants to go to the beach; a teen trying to get to their new job before their first paycheque comes in — we will all benefit when we give these folks a ride, when we give all poor and working people rides to the places we need to get to.

The green, efficient and just future we need does not include fares. We believe that the evidence shows that making these changes will not cost more in the long run because public transit is such an essential investment and because sticking with the status quo will be extremely costly. But we want to be very clear that when it comes to any upfront cost, we expect the provincial government to secure necessary funds by taxing the wealthiest individuals and corporations fairly.

These are challenging times. Unlock the potential of the poor and working people of B.C. Let us move freely while we help each other meet these times, while we work hard to care for ourselves and each other. Make these changes and deliver free and excellent transit to B.C.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I’m wondering, on your recommendation No. 3, if there’s been any financial analysis of how much that would cost to abolish the fares.

Liz Cronin: Yeah, so Marc Lee…. I’m a social worker, so it wasn’t me who did this. I have a different lens. That’s why I turned to Marc Lee from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and his article from 2024 is quite excellent. It was published there and also in the Tyee. I think he estimated it would be like $750 million a year.

It’s actually not true that we’re mostly getting the money from fares anyway. In smaller systems, the fares account for about 10 percent of the funding toward transit, and in the largest systems — we’re talking Metro Vancouver — it only gets as high as around 50 percent. So we’re already not funding transit mostly through fares.

Actually administering the policing of people about the fares, administering the passes, the exceptions, etc., collecting the coins, bringing the coins to another location — that’s all very expensive. So that’s without taking into account the money we would save.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

We will go to our next presenter, if I can ask Alastair Craighead from Friends of Rails to Trails Vancouver Island to come forward, please.

Thank you so much for coming. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Friends of Rails to Trails
Vancouver Island

Alastair Craighead: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

I’m here to talk about Vancouver Island economic development. In particular, I’m here to talk about the economic development opportunities of the Vancouver Island Rail Corridor, the former E&N rail corridor unused now for more than 15 years. This still mostly continuous corridor represents a most significant active transportation opportunity on Vancouver Island.

Longer continuous active transportation trails are very significant economic generators. Prime Minister Mark Carney recently highlighted trail and nature tourism as key drivers of our domestic economy. He pointed to visiting Canadian trails and parks as vital to Canadian pride and keeping travel dollars within our own country. I know Prime Minister Carney and Premier Eby have been having some significant discussions on economic development. Perhaps the potential of trail tourism could complement the focus on resource extraction.

[10:30 a.m.]

We have a great example of a rail trail here in the capital region. The Galloping Goose Trail has been successful beyond all expectations despite, in the early 1990s, being a project the province was unsure about. The CRD is now investing over $50 million to widen it to over six metres to cope with increasing traffic. It was estimated in

region the Galloping Goose Trail has been successful beyond all expectations, despite in the early 1990s being a project the province was unsure about.

The CRD is now investing over $50 million to widen it to over six metres to cope with increasing traffic. It was estimated in 2023 as generating $130 million dollars in direct economic impact by e-consult using StatsCan methodologies.

Two recently developed trails with First Nations participation in the Okanagan are already exceeding expectations, and extending the Galloping Goose Trail up the east coast of the Island would connect and strengthen the economies of the many small communities on the corridor which average only about 10 kilometres apart, about 20 minutes travel on an electric bike.

In the northern U.S., the Great Allegheny Passage trail is almost identical in demographics to the Island Corridor. In 2021, it actually generated $160 million Canadian and attracted over a million visitors. It has created 1,400 jobs, and 40 percent of the businesses on the trail are there because of the trail.

A federally funded forward-V.I. feasibility study for a similar trail in the Island Corridor showed similar visitation projections and high economic impacts in addition to the health, fitness and recreational benefits.

The province currently has a visioning process for the corridor involving five regions, First Nations and the Island Corridor Foundation, who hold the corridor in public trust. The process started in 2023 for 18 months but is still incomplete. Just before that process started, the five First Nations representatives on the ICF board resigned because their proposal to use it for a new purpose was blocked. One of them was the son of the then Snaw-naw-as chief, Chief Gordon Edwards, who is on record as favouring using it as a trail, using the corridor as a trail.

We understand that the province’s visioning process is well-intentioned, but the default use for unused rail corridors all over the world is as active transportation trails. It’s how these valuable corridors are used and preserved. In the U.S., some have agreements so that they can be returned to other uses if a government wishes. The Galloping Goose Trail has such a clause in its lease to the Capital Regional District. An Island Corridor trail could also have such a clause, so there is no reason not to preserve it by using it as a trail. It could still be used at a later date for another transportation purpose.

Our ask of you is that we would like to ask that sufficient funds be provided in the 2027 budget to ensure that, as an adjunct to the visioning process currently underway and due to finish in March, the Island Corridor be preserved as a continuous corridor, as far as possible, by dedicating it as a continuous, as far as possible, active transportation route.

In other words, we’re not confident that the process in place will actually produce any significant plan for the future of the corridor. We’re very concerned that the corridor remain intact, as I think everyone is.

In conversations with past Transportation ministers, they’ve taken a very hands-off approach to the process that’s currently underway. It’s kind of like a process involving at least 11 partners, or 12 partners if you count the province, with no manager, no one. It’s like a committee without a chair. That does concern us a lot, and we’d like to see some funds set aside for the province to take a little bit of a lead there and pull things together.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.

We’ll now go to questions by members.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, a quick question, really.

How long is the trail we’re looking at here? It’s the Galloping Goose Trail, right?

Alastair Craighead: Most of my remarks of…. The Galloping Goose Trail is 50 kilometres. The total Galloping Goose, Lochside Trail is about 80 kilometres.

The trail up-Island on what we call the “coast corridor” is about 225 kilometres. There is also a branch to Port Alberni which we feel would also be very beneficial. But there are some issues there with the continuity of that trail, with four of the trestles burned down. So we’re mainly focused on the coast part of the corridor.

Bryan Tepper: Okay. so we’re looking at 225. Is there any….

At maximum and, I guess, if you looked at everything, how long could you make a trip? If you’re looking at attracting visitors from out of country, obviously that it’s 225 isn’t going to be a huge draw in itself. It’s “finish that in a day” almost, right?

Alastair Craighead: Some people might.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, exactly. You would hope you’re stopping and going and whatever else.

[10:35 a.m.]

Alastair Craighead: We always look at other trails. We’re not trying to invent something from scratch here. The trail we usually compare it to is the Great Allegheny Passage in the U.S. It’s almost exactly the same length, and it attracts huge numbers of people.

But you’re absolutely right, trails are better if they connect to trails.

Yeah, exactly. You would hope you’re stopping and going and whatever else.

Alastair Craighead: We always look at other trails. We’re not trying to invent something from scratch here. The trail we usually compare it to is the Great Allegheny Passage in the U.S. It’s almost exactly the same length, and it attracts huge numbers of people.

But you’re absolutely right. Trails are better if they connect to trails.

In this case, this has the possibility of using the Galloping Goose and the Lochside. People come in at Schwartz Bay. They travel the Galloping Goose. They travel the Island Corridor trail to Comox. They go from Comox across to the mainland by ferry. And then they’ll loop back down through the Vancouver area.

And there’s a lot of interest in the mainland on this too. We’re a little bit further ahead in planning it. But the mayor of Whistler is someone who is also interested in seeing a connection to Whistler.

You’re absolutely right. Connectivity is everything in these systems. What our trail would also do, though, is it would provide a sort of spine trail for all the other little trail systems that are on the Island, and that would extend the total possible length at least by two or three. But a very good point. Excellent point.

Bryan Tepper: Perfect. Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for advocating for rail trails in general. You mentioned the two in the Okanagan. I’m in the South Okanagan. Which two trails in the Okanagan were you referring to?

Alastair Craighead: There’s the North Okanagan trail, which is done in conjunction with the Splatsin First Nation. The Splatsin First Nation, in fact, led that process with a grant from the active transportation fund, which is where we got a fund to do our feasibility study. The other Okanagan trail, the Okanagan Rail Trail, started much earlier, and we’ve actually had the engineers from that trail come down and have a look at us to advise us on how things might be done.

But they’re both 50 kilometres, and I believe the most recent costs for the trail the Splatsin are involved in, the North Okanagan trail, were about somewhere around $500,000 per kilometre, which is pretty much what it costs to build a world-class trail these days.

Does that answer your question?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Yeah.

Alastair Craighead: They’ve attracted visitors well beyond expectations, which is not unusual. This has happened with the Galloping Goose too. When we started…. I was involved in getting the Galloping Goose started. That’s a whole other story. And it was very interesting because the province, at that time, was not convinced this was a great idea. It was Minister Andrew Petter at that time. Some of you may remember him. He was very involved in this and really saw the future. And then Moe Sihota came on board.

And we’re actually having a session. There’s an active transportation summit in Victoria in October. And Andrew Petter and David Cubberley, who you may remember as an MLA, will also be there with another person from the CRD, Jeff Young, to talk about just how that happened in terms of advocacy, how it worked with government, where the funding came from — that sort of thing.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just a follow-up question. I think the challenge we’re seeing in the Okanagan is that while one section, the North Okanagan section, is doing well, the section along Skaha Lake has degraded and is closed. The section between Oliver and the Osoyoos is no longer connected. The section between Princeton and Brookmere is being deactivated for $20 million, the section between Christina Lake and Castlegar. We’re losing rail trails at an alarming rate because of a lack of protection.

Alastair Craighead: Yeah. I think you’re talking about the Kettle Valley Trail.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Yeah.

Alastair Craighead: That’s not the one I was referring to.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): No. I’m just saying. But rail trails in general…. We’re seeing the need for protection.

Alastair Craighead: You know, I don’t want to use up too much time, but you put your finger on a very, very excellent point. The management of these trails, once they’re put in place, is critical. The Kettle Valley Trail was not a good example of that. There are too many agencies involved.

The other two trails are very clear in who’s responsible for managing, just like the CRD is with the Galloping Goose trail.

We have a lease from the province. It’s watertight in terms of what the responsibilities are. And the Galloping Goose is a very well-maintained trail.

The Kettle Valley Trail is problematic. It’s not just management. The surfaces on the Kettle Valley Trail were never really properly prepared for tourism. It was more a kind of trail for enthusiasts, shall we say? But you’re absolutely right. It’s not a good model.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Yeah, the protection…. The only last clarifying question is the little bit of money. You said: “We need a little bit of money set aside.” What is the little bit of money?

Alastair Craighead: I think the Transportation Ministry would be the best people to talk about that, because I have no idea what plans they have. And our correspondence with them has not actually indicated that they have any plan at all. I think what they feel is that they want to see the corridor maintained, but they don’t quite understand how that is going to happen. And this process is going to finish in March, and it’s pretty open-ended.

[10:40 a.m.]

So what I would hope is that they would have some interest in being involved to take this to the next step — what is actually going to happen here?

We know there’s First Nations interest in the trail. We know there are other people who think the corridor could be used for other things. But there’s no reason why it shouldn’t become a trail. That would save the corridor.

In the United States, there’s a process called rail banking. It’s actually a federal legislation which allows that to happen

We know there’s First Nations interest in the trail. We know there are other people who think the corridor could be used for other things. But there’s no reason why it shouldn’t become a trail. That would save the corridor.

In the United States, there’s a process called railbanking. There’s actually a federal legislation that allows that to happen. We don’t have the federal legislation, but we have got it in place in both the Okanagan trails and the Galloping Goose. There’s a provision in the lease that the trail can be returned to another transportation purpose.

The corridor for the most part is 100-feet wide. The key is to keep the continuity. It can’t really be used for two things at the same time. If you put in a trail, you have to get rid of the rails, because all of the trails that are successful are on the railbed. If you build a trail beside the rails, as has been done in the CRD for short distances, the cost of building that would be $2 million to $3.5 million a kilometre, not $500,000. That’s the cost.

There have been a couple of people in the CRD that have questioned whether they should continue doing that, which I’m quite pleased to see.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for taking the time and presenting to us.

Alaistair Craighead: Thank you. I appreciate your questions. Excellent questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We will go to our next presenter, who is virtual.

All right. Our next presenter is Rob Farrer from National Police Federation. Thank you so much for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions, and you may begin when you’re ready.

National Police Federation

Rob Farrer: Thanks very much. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rob Farrer. I’m the president-elect of the National Police Federation. I’m also an RCMP sergeant and a long-time resident of British Columbia.

For background, the NPF represents about 20,000 RCMP officers serving in communities across the country, and about 6,700 of those members are in British Columbia. Our members police 99 percent of the province’s landmass and serve more than 60 percent of its residents, including 150 municipalities and over 200 Indigenous communities.

Every day our members are at the core of public safety in this province, responding to natural disasters, serious crime and increasingly complex community safety challenges in both urban and rural areas.

To support that work and advance the province’s public safety priorities, we are recommending three practical targeted investments. The first is an investment of $250 million over three years to hire 300 additional RCMP officers and modernize police equipment and infrastructure. This is the third year in a row that the NPF is calling on the government to make this investment. This need is driven not only by population growth but also by the changing nature of policing.

I will say we recognize that, in 2022, the province did put $230 million into policing, into the RCMP, but that was to bring us back to 2012 staffing levels. That was not new. Those were just unfreezed positions that already had existed.

Our members are responding to more mental-health-related calls, managing repeat violent offenders and navigating increasingly complex investigations and administrative demands. As a result, more time is being spent on paperwork and less time on front-line visibility, which is what the people of the province want. At the same time, B.C.’s authorized RCMP strength has not increased since 2012.

Modern policing also requires modern tools. Investments are needed in air services, marine units, fleet renewals and operational equipment to ensure that our members can respond effectively to the evolving and technologically sophisticated crime.

Our second request is an investment in mental health and wellness to support all first responders throughout the province through programs such as PSPNET. Our RCMP members are routinely exposed to, on average, 13 different types of potentially psychologically traumatic events over the course of their career and thousands of exposures. That is compared to two for the general population. They’re more than twice as likely to screen positive for conditions such as PTSD, major depressive disorders and anxiety disorders.

[10:45 a.m.]

For an annual investment of 250,000 a year, the province can expand access to confidential evidence-based mental health services for nearly 50,000 public safety personnel in the province. This would improve well-being, reduce time away from work and support more consistent front-line service. I understand the B.C. fire association has also made the same request, and we sent a letter in support of that.

Our final is: work with the federal government to advance the national public safety broadband network.

time away from work and supports more consistent front-line service.

I understand the B.C. fire association has also made the same request, and we sent a letter in support of that.

Our final is work with the federal government to advance the national public safety broadband network. First responders across the country continue to rely on fragmented radio systems and commercial networks that are very vulnerable during major emergencies. Despite more than a decade of discussion, a reliable interoperable national system is still not in place. This creates real risks, delayed information-sharing, communication breakdowns and reduced coordination during critical incidents between fire, police and paramedics.

B.C. has an opportunity to play a leadership role by partnering with other jurisdictions to move this forward, to improve coverage and to strengthen emergency response capacity. British Columbians expect a public safety system that can meet today’s demands and tomorrow’s risks. These investments are practical, they are achievable, and they’re necessary to ensure the RCMP remains properly resourced to serve the communities across this province.

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

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We’ll go to questions by members with MLA Arora.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’ve been in conversation with Todd Schierling as well about PSPNET. And I believe the ask is $233,000 over two years, 2026-27, 2027- 28. Is that correct? Are you on the same page about that?

Rob Farrer: Yeah, I think the number I said was $250,000. That, I think, is adding for inflation over the next year. But yes, correct.

Rohini Arora: Okay, got it.

The other thing, if I’m not mistaken, was partnering with, maybe, the counselling department of University of Regina to undergo an analysis of the counselling services. Is that also something that you folks are looking at?

Rob Farrer: So this came out of CIPSRT, which…. So yes, led out of the University of Regina, Dr. Nick Carleton’s work. Yeah, Dr. Nick Carlton, who does excellent work in this space. And there are multiple…. I call them divisions. I keep going back to our vernacular. Provinces would be the normal word.

There are multiple provinces that are using it already: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. all use PSPNET. So, it’s already a system that’s in place, and it’s working quite well.

Rohini Arora: And is it correct…? My understanding is that it would be 365 days a year, 24-7. That’s what it would allow for.

Rob Farrer: Correct. That’s the goal, yes.

Rohini Arora: Can I do a follow-up, or am I taking up too much space?

In terms of the other provinces you mentioned — Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and P.E.I., I believe — are there any reports or stats analysis done by those provinces that we could look at?

Rob Farrer: Can I follow up with you on that? I don’t know exactly what they have on that, but I can take that back and follow up with you.

Rohini Arora: Yeah, that would be really helpful for us. Thank you.

Bryan Tepper: You said 300 additional officers. Can you break that down? Not break that down. We haven’t had an increase since 2012. Are you looking for an increase on that top number or from what we have now?

Rob Farrer: Yeah, from what we have now.

I will mention that the 256 to bring it back to 2012 levels…. There was some discussion about whether or not the RCMP would be able to do it. They did, right? All of those positions were filled ahead of time. So the additional would be from what it is now, going forward.

Bryan Tepper: We’re not at the…. What is it, 2,506 or something? It can’t be right. What’s our authorized strength in E division?

Rob Farrer: So 2,602 under the provincial number. Yeah, so you were pretty close.

Bryan Tepper: Mixed up a couple numbers, but okay. We’re not at 2,602, are we?

Rob Farrer: Well, the numbers…. If I give you a snapshot today, it’ll be slightly different tomorrow than it was yesterday. But generally speaking, those 256 were all provided.

[10:50 a.m.]

Rob Farrer: Okay, so we got…. For giving leave, medical leave and all of the rest of them, we are basically at 2,602 then?

Rob Farrer: We’re back to the 2012 numbers, yes.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, okay. So 300 additional on top of that, that would be in 14 years. I think that’s probably more than reasonable for me.

leave, medical leave and all of the rest of them. We’re at 2,602 then?

Rob Farrer: We’re back to the 2012 numbers, yeah.

Bryan Tepper: Okay, so 300 additional on top of that, that would be…. In 14 years, I think that’s probably more than reasonable for me. I think that’s probably still under what we do.

Do you have a breakdown on the members’ time, what they’re doing for proactive patrol and how much on paperwork? Did you guys get that?

Rob Farrer: I don’t have that offhand, but I can try and track some of that down. But it’s too much on paperwork and too little on proactive patrol.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, I remember last time we did the study in Surrey, and it was ugly.

Anyway, okay. That’s it for me, I think.

Rohini Arora: I just wanted to say congratulations. You mentioned you’re president-elect, so looking forward to continuing working with you.

Rob Farrer: Thank you. We really appreciate working with all of you, and I really appreciate that. Yeah, June 17 I take the big seat.

Rohini Arora: Amazing, congratulations.

Bryan Tepper: I would like to just follow up on that as well. I’ve seen a change in the direction of communications coming out of NPF already. Hopefully, that’s part of this change and you keep up with the proactive. That’s what I wanted when we started the process of getting the right to associate, so thank you very much. I think the sky is the limit on that.

Rob Farrer: I appreciate the comments.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. We will move to our next presenter, who is also virtual. We have Carla Bullinger, Cariboo Chilcotin Partners for Literacy.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Cariboo-Chilcotin
Partners for Literacy

Carla Bullinger: Okay, awesome. Well, thank you very much. I am Carla Bullinger, and I’m a co-executive director of Cariboo Chilcotin Partners for Literacy. We have offices in Williams Lake and 100 Mile House. I’m also the literacy outreach coordinator in Williams Lake and area.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the importance of literacy. We’re grateful that people in communities are invited to explain what is needed.

The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, the provincial literacy organization Decoda Literacy Solutions and our community partners are working together to provide community-based literacy programs and services. These programs and services support people of all ages who are not served in other ways.

We have five key messages for the Select Standing Committee on Finance.

The first one is that literacy is a foundational economic driver. It’s not merely an educational issue but a powerful economic engine for British Columbia. A 1 percent increase in provincial literacy scores is estimated to raise labour productivity by 3 percent, potentially providing an $8 billion boost to the provincial economy.

There’s also a significant gap in employment, so 94 percent of adults with high literacy are employed, compared to only 67 percent of those with low literacy. In Williams Lake, we have a poverty reduction plan, which we worked really hard to put together as a community. We identified access to literacy and essential skills training for adults as a key priority in helping them find employment or better employment and lifting them out of poverty.

Message No. 2. Literacy is a funding multiplier. Decoda Literacy Solutions acts as a centralized hub coordinating 98 literacy outreach coordinators over more than 400 communities. This infrastructure is highly efficient. In 2024-25, $1.8 million in coordination funding was leveraged into over $11.3 million through local fundraising donations and in-kind support. In our community of Williams Lake, we received $16,500 in literacy coordination funding, and we leveraged that into more than $125,000 through our local fundraising, our community donations, our many volunteers and other in-kind supports.

[10:55 a.m.]

It’s also a tool for reducing long-term public costs. Investing in literacy reduces the strain on other provincial systems. For example, improved literacy leads to better health navigation, reducing health care costs, and as mentioned earlier, our community identified literacy as a critical tool for breaking the cycle of poverty.

The provincial literacy network has not received funding

For example, improved literacy leads to better health navigation, reducing health care costs.

As mentioned earlier, our community identified literacy as a critical tool for breaking the cycle of poverty. The provincial literacy network has not received a funding increase in 15 years, and it’s now facing a critical juncture. To move from survival to expansion, the network requires stable multi-year funding.

I’ve got three key messages. The first one is that increased funding for literacy outreach coordination to $4.5 million will help to maintain and develop programs across the 400 communities. Enhance support for community adult literacy programs. Increase that funding to $4.5 million to better serve hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations, including immigrants, seniors and Indigenous people.

Integrate literacy into broader social policy. Closer collaboration between social services, health, corrections, the K-to-12 post-secondary systems, First Nations, immigrant services and literacy organizations will create stronger, more resilient communities.

I’d like to share how the government’s investment in literacy has had a life-changing impact on a family. That exemplifies the power of literacy coordination in bringing partners together to create change and build resilience in our communities.

A man came to our community adult literacy program to improve his literacy skills for work-related reasons. Then his wife joined our program so that she could support their child’s learning at home. They were fearful of sending her to school because of their own trauma and negative learning experiences.

Learning is relational and is built on trust. The parents’ positive learning experience and trust in the program facilitator enabled us, with their permission, to connect them to an Indigenous service organization for further supports and eventually to the Indigenous department at the school district. The child is making a slow transition to school by attending half-time this spring and then will transition to full-time next year. But she’s loving it, and the parents are feeling good about it as well.

Thank you for your time and for this opportunity.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We’ll now go to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m so curious. You talked about the funding multiplier, which really got my attention as I was hearing you. You said that you received $16,000 in funding, and that became over $100,000. Is that primarily through in-kind donations, or is it also fundraising?

Carla Bullinger: It’s fundraising, and it’s also through corporate donations, individuals, and inviting people to sponsor a program. We have a number of family literacy programs. For example, Rotary supports the Books for Babies program through money. So that’s how that translates.

It’s not just in-kind contributions. It’s actual hard dollars to help us do the work that we do in the community.

Rohini Arora: As a follow-up, how long has the Cariboo Chilcotin Partners for Literacy been an active organization? Is there an internal threshold of increasing literacy within Williams Lake and 100 Mile House? Have you been able to track it, and have you seen a difference just for your own internal numbers? Very curious.

Carla Bullinger: We have been around since 2000. It actually came about as there was the…. I believe it was Legacies Now, and then there was a big Literacy Matters for the 2010 Olympics. A number of volunteers in Williams Lake got together to do work on that. Then that eventually formed into this registered society.

We do track literacy scores. We do that for the provincial government through the community adult literacy program, where we show progression of learners. Then we also track informal outcomes, as well, for families. For example, the story that I just shared about supporting a family, first of all, somebody, so that…. He was better able to do his work and find better employment and then support the wife and then finally get the child to go to school.

[11:00 a.m.]

Maybe we can measure the impact of that child ten to 15 years from now. But there are lots of different ways that we’re measuring the impact as well as how many learners are now participating in the organization, either as volunteers or as volunteer tutors. Those are the different ways that we measure that.

Rohini Arora: One more follow-up. How many active folks do you have that are

lots of different ways that we’re measuring the impact, as well as how many learners are now participating in the organization, either as volunteers or as volunteer tutors. Those are the different ways that we measure that.

Rohini Arora: And one more follow-up. How many active folks do you have that are learning currently?

Carla Bullinger: Oh, I’m sorry. I wish I had…. If you give me one second, I do have that here, because we do our annual reporting.

Rohini Arora: And then I’ll stop, and it’s your turn, Deputy Chair.

Carla Bullinger: We have, in our adult programs…. And this is going to be across the organization. We have a number of family literacy programs that…. We have all these different funding sources.

We worked with 695 adults last year, 213 seniors, and in our family literacy programs, we have community-wide programs where we reached 484 adults and 370 children.

Then we also have children and youth programs, and we worked with just about 100 children and youth in those programs. And that’s Williams Lake. I’m responsible for collecting the data for Williams Lake.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

Mine was on your third point around the increases of $4½ million and $4½ million. I’m assuming that’s not for your organization but provincial. I was looking for clarification on that.

Carla Bullinger: Yes, absolutely. It’s for the entire provincial network. We just receive a very small portion. We received $16,500 for the literacy outreach coordination, and then we have three community adult literacy programs. We have a family literacy, Indigenous literacy outreach and a partner-assisted learning. Each of those are $35,000.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Last point of clarification then. When you say increase to $4½ million, do you know what they’re at now?

Carla Bullinger: Yes, I do.

Currently, for literacy outreach coordination, it is almost $2.2 million, and the community adult literacy program is $3.4 million currently.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation today.

Carla Bullinger: Thank you for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next presenter online. We have Dan Gunn from Victoria Innovation, Advanced Technology and Entrepreneurship Council.

Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Victoria Innovation,
Advanced Technology
and Entrepreneurship Council

Dan Gunn: Thank you very much for having me. I appreciate the committee giving me some of their time and further consideration.

I want to start by acknowledging that I imagine you have many pressing needs that are being brought to you by the citizens of British Columbia and that it’s a difficult task to try and manage a budget when it’s that challenging.

I represent VIATEC, which is a tech association in greater Victoria. We’ve been established for 35-plus years. We’re the oldest organization of our kind, but you may know of others throughout B.C.

There used to be more of us. I used to be the chair of something called the B.C. Regional Science and Technology Network. There were nine regional councils across British Columbia. At that time, the Ministry of Advanced Education would provide a small amount of funding to those organizations to help them operate. Over time, that changed into something called the venture acceleration program, which we had a hand in designing, and that was offered through BCIC and then Innovate B.C.

That program has recently wrapped up after ten years, and its impact was significant in that it was helping early-stage entrepreneurs get the education and the connections they needed to establish high-paying jobs in British Columbia and in the regions throughout British Columbia, not just in the cities.

Unfortunately, over time, the support for these organizations has declined. Right now the province is putting a great deal of effort into the Web Summit event that takes place in Vancouver.

[11:05 a.m.]

As a result, some of those organizations now are gone, most recently Innovation Island out of Nanaimo, which served those, because it could no longer operate.

Just to give you a sense…. I know my region better than the rest. In Victoria, we have over 1,000 tech companies now. We employ over 20,000 people. We’re bringing in $5.9 billion.

and as a result, some of those organizations now are gone — most recently, Innovation Island, out of Nanaimo, which served those, because it could no longer operate.

Just to give you a sense — I know my region better than the rest — in Victoria we have over 1,000 tech companies now. We employ over 20,000 people. We’re bringing in $5.9 billion in revenue and an economic impact of close to $8 billion. It’s a sizeable contribution. It’s an important pillar to our economy.

What I would like the committee to consider is ways in which the province can continue to support the ecosystem development. To build these strong companies, they don’t just happen with an entrepreneur, an investor. They happen with a community that’s supporting each other, that’s connecting with each other, that’s sharing stories, sharing pitfalls, sharing resources, opportunities and challenges.

If we aren’t serving that, which currently is declining rapidly, we’re going to see a decline in the amount of innovation and entrepreneurship throughout the province.

It’s a short pitch. I recognize you have many asks in front of you. In the end, when VAP, which was the venture acceleration program, was being supported, I think the cost annually was about $2 million to the province. We’re not talking about a large pool of money. But to get these operations to stabilize and be able to operate, they can’t do it just on sponsorship and membership alone. It’s not feasible.

If we want to grow the economies in the regions throughout British Columbia, this is an important initiative.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now go to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation.

Can you just, again, clarify the specific ask, the amount that they were providing for call it core administration funding — for these, I think it was, nine regions?

Dan Gunn: When we were BCRSTN, which was the B.C. Regional Science and Technology Network, we had nine. I believe the annual amount was $1.8 million. It was just over $1.8 — $1.85 million. That transitioned to being about the venture acceleration program about eight years ago, and the amount was about the same.

However, that wasn’t necessarily specifically targeted to regions. That was specifically to organizations willing to offer the acceleration program — which was also impactful, but it was different. It wasn’t for core operations.

That actually has been one of the key challenges. You do need to have a foundation to build an organization on. You need to have an address. You need to have basic staff. Core operations is the most difficult thing to fund.

We go to PacifiCan, for example. VIATEC has a very successful program running right now, called Boost, with PacifiCan. It’s a $5 million project over three years. It’s 50 percent of the required funding for the program. We still need to have a team, a staff, an office and all the other supports in place to be able to deliver a program like that.

Without any core support, a lot of organizations, especially in a smaller region, are not going to be able to put in proposals to somebody like PacifiCan and successfully operate.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): How much would be needed today, since some of those regions have gone? You mentioned that Nanaimo had closed. How many are left, and what is the financial ask for core funding?

Dan Gunn: Right now there are four left. My ask would be $400,000 per organization, which would be $1.6 million.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Dan Gunn: Thank you for having me.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will be going to our next presenter. We have Keith Wiley from West Kootenay Transit Action.

Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

West Kootenay Transit Action

Keith Wiley: Thanks very much for having me. My name’s Keith. I’m from Nelson. I’m with West Kootenay Transit Action, and I’m also with the Public Transit Alliance of B.C. Today I’m just speaking on behalf of our local group, West Kootenay Transit Action, though.

Thanks very much for the time to talk about the essential public services of transportation. I maintain that transit is an essential service that is inadequately funded and supported across most of B.C. outside the Lower Mainland. For many thousands of British Columbians in communities all over the province, there’s no bus, ever. For many, many others, there are buses, but maybe once or twice a week.

[11:10 a.m.]

Here in the Kootenay, we have several routes where there are multiple days a week with no bus, no bus service at all. It’s just a non-functioning transit service.

Bus frequency has to reach an acceptable level to be usable for

there are buses, but maybe once or twice a week. Here in the Kootenay, we have several routes where there are multiple days a week with no bus service at all. It’s just a non-functioning transit service. Bus frequency has to reach an acceptable level to be usable for most people.

Close to one-third of the people in B.C. do not drive a car — children, infirm elders and others with varying difficulties, including not having the money, the thousands of dollars a year on average, to operate a vehicle. Many of these people are among the most vulnerable in our society.

I want to be very specific and give some concrete examples in our area that show how inadequate funding and failed management approaches are leaving us with an inadequate essential service. One of them is that here in our area, many health services are only available at regional hospitals — mainly, the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital in Trail or, often, farther away in Kelowna or Vancouver.

Transportation to these services is a common issue, an expense for many. For over a decade, the regional districts and local elected representatives have said that a direct bus from Nelson to the Trail hospital is the top priority, but it isn’t happening. There has been a lot of public demand for this service, but it doesn’t appear any closer to reality.

The reason, of course, is first of all, money, financial support. The formula used by B.C. Transit for services requires local governments to come up with 40 to 50 percent of the funding for the service. As you are well aware, local governments in B.C. using the property tax don’t really have another way to increase their revenue and are short.

The other issue I want to raise is.… In 2024, we had a “We need a bus” day action here in Nelson. We held up signs by the highway saying, “I need a bus to.…” People said, “I need a bus to bring my son or daughter home safely from university by Christmas,” “I need a bus to get to hospital,” or “I need a bus to visit family, who I don’t get to see very often at all because I don’t drive on the highway anymore.”

One held up a sign reading simply, “I need a bus to anywhere,” because if you’re in many places in B.C., the sad reality is that you can’t get there from here. Greyhound pulled out in 2017. We have a patchwork of private providers across the province providing that now. It’s an inadequate and often very expensive service. British Columbians desperately need a publicly run intercity travel coach network. It’s a huge problem.

We did an information table outside a local grocery store, and we had a big sign that said: “Imagine a daily express coach to Vancouver.” Everybody coming along said: “Where do I sign?” Of course we need that. We desperately need that. It was pretty clear. Every time I talk about this in public, people here say that we need better services, especially in rural B.C. West Kootenay is actually kind of well served, but it’s inadequate here, and there are many, many places in B.C. with far lower levels of service.

So I urge the government to look at dramatically increasing funding for transit, revising the formula for funding — there have been many motions at UBCM about that — and building a public intercity coach network service, a full intercity coach network service.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Keith, for your advocacy. We did have another group presenting on transit in the South Okanagan. I live in Keremeos. I fully understand the issue; I’ll share the same message. As we centralize health care and services into cities like Kelowna, Vancouver, Kamloops — and for you in my riding, in the east boundary, or East and West Kootenay, depending on whom you talk to — getting over to Trail or to Kelowna for specialist appointments is excessively difficult.

[11:15 a.m.]

With the bus only going once a day, if your appointments don’t line up that appointment time with your bus.… As you said, it only goes certain days. So you’re waiting months to get an appointment and then have to further restrict your availability to the one day a week the bus goes and to the two hours that you’re actually in that town. If they’re running behind and you miss your bus, that’s it.

with that appointment time with your bus, and as you said, it only goes certain days. So you’re waiting months to get an appointment and then have to further restrict your availability to the one day a week the bus goes and the two hours that you’re actually in that town, and if they’re running behind and you miss your bus, that’s it.

Well deserved and well put. I fully understand and support. I do wonder how the funding model will end up working and wondered if you had…. Like, there’s no way rurally that the number of users can pay for the service, so I’m assuming….

We had another group that came along and fully asked that buses would be free, that you didn’t have to pay fees. I’m just wondering whether you see some kind of fee structure still required by the users or what your feeling is on rural B.C.

Keith Wiley: Free transit is ideal — that’s the best — but it’s not a priority. Some transit, better transit, is the priority. Making it free would be down the line.

I recently spoke with a woman at Castlegar social services. One of their major projects is finding volunteer drivers and putting together a voluntary system to get people their groceries or to the hospitals. And you know what? That’s not just Castlegar. That’s in just about every small town in B.C. There are social services. Getting transportation for their people becomes a major problem. It’s what they do. There are tremendous volunteer networks, and they’re constantly desperate for volunteers. And they’re constantly running short of rides.

Communities are scrambling to fill this need, and they’re not doing it effectively. It can’t be done.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just because we have some time, I’ll pick at it a little further. The other discussion was around whether it should continue under a private delivery model, where the government subcontracts with a private company to deliver the service, versus public, being that the government runs the bus service. Just wondering, your thoughts on that.

Keith Wiley: The private services, intercity services, that are available now are very expensive, and they’re only on limited routes. As you pointed out, the fares cannot pay the costs for the service levels, too low. There are too few passengers.

That doesn’t mean that somebody in Prince Rupert or somebody in Fort St. John doesn’t have a right to be able to get around just like somebody in Vancouver, but they have no possibility for it.

It has to be a public service, especially the public intercity coach network. The ones that are…. There are a number of providers now, but they don’t connect. You can get to Kelowna, but you can’t get anywhere from there because the connections don’t happen. They don’t even stop at the same place, you know?

It needs to be coordinated. It should be a public intercity coach network. It should be a normal, natural part of providing highways and transportation services in the province.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that answer, and thank you for your presentation today.

We will go to our next presenter. We have Brooke McLardy from B.C. Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres.

Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

B.C. Network of
Child and Youth Advocacy Centres

Brooke McLardy: Thank you for having me today.

I’m calling in from the unceded and stolen lands of the T'Sou-ke People.

My name is Brooke McLardy, and I’m the executive director of the B.C. Network of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres. Our purpose is to lead and strengthen the response to abuse and violence against children and youth in B.C.

I’d like to talk to you about an issue in our province that is within the power of government to fix. That issue is that 60 percent of children will experience some form of abuse before the age of 15 and that B.C. lacks a mandated, coordinated response to these horrific crimes. With a stat that staggering, it is incumbent on the provincial government to have a solid response in place for when children come forward.

I’m going to ask you to imagine a child you love. It could be your own child, a relative, or a friend’s child. Now imagine the unthinkable has happened, that they’ve experienced sexual abuse.

[11:20 a.m.]

In our current system of response, your child would report their experience at a police station to whatever police officer is available. They would be referred over to a ministry office and be interviewed again by a child protection worker.

If they’re one of the very lucky few, they’ll be referred to victim services and maybe medical. They are very unlikely to receive mental health assessment or specialized trauma supports

your child would report their experience at a police station to whatever police officer is available. They would be referred over to a ministry office and be interviewed again by a child protection worker.

If they’re one of the very lucky few, they’ll be referred to victim services and maybe medical. They are very unlikely to receive mental health assessment or specialized trauma supports. Their caregiver would be responsible for navigating through these various systems while trying to cope with their own trauma and grief.

The long-term well-being trajectory for this child is not good. They will become one of the many in our province dealing with homelessness, substance abuse and mental health issues. They are more likely than their peers to experience interpersonal violence as adults and to experience poor physical health. They are likely to access government and social services for the rest of their life. This result is a failing of our system.

Now imagine that child you love lives in a community with a coordinated response, a child and youth advocacy centre. The child you love is referred to the CYAC in their own community, where they meet a specially trained advocate who becomes their navigator for as long as needed.

They’re interviewed by highly trained police in a safe and comfortable environment specially designed for children. Child protection workers monitor the interview so the child only has to share their experience once. Caregivers receive a culturally and trauma-informed intake and needs assessment, and services are put into place immediately.

On-site medical services are provided, mental health and trauma assessments are done, and services are designed to meet the child’s and family’s unique needs. Information-sharing in this system between government services and other professionals is seamless and proactive, allowing strong decisions to be made in a timely manner, and the family is kept at the centre of all service.

The trajectory for this child is much more positive. The system is working for them. They have the opportunity to heal from their trauma and grow into high-functioning adult members of our communities.

Unfortunately, in B.C., the latter example is very rare. In the majority of our communities, this integrated and coordinated service does not exist. While some government policy is in place that speaks to coordination, this does not happen at the community level, because there’s no mechanism in place to make it work.

Last year in B.C., in just 11 communities, CYACs saw over 1,000 new children, youth and families. And 50 percent were under 12 years old, 57 percent were female and almost a quarter were Indigenous. The vast majority of these children experienced a sexual crime. Most experienced multiple instances of abuse as well as multiple types of abuse. These are real children with very real experiences of abuse and trauma. While those 1,000 received a gold-star service, others across the province were left out.

I have two recommendations for your consideration.

First, we ask you to recommend that CYACs are provided ongoing funding contracts to provide the framework to coordinate child abuse response. You heard from our member in Victoria this morning and will hear from others in Vancouver, Kamloops and the Kootenays that non-profit CYACs are without reliable funding and must fundraise to coordinate this response service. This model is a cost savings for government, and CYACs require a foundation of reliable funding to continue their work.

Second, we ask that the B.C. government develop strong policy that compels collaboration among government services when responding to these cases. This policy would ensure all services work together to address the safety of children and eliminate the critical collapse in our systems. When this is in place, all children who experience abuse will have the benefit of a gold-standard response.

We often hear that all the simple problems have been solved, and we’re certainly facing very complex issues in our communities. However, the solution doesn’t need to be complicated if we just start taking these steps forward now.

When B.C. creates a mandate to compel government services to work together on cases of violence against children, that will be one step towards a safer and healthier British Columbia. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I’m going to assume the member you’re referring to is the Victoria Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Centre?

Brooke McLardy: Correct.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

For your request No. 1, providing the ongoing contract administration, how many centres does your association represent, and how much are you looking for?

Brooke McLardy: We have 11 existing centres and we have a few more in development. We’re also mapping the rest of the province to see where centres need to be, to ensure all kids get service.

At this point in time, those centres that are open need an average of about $800,000 to meet the national standards for child and youth advocacy centres. So making sure that they have all the services in place that a child requires after abuse.

We’re looking, right now, at between $9 million and $10 million a year for operating costs.

[11:25 a.m.]

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): So $800,000. Going back in my memory, I think there was a difference, in her presentation, between core administration funding and programming funding.

Does that $800K include programming funding or is that just your core funding?

Brooke McLardy: Yeah. It’ll be a little bit different from her presentation, because they have an umbrella agency that has several different programs

Going back in my memory, I think there was a difference in her presentation between core administration funding and programming funding. Does that $800K include programming funding, or is that just your core funding?

Brooke McLardy: Yeah, and it’ll be a little bit different from her presentation because they have an umbrella agency that has several different programs, whereas a child and youth advocacy centre is the piece that I’m talking about, the one program in her service. That would include both.

Because our partners are policing and child protection and victim services, those are funded contracts already out there. They bring their FTEs to this service. What we need is support for the facilities, so those child-friendly interview rooms; for the CYAC staff, so the leadership that is coordinating the partnership, ensuring everybody is coming together, sharing information appropriately; for the child and youth advocates who are navigating services for the children, therapy programs and such.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for making the time to present to us today.

We’ll move on to the next presenter. We have Amy Mullis from Federation of Community Social Services of B.C.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes of questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Federation of Community
Social Services of B.C.

Amy Mullis: Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Amy Mullis, and I’m here on behalf of the Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. The federation is a provincial association representing more than 165 community social service organizations that deliver essential supports in every region of British Columbia. Our members support children, youth, families, seniors and people navigating some of life’s most complex challenges.

For decades, the community social services sector has been part of the social fabric that keeps communities strong. We focus on prevention, care and stabilization long before challenges become emergencies and long before they become far more expensive for government systems to address.

Today our sector is facing growing demand, increasing complexity and mounting operational pressures. A 2023 provincewide survey by the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia found that 72 percent of people living in British Columbia have used a community social service at some point in their lives. At the same survey, more than 43 percent of people living in B.C. struggle to pay for basics like food, housing and heating. This does not include other research associated with long wait-lists for child care, inclusion and disability supports, mental health supports, housing and more.

These are not isolated pressures anymore. They are becoming normalized realities for families across the province. And as demand rises, the sector is being asked to do more with systems and contracts that no longer reflect the operational reality.

That is why our recommendation today focuses on three priorities: modernizing contracts, strengthening the workforce and building a more responsive and preventative community social services sector.

First, we need to modernize contracts and administrative funding formulas. Current funding models do not reflect the true cost of delivering care in 2026. Organizations are absorbing rising costs tied to inflation, cybersecurity, insurance, digital infrastructure, records management and compliance requirements, without corresponding increases in administrative funding.

Many agencies are effectively fundraising for core operational infrastructure just to remain compliant and secure. The current administrative framework is outdated. It was not designed for today’s digital and cybersecurity realities.

At the same time, wage inequities continue to destabilize the workforce. Workers in the community social service sector earn substantially less than workers doing comparable work in other sectors. That gap affects recruitment, retention and continuity of care across the province.

We are asking the government to modernize contracts so that they reflect real operational costs, equitable compensation, modern technology and cybersecurity obligations and sustainable cash flow realities for service providers.

Second, we’re recommending a workforce strategy that matches the scale of the challenge we are facing. Organizations across B.C. are struggling to recruit and retain workers, while young people are struggling to find stable and meaningful employment after graduation.

The government has an opportunity to solve two problems at once. We’re asking the province to invest in targeted workforce training, paid practicums, paid supervision and early career pathways into community social services for recent graduates and young workers.

This is a practical, high-impact investment because the jobs already exist and the need already exists. What’s missing is a coordinated strategy to connect people to the sector and provide training, mentorship and support they need to be successful in those careers.

[11:30 a.m.]

Unlike many sectors currently facing disruption, these jobs are rooted in human relationships, trust and care. They cannot be automated away. AI will not replace early childhood educators; front-line workers supporting youth in crisis; seniors aging with dignity; or those assisting families navigating poverty, mental health challenges and housing instability. These are resilient, future-focused careers that strengthen communities while building economic participation.

trust and care. They cannot be automated away. AI will not replace early childhood educators, front-line workers supporting youth in crisis or seniors aging with dignity, or those assisting families navigating poverty, mental health challenges and housing instability. These are resilient, future-focused careers that strengthen communities while building economic participation.

Third, we need to build a more responsive and flexible community social services sector that moves from crisis response to prevention and care. Community organizations are often the first place people turn before challenges escalate into emergency room visits, justice system involvement or homelessness.

When we invest upstream in community-based supports, we reduce downstream pressures on health care, policing and other public systems. For example, families cannot fully participate in the workforce when they cannot access child care. Children miss opportunities for early learning, development and inclusion. Society misses the opportunity to strengthen those communities in which they’re living and our economy overall.

We believe that this is an easy win for the government because the infrastructure already exists. The sector is already provincewide. The employers are already in place. The demand is already urgent. What we need now is investment that matches the realities on the ground.

British Columbia cannot build healthy and resilient communities without a strong community social service sector, and the sector cannot meet growing demand without sustainable funding, modernized contracts and a stable workforce.

We look forward to working with the government to build a stronger, more connected and more resilient B.C. I’d like to thank you for your time today.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.

We will now turn to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Hi, Amy. Thank you so much for your presentation.

You talked earlier about job placements — or maybe not job placements but early pathways while students are in school, if I understood you correctly. Obviously, we know about this in the skilled-trades space. It’s very common, with secure job placement.

I’m wondering. How do you see that working? Has this been a conversation with some of the universities and colleges? Have you had conversations with folks? And I ask that because it’s always more helpful to understand what the level of advocacy has been and what it looks like when it’s brought forward to the relevant ministries.

Amy Mullis: Oh, fair. Thank you for the question. The short answer is yes. We’ve been having these conversations as sector advocates. A lot of the provincial organizations meet around the community social services round table. There is a training working group within that, and this training piece does come up regularly through those conversations — so another example of where the government infrastructure is in place already to have these really strong, important conversations.

What we are facing are some difficulties with people not quite understanding who the community social services sector is, finding pathways in through those students who may be looking for job opportunities, even at the high school level. And we’re also hearing, as those universities and colleges are reducing funding themselves, a lot of the programming or the training that they are eliminating is related to the community social services sector itself. So we’re sort of at a perfect storm of funding shortfalls that are hitting this sector in this particular theme quite heavily.

At the same time, I think there are some great opportunities here. We talk about youth and youth involvement all the time. If we could figure out how to connect the community social services into high school training programs, for example, or career placements, for example — similar to how some of the trades are presented in those education programs in high schools — I think we could have such a real impact.

Rohini Arora: Can I continue? Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, that’s a really important point that you’re lifting up. You know, there are dual-credit courses often, especially in high school, that will lead to whatever direction that student is going in. But you also pointed to the lack of understanding of who the community social services sector is, and I think that’s a really important point that you’ve pointed out. So I am tracking that here in my notes that I’m furiously writing.

Do you see that as something that could start as early as grade 10, or do you think it’s more of an 11 and 12…? Where do you see the ability to give children access and students, young students, access to this introduction to community social services?

[11:35 a.m.]

Amy Mullis: I could start as early as grade 10. As a parent myself, I’m familiar with some of the social justice and social studies and community development education curriculum pieces that are involved. I think having a strong understanding of who the community social services are and the supports they offer in the

could start as early as grade 10.

As a parent myself, I’m familiar with some of the social justice and social studies and community development education curriculum pieces that are involved. I think having a strong understanding of who the community social services are and the supports they offer in the community…. I think students, children recognize who a nurse is, who a doctor is, but they may not recognize who is running a food bank or the importance of someone who is supporting one of their friends with a mental health crisis.

I think they’re quite savvy, and grade 10 seems like an ideal time, given the curriculum, to start thinking about how we can build some bridges into the work and into the education side of things.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much.

The first point on modernizing your contracts and administration formulas. I guess the question is the admin formula now is probably 10 or 12 percent, and you’re looking for an increase. Or is it a matter of: it’s not more money but it’s changing what’s being allowed within your administration in the contracts, or both?

Amy Mullis: I think we need to look at both. The fiscal reality is that more funds are needed. These are really important pieces of work that the sector does on behalf of the government — supporting residential children in care, as an example, mental health support. These are pivotal to the health of our society. There’s not enough money to do that work, given inflation, given the stresses on the sector, given the need.

At the same time, those contracts, I think, just need to evolve — so some really good conversations, some time and space to think about how those contracts could evolve, given that the work is evolving, given the needs, the pressures that are being placed on those contracts.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Can you articulate what the new percentage, you think, should be?

Amy Mullis: Well, I think we’re looking at 15 percent across the board. I think this is the other key point here, that different funders offer different percentages and different ideas or rules about what is allowed within that admin funding piece. So having a really strong exploration about what’s working in some of those certain funders and what might be not working in other funders is key to this work as well. But 15 percent would be an incredible increase and make a huge impact.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your time and presenting to us today.

Amy Mullis: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity.

Paul Choi (Chair): We’ll invite our next presenter. Okay, our next presenter is Margaret Holm from First Things First Okanagan.

Thank you for coming and presenting to us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

First Things First Okanagan

Margaret Holm: Thank you very much for this opportunity to present to your committee. As mentioned, my name is Margaret Holm. I’m co-chair of First Things First Okanagan. We’re a climate action society working as volunteers in the South Okanagan to find climate solutions for our community.

In reading over the brief that hon. Brenda Bailey had on the budget consultation, she mentioned that keeping costs low for British Columbians and families is one of her priorities. She also asked: “What actions can your government take to make life better?” So that’s what I’m addressing today.

For the past three years, our organization has focused on supporting members of our community in actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, thereby also saving money on monthly energy bills. Emissions from buildings, you may be aware, account for about 30 to 50 percent of emissions in most of our communities.

Building owners, such as myself, who live in an older, 70-year-old house, face financial barriers to start energy retrofits like better insulation, windows, heat pumps, that sort of thing. So I want to address making home retrofits more affordable and less dependent on the current government rebate program, which had a budget allocation last year of $50 million.

[11:40 a.m.]

I’m not sure if it’s $50 million this year, it was promised for two years, or whether it’s been cut back.

I note that the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, in his service plan for this year, listed as one of the goals that people living in B.C. should be supported to improve energy efficiency

if it’s $50 million this year — it was promised for two years — or whether it’s been cut back.

I note that the Ministry of Energy and Climate Solutions, in its service plan for this year, listed as one of the goals that people living in B.C. should be supported to improve energy efficiency in their homes. And performance measure was a target for a number of home heating systems that would transition to heat pumps.

Heat pumps are considered an integral part of the solution for clean energy because they’re very efficient in using electricity. In other words, if you switch somebody from baseboard heaters to heat pumps, there’s less demand on B.C. Hydro, so it’s a very efficient way to use electricity to heat and cool buildings.

I just wanted to point out that this affordability issue is really in a lot of government budget measures that you read. We have this allocation of $50 million for rebates, but it’s, I’m sure, an amount that is threatened from budget cuts. So I’d like to talk about what the problem is with rebates and propose something that is less dependent on this government form of financing.

The problem is that despite fairly healthy rebates that the government has had over a number of years, from $5,000 to about $10,000 per household, out-of-pocket cost barriers are very significant. With this rebate model, you have to pay the full amount up front before you’re reimbursed. There are reports of price inflation amongst HVAC installers because of the rebate structure. And really, there’s a fairly slow uptake, so we’re not really meeting our targets for amount of people switching to heat pump adoption.

Last year I appeared before the budget committee, and I confess I spoke about a similar subject. I suggested that heat pump adoption in B.C. could be accelerated at a lower cost for the government through a direct install program, which they have in some Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions. This is that program funds directly go to certified installers instead of reimbursing the homeowner. P.E.I. is doing this, for instance, and some cities in B.C. are doing this using Greener Homes program money.

But I’m not going to talk about that. That was last year. This year I want to talk about some other funding mechanisms for home energy retrofits. The two that I’d like you to consider are….

On-bill financing is that instead of direct rebates paid after you’ve done your $15,000 retrofit job, B.C. Hydro or Fortis bulk purchase heat pumps and air handlers, which then are paid for over a long period through your monthly electricity bills. This is actually already done in my area of Penticton because Penticton owns its electrical utility, so they’re able to offer this incentive program.

So you think: “Well, what’s in it for that municipality?” That municipality is having less use of their electrical infrastructure because people are heating their homes with a very efficient…. Rather than baseboard heaters or inefficient homes that are leaking heat and cooling, the efficiency actually saves electricity.

This on-bill financing is used in a number of jurisdictions across North America. It’s not something new. It’s something the government can consider.

The second thing that the government actually was looking at is called property-assessed clean energy financing, or PACE. It was actually an election promise, an election or two ago. It’s something that the Union of B.C. Municipalities have been asking about. That is financing that allows property owners to fund 100 percent of energy-efficient upgrades with no upfront cost. They repay the loan via their property tax bills.

[11:45 a.m.]

In a standard PACE structure, local governments raise or access external capital from green banks or funds like federal Canadian municipalities or the Canada Infrastructure Bank to allow this. So financing stays with the property, not the individual, making it feasible for, say, commercial properties too. So somebody who’s got an apartment can do it, and when he sells it, that loan goes with the property.

Loans span ten or 20 years, allowing

Canada Infrastructure Bank to allow this. So financing stays with the property, not the individual, making it feasible for, say, commercial properties too. Somebody who’s got an apartment can do it, and when he sells it, that loan goes with the property. And loans span ten or 20 years, allowing this utility, and operational savings oftentimes, not always, but often exceed the original costs.

Now, the B.C. government was actively looking at the PACE program and this enabling legislation they need to do to make it work, but for some reason, it’s been stalled. I’m not quite sure why. It’s being used in Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario. I just feel that we need to get more creative than just having this mandate model, which is affected by the financial whims of the provincial budget. We need to have something that is more stable. So I think these costs…. These financing measures for home retrofits are important to move forward.

Again, Union of B.C. Municipalities is behind this too. So we’re shifting the burden of payment away from the homeowner, paying 100 percent of the of the bill right up front, and we’re also shifting the burden away from the provincial government. That’s why I feel these two things should be considered as a viable way to help homeowners reduce their monthly costs and also help the provincial budget with their use of their clean energy budget.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much.

We’ll go to questions by members. Okay, no questions.

I just want to ask and dig a little bit into what you mentioned about loans staying with the property. Given typically for banks or other institutions that lend out money…. There has to be someone at the end of the day that needs to pay the loan, and it’s a human being that needs to pay the loan. They do look at whether the owners themselves can actually pay and will be willing to pay the monthly amount that needs to be. So how would you suggest that risk is remediated?

Margaret Holm: I’m sure that this has been…. As I say, this funding model is old. It’s a couple decades old. It’s being used in provinces currently. So I’m sure that there are financing means tests for this. I do not have the details on that, but I just know that there’s been a lot of research into this model.

And I don’t know if it was rejected by the province as something that they didn’t feel would work for this B.C. jurisdiction or whether it just got lost in in the shuffle of priorities, but you can look to Canadian provinces for how they are making the PACE program work.

Now, I believe that money does have…. It has to be assured, ultimately, by…. I know the federal green energy program was doing it. And what’s the big bank that loans money that we have that’s federal? I believe they also were in some cases being used as assuring that loan.

Paul Choi (Chair): CMHC?

Margaret Holm: Infrastructure Bank.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay.

Margaret Holm: Yeah, so there is…. Yeah, you’re right. There’s got to be something behind it — right? — that assures that.

Paul Choi (Chair): All right. Seeing no other question, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Margaret Holm: Thanks for the opportunity.

Paul Choi (Chair): The committee will now take a one-hour recess.

The committee recessed at 11:49 a.m.

The committee resumed at 12:55 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Welcome back. I call the committee back to order. We will move on to our next presenter. We have Tracey Therrien from B.C. Library Trustees Association.

Thanks for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

B.C. Library Trustees Association

Tracey Therrien: Great. Thank you very much. Hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of the B.C. Library Trustees Association.

My name is Tracey Therrien. I’m the executive director. I’m joining you today from Nelson on the traditional and unceded territories of the sn̓ʕaýckstx, the Ktunaxa and Syilx Peoples.

The B.C. Library Trustee Association represents more than 700 community leaders and local government officials who govern public libraries in communities throughout the province. Public libraries in B.C. are governed under the Library Act, and trustees help set direction, ensure accountability and keep libraries responsive to local needs. BCLTA supports trustees through education and professional development.

We’re here today with one message, and that is that public libraries need sustainable provincial operating funding to continue serving British Columbians effectively. Our request is straightforward. We’re asking the province to increase the core annual grant for public libraries to $30 million — that reflects the amount if the 2023 one-time enhancement grant funding were made permanent — and also to end up that funding in the future years to inflation.

Provincial core funding remains at $14 million for all 71 public library systems in British Columbia, even as costs, population and demand for services continue to rise.

Why does this matter so much? Firstly, the current funding level is really no longer viable. Libraries are facing rising operating costs, increased demand and growing pressures on collections, technology, facilities and staffing, especially in those small and rural communities. And without stronger core support, boards are forced to focus on maintaining day-to-day operations rather than planning for the future.

Secondly, libraries are delivering essential front-line services that support provincial priorities. Public libraries are no longer only places for books and study. They are trusted community hubs where people look for help with employment, digital access, settlement services, literacy and also that safe refuge during extreme weather. They provide low-barrier access to government and social support in a welcoming environment. This work reduces pressure on other public systems and delivers strong value for public dollars.

Thirdly, the scale and reach of public library systems make this a sound provincial investment. B.C. public libraries serve 99 percent of our population, and provincial data shows 1.9 million active cardholders and 1.6 million annual program attendees in 2024. When provincial supports stagnate, this burden shifts to municipalities and regional districts, and the impact is felt most sharply in smaller communities with fewer resources. Without a sustainable funding model, inequity deepens and access to essential public services become less consistent across the province.

[1:00 p.m.]

We really want to be clear that the enhancement grants in 2023 made a real difference, and we’re grateful for that support. They’ve helped libraries strengthen digital access, improve services and respond to urgent community needs. But one-time funding cannot replace stable operating support.

I just want to close by returning briefly to the role of trustees, because this funding request is ultimately about their ability to lead well

digital access, improved services and respond to urgent community needs. But one-time funding cannot replace stable operating support.

I just want to close by returning briefly to the role of trustees, because this funding request is ultimately about their ability to lead well on behalf of their communities. Trustees are responsible for setting vision, but they cannot do that effectively when libraries are forced into a constant state of triage. Without stronger core support, boards are left managing immediate pressures instead of planning for the future. And that will likely mean cuts to the services communities rely on.

This is also why it’s important that this message is being brought forward collaboratively. It reflects the shared priority across the public library sector. The B.C. Public Library Partners group has worked together for many years to advance this message, and you’ll be hearing that same call to action from others presenting to this committee.

There, that’s it. Thank you for your time and consideration. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.

Now we’ll turn to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much, Tracey, for your presentation.

I’m curious. You said $30 million would be annual, and it would be based on if the 2023 enhancement fund had stayed. Can you tell me what the core operating funding is right now?

Tracey Therrien: It is 14 million, which has remained the same since 2009.

Rohini Arora: And in 2023, there was an influx of $16 million?

Tracey Therrien: That’s right.

Rohini Arora: And it was an enhancement fund. So was that for digitizing records or what was there, in particular?

Tracey Therrien: There were enhanced services, so it meant different things to different communities, different public libraries. Some people were able to extend library hours, to provide additional digital services, digital literacy training, maybe potentially more language training to support settlement services.

It really was a focus on enhancing what we’re already doing. But because those grants have now finished, we’ll see some cuts to those services, because libraries just can’t afford to continue doing them.

Rohini Arora: Thank you.

Tracey Therrien: You’re welcome.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): The $16 million that you got in the enhancement fund, was that $16 million a year, or was that $16 million…. The enhancement fund was multi-year funding, I believe, right?

Tracey Therrien: That’s right. It was for the entirety. It wasn’t yearly. It was for the three years in total.

Rohini Arora: So $16 million a year or $16 million for three? Sorry.

Tracey Therrien: Sixteen million for three.

Rohini Arora: Okay. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Okay.

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting today.

Tracey Therrien: You’re welcome.

Thank you very much. Take care.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next presenter.

We have Lori Goldman as our next presenter.

Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Lori Goldman

Lori Goldman: Thank you so much, and good afternoon. My name is Lori Goldman. I’m from Penticton. I’m with many climate action groups. I’m here to ask the government for $10 million funding for youth climate training, and this is why.

There’s no denying that our planet and our province are experiencing extreme weather events from human-caused climate change. The Okanagan is in a real severe drought. Last week a friend of mine lost his home in Oliver due to a flood. These ongoing events are expensive and disastrous and real.

The province has financial challenges, but youth are especially in a precarious position. They need employment, and there are excellent jobs in the green economy. Funding programs that engage youth to address climate action can actually improve the government’s financial situation.

[1:05 p.m.]

Supporting the Youth Climate Corps B.C. program is an investment that will fill the coffers over time, as youth contribute through taxes and purchasing power. When they have a good education and jobs, they pay back into the system.

YCCBC was started in 2020 to hire and train youth under 31 to lead

Supporting the Youth Climate Corps B.C. program is an investment that will fill the coffers over time, as youth contribute through taxes and purchasing power. When they have good education and jobs, they pay back into the system.

YCCBC was started in 2020 to hire and train youth under 31 to lead and to support projects that reduce emissions, build community resilience and advance climate justice, and CleanBC endorses it. It began as a pilot project, but it has grown into a solid system in 12 communities, paying youth a living wage. It’s designed to assist communities to adapt to climate change and to mitigate disasters. The communities benefit by the work the youth do for homeowner safety, land restoration and rewilding, communicating and educating on how citizens can make a difference.

Over 200 young people, past and present, have had their lives changed. Youth get four to six months of good wages, and many of them go on to further education, work in the trades, or get permanent jobs. They learn critical skills and leadership, and this work is essential for B.C.’s sustainable future at this time of crisis.

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy George Heyman stated in 2024 that assisting with YCC was worth funding by the province in terms of climate and the CleanBC plan. He said: “It’s important, and you can’t overstate what it means to young people who are feeling anxiety about the future to feel like they’re actually doing something tangible about it.”

Brittny Anderson, Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities, was special adviser on youth when she said: “Young people are learning skills, but it also benefits the community as they’re doing things like wildfire mitigation or working to do deep retrofits to homes for non-profits. The Youth Climate Corps represents the kind of community-based climate leadership we need more of across B.C.”

Two years ago YCCBC received multi-year funding from the B.C. government of $3 million,, which is running out soon. The amount isn’t enough to continue and expand the critical work. Staff waste time applying for grants and hunting for money, when they could be training youth or working on climate resilience. Stable funding is required for organizers, leaders, staff and trainers, as well as the youth.

While some funding comes from federal and local governments, organizations and industry, reliable ongoing money from the B.C. government would ensure that the program delivers what B.C. needs: many, many educated, confident youth to lead us into a future of climate solutions and resiliency. It’s a win-win-win for B.C. government, communities and youth. It’s an investment that pays back.

I’m asking for the budget to provide $10 million for three years and to make it a continuing line item going forward. B.C. needs more workers in clean, green jobs, because later is too late.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. Just a clarifying question, Lori. The $10 million that you’re requesting for three years — is it $10 million per year? Or is it similar to the last one, where it would be $3.3 million a year?

Lori Goldman: Well, ideally, I would be asking for $10 million a year. That would be great, because that would really get our youth into the community and also really protect our communities. So I’m not sure what to say about that.

They only had $3 million for three years before. This is a bump-up to $10 million, and I suppose that would be quite a support for them and for the youth. They’ve done so much. I was looking at the Kelowna report from last fall and winter, and the amount of work they did for Kelowna and the amount of experience the youth got were absolutely surprising. It’s a wonderful program, and we really need to protect our communities and give people jobs.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Lori Goldman: Thank you. Later is too late.

[1:10 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next presenter. We have Emma Dolhai, from Organizing for Change.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions after that. You can begin when you’re ready.

Organizing for Change

Emma Dolhai: Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee and to staff for the opportunity to present today. My name is Emma Dolhai, and I’m the senior policy specialist with Organizing for Change.

You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes of questions after that, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Organizing for Change

Emma Dolhai: Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee and to staff for the opportunity to present today. My name is Emma Dolhai, and I’m the senior policy specialist with Organizing for Change.

I’m joining today from the territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations, or Vancouver.

Our submissions today reflect the reality that environmental protection is a really critical component of good governance and fiscal responsibility. Recent budgets have failed to recoup the true value of our public resources, have externalized environmental costs and have failed to invest in a strong ecological foundation for the future.

We argue in this submission that when these items are missing, it leads to a budget process that is not only incomplete but precarious. To that end, we’ve proposed three areas that we hope to see given weight in the upcoming budget.

Our first recommendation is that the province must ensure that big polluters pay their fair share and that they do their fair share to bring down emissions. Specifically, the 2027 budget should include significant tightening of our industrial carbon pricing, designed to function as a cap on oil and gas emissions, as well as increasing the stringency of our methane targets and ending any subsidization of the oil and gas industry.

These policies collectively ensure that big polluters like oil and gas are required to stand on their own two feet without being artificially propped up, incentivized or otherwise made viable by taxpayer funding. These policies are also the bare minimum to ensure that our most polluting industries contribute toward at least some of the cost of their emissions.

Continued pollution from industries like oil and gas results in social, environmental and health costs, to name just a few. These costs should be paid up front by industry in a way that ensures that they proactively cut their emissions rather than downloading the eventual bill onto British Columbians.

Our second recommendation is that the province must ensure that it is recouping the true value of our public resources. Specifically, the 2027 budget should include long-overdue reforms to the water rental system for industrial users, with any new revenues directed to the watershed security fund.

Right now companies get access to this valuable resource at bottom-of-the-barrel prices. To give just a quick example, in 2024, which is our most recent year of data, 9 billion litres of fresh water were extracted for oil and gas production alone, at a price tag of around just $20,000 in water rental fees.

We actually have the regulatory tools to easily adjust these fees, and yet the province has delayed in making these relatively straightforward changes. A fiscally responsible budget plan would include increasing these rates to end what is essentially a giveaway of this invaluable shared resource, with new revenues directed towards watershed security.

Our third and final recommendation is that the province must invest in our collective future, with adequate funding for nature and biodiversity. Specifically, the 2027 budget should appropriately fund additional land use planning to support the addition of new protected areas, on the path to 30 percent protection by 2030, as well as continued work on and funding for the biodiversity and ecosystem health framework in order to ensure that our ecosystems are responsibly stewarded outside of protected areas.

Our ecosystems are fundamentally the foundation of almost everything that we do in our province, and yet we find that this reality is rarely appropriately reflected in the budget process. When nature is protected and stewarded, it can help support well-being, health and safety for people and communities. This includes the economically visible ways we might think of, like tourism and outdoor recreation, the latter of which alone directly contributed $4.8 billion to the B.C. economy in 2023.

But our ecosystems also support a range of less immediately visible values, ranging from flood prevention and ecosystem resilience to carbon storage, to mitigating the effects of extreme heat and pollution, to healthy watersheds.

Though it can be difficult to quantify these multiple and often overlapping benefits, recent reporting on Canada’s protected areas estimated that in aggregate, the total value of carbon that they store is, alone, $51 trillion.

These three areas are just a sampling of the ways in which we undervalue, underfund and underaccount for the environment in the budgetary process. A failure to account for and invest in the environment in the budget doesn’t mean that these costs go away. It simply means that they’re downloaded onto others, often the people of this province. The responsibility of good governance demands much more.

As this committee finalizes its recommendations, I would encourage the members to keep this front of mind.

Thank you so much for your time.

[1:15 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for your presentation.

I’m just curious. I don’t know if I heard you correctly, but were you talking about an emissions cap on oil and gas?

Thank you so much for your time.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members

Rohini Arora: Hi. Thank you so much for your presentation. I’m just curious. I don’t know if I heard you correctly, but were you talking about an emissions cap on oil and gas? I’m not a fan of that model.

We know that big polluters end up polluting a heck of a lot more, and then they can just…. Even if they’re under by a little bit the next following years, it’s like, okay.

I just wasn’t sure if I heard you incorrectly.

Emma Dolhai: Absolutely. What we were talking about was tightening our output-based pricing system for industrial polluters so that it essentially functions to cap emissions, setting the stringency of those rates so that it functions in that way, as opposed to sort of what you might think about when you think of a cap. It’s just a different mechanism to get to the same result. That’s the mechanism that we had committed to a couple years ago.

Rohini Arora: I figured, because I remember Organizing for Change was focusing on the OBPS in their 2023 report, so I was like: “Wait a second. Did I mishear you?” Thank you for clarifying.

Bryan Tepper: Hi. With the budget the way it is at this point, obviously I don’t think we should be subsidizing industries. I don’t think any industry, really, should be subsidized by the government, but what is the subsidy amount that is going to oil and gas?

Emma Dolhai: A really concrete recommendation that we would actually make there would be to implement the royalty system right away. That royalty system that was supposed to be overhauled in 2020 — they found that it was an effective subsidy to the industry because we weren’t sort of recouping that value when we collected royalties.

That’s actually been delayed. It was supposed to then be implemented in 2024, I believe, and it is now set to come into place in 2027. We have seen recent media coverage that some of the curves for pricing are now potentially being reconsidered, so we would just encourage the province as an immediate measure to prevent subsidization to ensure that those curves are stringent.

Bryan Tepper: Yeah, they put that out, I think, last week with the date for 2027. But I mean that’s not…. So subsidy is when we’re sending out money, generally. I mean we can call it whatever we want, but are we...? Is that the subsidy, or are we subsidizing the industry?

I guess I should use another phrase for that since people are kind of muddling it, but are there direct cash payments, I guess, to help the oil and gas industry, or is it just royalty credits?

Emma Dolhai: I can find an answer to you on that, and I’d be really happy to follow up with you.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): We’ve heard a few presenters with a common theme on the industrial water rates. There was a heavy letter-writing campaign that accompanied that. I’m just wondering, and I’ve asked this question of others, and nobody’s really nailed it down. Is the view that the rates are going in to add to the $100 million watershed security fund as seed money, where the interest will be what goes forward, or do they actually see the royalties going out each year?

Emma Dolhai: My understanding is that we would like to see it go in as seed money and then have that interest be used to fund projects through the fund.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

We will invite our next speaker. We have Zahra Esmail from Vantage Point.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for your question after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Vantage Point

Zahra Esmail: Wonderful, thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Zahra Esmail, CEO of Vantage Point. I am speaking on behalf of Vantage Point and the B.C. non-profit network.

The B.C. non-profit network is a broad coalition of organizations working together to address shared challenges across the non-profit sector. B.C.’s non-profit sector is fundamental to ensuring healthy, connected and resilient communities across B.C.

[1:20 p.m.]

I know that you know the impact of non-profits, so I won’t belabour this point. I want to convey that the non-profit sector is both a major economic contributor and an essential partner in building healthy communities with the government of B.C. More than 34,000 non-profit organizations operate across the province, employing nearly

impact of non-profits, so I won’t belabour this point. I want to convey that the non-profit sector is both a major economic contributor and an essential partner in building healthy communities with the government of B.C. More than 34,000 non-profit organizations operate across the province, employing nearly 400,000 people and contributing more than $36 billion to our provincial GDP in 2024.

At the same time, non-profits are experiencing significant strain. Demand for programs and services continues to rise sharply, while organizations face rising costs, flat revenues, workforce challenges and increasing administrative burden. Today I would like to highlight three recommendations for Budget 2027 that would strengthen the non-profit sector’s ability to serve and support British Columbians.

First, we recommend implementing more predictable and flexible funding practices through expanded access to multi-year funding agreements embedded with inflationary increases and by increasing allowable administrative and core cost allocations in project funding to 20 percent.

Too many organizations continue to rely on short-term, project-based funding. This creates uncertainty for organizations, communities and governments alike. Multi-year funding allows organizations to plan ahead, retain skilled staff, collaborate effectively and focus their time on delivering programs and services rather than continually seeking new funding.

At the same time, current administrative and core expense limits are failing to reflect the real costs of delivering programs and services. Non-profits are facing higher costs across the board, including rent, insurance and technology.

Budget 2026 introduced an expansion of the provincial sales tax to accounting and bookkeeping services to take effect in October 2026, further increasing costs for non-profits. Increasing the allowable administrative and core cost allocations to 20 percent would help organizations to maintain the infrastructure necessary to deliver effective programs and services and meet growing community demand.

Second, we recommend the creation of a dedicated non-profit labour force strategy. The non-profit workforce is essential to the well-being of communities across B.C., yet organizations continue to face significant recruitment and retention challenges, including wage competition from other sectors, workforce challenges, burnout and difficulties attracting workers to rural communities.

Through our 2025 sector survey, nearly nine in ten non-profits reported that demand for their services exceeds their capacity to respond. At the same time, staffing levels generally stayed the same, even as employers increased time and resources on recruitment and retention.

We believe government can build on successful models, such as the early care and learning recruitment and retention strategy, by working with the non-profit sector to develop a dedicated labour force strategy that addresses recruitment and retention challenges. Our sector is ready to partner with government to create training to employment pathways that connect a diversity of British Columbians to meaningful careers, strengthening workforce participation and continuing to be a more inclusive provincial economy.

Our third recommendation is to establish a dedicated secretariat to support the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Non-profits. The appointment of a parliamentary secretary focused on the non-profit sector was an important step forward. We are notable in Canada for having this position, and it’s very much appreciated. However, responsibilities for issues affecting the non-profit sector remain spread across many ministries.

A dedicated secretariat would provide the capacity needed to coordinate work across governments, improve grant and contracting practices, streamline reporting requirements, strengthen engagement with the non-profit sector and identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary administrative burden. This would both benefit government and non-profits while allowing organizations to devote more of their limited resources to programs and services.

In closing, our province’s non-profit sector is a critical partner in delivering the services, supports and activities that British Columbians rely on every day. Implementing more predictable and flexible funding practices, strengthening workforce stability and improving coordination across government will help ensure the sector can continue delivering the programs and services that keep our communities healthy, inclusive and strong.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome your questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. Now we’ll move to questions by members.

[1:25 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. I just wanted to dig into the last one, the establishment of a secretariat. We have a parliamentary secretary already, which I would assume has staff working under them

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much. I just wanted to dig into the last one, the establishment of a secretariat.

We have a parliamentary secretary already, who I would assume has staff working under them. So I’m wondering if you could articulate what you think the secretariat would accomplish that the current parliamentary secretary isn’t accomplishing.

Zahra Esmail: My understanding is that the parliamentary secretary works within the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and doesn’t have specific dedicated staff but is able to share some of the staff of current Minister Malcolmson. So there isn’t actually a portfolio of staff that are dedicated specifically to the non-profit and community development file, which is something that we believe we would achieve through the development of a secretariat.

It was one of the recommendations that had come, actually, from our conversations with the parliamentary secretary a few years ago — that this was a logical next step in terms of creating greater impact.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for presenting to us.

We’ll move on to our next presenter. We have Andrea Craddock from CUPE Local 723.

Thank you for joining us. If you can unmute, you have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin whenever you’re ready to go.

CUPE Local 723, Campbell River
School District Support Staff

Andrea Craddock: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I’m coming to you from the traditional unceded territory of the Ligʷiłdaxʷ People and thank them for sharing their knowledge, world view and land with all peoples who reside in Campbell River and call this home.

My name is Andrea Craddock, and I’m proud to represent CUPE Local 723, which includes all support staff working in school district 72. We are education assistants, Indigenous education success workers, clerical staff, tradesworkers, custodians, bus drivers, child care providers and more.

Today I want to highlight two priorities for Budget 2027: resourcing inclusive education and expanding public child care.

Number one, inclusive education. Inclusivity has been a core value of our public education system for decades, but we’re not keeping up to the needs of students. Classrooms are a microcosm of society, and we are seeing increasingly complex and diverse learning needs.

The recent pandemic sent families and children into hyperdrive, creating even more pressure in schools to meet the needs of larger numbers of students requiring support. Staffing levels haven’t kept up. There simply aren’t enough education assistants and other support staff to provide the individualized support that inclusion requires.

As the demands of education assistants increases, we are seeing higher incidents of violence leading to burnout, WorkSafe claims and illness. These are the front-line workers who literally make it possible for many students to remain and be successful in school. When staffing falls short, students don’t get what they need, and support workers burn out trying to cover the gaps. This undermines inclusion and leads to higher staff turnover.

Our first recommendation is to increase core funding to school districts, with a dedicated focus on staffing for inclusive education, especially education assistants.

The B.C. government promised an EA in every K-to-3 classroom and then had to pause due to conflicting priorities. I urge this committee to revisit this initiative. We are increasingly seeing children enter the system dysregulated and needing extra support in kindergarten.

Adding more EAs means not only providing the one-on-one supports needed but also the early interventions that many times can set a more successful course for students throughout school and in life.

Number two, expanding public child care in schools. In Campbell River, we’ve seen firsthand how public child care delivered in-house by school districts can benefit family, students and staff alike.

[1:30 p.m.]

Our district has run before- and after-school programs utilizing CUPE education assistants for more than three years. We have six sites and recently took on a pre-existing non-profit site. We are also offering a second program at one of our busiest elementary schools in the fall and have four more centres opening this year.

before- and after-school programs utilizing CUPE education assistants for more than three years.

We have six sites and recently took on a pre-existing non-profit site. We are also offering a second program at one of our busiest elementary schools in the fall and have four more centres opening this year, two being full-day toddler centres for three-to-five-year-olds.

Parents have told us this has been a game changer for them and their families. Having a one-stop child care option at their child’s school means peace of mind that their children are with trained and trusted staff without the need for multiple transitions and commutes.

With recent changes to licensing, our child care centres are open for summer care when we reduce to two or three centres, dependent on the needs of families. This also provides summer work for EAs and goes a long way to increasing their income and pensions while addressing some of our recruitment and retention challenges.

Our district has also taken over the city of Campbell River’s summer camp program for children with extra needs. This is a six-week program that provides meaningful activities in the community and utilizes some child care centres otherwise closed through the summer. It also provides summer work for EAs.

These programs give parents peace of mind, create secure jobs for workers and make efficient use of public space and staff. They’re a win-win. But districts can’t get them off the ground without start-up funding. Drawing on the expertise of districts like mine and Nanaimo to create a framework and funding plan that outline best practices would go a long way to expanding successful public child care.

Together, these two recommendations build on each other. Investing in inclusive education means hiring more staff to meet students’ needs, and expanding public child care provides those stable hours for staff while delivering a vital service to families.

Thank you for your time today, and I’m happy to answer any of your questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. Moving to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Always nice to see a fellow union sister. Thank you so much for your advocacy.

I have a few questions I’m going to pepper you with. Answer whatever you can, and whatever you can’t, no worries.

How many EAs currently work in SD 72?

Andrea Craddock: Approximately 140.

Rohini Arora: How many schools are there across SD 72?

Andrea Craddock: Eighteen, approximately.

Rohini Arora: You said something about Nanaimo as well. Could you just repeat that piece for me? Partnering with Nanaimo and Campbell River?

Andrea Craddock: Campbell River is unique in that we have stand-alone buildings for our child care, whereas Nanaimo has done it in-house. So they are using existing spaces in schools.

Rohini Arora: You have stand-alone buildings. So I guess that was going to be my other question. I was curious because this is work that we were doing quite in-depth, removing some of the regulatory barriers where you have to have divisions of space between infant-toddler and three-to-five. I wanted to know if that was something that was adding to it, but that might be a question more for Nanaimo than the schools.

But I’m not sure if you’ve heard anything. Just curious to get some feedback on you from that.

Andrea Craddock: We also started our program in schools while we were waiting for the buildings to be built. But both work. We like to think that we have the superior model, but, of course, it’s a lot more expensive, because you’re having to build the infrastructure as well as create the programs.

It has given us the ability to be looking at further options, like toddler care. I mean, eventually the vision is to go to infant care as well, which, of course, requires significant….

Rohini Arora: …IT specialists.

Andrea Craddock: Yeah. For before and after school, I would say that both models work well. If you’re starting to look at infant-toddler care, then I would agree that having a separate space is probably ideal.

Rohini Arora: You said four more buildings are coming.

Andrea Craddock: Correct.

Rohini Arora: So I’m curious. Campbell River is a jurisdiction we look to because it has quite a bit of, as you mentioned, child care that’s stand-alone buildings. But it’s very holistic, because it involves everybody.

[1:35 p.m.]

You also mentioned the summer camp and summer care. I’m wondering how many extra hours EAs are afforded through the summer care system being open through those days.

Andrea Craddock: Ultimately, if an EA wanted to work all summer, that would be open to them

wondering how many extra hours are EAs afforded through the summer care system being open through those days?

Andrea Craddock: I mean, ultimately, if an EA wanted to work all summer, that would be open to them. However, everybody deserves a break and some vacation time to refuel.

The hope is always that there will be some EAs that will take the work in one month and not the next, and vice versa, so that it can be spread — and that it can affect more EAs, as well, so that there’s more of them being able to get the extra hours.

Rohini Arora: Out of the 140 EAs, how many work during the summer care, would you say? I know some are on and some are off, but just in terms of numbers.

Andrea Craddock: Right. With having two sites, I believe there would be a dozen, probably, positions in the summer. Then of course, this new summer camp program is going to add another, potentially, seven to eight EA positions.

Rohini Arora: Okay, got it. Thank you. I was very curious about that.

Then your recommendations. You said to increase EAs. What was the number that you wanted to increase it by? I’m sorry I’m taking up so much space.

Andrea Craddock: You know, I would have to go back and take a look. I mean, currently we don’t have an EA in every K-to-3 classroom. Right now the bulge of the students that we have in our school system is actually at the high school level. We are into some declining enrolment, which is a cyclical thing, so I suspect that we’ll see an uptick here, I’m hoping, in the next few years.

Certainly, one of the reasons why folks are reluctant to move here is child care. If they are not able to find child care, they’re not going to move here. We are hoping that that is going to improve the possibility for more young families to move into our community.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions? Thank you so much for your presentation today.

Andrea Craddock: Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): We have our next presenter, Paul Mick from UBC division of otolaryngology.

All right, thank you so much for coming. I’m sure you’re going to tell us how to actually pronounce that word. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for your questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

UBC Division of Otolaryngology

Paul Mick: It’s otolaryngology, but you could just say ENT.

Okay, I’m a cochlear implant surgeon. I’d like to talk to the committee about the crisis in cochlear and in funding of the cochlear implant program in this province.

Untreated severe hearing loss is a very important concern. It leads to social isolation and cognitive decline in adults. More than 191,000 Canadian adults could benefit from a cochlear implant, which is a medically necessary intervention for severe hearing loss, which can reverse declines in some of those important health issues, such as cognitive decline and social isolation. But only about 13,000 currently have one.

Access depends on provincial residence rather than clinical need, creating a postal code lottery, which is driven by funding caps and inconsistent policies. As a result, British Columbians wait four years for surgery, while people in other parts of the country, such as Ontario, wait just six months. This inequity is costly. Untreated hearing loss costs the Canadian economy an estimated $25 billion annually in lost productivity.

I wanted to raise the issue of the provincial postal code lottery. Where you live determines how long you wait to hear again. There’s a national inconsistency in wait times. It’s the worst in British Columbia.

[1:40 p.m.]

The Canadian Hard of Hearing Association recently released a report card for the different provinces across the country in terms of how well they are responding to the needs of people with severe hearing loss. Unfortunately, British Columbia received an F, the only province in this country to receive a failing grade.

Thanks for that. I’d be happy to take any questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. We’ll now move to questions by members.

the only province in this country to receive a failing grade.

Thanks for that. I’d be happy to take any questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for the presentation. We’ll now move to questions by members.

Rohini Arora: Otolaryngology. It’s in my head. Thank you, Dr. Mick, for the information.

I’m curious. You said 191,000 Canadian adults could benefit from a cochlear implant, or did you say have severe hearing loss?

Paul Mick: Oh, well, they have severe hearing loss, which is an indication for a cochlear implant. So I guess yes to both questions.

Rohini Arora: I think it’s important just to explain the need of a cochlear implant and what it does. I’m single-sided deaf myself. I have unilateral hearing loss. It is obviously different for some people. If it’s moderate hearing loss versus….

And why a cochlear implant would be needed. For someone like myself, it’s not needed. It wouldn’t do anything for me. I don’t have the nerve endings in the inner ear and the cochlea to send signals to the brain.

I’m just curious if you could explain that a little bit for all of us, just for education.

Paul Mick: Sure. Well, a hearing aid amplifies sound and is a good solution for people with lesser degrees of hearing loss.

A cochlear implant works differently. It actually stimulates the nerve endings within the cochlea, and that sends electrical signals along the hearing nerve to the brain. It works when a hearing aid is no longer enough and that nerve is in place to carry the signal to the brain.

Interestingly, we do now implant people who have single-sided hearing loss, but they have to have that cochlear nerve to carry the signal to the brain.

Essentially, it’s a device that is implanted and still works with a device on the outside to provide sound awareness for people who have greater degrees of hearing loss.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): I’d like a little more detail, coming from rural B.C. myself, on the postal code lottery. Is it travel time? Why is the access worse for rural B.C. than other centres?

Paul Mick: Absolutely. The postal code lottery refers not just to inequities between urban and rural but across different provinces. Other provinces have, I think, just funded their programs better over the years.

A cochlear implant program is complicated. It’s not just surgery. It involves audiologists, social workers, lots of people. In B.C., we haven’t kept up with hiring enough cochlear implant audiologists, and as well, we have a funding cap on the number of cochlear implants that can be done in a year. So we don’t do enough. We get 400 referrals a year to our program, but we only do about 100.

Part of the problem is because we’re told we can’t do more than that. We only are funded for 100 devices per year. So even if we have 400 people on the wait-list and are willing and able to do the surgery and have the people, we couldn’t because we don’t have enough devices.

The other problem is we don’t have enough cochlear implant audiologists. We haven’t been hiring enough to do the work.

People who live in rural areas face additional barriers such as travel time. We would like to invest in virtual care and clinics that can see some of these people closer to home and follow up. But even though we have the ideas and the motivation to implement some changes to provide better access to people living in rural areas, we haven’t had the support of health care administration or the Ministry of Health to get that done.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Just a clarifier. When you say that we’re only able to do 100 a year, that cap is not a supply problem. That is a funding problem, just to be clear, right?

Paul Mick: Yeah, we are capped on the number of devices that we can do in a year. There’s a budget item that says, “We will pay for 100 or so implants in a fiscal year,” even though we could probably do more. So that’s part of the problem.

It’s not like if…. I think for knees and hips, it’s different. If you need a hip replacement, you get it done. There isn’t somebody saying: “No, you just did the 100th of this year, so this person is going to have to wait until the next fiscal year.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Rohini Arora: Just to follow up to what the Deputy Chair was saying. I’m curious. How much does it cost for the implantation? What’s the cost per each?

Paul Mick: The cost of the device includes the initial implant plus the first sound processor.

Rohini Arora: Just to follow up to what the Deputy Chair was saying…. I’m curious. How much does it cost for the implantation? Like, what’s the cost per each?

Paul Mick: The cost of the device includes the initial implant plus the first sound processor, and they’re about $25,000. That doesn’t include the cost of the services, but there are many, many studies that show that this is very cost-effective in terms of the return that society gets in terms of the productivity gains.

Many people in my own practice have had to stop working because they can no longer communicate at work, so they stop paying taxes, they start receiving more social supports. These are life-changing devices that allow people to maintain their roles in society.

Rohini Arora: Thank you so much for this information. And if you ever find something that can bring the nerve endings back in my left ear, let me know. I would be very interested. Thank you so much.

Paul Mick: Thanks a lot for hearing me out.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for taking the time to come and present to us today.

We will invite the next presenter. Okay, we have Teri McGrath with us.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Teri McGrath

Teri McGrath: I am ready. My name is Teri McGrath, and I’m a former registered nurse and presently a patient advocate. Thank you for providing this open discussion, giving me the opportunity to inform you of the issues patients experience when medically harmed and unable to obtain financial assistance.

As you know, taxes are collected to pay for essential government services that benefit society as a whole, and of course, this includes health care. But on a 2021 CTV W5 report, they disclosed the struggles that harmed patients and advocates have when our health care taxes are being used to pay lawyers defending members of the Canadian Medical Protective Association, commonly referred to as the CMPA. This is thanks to the rebate program using our tax dollars to dismiss harmed patient experiences.

Most Canadians were totally unaware that such an association existed, and it really does tell the whole story.

In 2023, CBC News noted that the total provincial and territorial tax dollars earmarked for the CMPA was $520 million — that’s half a billion dollars — annually while paying out approximately $259 million to patients. That’s less than half.

The annual CMPA meeting report for 2025 stated their assets were $5.9 billion, but their KPMG accounting firm states it is $6.07 billion. That’s their assets. The report also included that they paid out $1.9 billion in lawyers’ fees over a ten-year period.

The B.C. Medical Services Commission financial report of 2025 includes a rebate earmarked for the CMPA of $67 million. We do not know how much of that helped harmed patients in B.C.

This is evidence that tax dollars — with political consent, I must add — benefit the legal and medical systems at the expense of marginalized patients, and this has been exposed by patient advocates, including many academics. The CMPA undermines medically harmed patients using scorched-earth tactics, including extended lengths of court times, often up to eight years, that leave many harmed patients destitute.

Medically harmed patients are asking B.C. to take the lead and initiate a system that provides compensation in place of court proceedings. These patients require timely aftercare, which will reduce frequent hospitalizations and, thereafter, long wait times for others requiring care.

[1:50 p.m.]

There are alternatives for our present broken system. Nine very progressive countries have no-fault health care compensation for medically harmed patients. In Japan, the number of medically harmed children has been reduced since no-fault has been initiated, because it is transparent and used as learning situations.

nine very progressive countries have no-fault health care compensation for medically-harmed patients. In Japan, the number of medically-harmed children has been reduced since no-fault has been initiated because it is transparent and used as learning situations.

The harsh tort system is brutal and a deliberate, lengthy process both for traumatized patients and their doctors, all of which creates the blame and shame game. This in turn results in a loss of trust and respect. The Canadian charter of patient rights and WHO patient safety rights are supposed to protect against any actions that severely impair physical or mental health care, ensuring marginalized groups have equal access to health care services.

In closing, if I may speak truth to power, during my nine-year involvement in safe patient care, the public is aware that tort law advocates greatly benefit financially from the scorched-earth tactics used and are vehemently against change that would direct tax dollars to medically-harmed patients.

Of course, therein lies the challenge. Medically-harmed patients need financial help, which will definitely restore the trust that has been lost in our health care. Our tax dollars are there in the budget, and they need to be redirected to help patients.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to present this financial issue and the need for a system to help medically-harmed patients.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation and also your work as a patient advocate.

My mom recently has been through the health care system after having a stroke and, without my advocacy, definitely would have had different outcomes. We did have a medical incident while she was there, and unfortunately, as you said, it wasn’t worth pursuing to fight against it. Instead we mediated to ensure that the hospital put processes in place not to let that happen again. But we were in a unique opportunity to be able to do that.

I’m just wondering how you see that no-fault medical compensation turning that relationship around. How does that work, in the sense that you take the court out of it, and now the money just goes directly to the patient? How do you figure out how much they should get?

Teri McGrath: Well, there will have to be a system set up with a committee that looks at the case and determines if there was harm done and how much the patient would get. I highly recommend you have a committee consisting of a nurse practitioner, a nurse, a psychologist, a sociologist and an accountant to help these people get set up properly.

Some of these countries, when they have no-fault, can use the money to turn around and sue a doctor. Most of them don’t do that, or they can’t use the money to sue a doctor. There are variations of no-fault, and that would be something that you’d have to look at these very progressive countries — namely the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, Iceland, all the Scandinavian countries. They’ve had it for quite a while, and they’re very happy with it.

Does that answer your question?

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Yes. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Teri McGrath: May I add that I have pages of evidence to support this argument, and I’m wondering if I could send it to you at financecommittee@leg.bc.ca, and who would I address it to?

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, you can send it to us. You can just address it to the committee.

Teri McGrath: Okay. All right, I’ll get that ready and send it to you by email. Thank you for having me.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next presenter. Okay, we have Kelly Gorman from Arthritis Society Canada.

Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

[1:55 p.m.]

Arthritis Society Canada

Kelly Gorman: Yes, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.

My name is Kelly Gorman. I’m the senior director of public policy and government affairs with Arthritis Society Canada, a national health charity founded in British Columbia in 1948. We represent the over 6 million people in Canada.

Arthritis Society Canada

Kelly Gorman: Yes, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee. My name is Kelly Gorman. I’m the senior director of public policy and government affairs with Arthritis Society Canada, a national health charity founded in British Columbia in 1948.

We represent the over six million people in Canada with arthritis, including more than 916,000 British Columbians, as well as the millions more affected through family and caregiving.

Arthritis causes severe pain, limits mobility and reduces quality of life. It has no cure. It is the leading cause of disability and the most common chronic disease in Canada. It costs the B.C. economy at least $6.5 billion a year in health care costs, lost productivity and reduced participation in work and daily life.

Arthritis affects people of all ages, including children and youth. Half the people living with arthritis are under the age of 65. More people in Canada have arthritis than diabetes, heart disease, cancer, stroke and dementia combined.

In April, we released the second report card on the state of arthritis in Canada. No province or territory performed well. British Columbia, again, received a C. The findings and scores reflect persistent gaps in wait times, access to medications, pain management and health data.

The state of arthritis in Canada motivated 21 arthritis-related organizations to co-create arthritis action now: the plan to end arthritis in Canada, the first coordinated national strategy to transform prevention, care and research for arthritis.

We urge the government to treat arthritis as the serious health and economic issue it is. We have four recommendations.

The first, reduce wait times for joint replacement surgeries. Arthritis is the leading cause of joint replacements. The benchmark wait time is six months. In British Columbia, only 58 percent of hip and knee replacements were completed within the benchmark. These delays mean more pain, greater loss of mobility and worse outcomes.

Our ask is for the government to prioritize reducing surgical wait times and expand access to evidence-based community programs, such as the GLA:D program, a proven education and exercise program that helps people manage hip and knee osteoarthritis and can delay or prevent the need for joint replacement.

Two, invest in arthritis-specific primary and community care. People living with arthritis need timely access to family doctors, specialists, rehabilitation professionals, but too many still face major barriers, especially in rural and remote communities. We urge the government to invest in team-based models of care, including extended-scope practitioners, such as specially trained physio and occupational therapists.

Three, ensure access to a range of arthritis treatment options. As there’s no cure for arthritis, access to medications is essential. For people living with inflammatory arthritis, finding the right treatment can take time and some patients’ medication stops working. That is why people need access to the broad range of treatments and timely access to new and innovative medications and the prescribed medications.

People in British Columbia lack access to the same range of publicly covered arthritis medications as people in other provinces. B.C. ranked eighth in Arthritis Consumer Experts’ most recent medication report. We urge the government to work with clinicians in the arthritis community to improve equitable and timely access to treatment.

Four, invest in arthritis research. Arthritis research remains chronically underfunded despite the scale of the disease and its impact on people, health systems and the economy. Research is essential to improving outcomes, enabling earlier diagnosis, better treatments, improved pain management and, ultimately, prevention and cures.

British Columbia has previously shown leadership through its research funding for Arthritis Society Canada and Arthritis Research Canada. Arthritis action now calls for strategic investments in key areas — stronger data platforms, breakthroughs in OA, progress towards remission in inflammatory arthritis and Indigenous-led research.

We urge the government to build on its past leadership by working with the arthritis community to fund and implement the research and innovation priorities of arthritis action now. With the right investments, B.C. can deliver less pain, greater mobility and better quality of life for hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

We are ready to work with you to make that a reality. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to questions by members.

Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat: Thank you, Kelly, for your presentation.

[2:00 p.m.]

I was 13 years old when I started having problems with arthritis. Didn’t know what was happening to me and wasn’t diagnosed till I was about 18 — 16 or 18, I can’t remember. But I do

presentation.

I was 13 years old when I started having problems with arthritis. Didn’t know what was happening to me and wasn’t diagnosed till I was about 18 — 16 or 18. I can’t remember. But I do hear you in the multiple times of medication changes that I went through in my lifetime. Still going through some, but it’s kind of levelled out. I found something that actually is working.

And yes, the investments and access to treatment options, all of those — I agree with you. Thank you for presenting it in such a way that you are right now, in advocating for this.

My question is…. The last part — you kind of auctioneered through it, the stronger data. Then you mentioned Indigenous-led research. Can you go back to that last part and repeat?

Kelly Gorman: Sure. In this plan, which I’m happy to share with the committee too, it’s broken into three pillars. First pillar, public policy. Second is the research and innovation. And within that, there is a whole section on the importance of Indigenous-led research and what we can do to enable that.

This is kind of a roadmap, the research and innovation section, the pillar 2, and this is…. Almost all the research institutions that fund arthritis research across Canada and the researchers came together, and they’re the ones that wrote this section. So they all agree that these are the key areas that I named. The health data platforms is a critical one. That’ll be a priority and clinical trials, too, enabling better clinical trials in Canada.

And there are some pretty well-thought-out recommendations within the arthritis action plan, and this group is going to continue to work forward and together to start to implement an Arthritis Research Canada,which is a national organization as well, but they’re based in B.C. It was one of the key players as well.

Rohini Arora: Thank you, Kelly, for your presentation.

I was also sort of curious about the Indigenous-led research. You’re talking about better clinical trials, so I’m guessing that you may be speaking about having a broader selection of patients as well, in terms of their ethnicity and background. Is this from an epigenetic perspective, thinking about the impact of intergenerational trauma on the bodies of Indigenous children from a young age? Is that sort of the thinking?

Kelly Gorman: Well, it’s to be defined too. Because, I think, the idea…. We know that Indigenous populations in Canada have higher rates of arthritis and worse outcomes. Actually, within our policy section as well, there is a whole section around Indigenous care, and we really feel it should be led by Indigenous community.

And we have some…. We had an equity advisory committee that was part, to make sure that we had an equity lens throughout the whole plan and also people from the First Nations and Métis and Inuit communities. Some of the researchers that were involved in developing the research and innovation section are also Indigenous researchers as well. So it’ll be multi-layered, I would say.

Rohini Arora: Yeah. It sounds like a quantum computing question. I have to say that sometimes Creator works in interesting ways because we have someone, my colleague here, who spoke about her personal experience. I feel like you two were meant to meet today.

Kelly Gorman: I’m happy. I would say that is a story that we have heard. And something that we really want to change is this delay in terms of getting diagnosis. I’m happy that you have found something that works for you. And we do find that with certain types of arthritis, it does stop working, and then people are kind of struggling to figure out the right combination.

And such a huge part of this is awareness. And that’s why I spent a bit of time at the beginning just to talk about the facts about arthritis so that people can understand the impact of it.

[2:05 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): As we are running out of time, I’m looking to the Chair for maybe a little bit of lenience to ask a couple more questions.

You’d mentioned reducing the wait times on the joint replacement. You said the benchmark was six months, but I missed what we are actually delivering. What is the percentage that we are delivering?

Kelly Gorman: Sure. This is a combined one. We use the Canadian health information site. It’s 58 percent of people waiting for hip and knee replacement

actually delivering? What is the percentage that we’re delivering?

Kelly Gorman: Sure. This is a combined one, and we use the Canadian health information site. It’s that 58 percent of people waiting for hip and knee replacement are done within the recommended benchmark time. There are actually, which we can provide, separate stats for each one.

Also, B.C. has made a little bit of progress, so we’re pleased to see that. You also collect waiting times a bit differently than how it’s reported through CIHI.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Okay, then my second question was around access to medications. Is that a PharmaCare problem, a policy problem? Does it take too long to get through Canada to get the medications approved? You were talking about the timely access to medications, and I’m trying to understand if it’s money, policy, provincial or federal.

Kelly Gorman: It’s a bit of everything. Yes, we do….

At a federal level, we’d like to see — and this is not just for arthritis; it’s many diseases — faster approval times.

With B.C. specifically, I would say we see in B.C. it takes longer to get approval onto the formulary. It stays under review a lot longer than some of the other provinces. Also, in doing our report card, B.C. doesn’t have as many arthritis medications listed on your formulary as do others.

So I think a bit of it’s policy, a bit of it is time, and some of it is money. But we do think that, especially the special authority, there are some things that could be done to make it easier for clinicians and patients to get faster access.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you so much for taking the time to present to us today.

The committee will take a quick recess.

The committee recessed from 2:06 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.

The committee recessed from 2:06 p.m. to 2:24 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Welcome back. I’ll call the committee back to order and invite our next presenter. We have Kenton Boston from Canadian Men’s Health Foundation.

[2:25 p.m.]

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Canadian Men's Health Foundation

Kenton Boston: Thank you very much. I really appreciate this opportunity to talk about something that is near and dear to all of us. That’s the success of our province and of those

You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Canadian Men's Health Foundation

Kenton Boston: Thank you very much. I really appreciate this opportunity to talk about something that is near and dear to all of us. That’s the success of our province and those that live in it.

I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I’m Kenton Boston, CEO of the B.C.-based Canadian Men’s Health Foundation.

We’re grateful for the support we have received from the provincial government since 2010. A lot has changed over that time, but our commitment to being a positive advocate for men and their families has only grown. This support that we have received from the province has helped us connect men with resources to improve their physical and mental health.

Seventy percent of men’s chronic diseases are preventable through lifestyle changes, and having men take steps to improve their health benefits their families, the community, the health care system and the economy. The federal Health Minister recently stated that the cost of men’s health costs the Canadian economy more than $12.4 billion a year.

One of the greatest examples that we’re focused on as we focus with fathers is the impact they have on their children. A stat that I wanted to share really stands out for us. Children with obese fathers are ten times more likely to develop obesity. So healthy fathers have a generational impact.

Top of mind for all of us right now are sobering statistics about the growing mental health challenges men are facing. Rates of anxiety, depression, stress and social isolation continue to rise. And many men still avoid seeking help or talking openly about their struggles.

Some of what our research has shown includes: half of men are now at risk of social isolation, 73 percent if they live alone. Men are at risk of problem gambling, and those that are so are nearly twice as likely to have anxiety and more than 2½ times as likely to face depression.

Fifty percent of men aged 19 to 29 are at risk of problem anger. That’s compared to 22 percent of all Canadian men.

When I reflect on our research and these challenges, I’m proud of the work we do at CMHF. Our digital tools help men connect with ways to improve their mental and physical health through free and discounted counselling, simple workouts, health reports, nutrition guides and much more.

We’ve expanded the free counselling sessions available through our MindFit toolkit program. New programs are connecting men in the trades in ways they trust to help them understand things such as the drug epidemic and its risks.

Our research programs and partnerships are helping further widen and deepen engagement within the Indigenous and South Asian communities, young Black men, fathers and those who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+.

Our efforts are making a difference. This is recent research. Eighteen percent of B.C. men, equivalent to about 500,000 men, used CMHF at least once over the past 12 months. Those who did use our tools have an 81 percent likelihood of having made a positive change to their lifestyle that improved their health. Lifestyle changes to improve health changes. That’s compared to 58 percent of those who have not connected with us.

We are looking to bring our research programming in to help reach others within the province and, in doing so, address gender-based violence. We’re already targeting men’s mental health and addressing problem anger, and we have the opportunity to adapt existing proven men’s health and wellness tools to more explicitly address violence prevention across key life stages.

I will leave you with three recommendations for action.

We ask that the provincial government continue to support initiatives to prevent and reduce the impacts of poor mental health and chronic disease on men, their families, communities and the health system. Last important point on that note: families, communities and the overall health care system.

We are also recommending the provincial government continue its financial support of the Canadian Men’s Health Foundation, providing $1.5 million a year over the next three years so we can expand on our past successes and help more men and their families.

Finally, we want to work with the province as it addresses gender-based violence in B.C. This is near and dear to our hearts and really falls in and aligns with us as we use our research and take that research and get it into the hands of men and their families across B.C.

[2:30 p.m.]

That’s all I have today. I want to thank you for your time and, most importantly, thank you for making a difference in the lives of B.C. men and their families.

and aligns with us as we use our research and take that research and get it into the hands of men and their families across B.C.

That’s all I have today. I want to thank you for your time. Most importantly, thank you for making a difference in the lives of B.C. men and their families. Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation today. I will turn to questions, starting with MLA Arora.

Rohini Arora: Hi Kenton, so good to see you. Thank you so much for your presentation.

Obviously, I have had an opportunity to hear some of these statistics that you mentioned beforehand and had a lot of time to mull over. Can you share with us how many men have either accessed your resources or classes and some of the training that you do that, I think, is really vital to share here about supporting men, especially in the trades as well, with the opioid crisis?

Kenton Boston: For sure, yes. A recent study suggests that there are about half a million men in B.C. who focus and use our resources every year. We’ve been around 12 years. Thanks to everyone sitting around that table in part.

What we’re really working on is taking the research…. We’re now working with an organization called Blueprint tied to UBC. They’re really giving us access to a lot of university-based studies and information. We’re taking that and translating that back into programs and, most importantly, to content. It’s not just about programs. We use content sharing.

You mentioned about trades and skilled labour. That’s a huge focus for us right now. We know, in the suicide rate, the number one area that people come from who commit suicide, sadly, are the trades. We know that if there are about 3,900 suicides in Canada, 75 percent of them are men.

We know that’s a huge draw for us, as we talk about pipelines, as we talk about houses. It’s a huge issue for us. So we’re taking the research and we’re applying it to get it into the hands of people on the front lines of building Canada stronger through programs, but most importantly, how to build resilience.

We’re just building the programs right now, but building up this sense of who you are as individuals to help mitigate what is down the road often for all of us in society, and that’s dealing with what’s happening on the drug side of our conversations in the mental health space.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Speaking to recommendation No. 2, the $1.5 million per year in financial support, is that new funding or continued funding for your organization?

Kenton Boston: That’s more funding than we have been receiving. I’ve been with the organization two years, and I believe that’s aligned with what we are used to receiving.

Our ask is…. We’re down the road of balancing research with tangible…. We often say we’re clinicians, so it’s about a balance of research, more research, like the value of fatherhood, the value of parents, men and women. That’s one of the areas we want to dig into, because we feel that the results of that in early stages show…. That’s a bit of an anecdote to what’s happening in social media and that whole conversation.

There’s also another program. We want to get in the school system from a preventative lens that really talks to boys before they reach teens, before they reach adulthood, and that’s part of the gender-based conversation. That’s why we kind of landed on $1.5 million. It’s a balance of taking the research, creating programs, but also leaving us some ability to do further research.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): So that 1.5 million isn’t just to retain your existing services. You would actually be expanding into those new areas?

Kenton Boston: Yes. I mean, we want to make…. It’s two things. Status quo is really important to us. We want to make sure the people that are already in, the users that are already familiar with us, stay with us, but we also want to expand. That’s part of the research, which points us to a younger need in this province. That’s why we want to keep pushing and get as much money, as much programs, into the hands of people to save lives.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): One more follow-up. I see that you’re a Canadian foundation based in B.C. How much of that money and programming would be for people that are living outside of B.C. or how do you attribute it to B.C.?

Kenton Boston: So 100 percent B.C. We live all in B.C., so that’s our starting point. But we do share programs. It is shared elsewhere. We’re down the road of bringing programs into B.C. from other provinces. For us, it’s kind of picking the best out of the provinces and making sure that we reflect and give that access to people in B.C., and they can have what works in other provinces. But our whole organization is B.C. based. I live there. That’s who we are. That is the focus of our organization.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much. Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Kenton Boston: Thanks for your time and interest. Really appreciate it.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Okay, we will invite our next presenter.

[2:35 p.m.]

We have Kimberly Sankey from Vision Loss Rehabilitation Canada.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready. Just make sure

We have Kimberly Sankey from Vision Loss Rehabilitation Canada.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready. Just make sure you unmute.

Vision Loss Rehabilitation Canada

Kimberly Sankey: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Kimberly Sankey. I am here to highlight a strategic opportunity for British Columbia to strengthen its health care system by investing in innovative vision rehabilitation services for individuals living with low vision or blindness, as well as preventative eye care screening.

On behalf of Vision Loss Rehabilitation Canada, the leading vision rehabilitation and habilitation provider in B.C., we are asking for an investment of $500,000 in a hospital-to-home program. This program will reduce hospital pressures and provide a faster, safer and seamless transition to community-based care.

We are also asking for an investment of $250,000 in the eye health screening initiative. This evidence-based program enables earlier detection and treatment of preventable vision loss among people living with diabetes, particularly in underserved and rural communities.

Seniors in British Columbia face the highest risk of developing eye diseases that can result in vision loss. These investments will support seniors in accessing the care they need while also improving access to individuals in remote areas and First Nations communities.

Vision loss is not a niche issue. In B.C. today, 167,000 people are living with vision loss, and that number is rising rapidly, driven in part by population growth and an aging demographic.

The economic impact is significant. Vision loss costs British Columbia almost $1.3 billion every year. Of that, $19 million is directly tied to hospital visits, and $77 million reflects additional costs in aged care and long-term care.

These are avoidable costs — costs that increase when people do not receive timely rehabilitation and supports that allow them to remain independent and safe at home. Every additional day a person with vision loss remains in hospital when they could be supported at home compounds and worsens their condition, increases risk and reduces the chance of a positive health outcome.

Based on 2024 data, over 15 percent of B.C.’s hospital days are designated alternate level of care. And in some hospitals, it is more than double this amount. This is significant and underscores the need to invest in initiatives that close the gap between hospital, home and community care.

Launched as a pilot in the Lower Mainland, the hospital-to-home program delivers rapid, coordinated end-to-end vision rehabilitation that improves patient safety, accelerates recovery and enables timely discharge home. Using a collaborative interdisciplinary model, it leverages existing hospital and rehabilitation resources with minimal incremental delays.

During the pilot, patients were seen by a vision rehabilitation specialist within an average of six days, significantly faster than the provincial average of 32 days. This rapid access ensures vision-related risks are addressed before discharge, reducing complications, readmissions and functional decline. With an investment of $500,000, this proven model can be scaled to other regions as well.

Diabetes and vision loss are growing concerns. The population aged 70 plus is projected to increase by 85 percent between 2025 and 2044, while diabetes rates are expected to rise by over 30 percent in the next decade, driving higher rates of preventable vision loss, particularly from diabetic retinopathy.

Investing in VLRC’s eye health screening initiative supports B.C.’s priorities in chronic disease prevention, healthy aging, equitable access, digital health and system sustainability. Early screening enables timely treatment, reducing irreversible vision loss and lowering downstream costs from falls, hospitalizations and long-term care.

This initiative also advances health equity by improving access for Indigenous, rural and remote communities, where barriers to care are the greatest. Importantly, this evidence-based model has been successfully implemented in several other provinces, demonstrating improved early detection, reduced preventable blindness and more efficient use of specialist services.

These proven preventative and cost-effective investments directly advance provincial priorities, integrated community services, supporting seniors, enabling aging in place and reducing demand on hospitals and long-term care.

[2:40 p.m.]

VLRC’s combined $750,000 request will expand vision rehabilitation access provincewide, strengthening the workforce, and support innovative service models that reduce costs and improve outcomes for British Columbians. This is a modest investment with a significant return, better patient outcomes and a more resilient health care system.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

the workforce and support innovative service models that reduce costs and improve outcomes for British Columbians. This is a modest investment with a significant return, better patient outcomes and a more resilient health care system.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.

Now we’ll turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.

You had mentioned for the $750,000, you were able to take these programs provincewide, from a small pilot area across. How are you able to get that economy of scale? Is that by leveraging the fact that these professionals are already in community doing this work and you’re just pulling them together?

I don’t see room in that budget that you’re hiring people to work across the province, so that’s why I’m asking.

Kimberly Sankey: Great question. Part of that budget would be for the hospitals at home. And, yes, we do already have staff in six different locations across the province, six different offices. It would require hiring a couple of positions, called a “service coordinator position,” usually occupational therapists, that connect with the hospitals and facilitate scheduling, facilitate knowledge transfer, consulting services.

Essentially, it would be a few FTEs and coordinating services that already exist in those areas.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

We will invite our next presenter. We have Sean Andernacht joining us.

Thank you for coming. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Sean Andernacht

Sean Andernacht: Excellent. Thank you. My name is Sean Andernacht. I’m a homeowner here in Nelson and a member of the Nelson Tenants Union, speaking on my own behalf though.

My first recommendation is to reinstate the community housing fund and establish a public housing developer. The suspension of the community housing fund has had an immediate impact on affordable housing projects across the province, including here in Nelson. Shortly after the release of this budget, the non-profit Nelson care society cancelled the 50-unit project, which previously received this funding, had approval from city council and the RDCK and had already been rezoned. Another 48-unit project by the non-profit SHARE Housing Initiative could face a similar fate as it was approved by council on the basis that it secures provincial funding.

Losing 100 units in Nelson has a far greater impact than it would in Vancouver or Victoria, so these cuts disproportionately impact small and rural communities like ours. Nelson’s municipal housing-needs report shows that the city met less than half of its construction goals for affordable housing and market-priced housing built between 2020 and 2025.

Budget 2026 further deepens the gap between supply and housing, the supply and demand for affordable housing. The community housing fund must be immediately reinstated and refunded to ensure these projects and others like them do not fall through and to help Nelson reach the province’s own municipal housing targets. I also believe this should be accomplished by establishing a public housing developer to build public affordable housing. This is an opportunity to invest in good union jobs and cut expenses by eliminating the private for-profit middlemen who drive up costs and reduce the distance our tax dollars can go.

My second recommendation is to create a right to cooling and establish a fund for retrofitting. Environment and Climate Change Canada has forecasted that 2026 will be among the four hottest years on record, with average temperatures exceeding one degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the 13th year in a row. The trends of global warming and more frequent extreme heat days show no signs of stopping, particularly given our government’s reckless investment in further fossil fuel infrastructure like the Ksi Lisims LNG terminal.

During the 2021 heat dome event, nearly 600 people in B.C. died from extreme heat, due to a lack of residential air-conditioning, compounded by factors like a lack of cooling infrastructure in their community and social isolation. And 99 percent of these deaths occurred inside residences. Among those most at risk are seniors, children, disabled people, pregnant people and those who live alone.

In 2023, B.C. created a regulation for mandatory air-conditioning in all newly built homes to help address this. This mandate should be extended to address cooling needs in all rented buildings. This initiative would be well-paired with the creation of a public housing developer, which could be used to retrofit existing buildings with heat pumps as well.

[2:45 p.m.]

Additionally, a grant or rebate program allowing tenants to purchase window AC units sufficient for the full square footage of their rental could be a swifter and less costly way to ensure adequate cooling is delivered as soon as possible and reduce heat related deaths.

My third recommendation is to improve tenant protections and funds for

Additionally, a grant or rebate program allowing tenants to purchase window AC units sufficient for the full square footage of their rental could be a swifter and less costly way to ensure that adequate cooling is delivered as soon as possible and reduce heat-related deaths.

My third recommendation is to improve tenant protections and funds for advocacy groups. This budget has introduced no new renter protections, and the small $400 tax credit for eligible tenants is insulting at best. Tenants already can’t afford their rent, much less wait a year to receive what amounts to a fraction of a single monthly rent.

There is no strengthening of requirements for just-cause evictions, no additional resources for the residential tenancy branch to help tenants enforce their rights, and no new funding to address the eviction crisis.

Research from UBC’s balanced supply of housing group echoes the experiences that Nelson Tenants Union hears from local tenants, that no-fault evictions account for 85 percent of evictions, and tenants are unable to assert their rights due to an under-resourced RTB. No-fault evictions and predatory practices are particularly an issue with REITs and other corporate landlords, as well as individual landlords who have multiple units and abuse them as a speculative asset for passive income.

This budget should properly fund the RTB, as well as organizations like the Tenant Resource and Advisory Centre, or TRAC, who are a priceless resource for tenant unions and local tenants who rely on their tools and legal advice to address things like eviction notices and to assert their rights with bad landlords. Through TRAC or tenant union organizations, I also want to see funding specifically allocated towards educating and facilitating tenants with the goal of coordinating collective bargaining agreements with their landlords, ideally pairing this with the right to collective bargaining as tenants being enshrined in law, as it is with labour unions.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my presentation. I hope you’ll take this feedback into serious consideration and implement these recommendations to ensure that all renters in B.C. can access affordable, secure and comfortable housing.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): You mentioned that your community housing fund project in Nelson was cancelled. We’ve heard from a few other projects. Can you tell me how far along the project was before it was cancelled? Was it still an idea, or had some pre-work been done already?

Sean Andernacht: This project was quite far along. They had already received approval from the city council and the RDCK, as I mentioned.

It had already been rezoned, as part of it was meant for recreation. So it had been rezoned for housing. The architect had already designed the building. They were getting ready, I think, to put shovels into the ground this year, pending the funding that was cancelled.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

We will invite our next presenter. Okay, we have our next presenter, Anita Huberman from B.C. Common Ground Alliance. Thank you so much for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready. Thank you.

B.C. Common Ground Alliance

Anita Huberman: Hi everyone. I’m Anita Huberman, executive director of the B.C. Common Ground Alliance, also known as the BCCGA. We are a non-profit, stakeholder-driven organization focused on underground infrastructure through safe digging and damage prevention systems.

[2:50 p.m.]

BCCGA is not just about safe digging.

Anita Huberman: BCCGA is not just about safe digging. It’s about protecting the economic integrity of infrastructure. Every gas line, fibre optic cable, electrical conduit, water system and telecommunications network enables the province to function, grow and compete. Yet every time underground infrastructure is struck or damaged, projects stop, workers are put at risk, communities are disrupted, costs escalate and timelines are delayed.

There is a Common Ground Alliance in every province in Canada, and they also exist in the U.S. as well. We are part of the Build B.C. and Build Canada ecosystem. A single utilities strike can delay housing construction, interrupt essential services, increase insurance and repair costs and create significant public safety concerns.

We are advocating to the B.C. government for stronger coordination, standards and policy alignment around underground infrastructure protection. Our work touches on every major economic sector that is important to B.C. That’s construction, mining, LNG and pipelines, utilities, telecommunications, municipal infrastructure and transportation development. This is fundamentally about enabling safer communities and a stronger economy.

I will be submitting my presentation in writing as well.

We are asking for, one, multi-year core funding support for BCCGA, for the B.C. Common Ground Alliance, as an essential economic infrastructure piece to build B.C., focused on underground infrastructure. You need to focus on the underground before you can build up. We want to have stable funding to expand training and awareness, strengthen our regional outreach provincially, improve data collection and reporting. We need to know what is underground before we can build.

Two, establish a cross-ministry task force involving those sectors that I mentioned around infrastructure, energy, municipal affairs, public safety, transportation and industry stakeholders through the B.C. Common Ground Alliance.

Three, support for provincial education and prevention campaigns around workforce training, focus on public awareness and digital education systems.

And four, we need an investment in data and intelligence systems so we know what is underground in British Columbia, not only on land but also for water, for marine infrastructure. The reality is that prevention is significantly less expensive than disruption, and safe digging is not only a safety issue. It’s a productivity strategy.

By supporting the B.C. Common Ground Alliance, B.C. is investing in safe workers, safer communities, lower infrastructure risk and stronger economic performance.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We’ll now turn to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. I do believe we had an education breakfast a few weeks, months ago. Time is all running together.

My question was around your multi-year core funding request. Do you have a dollar figure attached to that administration funding that your organization needs?

Anita Huberman: We’re looking for a pilot partnership with the B.C. government of $150,000 a year.

Bryan Tepper: Hi, Anita. How are you doing?

Anita Huberman: Hi, Brian.

Bryan Tepper: Who’s not part of the common ground right now? There’s one major one. I can’t remember who it is.

[2:55 p.m.]

Anita Huberman: Mining is missing from the equation. We have pipelines. We have LNG. We have the construction sector. We have utilities. We do want more municipal governments to be part of

I can’t remember who it is.

Anita Huberman: Mining is missing from the equation. We have pipelines, we have LNG, we have the construction sector, and we have utilities. We do want more municipal governments to be part of our membership as well. Those are the pieces.

Bryan Tepper: I think I might have been thinking about the municipal governments and having them involved more, to do it. I mean, I’d like to ask questions to get more on the record. I know most about it. I’m just trying to think of the.… It’s along the lines of “Call before you dig,” as well. That’s outside, part of Hydro. No, it’s not Hydro. Is that Hydro?

Anita Huberman: B.C. One Call is its own association, and we complement each other. So B.C. One Call is, you know, before you dig, so you’re safe, but we’re about the education, the advocacy, the awareness-building and best-practice training.

Bryan Tepper: There we go. Thank you. I will let somebody else ask questions.

Rohini Arora: Hi, Anita. Nice to see you. Just a question, you mentioned 150 K per year, the pilot project. Is that for three years or five years? I missed that.

Anita Huberman: For three years. That will be detailed in my written submission to you.

Rohini Arora: Just as a follow-up, is part of the reason that you want, I guess, the task force with the multiple ministries, as a way to see if you could get Mining to the table, too, just to ensure that everybody is on the same page? Is that sort of what’s...?

Anita Huberman: That was a piece of it, but safety cross-intersects all of those ministries when it comes to underground infrastructure, so that is the mindset behind it. Ontario has something very similar for their provincial government already in place, and we’re asking British Columbia to do the same.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Mine is along the same lines as MLA Arora. For that cross-ministry task force, I understand who the participants are, but what are the intended outcomes, you think, of that task force? What would their purpose be, and the intended outcomes of the task group?

Anita Huberman: Well, when it comes to wildfire or damage prevention when digging — for whatever it may be, pipeline, LNG construction — or when it comes to flood mitigation, making it mandated legally to be able to have those digging and damage prevention intelligence systems in place for all ministries will enable better outcomes for the different ministries. That was the mindset behind it, very similar to Ontario, as I mentioned.

Rohini Arora: Thanks, Anita. Could you tell us the name of the intelligence system? There’s a particular one; I remember hearing about it, but I can’t remember the name.

Anita Huberman: Yes, I’m in month one into my role, and I will get that to you. I don’t have a specific one at the top of my head.

Rohini Arora: Thank you, and congratulations on your role.

Paul Choi (Chair): Well, thank you very much, and congratulations as well. Seeing no other question, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

We will invite our next speaker. We have Geoff Payne, from Michael Smith Health Research B.C. Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Michael Smith Health Research B.C.

Geoff Payne: Thanks very much. As said, I’m Geoff Payne, President and CEO of Michael Smith Health Research B.C. — new into the role about seven months after stepping down as president of the University of Northern British Columbia. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and share our recommendation with you.

[3:00 p.m.]

A healthy province with a resilient economy requires evidence and knowledge generated by health research. As a leader in British Columbia’s health research system, Health Research B.C. enables and advances world-class health research. We achieve that by building and retaining research talent for the province’s future, catalyzing health research systems solutions and mobilizing communities for research impact.

First, an acknowledgement of the support received from government.

Columbia’s health research system, Health Research B.C. enables and advances world-class health research. We achieve that by building and retaining research talent for the province’s future, catalyzing health research systems solutions and mobilizing communities for research impact.

First, an acknowledgement of the support received from government through the Ministry of Health this year. The one-year $20 million grant is recognition of the value of health research but also of the continued partnership we have with the government to address provincial health priorities through health research.

We have one recommendation. The government should continue to build on the momentum in health research and the life sciences sector in British Columbia by ensuring it stays engaged and keeps investing in research and supporting new opportunities as they emerge.

Sustained support for health research addresses not only human health but also economic health. Combined professional, scientific and technical services and the health care social assistance sectors are key generators of our economy — over 16 percent of the GDP in 2025 alone. But the power behind this generation is people: talent providing the right evidence, the right ways and the right times to decision-makers, innovators, patients and clinicians and policy makers.

British Columbia is home to the fastest-growing life sciences sector in Canada. The life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy is positioning the province as a hub, nurturing new talent, developing new lab space, leveraging research capacities and supporting employment. The strategy is a reminder that investing in health research talent today saves lives tomorrow.

Researchers in British Columbia have delivered life-changing innovations that have improved the health of British Columbians and people around the world. By supporting health research talent, British Columbia catapulted its expertise to the world stage during major health challenges.

For example, funding through Health Research B.C. helped decode SARS virus in six days. Funding contributed to uncovering the link between previous pandemic immunity and H1N1 that informed vaccine policy. More recently, B.C.’s legacy to the world was that nearly every COVID-19 vaccine candidate that reached the late-stage development in 2020 used components consulted, initiated, developed or manufactured by a B.C. company or scientist, many of these talented researchers funded in part through Health Research B.C.

Our recommendation is to extend that legacy. For health research, sustained funding produces results. Since its inception, 2,000 researchers and teams have been funded, and 86 percent stay in the province five years later. In the last five years alone, Health Research B.C. funded health researchers, attracting — using a conservative estimate — over half a billion dollars in extra funds to the province.

Should it continue? It should continue. Our recommendation remains: keep building on the momentum in health research and life sciences sector in British Columbia by ensuring that it stays engaged and keeps investing in research and supporting new opportunities as they emerge. It’s all about talent, it’s all about investment, and it’s all about British Columbia.

Thanks for the time. I will yield my extra minute back for questions, should they be required.

Paul Choi (Chair): Amazing. Thank you so much for your presentation. We will move on to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. Do you have a recommended number for the next budget that you would like to see invested in this area?

Geoff Payne: I mean, always as much as possible, but cognizant of the resources that are available out there, for sure. We were funded $20 million for one year. I think for us what will be important is the sustained funding, whether that’s $20 million every year for the next couple of years…. But it’s more than just us. I think $20 million, we are very appreciative of, but more than one year funding will be very helpful for us to develop long and sustained programs and investment.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions?

Bryan Tepper: Hi. I’m just wondering. What can we do to support, outside of the monetary funding, sustained funding? Are there barriers to continuing on with this or something that can make us more attractive than other jurisdictions?

Geoff Payne: I think for us it’s ensuring that we’re working together. We all have unique strengths, but collectively we can do things; individually we cannot.

[3:05 p.m.]

And that doesn’t always require money. So making sure that the lines of communication between ourselves, government, post-secondary, Jobs and Economic Growth and other ministries…. That we continue those open communications, as well as to the communities we serve. So making sure that everybody’s aware of what we’re doing and that we are there to

post-secondary, Jobs and Economic Growth and the other ministries, that we continue those open communications, as well as to the communities we serve, making sure that everybody is aware of what we’re doing and that we’re there to make sure that we’re taking the research and we’re moving it and implementing it into the communities we serve.

It’s money for sure, but outside of money, to your question, it’s making sure that we have those opportunities to engage with government, share ideas, share new lenses of how we continue to move the needle on things.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. I’ll ask a question as well. Given that you’re coming from a post-secondary industry and now being in this role, what is your perspective on pros and cons of a standalone research institution like this versus post-secondary having research, in terms of grants? When they receive it, what are the sort of differences in how they spend it, and what are the pros and cons related to that?

Geoff Payne: I think the cons are that we remain in our silos. I think the pros are…. Coming from post-secondary, that’s where the talent is, and I talked a lot about the talent, the next generation. But there are things which post-secondary can’t do. It’s been a good opportunity to wear both hats, previously coming as a president of a university and now into this, so making sure that we can support the talent.

The other thing that I will say is the talent ecosystem for health is changing and rapidly changing. Being able to work with post-secondary, not on where they are but where we need them to be, where they want to be, and then be able to move that into the broader realm of communities and society…. It’s about….

As I said, we have our unique strengths, but we’ve got to come together collectively. I will say for the committee, it’s very interesting going from a university president into this role.

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, I would imagine.

Okay, well, thank you so much. Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

Geoff Payne: Thank you so much for the committee’s time. Have a great rest of your day.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you. You too.

We will be inviting our next presenter. We have Ruth Simons from Howe Sound Biosphere Region Initiative Society.

Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Howe Sound
Biosphere Region Initiative Society

Ruth Simons: Thank you very much for having me. My name is Ruth Simons, and I’m the executive director of the Howe Sound Biosphere Region Initiative Society. We’re a non-profit charitable organization responsible for the Átl'ka7tsem/Howe Sound UNESCO-designated biosphere region. Not all of you may have been at the May 26 B.C. UNESCO Biosphere Region Day at the Legislature, so I’ll provide a little bit of background before I get into the request.

UNESCO, which is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, created biosphere reserves in the early 1970s. They are internationally recognized model areas that show how communities and ecosystems can thrive together. They focus on conserving biodiversity, supporting sustainable development, advancing reconciliation and promoting research and education.

There are 784 biospheres worldwide, including 19 in Canada, and in 2021, our region became the third UNESCO biosphere in British Columbia, along with Clayoquot Sound and Mount Arrowsmith. Our region borders Vancouver and covers 2,000 square kilometres of watershed area. It stretches from the mountaintops to the ocean floor. This area includes ecologically important sites, like unique glass sponge reefs. It supports 55,000 residents, and millions of visitors each year travel through our region.

The entire area lies within the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation territory, and we have had a trusted and collaborative relationship with the nation since 2017 to ensure that there is full engagement in our governance.

It’s a long journey to qualify as a UNESCO-designated site, and our story is one of environmental recovery. To qualify, we needed the cooperation of the provincial staff. Our application or nomination was supported by two provincial ministries, five municipalities, three regional districts, the Islands Trust area, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation.

[3:10 p.m.]

Funding for our nomination in the five years since designation has come from various sources. To date, we have not received any financial contribution from the provincial government for the global recognition that comes with this UNESCO designation.

the Islands Trust area, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation.

Funding for our nomination and the five years since designation has come from various sources. To date, we have not received any financial contribution from the provincial government for the global recognition that comes with this UNESCO designation.

We are asking the province for a contribution to the three biosphere regions with multi-year funding of $100,000 per region. This will be leveraged, I can promise you, and it is a fraction of the funding that each of our organizations rely upon. This would provide stable core funding to ensure succession and continued renewal of the designation.

We also encourage greater recognition of UNESCO biospheres. They make significant contributions to sustainable economies, are living laboratories and are important areas for the thousands of youth who come to our region for outdoor education each year.

We fill a valuable role by inviting and uniting the region into meaningful dialogue and action to continue the recovery of Átl'ka7tsem/Howe Sound. We host many non-partisan forums, including the House Sound Community Forum for elected officials. Our two MLAs, our Member of Parliament, staff and community members come together twice a year to share information and foster cooperation. For example, at our recent forum in April, the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation presented, with the provincial staff, on the historic land use agreement.

We serve as hubs for research, education and cultural learning, and we aim to establish a biosphere discovery centre to enhance these efforts locally.

Over the past four years, we multiplied $1 million in federal funding 1½ times, creating jobs, generating new data, in collaboration with many partners, and supporting 20 projects aligned with government priorities. These projects included identifying key lands that contribute towards the goal of 30 by 30 conservation targets. But that funding has now come to an end.

A financial contribution from the provincial government will demonstrate the value and the trust biosphere regions return to British Columbians. The $100,000 a year is a fraction, as I said, of the total cost, but at a time when communities need to come together, this funding will be well leveraged.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for that presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): You mentioned that there was $1 million in federal funding received. Was that per biosphere, or was that split between them?

Ruth Simons: That’s right. Over five years, the federal government, Environment and Climate Change Canada, contributed $23.7 million to the 19 UNESCO biosphere regions over the five years. Our portion was just over $1 million over four years.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Going from $1 million in federal funding to $100,000 in provincial funding, how are you making up that gap in funding?

Ruth Simons: Well, this would not be the only funding, of course. We would be still continuing to seek funding, through grants that are available through other sources, municipal and donations and foundational grants.

The $1 million was directed directly into projects, 20 conservation projects, that have very specific outcomes. Those projects are legacy projects. They have come to a close, but they will live on.

Paul Choi (Chair): Any other questions by members? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Ruth Simons: Thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next speaker. We have Amber Papou from Tourism Industry Association of B.C. joining us.

Thank you for coming to present. I can see we have a handout that is being handed out to our members here, so thank you.

You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin.

Tourism Industry Association of B.C.

Amber Papou: Good afternoon. My name is Amber Papou, and I am the CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia, or TIABC.

For more than 50 years, TIABC has served as the leading advocacy organization for B.C.’s tourism and hospitality sector. We represent about 17,000 businesses and Indigenous tourism operators, industry associations and communities across every region of our province. I’m here today to speak about one of B.C.’s most important economic sectors and one of its greatest opportunities for future growth, and that’s tourism.

[3:15 p.m.]

Tourism is often viewed through the lens of travel, recreation, visitor experiences. While those elements are really important, they don’t fully reflect tourism’s role in our economy.

Tourism is a business sector, a workforce sector, an export sector, a regional development sector, and increasingly, it’s one of B.C.’s most important economic growth sectors.

opportunities for future growth and that’s tourism.

Tourism is often viewed through the lens of travel, recreation and visitor experiences. While those elements are really important, they don’t fully reflect tourism’s role in our economy. Tourism is a business sector, a workforce sector, an export sector, a regional development sector and, increasingly, it’s one of B.C.’s most important economic growth sectors.

Tourism generates $23 billion in revenue. We contribute $8 billion to provincial GDP and support a workforce of 340,000 people. Tourism generates more than $6 billion annually in export revenue and $2.5 billion in provincial and municipal tax revenue.

Tourism is also B.C.’s largest natural resource industry by GDP contribution, surpassing traditional sectors such as forestry, mining and oil and gas. And moreover, tourism creates economic opportunities simultaneously across B.C. — in urban centres, rural and remote areas, as well as Indigenous communities.

TIABC supports the vision of Look West: Tourism Sector Action Plan, but we do believe in order to reach the goal of doubling tourism revenues by $48 billion by 2036 it requires investment. We have three recommendations.

The first is to increase and stabilize funding for Destination B.C. TIABC recommends that the province increase Destination B.C. funding through multi-year commitments, including a minimum additional investment of $10 million annually to strengthen B.C.’s competitiveness in global tourism markets, increase higher-value visitor spending and restore marketing initiatives across the province.

The return on investment is significant. An estimated $10 million in annual investment could generate $1 billion in incremental tourism revenue, create 6,000 jobs and generate approximately $100 million in provincial tax revenue every year.

Our second recommendation is to establish dedicated tourism infrastructure and destination development funding. We recommend that the province create stable, multi-year funding programs that support tourism infrastructure and destination development projects throughout B.C., particularly in rural and remote and Indigenous communities. The tourism infrastructure destination development initiatives include everything from trails to event facilities and much, much more. These investments generate strong returns, with tourism destination development investments typically producing between $12 and $24 in economic activity for every dollar invested.

Thirdly, we recommend investing in the tourism workforce. TIABC recommends that the province establish dedicated tourism and hospitality workforce development funding comparable to the investments that are currently being made into the skills training. This includes increased support for post-secondary tourism and hospitality programs, expanded training capacity, improved access to training in rural and remote communities, and enhanced operational funding for institutions delivering workforce development programs. Tourism represents one of the largest labour forces in B.C. and provides much-needed entry points to the workforce for youth. Strategic investment in training will help address labour shortages, strengthen workforce participation and ensure the sector has the skilled employees for future growth.

Together, these three investments represent practical, measurable actions that align directly the province’s Look West: Tourism Sector Action Plan and will help convert the goal of $48 billion in tourism revenues from aspiration into reality. And the question before us today is not whether tourism will grow. It’s whether we’re willing to make the investment necessary to support that growth.

TIABC recognizes that the province is operating within a challenging fiscal environment and continues to face significant budget pressures. However, tourism should not be viewed as an expenditure item within the budget. It should be viewed as an investment. With the right investment through Budget 2027, tourism will remain one of B.C.’s strongest engines of sustainable growth for decades to come and help deliver the province’s vision for a stronger, more resilient and more prosperous future.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome your questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.

We will now move to questions by members.

Okay, I have a question. On one of your recommendations, you asked for a minimum additional annual investment of $10 million. Do you know what the current investment is at this point, roughly?

Amber Papou: I believe it’s roughly $53 million. Yeah.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Could you tell us on what and how the additional $10 million would be spent?

Amber Papou: I can’t tell you specifically. But what I can tell you is right now…. What we understand is that there is an added pressure right now to increase international visitors — not so much the number of visitors but the visitors that spend more money when they come.

[3:20 p.m.]

And in order to do that, it requires significant investment in marketing overseas and in that includes what we understand…. Based on calculations that have been used to market into other international destinations, an incremental fund of $10 million in additional funding would allow Destination B.C. to market into three new international markets which are increasingly becoming quite competitive and, as I said, would generate approximately $1 billion in incremental tourism revenue, create 6,000 jobs and generate about $100 million in provincial tax revenue each year.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you.

market into three new international markets, which are increasingly becoming quite competitive, and as I said, would generate approximately $1 billion in incremental tourism revenue, create 6,000 jobs and generate about $100 million in provincial tax revenue each year.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Hi, Amber. Good to see you.

Recommendation No. 2. You mention “maintain and establish a dedicated tourism infrastructure and destination development funding.” Which one are we maintaining, and which one are we establishing?

Amber Papou: The reason why I put the “maintain” is that the resort municipalities receive a funding allocation on an annual basis, and that I recommend we continue to maintain, as they are important parts of the tourism ecosystem.

In regards to additional funding, a lot of the funding that many communities, especially as we look to develop in remote and rural communities as well as in Indigenous communities, don’t have access to infrastructure or destination development funding. Many of the grants and other funding avenues that were prevalent, especially during COVID, are no longer in existence. And with cutbacks both federally and provincially, we’re seeing a lack of funding available for the mass geographic area that makes up the remote and rural spaces.

If we do want to reach that goal of increasing our revenues to $48 billion in about ten years, we need to address the fact that in order for those regions to be able to attract investment, they need to be ready to do that.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): One more point of clarification, then. When you’re talking about tourism infrastructure, are you talking about regional destination development offices, like managing and working on marketing? Or are you talking about actually building a new lookout with outhouses and parking lots?

Amber Papou: More focused on things like trails, transportation routes, the type of infrastructure like events facilities. Many of the rural spaces in British Columbia — which, just as a quick reminder, are about 97 percent of the geography of the province — don’t have the funds and the resources to be able to get them to this point where they are tourism-ready.

Case in point is how we’re seeing reductions in our traditional resource sectors, primarily especially in forestry. We are seeing a bigger push by these municipalities and these communities to diversify and wanting to diversify into tourism.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Last question. When you say establish, then, are you looking to re-establish COVID-level funding, or is this completely like we’re starting from scratch, and the program would be from scratch? There was quite a bit of funding invested during COVID.

Amber Papou: My recommendation would be to look at it as an investment and to look at it as similar amounts, because from our understanding and what we can see in terms of what was developed during that time, there was a significant amount of movement.

Paul Choi (Chair): Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

Amber Papou: My pleasure.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next presenter, Tannis Braithwaite from Connect the Coast Society. Thanks for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin when you’re ready.

Connect the Coast Society

Tannis Braithwaite: My name is Tannis Braithwaite, and I’m here to talk about an infrastructure and equity deficit affecting rural British Columbians.

[3:25 p.m.]

My core ask is that the province continue to earmark a portion of the funding that’s provided to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit, specifically for use for the ministry to build and maintain infrastructure that accommodates pedestrians as well as non-motorized and small

My core ask is that the province continue to earmark a portion of the funding that’s provided to the Ministry of Transportation and Transit specifically for use for the ministry to build and maintain infrastructure that accommodates pedestrians as well as non-motorized and small vehicles, such as bicycles and mobility scooters.

To give you a bit of background to this request, in Budget 2023, the province created a revolutionary program by allocating $85 million over two years specifically for the Ministry of Transportation and Transit to build this type of infrastructure. That is, infrastructure specifically for non-drivers that is located in provincially owned rights-of-way.

The reason this is a revolutionary program is because prior to 2023, provincial funding for this kind of work consisted solely of cost-sharing grants made to local governments. Those grants work quite well for municipalities for a few different reasons.

First of all, municipalities have jurisdiction over their own road network, and consequently, they have staff whose job is to develop and manage that network. They’re also governed by legislation that gives them flexibility to manage their own budgets, and they have relatively large tax bases.

But in the unincorporated electoral areas of B.C., it is the ministry that has jurisdiction over the entire road network. As a result, most unincorporated electoral areas don’t have any staff or any money that is dedicated to transportation. It’s just not within their jurisdiction.

They’re also governed by legislation that restricts their ability to manage their own budgets, and they tend to have quite small tax bases. Because the road rights-of-way in unincorporated areas are under provincial jurisdiction, even if local governments do manage to plan and budget for new infrastructure, they can’t build anything without going through the province’s onerous requirements.

These generally include things not only like doing all of the preliminary assessment and design work and paying for and managing all the construction and ongoing maintenance of things that do get built but also committing in advance to paying the cost of removing any infrastructure that is built if the province ever wants to take back its right-of-way.

The program that was created in Budget 2023 removed all of these barriers by specifically earmarking money for the ministry to build infrastructure within its own rights-of-way. Surely, that is how it should be. The ministry is responsible for developing and managing the transportation network on provincially owned lands, so it makes no sense to carve out active transportation infrastructure specifically and then put the onus for building and maintaining that on a third party.

I’m fully aware that money is tight right now, but I can guarantee you that the deficit was not caused by the province overspending on active transportation infrastructure. The program allowing the ministry to build in provincial rights-of-way has been a total of $85 million since its inception in 2023. That is about the cost of widening two-thirds of one kilometre of the Trans-Canada Highway.

I’m not saying that any more money needs to be allocated to transportation, but I am saying that our provincial transportation dollars need to be spent on projects that provide more benefit to rural communities. That’s not what’s happening now.

In my community, which is the Sunshine Coast and, I suspect, in other rural communities across the province, the ministry’s focus is on maintaining what they call regional movement. What regional movement means is through traffic. It’s high-speed highway traffic travelling through communities to destinations beyond.

Now, obviously, this is necessary. Sometimes people and goods need to move to faraway places. But it does create a transportation that is unsafe and unpleasant for the people who actually live in the rural communities. Simple, everyday activities like walking to the store or riding a bike to school, which people in urban areas do every day, become untenable when the only space available for walking or riding is a narrow highway shoulder right next to high-speed traffic. That is very unfair.

I am asking that the committee consider continuing the active transportation capital program — that’s what it’s called, the program that was created in Budget 2023 — because it provides a solution to this problem.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. We will now move to questions by members.

[3:30 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): The active transportation capital program. Do you know that it’s not going to be…. Was it in this year’s budget? Do you know, the ’26-27?

Tannis Braithwaite: It was not. It was continued in the 2024 budget but, as far as I’m aware,

The active transportation capital program. Do you know that it’s not going to be…? Was it in this year’s budget, do you know, the ’26-27?

Tannis Braithwaite: It was not. It was continued in the 2024 budget, but as far as I’m aware, there was an extra $50 million over three years allocated in that budget. As far as I’m aware, none of that money has made it from the budget into the actual world. I’m not sure if there are plans to provide that funding or not.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): In your opinion, for the committee’s report, what is the annual investment that should be into that program going forward?

Tannis Braithwaite: I think the $85 million over two years, roughly $45 million a year, would be an adequate amount. It’s a new program, and I know the ministry is still trying to get its legs under it in terms of what projects to approve, what exactly is included in the approvals, ongoing maintenance or just the capital construction, that kind of stuff.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

We will invite our next presenter. We have Rainbow Robert from B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture.

Thanks for coming to present to us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you may begin whenever you’re ready. Yes, you can go ahead.

Rainbow Robert: Brilliant. Thanks for having me. My name is Rainbow Robert. I’m the executive director of the B.C. Alliance for Arts and Culture and a steering committee member for the B.C. Coalition of Arts, Culture and Heritage.

The B.C. alliance is a provincial arts service organization, and our mission is to build relationships that connect, energize and activate the cultural community. We’ve partnered with 30 provincial arts service organizations to collaboratively form the B.C. Coalition of Arts, Culture and Heritage, collectively representing thousands of organizations in every region of the province and more than 188 communities across B.C. This includes hundreds of cultural businesses, venues and festivals, as well as tens of thousands of professional artists, cultural practitioners and volunteers.

We realize that arts, culture and heritage are among many priorities that are being balanced by government. We ask you to think long term about the need for stability in the sector and to bear in mind that strategic investments will serve as the sister investment in tourism, benefiting the economy and contributing to the quality of life for all British Columbians.

My first recommendation is investment in the development of an arts and culture action plan. B.C. is the only province that does not have an action plan to support the strategic growth and impact of its arts, culture and heritage sector. In times of fiscal restraint, it’s particularly important to have a strategy to maximize the impact of investments and to support the momentum of the investments that have been made over the past four years.

The sector is a massive employer and an economic driver and contributes $7.9 billion to B.C.’s annual GDP. The sector also offers proven, creative, affordable and sustainable solutions for many of the biggest challenges facing the province.

But to realize our potential impact, we need investment, policy and cross-ministry partnership with and within government. An action plan will empower the sector to actively work with the government of B.C. to supercharge its impact and to develop an equitable approach to building the economic, social and community benefits of the sector.

My second recommendation is for the province to avoid the planned cuts to the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport projected for 2027-28 in the 2026 budget. We applaud the outstanding financial commitments that the province has made to support the sector over the past four years and urge the committee to recognize the importance of building upon the impact of these investments. A 10 percent cut to the budget for the ministry will have significant consequences for communities across B.C., with results that will be felt for years to come.

[3:35 p.m.]

These short-term savings will have a profound impact on multiple areas of the provincial economy, including tourism and the creative industries. Transformation requires resources, and prioritizing spending that will enhance the sector’s ability to undertake strategic thinking to effectively adapt to changing economic circumstances is extremely

on multiple areas of the provincial economy, including tourism and the creative industries.

Transformation requires resources, and prioritizing spending that will enhance the sector’s ability to undertake strategic thinking to effectively adapt to changing economic circumstances is extremely important in the current financial climate. We are pragmatically encouraging the province to maintain current levels of investment.

My third recommendation is that the province prioritize investment in infrastructure for cultural spaces that include artist housing, studio space and the creation of an independent cultural land trust. Many organizations are working in precarious or outdated spaces. Funds are needed to modernize venues, improve accessibility and ensure long-term sustainability. There is also a pronounced need for housing for artists in communities across B.C.

We encourage investment in solutions that address these challenges. The cultural land trust is one model that responds to the affordability crisis by attracting foundation and philanthropic investment, providing communities with co-ownership of arts and cultural assets, bringing together philanthropy, government and financing to secure long-term affordability.

The federal government has recently implemented significant investments in infrastructure, and we will be very interested to see how these priorities will be reflected at the provincial level.

We believe that arts and culture have the power to transform lives and communities, and hold a shared vision for a province where the vibrant arts and culture sector matches the outstanding natural beauty of our surroundings.

We’re committed to working together to build a future that respects and honours the value of sharing our inspirations, our traditions and our stories.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide these recommendations for the committee to consider.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now turn to questions by members.

Seeing no questions…. You did such a good job presenting to us, and we had other industry and creative sectors, as well, that came and presented to us, so the theme is very similar.

Thank you so much. If you have any last comments, you can let us know at this point.

Rainbow Robert: Well, thank you for taking the time to consult with the many sectors across B.C. and for all the important work and the balancing of the many priorities that you’re considering. Your work is much appreciated, and I wish you a smooth conclusion to your consultations.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for taking the time to come and present.

We will now move to our next presenter. We have our next presenter, Kevin Millsip, from B.C. Libraries Cooperative.

Thank you for joining us today. You have five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

B.C. Libraries Cooperative

Kevin Millsip: Thanks very much for your time, everyone. My name is Kevin Millsip. I’m the executive director of the B.C. Libraries Cooperative. Our co-op is also a member of the B.C. Public Library Partners. I think you’ve heard from a number of our partner organizations over the last couple of days.

We’re a member-driven co-op, and we have 200 members across Canada. Our members are other organizations, mostly public libraries. For example, all 71 B.C. public library systems are members of our co-op.

We were created over a decade ago by folks in the sector working with people in the provincial government to be able to provide essential IT services to public libraries across B.C. The goal was to have services that responded to the sector’s needs, services that were owned by the sector and that built our collective IT capacity and the ability of libraries to enhance their service delivery in their communities.

At a basic level, we provide shared library software, website services and digital resource licensing, which is basically bulk buying of audiobooks and e-books to reduce costs. We make books accessible for people who have print and perceptual disabilities as well.

A little over a year ago, we went through a valuation process trying to understand the benefit that this cooperative structure provides to libraries across the province. Here’s what we learned.

[3:40 p.m.]

For every dollar our members pay in fees for our shared library core service, they get back about $7 worth of value in services. For our digital resources, for every dollar paid by members, they get a value back of $1.83. For the e-book and audio collection services, every dollar spent by members gives them access to about $60

in fees for our shared library core service, they get back about $7 worth of value in services.

For our digital resources, for every dollar paid by members, they get a value back of $1.83. And for the e-book and audio collection services, every dollar spent by members gives them access to about $60 worth of materials. And finally, for every dollar spent for our website services, members get about $6.66 back in return.

These savings really represent the power of the collective, namely that we can do more together than by working alone. Why that’s important is: the core value of cooperation across the sector has actually allowed for a lot of rural and remote public libraries to be able to provide enhanced core services that might otherwise be hard or even impossible for them to do on our own.

Kind of the rule of thumb that we use at the co-op: the smaller the community, the smaller the library, the more they need the services that we provide.

I want to talk a little bit about provincial funding, in particular the one-time operating lift from the province and the digital enhancement grants. These monies have allowed our co-op to do a number of service enhancements for our members, and by enhancing services for our members, we’re enhancing their ability to serve the people in their communities.

We’ve been able to increase training and support for libraries. We’ve been able to do accessibility upgrades to our library services. All the public B.C. websites that we manage, that we host, have had accessibility upgrades done to them with provincial funds. We’ve been able to provide better communications to our members and to our libraries.

And we’ve also been able to ensure, with provincial money, that all libraries in B.C. have access to some key digital resources, including skill-building services like LinkedIn Learning, which is a very popular skill-building resource.

We’ve also been able to use provincial funding to support hold relief for digital and audiobook collections, where we target funds to reduce wait times for specific titles.

None of that work would have happened without the enhancement funding from the provincial government. We’re very thankful for that funding and the work that’s allowed us to do.

Now, as you’ve heard from other members of the Public Library Partners, the lack of sustained, stable funding is starting to hurt public libraries’ capacities to serve their communities and meet the needs of their communities. And without a substantial increase in the annual operating grant, we know that more and more libraries are going to have a harder and harder time to operate without cutting back on services.

As you know, the provincial government provides $14 million per annum to the sector, and the support is welcome, and it’s needed. Our ask is that that core annual grant be increased to $30 million for the public library sector each year, which would be basically the amount of money that was allocated in 2020 through 2023, through the enhancement funds. In 2023, the province provided $45 million over three years, and we’re really seeing the impact of that investment across the province.

We’re also hopeful that if the province were to increase the size of the annual grant, they would also consider increases connected to inflation as, we move forward, so that we’re not losing purchasing power over time. This has been our main ask of the provincial government for a number of years. Our sector has a great working relationship with the province, and we want to keep building on that.

So we join our partner organizations, which are the Association of B.C. Public Library Directors, the B.C. Library Association and the B.C. Library Trustees Association in uniting them behind this ask.

Thanks for your time. I won’t drone on. I’ll pause here to see if you have any questions.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.

We will go to questions by members.

I have a quick question. You mentioned about your partners and you guys uniting together, which is great. As you may or may not know, your partners have come and presented to us already, so we may have not as many questions to those that came before you.

I’m just curious. Is there any different perspective or roles that your organization sees, particularly comparable to others of your partners that presented to us already?

[3:45 p.m.]

Kevin Millsip: Yeah. It’s a fair question. I mean, some of the partner organizations that you heard from…. I think of our work at the co-op like this. If you think about a film or TV production, we’re the people behind the stage that you probably never see, the folks dressed in black. We make sure the production works. And then our other partners represent the folks that are the people on stage, if you will, the people that are dealing daily with the public.

So those partner organizations, they know well the daily challenges that

probably never see — you know, the folks dressed in black. We make sure the production works.

And then our other partners represent the folks that are the people on stage, if you will, the people that are dealing daily with the public. Those partner organizations know well the daily challenges that a given library staff member is going to face. Our perspective is more from what’s happening in the capacity-building realm, especially with IT infrastructure and digital infrastructure, and what is going to be helpful in that work to then allow the people in the libraries to better serve people in their communities.

Does that make sense?

Paul Choi (Chair): Yes, absolutely.

Kevin Millsip: And so I can’t reiterate this enough. The province has the Accessible B.C. Act, which came into force a couple of years ago. With that enhanced provincial funding, we were able to offer free accessibility upgrades to the 54 public libraries across B.C. that use our website services, which means those websites are now accessible in a way they weren’t before because of provincial enhancement funds. And that’s just one example of many.

A lot of people think about digital resources and how expensive e-book and audiobook licences are. We’ve been able to use provincial funding to reduce wait times.

I’ll give you an example. The average hold time for an e-book or an audiobook in 2023, before the enhancement funds, was 88 days. It’s a long time. We’ve been able to get those wait times down to 63 days on average. A lot of that is due to provincial funding for those one-time enhancement funds.

Most people are never going to really think about that unless they’re frustrated waiting. “Why can’t I get access to this book?” And we’ve been able to make books more accessible for folks because of the enhancement funds from the provincial government.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for that answer.

Any other questions by members?

Seeing none, thank you so much for coming and presenting to us today.

The committee will take a recess at this point.

The committee recessed at 3:47 p.m.

The committee resumed at 3:59 p.m.

[Paul Choi in the chair.]

Paul Choi (Chair): All right. Welcome back. I will call the committee back to order, and we’ll go to our next presenter. We have Scott Braley from Curl B.C. Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

Curl B.C.

Scott Braley: Hello, everyone. I’m Scott Braley, CEO of Curl B.C., and I’m honoured to be with you today. I know it is a long month of meetings for you, so thanks for doing this.

[4:00 p.m.]

As the provincial organization responsible for the development, promotion and organization of curling and adaptive curling in B.C., Curl B.C. oversees 86 curling centres and has a membership of 24,000 curlers. Ours is a low-barrier and easy-to-learn sport, allowing for

responsible for the development, promotion and organization of curling and adaptive curling in B.C.

Curl B.C. oversees 86 curling centres and has a membership of 24,000 curlers. Ours is a low-barrier and easy-to-learn sport, allowing for a diverse mixture of players from all ages, abilities and incomes.

I am particularly grateful and honoured to be speaking here on the traditional and unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ and kʷikʷəƛ̓əm.

When I first spoke to this committee in 2021, the provincial government had just released Pathways to Sport: Strategic Framework for Sport in B.C. Coincidentally, today the provincial government released its report on the first five years of this plan for making amateur sports more accessible, safe, welcoming and inclusive.

While progress has been made, the report concludes as follows.

“Sector partners consistently indicate that sport organizations are facing increasing expectations, alongside heightened capacity pressures and resource constraints. Rising costs have reduced the purchasing power of existing funding, making it more difficult for organizations to deliver programs and events to the expected standard. For organizations that rely heavily on membership-based revenues, there is a growing risk that these pressures will be passed on to participants.”

The report also states:

“We recognize that the availability and condition of sport facilities is a growing concern across the province. Aging infrastructure and limited facility capacity affect all levels of sport participation and present complex, long-term challenges. Upgrading and rebuilding facilities are multi-million dollar projects, often requiring investment from all levels of government. Developing creative solutions to address the province’s sport and recreation infrastructure needs will be a priority for years to come.”

I can tell you this time has arrived, with Curl B.C. recently announcing a 60 percent increase in membership fees over the next five years in order to just try to keep up with increasing costs and compliance requirements.

Our greatest risk and top priority is addressing the aging infrastructure of our facilities across the province. This all stems from core funding to the provincial sports system being flatlined since 2010. Back in 2021, under the leadership of Sport B.C., we requested an additional $15 million base investment from the province of B.C. over three years.

However, core grants have remained at exactly the same level. Core funding needs to be addressed as soon as possible to allow for an effective implementation of Pathways to Sport and help to advance affordability, accessibility, inclusion, diversity and reconciliation through sport. It will also allow for increased safety and ethics training and provide much-needed capital for our next generation of high-performance athletes.

While Curl B.C. greatly and very genuinely appreciates the funding it and other provincial sport organizations receive from the province of B.C., it is essential that continued long-term funding is available to sustain our valuable coalition of sport bodies and the vital work which we all do.

With over 60 provincial sport organizations and more than 800,000 participants, our sector provides a vital role in the physical and mental health of our province. We believe the additional $15 million investment in Pathways to Sport will help get even more British Columbians out onto the ice, fields, courts and tracks and help balance the availability of opportunities for those of diverse backgrounds.

On behalf of Sport B.C. and its member organizations, thank you very much.

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation.

We will now go to questions by members.

[4:05 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Scott, for your presentation.

You’re requesting money for additional core funding for yourself or for the coalition? I kind of got lost there.

Scott Braley: Yeah, the coalition. It’s an ask by Sport B.C., which we’re supporting.

Thank you very much, Scott, for your presentation. You’re requesting money for additional core funding for yourself or for the coalition? I kind of got lost there.

Scott Braley: Yeah, the coalition. It’s an ask by Sport B.C. which we’re supporting.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): And is that ask to establish core funding or to increase core funding?

Scott Braley: To increase it from the 2010 level, so suggested amount is $15 million over three years, so $5 million a year.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Sorry. One more clarifying question. I’m not familiar with the model. Does Sport B.C. redistribute those funds down to its member organizations for core funding, or is that $5 million just for their core funding?

Scott Braley: No, it goes through viaSport, which is an arm of government. Sport B.C. is the advocacy group for the provincial sport organization. The only funding it receives is for KidsSport.

Rohini Arora: Hi, Scott. Thanks so much for your presentation. I’m curious about the 2010 level. What is it?

Scott Braley: Well, the funding was increased in the lead-up to the 2010 games, and the amount, it sits at about $10.5 million that goes to the provincial sport organizations per year. The idea here is that that needs to be increased after all these years.

Rohini Arora: So if it’s $10.5 million, is that sort of over three years as well, and then it’s…?

Scott Braley: No, that’s each year. That’s the annual base.

Rohini Arora: That’s each year annually. Got it. So the increase is to add $5 million per year for the next three years, making it $15.5 million instead of $10.5 million?

Scott Braley: Correct, thank you.

Bryan Tepper: The money for upkeep, rehabilitation, whichever, on curling facilities — you started off with that. Are you looking for money for that as well or just Sport B.C.?

Scott Braley: That’s known as the elephant in the room. It’s the big piece, and that will require a matching federal, provincial, municipal program, which we have had in the past, and we’re hoping that will be part of the Build Canada program that we have seen promoted by the federal government.

For us, we’re actively using what’s called the B.C. Amateur Sport Fund to help our clubs raise money. We helped them raise $2.5 million last year.

Bryan Tepper: Generally, these are municipal buildings. This is a complicated one because of the level of money involved and the situations we’re all in. But are municipal governments, when you talk to them, receptive to rebuilding or refurbishing any of the facilities?

Scott Braley: Great question. It’s quite a range. I would use Kamloops as an example and suggest you look at the Build Kamloops site, where they have committed to building several projects, including a new curling club in the next eight years.

It probably takes 15 to 20 years to get these projects done. A majority of the money is coming from the community, the curling community, and supporters, yet it does take municipalities and, hopefully, provincial and federal to get the whole job done.

Bryan Tepper: We’ll see what we can do about that.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay, thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thank you for coming and presenting to us today.

Scott Braley: Thanks very much for having me.

Paul Choi (Chair): We will invite our next presenter. We have Heather O’Hara from B.C. Association of Farmers Markets joining us today.

Thank you for coming. You have five minutes for your presentation, five minutes for questions after, and you can begin when you’re ready.

[4:10 p.m.]

B.C. Association of Farmers Markets

Heather O’Hara: Very good. Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for the invitation to be here. On behalf of B.C. Farmers Markets, we’re really happy to be here and recommend some of our recommendations for the 2027 provincial budget.

Our first recommendation is related to the B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon program. We strongly recommend stable, budgeted and predictable multi-year funding to sustain and expand the B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon program in 2027

some of our recommendations for the 2027 provincial budget.

Our first recommendation is related to the B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon program. We strongly recommend stable, budgeted and predictable multi-year funding to sustain and expand the B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon program in 2027 and future years.

For 15 years, our organization has delivered this program proudly, in partnership with the province of B.C. Today this program directly benefits 96 communities and 30,000 lower-income seniors, elders, pregnant people and families with children all across B.C., including rural remote and urban communities.

This single B.C. homegrown program provides a trifecta of impacts, supporting health promotion and social inclusion, contributing a practical, agile and proven solution to food security in B.C., all while sustaining the income and livelihoods of over 1,200 B.C. farmers through the purchase of their fresh, healthy food at participating B.C. farmers markets.

Many farmers extend their season and continue to expand their production as a direct result of this program. This first-of-its-kind program in Canada has inspired other provincial programs coast to coast, including Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Quebec and globally.

Furthermore, this coupon program has contributed to the sustainability, growth and capabilities of our overall farmers market sector in B.C. The strength and reputation of B.C. farmers markets is well known and coveted across Canada and around the world through the work and world-class initiatives of our organization.

Reflecting on the past 15 years of this coupon program, of which I’ve been the executive director for ten of those, there are so many things that remain true and have stood the test of time.

In a divided world, this program holds a superpower — unity — uniting communities, people, farmers and regional food systems, and community partners of all kinds; uniting supporters across all levels of government — local, provincial and federal — and across multiple ministries; all while uniting people living in diverse rural remote and urban communities with diverse world views and affiliations.

Most would agree, and do, that the B.C. farmers market nutrition coupon program is quite simply a super program. In unpredictable times, more than ever, we respectfully recommend predictable multi-year budgeted funding for this proven program in 2027 and beyond.

Our second recommendation centres on culinary tourism and agritourism. We recommend dedicated funding and investment in the development and implementation of a B.C. culinary tourism and agritourism strategy. We believe this is an under-leveraged, strategic economic growth opportunity for the province. This includes all communities beyond the usual places where farms, food providers and farmers markets define the unique character of places across our province.

Some of our rationale. Beginning in 2027, we have been recently informed that our organization and the farmers market sector, along with the craft beer sector, will no longer be eligible for Destination B.C. cooperative marketing program funding.

From 2018 to 2026, with modest Destination B.C. financial support, along with our own contributions and many others, we have created a world-class tourism asset, the B.C. Farmers Market Trail.

This digital hub is the go-to resource to find a farmers market in over 100 communities of all sizes across our province, with over 300,000 website visitors every year. Furthermore, roughly one million tourist visits are made to our B.C. farmers markets every year, bringing with it much desired local economic impact.

The loss of Destination B.C. co-op investment in our sector is disappointing. B.C. has already established two coveted culinary and agritourism pillars — ours, the B.C. Farmers Market Trail, which was originally inspired by the B.C. Ale Trail, funded by our cousins at the B.C. Craft Brewers Guild.

We believe the province of B.C. can and should leverage, build on and invest in our existing sectors to seize the strategic and economic growth opportunity for culinary tourism and agritourism in B.C.

Finally, recommendation 3: B.C. farmers markets operating capacity infrastructure. We recommend an investment to strengthen the operating capacity, equipment and infrastructure of farmers markets across the province. This includes dedicated equipment infrastructure, which recognizes that farmers markets are much more than events. They are in fact integral civic infrastructure for local food security and play an increasingly important role in emergency response, including the impacts of climate change, COVID and others.

Thank you very much for your time.

[4:15 p.m.]

Paul Choi (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. We will now go to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, and good to see you. We’ve sat around the table as co-op marketing partners in a different hat. It’s sad to hear that you’ve lost your co-op dollars as well as the craft beer.

to questions by members.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much and good to see you. We’ve sat around the table as co-op marketing partners in a different hat. Sad to hear that you’ve lost your co-op dollars, as well as the craft beer. I know that TIABC did present earlier today to speak specifically about re-establishment of funding in Destination B.C., directly related to this as part of that.

My question for you is that strategy around culinary and agritourism. Is that a project that has been started and needs to be completed, or is this a new strategy that needs to be developed?

Heather O'Hara: To my way of thinking, from what I know, that would be a new strategy that needs to be developed and executed and implemented, specifically in B.C. Right now there is not a consolidated, coherent strategy being led by anyone. And certainly, as I mentioned, we believe when people come to B.C., they want to drink, eat, taste the province in addition to doing all those excellent outdoorsy things that they can do in this province.

We just feel like other countries, other provinces, Quebec in particular, have really embraced their culinary and agritourism opportunity, and I think there’s a great opportunity for B.C. to do the same. We’re known for our food, our natural wonders and our beautiful air, water and land. This is just a way to accelerate and elevate some of that, going forward.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): Yeah, definitely. Representing the South Okanagan–Similkameen all the way over to Grand Forks, I can tell you that there are many groups working on a strategy, so it’s just like you said, maybe perhaps pulling that larger picture together to get everybody together.

My other question is about the coupon program. Obviously, I know…. Last year I think it was on the bubble. There was a bit of a letter-writing campaign to my office, and we were able to secure the funding again. I think it was $4¼ million or something received last year.

Heather O'Hara: And for this year as well.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): For this year as well, so it’s the same. Is the request just to maintain at that level, or is more needed?

Heather O'Hara: Good question. So a couple things. We are fully realistic and practical people. We understand the provincial budget pressures. So at a baseline, it’s really critical that we sustain the existing program.

We also know, because we do excellent data collection and reporting, that our waiting list for existing community partners is about double. So in theory, if I could wave my magic wand, I’d have a $10 million-a-year program, because that would actually let us do what we do and double it to meet the waiting list and demand. It’s very popular. We have to say no.

For us, one of the precarious things about the program is that it’s not a budgeted, pre-determined amount. It’s generally a waiting game at the year-end, every year, for the last 15 years. It has been successfully funded. However, that does cause a lot of uncertainty to the community partners, to the markets, to the farmers who are involved and for us, obviously, as BCAFM, who execute a really great program.

If nothing else, we definitely want to sustain the program. In a perfect world, we would expand it.

Donegal Wilson (Deputy Chair): One last, if I can, if nobody else has anything.

My question was just around the infrastructure investment then. Is there a specific ask attached to that infrastructure? Do you have a sense of what the investment required in that infrastructure is?

Heather O'Hara: Sure. So just using some precedent, a number of years ago after COVID, we ran and delivered a farmers market expansion program, in conjunction with the province and the feds, with the cap program at the time. It was a $650,000 program. It was up to a $15,000-per-market ask.

It was extremely successful. Markets invested in on-site storage, emergency management kinds of infrastructure. It was a modest ask, up to $15,000, that was very meaningful on the ground. A lot of markets benefited from that. We saw markets invest in PA systems for use in emergency situations and/or strengthen their market experience. A lot of storage, a lot of kinds of tents — shade tents for climate, keeping people out of the rain, etc.

[4:20 p.m.]

That’s an example of a real program delivered very successfully back in 2023, I believe, in collaboration with the province of B.C.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Thank you so much for your presentation today.

Okay, that is the end of the

believe, in collaboration with the province of B.C.

Paul Choi (Chair): Okay. Thank you so much for your presentation today.

Heather O’Hara: My pleasure. Thank you very much. Bye for now.

Paul Choi (Chair): That is the end of the presentations for today. I will ask: is there any other business?

Seeing none, thank you so much to everyone who presented today.

I also want to thank all the members, staff, Hansard for making today go very smoothly as always.

And that concludes our meeting today. We will be returning tomorrow for more in-person and virtual public hearings.

I will now seek a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

Paul Choi (Chair): This meeting is now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 4:20 p.m.